I thought you might've posted this here and I know we've already talked about this some but I can't stop thinking about it: I initially really liked this piece of writing but now it's bothering me because I nail down its thesis or even its topic, wholly. It seems to be discussing reality, media, and self-involvement and how they relate?

I'm not sure MEDIA can be blamed for a dilluted sense of reality on the individual or collective level--what about the distinctions between the realities of sensation and perception, the mind and the world, the personal and the public, absolute or relative, fiction or non fiction blah blah blah? We didn't need media to blur those lines for us (though I'm not saying communication in general didn't help with the confusion--communication at all's like Cubism, I think). I think the distinctions between different types of "realities" have been, are, and always will be hazy. Perhaps we are just exposed to a greater QUANTITY of recognized "realities" because of the access that media provides (Cubism again)? I think the osmotic fusion of reality is and will always be around--look at Mannerism or Impressionism or tons of stuff in Art History, what The Surrealists were cranking out in France in all kinds of mediums, Yellow Journalism in whatever period I just read about the other week ago in American History, and pretty much everything that's happened in the American literary canon since the end of the first World War--those folks weren't bloggin' it up or designing effective ad campaigns, but when we're talking the individual's perception/creation of reality, is it really that different?

As for the self-involvement of things like The Blogosphere: I agree that the individual posturing now open to everybody is usually/often/possibly always external validation, but is it NESCESSARILY external validation and therefore, by definition, all of the bullshit that connotes?

But like I said before: I think self-involvement is unavoidable and gets a bad rap. And sure the "flattered self" is a "mediated self" but what if you can distinguish your image from your conception of yourself? What if you can seperate the two? And really when aren't we mediating ourselves to ourselves? Who's to say who's idea of us is "real?" Who's got the first word on who is me anyway? Is it me? Because frankly I'm always in my head and that hardly seems actual.

As for that last zinger: "we inhabit a world we barely recognize, with a head full of other people's thoughts," that's dead on but I don't think it's anything new. I've been bummed out since I was eleven because I realized no thought is entirely original and if anyone stopped me on the street to tell me they barely recognized the world in which they lived, well, regardless of time, place, or the individual, it's like, welcome to the club, right?

I know this is incredibly long but had you been online, this break from studying would have played out there in a much sloppier manner and anyhow, I work best when I'm allowed to spill, revise, save, and return to thoughts so you are getting Grade A Jessica here. All things to think about and discuss later over screwdrivers and turntables...

WTF--where'd my comment go??! Did I just percieve that reality or what?