The term 'media' now encompasses everything from ancient rock art to contemporary blockbusters. A brief online search will reveal numerous definitions related to media and media theory, especially regarding mass media. For our purposes, media theory can be understood as a field examining how various subjects relate to different forms of media. Although discussions on media theory are abundant, the metaphysical aspects of media and their effects on humans remain complex and often misunderstood. This essay aims to explore the tangible characteristics of media, its metaphysical dimensions, and how these elements affect both the body and mind. I propose that media can be perceived as a dynamic entity, possibly parasitic or symbiotic, with endless interpretations and discussions emerging from it.

To initiate this discourse, one might ask: what exactly qualifies as media? This question seems straightforward but oversimplifies the issue. If we define media solely as the various forms of mass media, we risk overlooking the multifaceted characteristics and definitions identified in our studies. Thus, it is crucial to delineate the boundaries of media to gain insights into its implications for the human experience.

The relationship between media and reality has been extensively examined since the times of the Greeks. Plato's allegory of the cave, though perhaps not recognized by him, has led humanity into a realm of existential anxiety. When viewed through the lens of media theory, we can appreciate the significant influence that media has on our perception of reality. Although media and reality continuously interact, articulating this relationship is challenging, despite its undeniable existence. In Cartesian terms, we might liken our sensorium to an evil genius, suggesting that media could be the source of a grand deception, given that our minds and perceptions can easily mislead us. Are there compelling reasons to doubt the material world? Absolutely. Thus, we can assert that media possesses a deceptive quality, though its extent remains ambiguous. While we acknowledge the existence of media and its influence on us, we maintain some degree of control over our identities. As Descartes famously stated, "Cogito ergo sum"—I think, therefore I am.

However, media undeniably shapes our thoughts and perspectives. Escaping this influence feels as if we are attempting to break free from our own shadows. It is essential to recognize the media's ability to induce a "subliminal state of Narcissus trance," imposing its own biases and values upon individuals. Consequently, discussions surrounding media theory are inevitably shaped by the various mediums, leading to potential gaps in our understanding. This raises the question: can we truly comprehend media without any external influence?

From the previous considerations, we conclude that the media/sensorium is both real and controlling, and that we, as humans, are theoretically semi-autonomous beings with the capacity to achieve full autonomy.

In our exploration of existence, we must distinguish between the physical and the metaphysical. The metaphysical aspects highlight the connection between the abstract nature of media and its material form, as well as its influence on the tangible world. Here lies the intersection where a medium acts as a physical vessel for a metaphysical representation, akin to a miniature version of Plato's cave. Having defined media in this manner, we can now discuss its physical limitations.

One starting point for understanding the constraints of media is to examine its origins. What was the first medium? This inquiry is inherently complicated. Thomas Aquinas' Cosmological Argument posits that nothing can cause itself and that an infinite causal chain is implausible, leading to the existence of a First Cause, often associated with God. For those who believe in a divine origin, this might serve as a definitive explanation for the inception of media. However, if we reject divine causation, we can consider that media developed through direct causation. This leads us to question: what is the nature of this causation? Is it rooted in humanity? Does the creation of a medium necessitate a creator? What type of creator? Is intelligence a factor? Alternatively, could media emerge without a creator? I argue that mediums cannot spontaneously arise; they require a creator, which can range from something as simple as a cell to a complex sentient being.

Another important consideration is whether a medium can exist independently. The philosophical quandary, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" prompts us to think critically about the emergence of media. According to George Berkeley, “there are only two kinds of things: spirits and ideas,” where spirits are active agents that generate and perceive ideas, while ideas are passive entities that are produced and perceived. In this context, humans fall into both categories, while mediums exhibit a similar duality.

This raises further questions: Can we attribute autonomy or spirit to mediums? Do some media lead to the creation of others? If so, does the ability to self-generate imply autonomy? Or does true autonomy hinge on self-reflection, as posited by Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum"? Ultimately, we must ask: can a spirit emerge from an idea? Is media inherently autonomous, or can it develop autonomy? I contend that while media is not inherently autonomous, it possesses the potential for autonomy and can generate other mediums, either directly or indirectly. This implies that the creators of mediums may not necessarily possess the cognitive abilities described by Descartes.

From this analysis, we can derive that various mediums likely originate from a creator, whether autonomous or not. This notion seems evident, as most things require a cause for their existence.

Is purpose essential for the creation of media? To comprehend how purpose integrates into media, we must first define it. Purpose typically refers to the reason behind an action or creation. While animals can produce media, they lack an inherent desire to create. Just as an artist may haphazardly apply paint to a canvas, animals and other entities can leave impressions on the world merely through their existence and movement. Consequently, mediums do not inherently require purpose; even a simple footprint represents the world without a defined intention.

David Hume's "Copy Principle," articulated in A Treatise of Human Nature and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, asserts that “all constituents of our thoughts come from experience.” In other words, all ideas originate from impressions. Thus, we can argue that all ideas either stem from or are influenced by the mediums with which we engage, including our own bodies. It is undeniable that a photograph, video, or any medium will leave an impression on a reflective and conscious being, as mediums serve to convey ideas. Consequently, the transmission or creation of ideas can often be traced back to specific mediums. However, whether this holds true for all cases, particularly for beings with no prior experiences, remains uncertain. We cannot confidently assert that ideas can arise spontaneously. Still, philosophers like Hume acknowledged the existence of a priori knowledge, which encompasses concepts independent of experience, such as mathematics and geometry. Ultimately, mediums, as impressions, shape our thoughts, potentially establishing a continuous cycle of idea reception and generation—akin to a positive feedback loop in which mediums beget new mediums.

Marshall McLuhan, who will be examined in greater detail later, famously stated, “a characteristic of every medium is that its content is always another (previous) medium.” This suggests a causal relationship where mediums arise from earlier forms or at least influence the creation of subsequent mediums. The internet serves as a prime example, as its content draws from earlier mediums like the printing press, videography, and radio.

Regarding the materiality of media, we can posit that any substance can transform into a medium. Upon reflection, even a vacuum could serve as a medium, provided there is a transmitter, such as light, and a creator. It is essential to distinguish between potential and actualization: not all objects qualify as media, but all have the potential to become one. Just as an egg is not a cake, an object is not a medium without a process of transformation. This process can vary from the simplicity of leaving a footprint to the complexity of composing a literary work.

Additionally, we must address what constitutes a medium. A foundational definition suggests that all mediums comprise two components: a transmitter (an entity capable of creating and conveying impressions) and an impression itself. These components act as limiting factors for the creation of new mediums; if either component ceases to exist, so too does the medium.

Returning to the origin of media, we can consider both universal origins and daily manifestations. The concept of the first medium remains elusive. Given the myriad factors contributing to reality, pinpointing the inception of the first medium is likely unattainable. Various origin theories, including divine creation or the Big Bang, may be proposed, but if we cannot identify the first instance of media, we should focus on the everyday creation process. When someone creates a piece of media, where does the process begin? It may commence with an idea—an interpretation of reality or its components. Since mediums require an impression, we might deduce that the inception of thought or ideas leads to the first medium. However, as previously mentioned, it is not essential for a creator to possess autonomy. While thinking and imagining are involved in the media creation process, they are not its fundamental aspects. If ideas do not serve as the starting point for media creation, we could consider movement as a potential origin. Since physical movement always plays a role in media creation, could it be that all media arises from movement? While the specifics of this movement remain unknown, we can conclude that movement is vital for creating media.

By nature, media is both filtered and flawed. The creation of media necessitates transformation, converting energy into tangible properties. As a result, media will invariably act as a filter for reality, with energy being filtered during the media creation process. Representations inherently convey less than the entirety of reality. The implications of this assertion are profound: since human perception is mediated through sensory experiences, we lack a complete understanding of the world and can never fully experience it. Thus, human perception is flawed, as all experiences stem from the filtering nature of media and the senses.

Media possesses physical limitations; everything will eventually come to an end. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the cessation of all media will culminate in the destruction of the last representation. What constitutes this representation? We cannot be certain. On a molecular level, not all fundamental particles and atoms qualify as media, yet we know that all media is physical and composed of atoms. The ultimate dissolution of atoms, beings, and energy will signify the end of all media, provided we accept that media can only exist within the physical realm. The media described in this essay will persist for a considerable time, lasting until the physical destruction of the last human-made medium.

However, if humanity were to transcend the physical, as depicted in Isaac Asimov's The Last Question, human consciousness or the soul might be regarded as media—potential representations of humanity—thus extending the lifespan of human media. This remains speculative, and certainty eludes us. Nonetheless, contemplating the long-term evolution of humans and media offers valuable insights into the ultimate fate of media. Ultimately, we can agree that media has a physical limitation: the material basis upon which representations are created.

To assess the final boundaries of media, we must closely examine its evolution, including the rise and fall of media forms and their relationship with humanity. In a public lecture, Canadian philosopher and media theorist Marshall McLuhan emphasized that reading is essentially an act of guessing, highlighting the interdependence between the observer and the image. As he pointed out, the medium shapes our comprehension of its content. From an evolutionary and biological perspective, a symbiotic relationship between humans and media is evident. To express it poetically, creators craft creations capable of reciprocally influencing their creators. In Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, McLuhan encapsulated these ideas succinctly: "the medium is the message." At first glance, it may be challenging to discern the broader implications of this assertion. For the average creator, a medium carries a message but is not a message in itself. McLuhan's statement revolutionized our understanding of media by emphasizing the profound effects that tools, screens, and devices exert on human physiology and psychology. He asserted that the content of media is of secondary importance; it matters little whether cartoons or war are depicted, as the medium itself amplifies and accelerates existing processes. This reinforces the argument of causation, where media leaves impressions on humans, subsequently driving the creation of further media. In a roundabout way, media generates and influences subsequent media.

Could this cause-and-effect dynamic guide humanity toward a specific end, an unintentional plan steered by various media? Might this culminate in a human-media singularity?

McLuhan further proposed that a medium serves as "any extension of ourselves." This assertion raises the idea of a potential human-media singularity, where humans and media become indistinguishable. Does this imply that humanity's ultimate fate is to become a medium? Professor Santos suggested that machines are implicitly involved in discussions of media evolution. Tracing the journey from the inception of writing to modern AI development reveals a trend towards replicating and fully expressing human thoughts, supporting the belief that humans strive for a perfect medium—one that articulates thoughts seamlessly.

One limit that media surpasses is human mortality. In a previous work for my Media Theory Class, I stated, “the importance and purpose of why we need to store the past lie within the main desire that all humans share: to become immortal; to transcend death.” The potential for media to transcend human mortality and achieve a semblance of eternity is a powerful allure that humans deeply covet. I believe that the driving force behind the ongoing evolution of the human-media symbiosis can be traced to the inherent capabilities that media offers, particularly the ability to outlast human existence. In the context of a spectacle-driven society, Susan Sontag wrote in Regarding the Pain of Others, “We’ve become a society of the spectacle. Each situation must be transformed into a spectacle to be deemed real. People aspire to become images—celebrities. Reality has abdicated; only representations endure.” The aim of individuals in a spectacle-oriented society is to become mediums, thus transcending human limitations, especially mortality and the constraints of self-expression. Sontag's earlier essay On Photography inadvertently reflects this irony by attributing a mythical quality of death to photography: "to photograph someone is a sublimated murder—a soft murder, suited to a sorrowful, fearful era." Her assertion that “all photographs are memento mori” encapsulates the duality of mortality and immortality that characterizes contemporary media. This duality underscores the limitations of our current media: they cannot fully express the entirety of human experience. It is here that I contend we encounter the most significant limitation of our existing media: the presence of underlying constraints, such as materiality and expression flaws.

The preceding paragraphs assume that humanity's ultimate objective is to merge with media. However, this assumption may be flawed. Perhaps the true goal is to liberate ourselves from media, akin to Truman's quest for freedom in The Truman Show, where he yearns to break free from the confines of the spectacle and embrace the unknown. The aspiration, then, is not necessarily to unify with media but to attain autonomy—a state of being capable of authentic self-expression without external influences, to exist in a world unencumbered by media's sway.

From this essay, several pivotal conclusions regarding media have emerged: - Media is any physical object that acts as a vessel for representation. - The media/sensorium is a tangible reality that exerts control over us. - Humans are, in theory, semi-autonomous beings with the potential for full autonomy. - A medium is a physical vessel for a metaphysical representation, akin to a miniature allegory of Plato’s cave. - Media developed through direct causation. - Mediums necessitate a creator for their inception; this creator need not be autonomous. - Media is not inherently autonomous, but it possesses the potential for autonomy. - Mediums can create other mediums, either directly or indirectly. - All ideas stem from or are shaped by the mediums we engage with. - All mediums consist of two components: a transmitter (capable of creating and conveying impressions) and an impression. If either component ceases to exist, so too does the medium. - Physical movement is always involved in the creation of media. - Media, by nature, is filtered and flawed. - Human perception of the world is imperfect, as all experiences derive from the filtering nature of media (including sensory experiences). - Media has a physical limitation: the cessation of the material signifies the end of media.

If one aspect of media must be emphasized, it is its physical limitations—its dependence on the material and its current expressive constraints. As we have discussed, both media and human aspirations seem oriented towards overcoming these restrictions. As far as our understanding extends, it appears that only through a union of humanity and media can these limitations be transcended. Whether such a total union will ever materialize, and how these limitations might be overcome, remains uncertain. Meanwhile, our focus should remain on the human-media relationship, particularly regarding technological development and implementation.