The impression given by the “new media” is somewhat enigmatic– acting as a binary with what the old media constitutes– meditating in the intricacies of time and technology and, allows us to deconstruct the relationship between these two processes (thanks Derrida). In Derrida’s Archive Fever, A Freudian Impression, he is concerned with the archive– a term that has various meanings; one that is concerned with two topics–the principles of nature or history and physical and historical processes. Both principles and concepts shelter themselves as he mentions, “The concept of the archive shelters in itself, of course, this memory of the arkhe. But it also shelters itself from this memory which it shelters: which comes down to saying also that it forgets it” (Derrida 2). The paradox described by Derrida where the archive both shelters and forgets resonates with Dr. Pressman’s emphasis regarding “new” and “old media”. The terms “new” and “old media” are not fixed but shift as they are social-culturally adaptive– meaning that their definition is relative to the time period in which they are being discussed as media itself is not linear nor stable. For example, let us remember the beeper— in its time, it was a revolutionary method of communication that made other communication devices “old”. And, it is now a system that is considered obsolete– demonstrating that newness is not an absolute but contingent on new modes of inscription. This is further illustrated by Bolter’s and Grusin’s writings, “comes from the particular ways in which they refashion older media and the ways in which older media refashion themselves to answer the challenges of new media”. The paradox described in the archive demonstrates the conventions of recursive media/ life cycles– we preserve to forget and forget to preserve, deconstructing two mutually formative processes that demonstrate how different modes of media are concerned with social-cultural values rather than its materialistic characteristics. This suggests that media is not linear nor fixed but adapts and evolves by reinscribing new modes of inscription that surpasses its predecessors– not materialistically but shifting its focus from a cultural paradigm.