10 Philosophy Books For Your Perusal (Part 1)

I’m going to give everyone my list of 10 books of philosophy that have really enlightened my thinking about life and how to live it. Granted these blurbs aren’t supposed to be full summaries, but will hopefully prod everyone into questioning some of the things about ourselves and in society that go unquestioned.  I've included links on the titles to free versions of the texts, when possible. Enjoy.

Number One:

Adam Smith - The Theory of Moral Sentiments 

“In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so.”

Economists quote him. Business students read him. People from Milton Friedman to Karl Marx, to Ronald Reagan have used him. Yet, Adam Smith is best known for only half his philosophy. So, first on the list, believe it or not, is that paragon of economics, Adam Smith. Smith is much maligned and worshipped. Both attitudes are born of a severe ignorance by both his enthusiasts and critics. The reason? There is a complete lack of knowledge of Smith’s moral philosophy. The Wealth of Nations didn't come out of the blue. To truly understand Smith's economic masterpiece one must understand its moral foundation. Without Smith's essential prequel the famous (or infamous) Wealth of Nations is easily misconstrued, perverted, or disallowed.

It is not the love of our neighbour, it is not the love of mankind, which upon many occasions prompts us to the practice of those divine virtues. It is a stronger love, a more powerful affection, which generally takes place upon such occasions; the love of what is honourable and noble, of the grandeur, and dignity, and superiority of our own characters.

Borrowing the idea from Hutcheson, Smith appropriately deposits the premise of his economics in a seedbed of moral philosophy -- the rights and wrongs, the whys and why-nots of human behavior and relationships. He demonstrates our moral ideas and actions are a product of our nature as social creatures. It argues that sociology, psychology, and communication are better guides to moral action than straightforward reason. It identifies the basic sentiments of empathy, prudence, and justice needed for society to survive, and explains the additional beneficent, actions that enable it to flourish. Concern for one’s own interest and concern for the public interest - the common good - are inseparable. Benevolence is essential and to the advantage of the individual. That is not what we hear about today.

Smith's capitalism is far from a heartless, cruel, greed-motivated, love-of-profits-at-any-cost approach to the marketplace, when seen in the context of his moral philosophy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments corrects the impression that Smith was a laissez-faire capitalist. In fact, his moral philosophy a priori critiques the objectivist, self-interested capitalism of Ayn Rand. In fact, although Smith was in theory against regulations and government interference in the marketplace, he was NOT blind to the fact that unadulterated self-interest needed to be regulated when undue burdens and unfair practices abound. 

Smith was, in fact, very critical of businessmen. Indeed, the viewpoints expressed in Moral Sentiments make it clear that the popular conception of Smith as first and foremost a money-making, capitalistic economist concerned with wealth does not mesh well with his own philosophy. 

Modernism, Postmodernism, and the Christian Church

There have been many attacks on what is perceived as the infiltration of postmodernity (pomo) into the Christian church, particularly the Emergent church. Here are some of them:

The Postmodern Crackup

Knowing Right From Wrong, A Christian Response To Postmodern “Tolerance”

Pomo and the Emergent Church

As is usual, I look at things just a tad bit differently. I believe the failure is not so much with pomo thinking, but with modernism. Modernism was a huge failure. The rationalists like Descartes and Spinoza left us with nothing but skepticism.  The Empiracists: thinkers like Hume and Berkeley left us with nothing but our senses: with no thing human but a summation of our experiences. Idealism - like Hegel's - led to the false promises of Fascism and Marxism, and their terrible impositions, communism and Nazism. Existentialism led to more questions about the nature of the self (which is both being and nothing). Absurdism made questions irrelevant, because there are no answers. The more we learn through science, the more speculative it becomes: dark matter, quarks, string theory. And industrialism led to the wonderful efficiency of the Holocaust, Vietnam, slavery, etc. Individualism itself is a product of modernism, and therefore the philosophy of relativism – what’s good and true and beautiful for me is what I say it is – is also a product of the modern outlook.

The main idea of modernity was progress, which was tripped up when so much 'progress' turned out to be no progress at all. This is not to say that modernism was all wrong, or that there were no successes. There's Kierkegaard, computers, the American Republic, etc., but over all the modernist project failed.

Even Christianity got caught up in the idea of ‘progress.’ Searching for the ultimate answer through state churches, and the rationality of apologetics. Also, looking for the ultimate truth of God through rationalistic and empirical methods. On one side of the equation, the religious ideas of this time are not about the ‘mystery’ of God or the ‘ineffable’ of the spiritual. More often than not they are about putting God in a box: “This is God. This is what He wants. This is what you do.” What else are all these damn (yes damn) Christian self-help books, but the application of the rational to our own selves in regard to God? Nihilism anyone? On the other side of the equation is the rationalistic interpretation of the gospel for justice, change and liberation: all summed up nicely in the phrase ‘social gospel.’ Nothing wrong with justice, change and liberation, but getting "heaven here on Earth" is a bit preposterous. Both of these attempts and modern Christianity were a failure as well. 

These authors are wrongs about a number of items (beyond the fact that they do not understand the differences between modernism and pomo). The self-centeredness and individualism and narcissism are part of the modern age, not pomo. In fact, they are arguing from a modernist perspective. Yes, there are certain things that we need to believe to be Christians, but there is a lot more to Christianity than “Hell Insurance,” as suggested.

There is much more to being a Christian than “being saved and going to heaven.” If not would we have to work our salvation with fear and trembling? Would we have to run the race? Would we have to put on the armor of God? Imagine if you or I believed only the things we believed when we first got saved. We’d always remain what Paul called babes.  God makes us hunger for more, because to be a Christian is to be in a relationship – with Him and with others. God uses His absence (ok, it isn’t REALLY His absence, bit sometimes it feels like it) and doubt to prick us to press deeper into His kind of life. Does this sound like a life preoccupied with merely the destination? Was your marriage a destination…or a beginning? Is parenthood a destination or a continued relationship?

Does the Emergent Church have it all right? No more than the modern church did. Pomo and Christianity are more compatible than Christianity and modernism. In fact Pomo is more akin to ancient and medieval biblical thought (Aquinas, St. Benedict, Anselm, Francis of Assisi, Eckhart) than most of the religious tomes written in the modern period. (Exceptions of course include Kierkegaard, CS Lewis, Bonhoffer, etc.) Like Premodern Christianity, Pomo allows the mystery, the questioning, the ineffable, the things that cannot be answered here on Earth to go unanswered. That is part of the journey. That is part of relationships.  That is what makes living the Christian life worth living.  Just saying.

Chaos Theory, Narrative and Business Communication

This is an excerpt from a paper I presented in which I am playing with Chaos Theory and Narrative Theory. Therefore, please don't quote it. I will, however, send you the entire paper if you want it. Cheers!


------

Chaos Theory, Narrative and Business Communication

            Complexity theory – of which chaos theory is an important part – emerged as a framework for understanding the physical universe in the latter part of the twentieth century in order to refine the precision of predictive models of complex systems through the use of mathematical and statistical analysis. According to chaos theory, minor fluctuations in various systemic models can lead to fierce oscillations, as well as unanticipated and unintended consequences. The goal of chaos theory is to realize a level of predictability within complex systems, without relying on Newtonian causal relationships and patterns, which cannot account for changes in complex systems.

Complexity theory suggests that chaos, or radical fluctuations in systems, might be the answer to questions and dilemmas presented by complex systems, allowing researchers and theorists to view systems from a higher level of examination and to view systems holistically and temporally. In contrast to a Newtonian view of the world, chaos theory takes a longitudinal perspective, and one of the most attractive features of chaos theory is the idea that disorder is necessary for order, that decay is needed for renewal, and that decline is a precursor to eventual growth, that change is needed for renewed stability.

The best-known metaphor for understanding chaos theory is the butterfly effect. As Stewart (1990) explains, “the flapping of a single butterfly’s wings produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere,” a variance in a complex system which can eventually lead to “a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn’t happen. Or maybe on that wasn’t going to happen, does” (p. 141). The point of Stewart’s analogy is that the openness and sensitivity of complex systems to the influences of such minor variances cannot be measured, understood or predicted using traditional methods and models. Systems are always in flux, and using reductive methods to attempt to understand a system’s bifurcation – it’s radical fluctuations - is a paradox reminiscent of what Kierkegaard (1958) wrote about the continuity of human life.

Another major concept of complexity theory is that systems are self-organizing, that is, order re-emerges out of the chaotic state brought about through bifurification. Kauffmann (1995) describes self-organization as a type of anti-chaos, noting that disorganized systems bifurcate and eventually solidify at a new level of order. Complex chaotic systems contain an inner stabilizing force that pulls them toward order, although chaos and order are always in a constant state of tension. The fundamental points of connection and order that exert continuous regulation on systemic behavior are called strange attractors. All dynamic systems have attractors that limit the possible states a system can reach and hence maintain systemic order (MacKenzie, 2005).  Although strange attractors attempt to pull a system into a type of order, (called a fractal) they too are in continuous motion, and do not attract from a fixed point or necessarily in a linear fashion. The paradoxical nature of order/disorder, deconstruction/construction, devolution/evolution is a useful way to examine phenomena in the social sciences as well.

Social scientists apply chaos theory to a variety of fields, including communication, economics, finance, psychology, and sociology. Organizational scholars have attempted to integrate chaos and organizational communication in other arenas, including leadership (Blank, 1995), ambiguity and equivocality (Miller, 1998), the glass ceiling (Reuther & Fairhust, 2000), management (Stacy 1992, 1996) and innovation (Nonaka, 1988). However, the application of chaos theory in organizations is generally applied to times of crisis and crisis communication practices.

While each of the above studies examines various aspects of crisis via the lens of chaos theory, none puts a premium on the lens of communication as ritual or narrative processes.

Are Narratives Strange Attractors?

Organizational Life Cycle Theory suggests organizational environments are relatively stable and that organizations build structures over time to account for the slight changes and problems they encounter. According to Weick (1979), however, both internal and external environments are unpredictable, unstable, and volatile. This volatility necessitates the rapid and seemingly chaotic rearrangement of activities, priorities and performances. Nevertheless there is order of a subtle kind, which appears over time.

In the complexity sciences, a strange attractor is a set to which a dynamic system evolves after a long enough time. Although these strange attractors pull a system into a fractal order they are in continuous motion. The strange attractor is the basis of self-organization. Do narratives function as strange attractors in new businesses that could suddenly close down, devolve, and succumb to entropic forces at any time? Like the strange attractors in a fractal system, narratives at all levels are undergoing changes, while still offering organizational stability.

Narrative as a strange attractor implies not the transmission or transactional models of communication, but the ritual view of communication (Carey, 1988). Communication is linked to words such as communion, fellowship, participation and sharing. The ritual view of narrative as communication is a constitutive approach. It shows how communication constructs the social world, including our selves, our personal relationships, and our organizations. A “group’s temporarily persisting existence as a community, and as a social subject of experience and action,” according to Carr (1986), “is not that different from the story told about it; it too is constituted by the story of the community, of what it is and what it is doing, which is told, acted out and accepted in a kind of self-reflective social narration” (149-150).

This formulation of narrative reinforces and expands (by looking all three levels of narrative) the conception that the collective identities of organizational members are constituted by the narratives the participants themselves author (Brown, 2006). Narrating at the macro, meso, and micro levels simultaneously constitutes the organization and our identity through organizing and sensemaking processes. As Carey notes, communicating is the “construction and maintenance of an ordered, meaningful cultural world that can serve as a control and container for human action” (p. 18).

Narratives may be told and retold at the macro-, meso-, and micro levels, but they can only be retold from the present, with one eye fixed retrospectively on the past and one prospectively on the future (Bochner, 1994). Since narratives at all levels are constantly changing, create the basis for common understandings, and create order/disorder in the chaotic and complex world of social, institutional and interpersonal relations, narratives are the strange attractor that produce a (re)order, reintegration and renewal from the edges of chaos in which we find ourselves. The retelling of narratives is the “sacred ceremony that draws people together in fellowship and commonality” (Carey, 1988, p. 19). 

Are narratives the strange attractors that maintain order within the chaos, and the chaos within the order?

-----

From:

Herrmann, A. F. (2009). Narrative as strange attractor: Thoughts on chaos, complexity, and non-profit start-ups. Paper presented at the Central States Communication Association Convention, St. Louis, MO.

Thoughts on Twitterville by Shel Israel

Twitterville by Shel Israel

Good little book here. While there is much to learn, this is not a How-To book.

So I’ve only started using Twitter with abandon over the two weeks or so. Sure, I opened an account a few years ago, but was too busy working on my dissertation and then getting settled in at Mizzou to spend any time playing with it. At that point I saw no need to use it. After all, I was busy condensing my life. I closed my Yahoo account. I ended my relationship with MySpace. I figured Facebook and LinkedIn would be enough for me. I was wrong.

There’s something about Twitter that has captured my imagination. I cannot pinpoint it, but I like the ‘real-timeyness’ of it, as compared to FaceBook and LinkedIn. While all are communites of a sort, there’s a difference. LinkedIn I use for my professional persona, looking for places that might need my skills talents and abilities. It is business first. FaceBook no longer seems to be the small community it once was. It is akin to a megalopolis or megaregion: there’s a hugeness to it now. Twitter is somewhere in-between the two.

Perhaps that is why “Twitterville” as a name fits so well. It takes a village to raise a child and there are village idiots running around out looking for other village idiots. Twitter fits between the seriousness of the one endeavor and silliness of the second.  

Twitterville covers the history of Twitter. Yes. Ho-hum. More than that, it is a compilation loaded with stories, exemplars and parables. If narratives and stories are one of the most important ways we make sense of our world, than Israel does a great job of ‘making sense’ of Twitter, removing some of the ambiguity and equivocality. Karl E. Weick is just as applicable online as off.

He delves wonderfully into Twitter culture. That’s not an easy thing when looking at a village as broad and loosely connected as Twitter is. He shows clients or customers contacting businesses with complaints and bravos and how those businesses reacted. (Most of the time: FAST!)

He gives due warning about trolls and spammers and scammers and other undesirable PITAs you may come across and what to do about them.

There are tips for both organizational and personal branding scattered throughout the book. So, if you are someone longing to make yourself into a brand, there’s a lot here to discover and become motivated. And it's a heck of a good read too. That alone makes it a pleasure and makes it stand out amongst boring business books.


You could become the next Miss Destructo!

Indeed R2-D2 Is in Star Trek

It used to be that "seeing was believing." Given the millions of ways images can be manipulated, I find myself more skeptical about what I see all the time. Some things are just over the top.

However not all images are so blatant. Take this one for example.

The altered image on the left was part of George Bush’s political campaign in 2004. He is digitally taken out by copying and pasting existing soldiers over the podium. Later, campaign managers would admit to the altering of the image. 


In another famous disappearing act, you'll below note that Trotsky disappeared from this famous photo with Lenin.

Of course, it isn't always about making people disappear. Sometimes they pop up out of nowhere, like the black student did in this brochure for the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Diversity is so important, they had to make a black guy up!

Of course we all know that women can never be slender enough for some advertisers, so we end up with this disgusting image:

Some manipulation is more subtle. For example, the slimming down of Katie Couric:

Or how they fixed this woman's teeth:

(Foucault would have a lot to say about how these lead women to distorted images of the self and how they then attempt to discipline themselves. That, however, is best left up to others.)


However, after doing my own research and looking at the film over and over again in fast mo, slow mo, regular mo and pause mo, it is true. R2-D2 is indeed in Star Trek. I didn't believe the picture when I first saw it, but indeed, the folks at Lucas' Industrial Light and magic put that little robot in there.

R2-D2 RULES!

Nightmares and Dreamscapes*

Sometimes you have to break out Freud, Jung or Lacan to figure out what the heck your brain-body is trying to tell you about what is bothering you about your life.

(I make no distinction between the mind and the body during dream states. That doesn’t mean that I am a monist. I am most certainly not. I believe in I have a soul, am a spirit, believe in God, etc. I also believe that the body remembers things as well. It stores emotions, activities and such. What I mean is I believe the body and soul are more intimately connected in sleep than in waking life. There is not an überconsciousness to get in the way. )

Sometimes you can have a great dream about sharing a bed with someone special. Sometimes you dream you are flying or falling. Some dreams are absolutely bizarre and you have no idea what they are about at all. As the fragments hit your awakening brain all you can think is “What the hell was that?” Sometimes you have nightmares that scare the hell out of you, like waking up and all life suddenly was like this shit.

Not me. Not lately, anyway. I know exactly what my dreams are about. I dreamt twice the other night. They are different dreams, but have the same theme. Here goes:

Dream #1:

I am sitting in an office. Across from me behind a large desk is am man. I think he was a black man, but I am not quite sure since the room is somewhat dark. He says to me, “Ok, so we are offering to pay you nineteen thousand dollars per year if you take this job.”

“Nineteen? You will have to make to twenty, if you really want me to take it.”

“Twenty it is then,”

We stand up and shake on it both of us getting exactly what we want. I leave the office and walk outside. It is a sunny day and I am smiling and whistling, pleased with myself. And I stop in my tracks…

…because I realize he didn’t say nineteen thousand dollars. He said forty-nine thousand dollars. And I just took it for twenty.

And I woke up in a cold sweat.

----

Dream #2:

I am in a café of some sort, behind the counter, wearing an apron. It is my first day on the job.  I am nervous.

“We are throwing you right up at the register on your first day. Its sink or swim Andrew,” says a guy in a black polo shirt, obviously the manager.

I walk over to the register. The keyboard on the register is about three feet by two feet, but all the buttons are half the size of a key on a regular keyboard. I cannot read what button is for what product.

Flash forward.

There’s an angry crowd around the register all yelling at me. Red faces. Yelling louder. The register makes no sense. I can’t figure it out. People are shaking their fists at me. Manager guy comes up next to me.

“You didn’t even last fifteen minutes. Get the fuck out of here.”

And I woke up again.

---

When I worked in IT I used to dream I was fixing computers and such. When I was working on my dissertation, I would dream I was researching or writing.  As an unemployed person I am not dreaming about unemployment. I am dreaming that I will screw up my future employment. Fear of failure. I don’t need Freud or Jung or Lacan for this.

*Thanks SK for letting me borrow this title

On Having the “Six Million Dollar Man Syndrome”

I’ll admit it. I feel like I am moving in slow motion, even when I am chugging along at a rapid pace. I call it the “Six Million Dollar Man Syndrome” (SMDMS). 

You remember the show “Six Million Dollar Man.” Astronaut Steve Austin (played by Lee Majors of Lee and Farrah fame) crashes and they replace his damaged parts with bionic appendages.  In the show whenever Steve Austin ran using those bionic limbs, he was usually presented in slow-motion, accompanied by an electronic grinding-like sound effect. Slow-mo to give the appearance of speed.

That’s how I feel. I feel like I am moving as fast as I can, but I am not getting anywhere. I am a half step behind. I am misplacing things, after I know where I put them. I am forgetting things. I am sleeping, but getting no rest.  When I am awake, I am half asleep.  When I am sleeping, I am half awake. I go to my blog, but with nothing to say.  I find myself standing in a room, with no idea what I am supposed to be doing in that room. I start to work on my book and am just blank. I start to read a magazine; I’ve lost interest a paragraph in.

I am not the only one feeling this at the moment.

This is not me.  And I am not sure where I went.

Tomorrow I’ll tell you about the two nightmares I had last night. Sometimes the mind hides things and you have to figure out what dreams mean. Sometimes dreams are just right up front and there’s no interpretation needed.