Jacques Derrida influenced a great many people, fields, and frameworks throughout his life, and it only seems fitting that his death in 2004 would itself cause controversy. A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Archive Fever, recounts how the effects of the actions of one faculty member at the University of California at Irvine jeopardized and ultimately cost the university
the Derrida Archives. While I am not particularly interested as to the veracity of the article’s claims (since only one side of the issue was provided as other parties in the dispute declined to provide their own voice to the story), I was captivated by a comment by Avital Ronell, who quoted some of the many letters that Derrida received while he was growing sicker from the pancreatic cancer that finally killed him.

“People sent letters saying how important he had been to them,” Ms. Ronell says. “Or he would get a letter saying ‘I’ve hated you my whole life, but now that you’re gone, I want you to know how much you’ve meant to me.’”

For the Father of Deconstruction, I find that final quote fascinating. Derrida made lots of people uncomfortable with his challenge of unspoken assumptions and frameworks in nearly everything within Western culture, yet there was something about him that was magnetic. In a way, he recalled the Socratic gadfly that people just wanted to go away away. Leave me to my beliefs, Derrida, as I was happy before you came along! I don’t want to think about new ways
of thinking! I like my life as it is! Just leave me alone!

Ahh, the status quo of my beliefs is so comfortable, why would I want anybody to challenge them? If deconstruction is such an annoying and unphilosophical phenomenon, why did it threaten so many? Could that in itself be the reason that it (he) can be hated, yet missed at the same time? Wow, would Freud have a field-day with this!

Technorati Tags: Avital Ronell, Chronicle of Higher Education, Deconstruction, Jacques Derrida, Socratic gadfly

I recently spoke about how I bought a copy of The Philosopher's Magazine, and while looking through it there was another book I found that interested me: The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten. Written by Julian Baggini, one of the founding editors of the magazine itself, the book includes 100 short (1-page) stories (dilemmas) that are realistic and approachable, followed by 1-2 pages of reflection that Julian includes to help get the thinking-juices flowing. I started reading it for fun, and then yesterday it entered a new level.

It was sitting on my desk at work (as part of my commuting-reading), and a colleague saw it and asked me to bring it to dinner with me (three of us had planned to have dinner and catch up on sharing our summer stories). We decided to read one of the stories at dinner as a conversation-starter, and randomly selected "Till death do us part." This story addressed the issue of a couple who were getting married and how they were afraid of fully committing to one another and allowing the other to be "first." In our conversation, issues of marriage, commitment, permanence, personal vs. hypothetical experience, relationship, honesty, self-disclosure, divorce, and using the terms you vs. I in discussions when we speak of our experience in our own voice or when we at times project our experience as something common to all people (thus, you vs. I). We discussed this story and in the process learned more about one another and even about ourselves. We smiled later in the evening while, at a comedy club, several comedians made references to issues around marriage, commitment, and all the rest. If only they knew about our conversation earlier.

The story gave us a shared framework for the rest of the evening's discussions. Interesting how such a short and simple story can lead to something that is larger and more expansive than a 1-pager. While our conversation was very philosophical in nature, we managed to consider this without referring to Plato, Kant, Hegel, or even Derrida. Ahh, how interesting applied philosophy can be, not so much to get clear answers, but rather to see how many questions there really are.

Technorati Tags: The Philosopher's Magazine, Julian Baggini, The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten

I have been writing about evidence and transparency and expertise recently, and found a new definition that may help end the week with a laugh.

While in Oxford recently, I went into Blackwell’s and, after browsing for the 15 minutes I had before I leaving to catch my train to London, I bought a copy of The Philosopher’s Magazine (more about this publication coming soon). While looking through it, I came across an ad for an interesting-sounding book written by two of the editors, Ophelia
Benson and Jeremy Stangroom. The book, The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense: A Guide for Edgy People, is a work of comic relief that plays with various terms from a postmodern (or cultivated?) perspective. As many aspects of my life in the last year can be labeled as nonsense, I thought perhaps this may be the book for me.

As a converted postmodernist, this book made me laugh out loud, especially from the first word that I opened to when I flipped through it: Evidence. They portrayed “evidence” as (p 38):

1. Something that can be tailored to the requirements of my arguments.
2. A tiresome thing that may conflict with something that I believe.

How clever. I recently worked on an academic editorial of the concept of “evidence” from the perspectives of various disciplines, and while most sources want to use evidence, there is not exactly consistency of what this may encompass or how it may be clearly and universally defined. Rather, we have a shifting perspective of what may or may not constitute evidence from this or that source, time, experience, context, belief, and framework. With all that, voilà–I am right back to Benson
and Stangroom’s definition. Interesting how things work like that at times. 

Now, before this goes to far, a quick look at the Merriam-Webster definition reveals that evidence is “an outward sign.” Upon second-glance, is that “official” definition any clearer, more definitive, or better?

I think their little book can offer many profound (or overly-simplified and common-sensical) twists on terms encountered by the modern academic or cultural traveler. For the rest of us, it is simply funny.

Technorati Tags: Blackwell, Blackwell’s, Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense, expertise, Jeremy Stangroom, Ophelia Benson, evidence, transparency

One of the interesting blogs I have recently started reading is Talking Philosophy: The Philosopher's Magazine Blog. Aimed more at scholars and practitioners alike who are interested in applied philosophy (with articles that are readable by and for a wider audience of laypeople), some of the editors have been presenting at a camp associated with The Center for Inquiry, and I posted a question and have been participating in a discussion there about liveblogging the experience.

As liveblogging conferences (particularly academic ones) have recently captured my interests, I asked if they have considered doing so. In the process, I found myself reflecting on the differences between getting a transcript / recording of a presentation (like the news or a dvd) vs. studying the internal learning and change process while attending the sessions themselves (liveblogging) vs. the writing or posting that can be done after enough processing of the information (traditional journalism and academic writing).

I find myself finally beginning to articulate why I am interested in liveblogging as a learning experience in itself, and in this capacity just posted a response on their blog about this that I want to recount here (in part so I can then readily index them later for this ongoing research and reflection):

I am not so interested in recordings or the transcripts, since I personally have trouble reading / paying attention to them without being involved in the tone and setting of the experience.

My interests are more about how learning occurs and how information and experiences are processed during the attending of the sessions themselves . . . I am interested in seeing how ideas develop from a comment here and a feeling over there with some content from this one and a paper I may read from that one–all of which happens simultaneously at times. When we write things later about how we have come to understand something, it takes all of the initial work and shows us the results. My interest in this is in the initial work and process itself.

My theory is that the more we learn about the process, the more we can take that into account while we are presenting our work to help our attendees and learners see what we are trying to communicate.

So, as I am developing my work in liveblogging, it seems it is oriented toward understanding the personal and reflective learning process to better be able to communicate. Ahh, this is an exciting development . . .

Technorati Tags: Talking Philosophy, The Philosopher's Magazine, liveblogging, The Center for Inquiry

This weekend, I was able to spend some time outside working on a brick walkway that had to be adjusted since the driveway was recently paved. I rebuilt the end of the walkway, cutting the bricks and adding several bags of sand to fill the gaps and help hold everything in place. I thought this was a pretty good job for an amateur, especially as I have never been trained in laying bricks, landscaping, or even gardening. I read some books in cutting bricks, and then went off to the Home Depot, since they told me I can do it and they can help. Yes, I actually spent the little free time I had this weekend working on this project.  

Why would I want to do this? Most of the work I do all week is behind a computer or in front of groups of people. I do intellectual and academic work full-time, whether in instructional design, organizational communication, theory development, or research. I love working with all of this, yet it is rare I can ever see any immediate results of my work. I get excited with it, but the results are often far in the future with my writing and audience. 

Laying bricks? I can see the results of my labor immediately. If they are not what I wanted, I can redo them (as I in fact did several times). I can get it just right and then stop. Not so with theory. Not so with project plans. Certainly not so with communication or research. Ironic that to get immediate satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, I have to spend my free time doing strenuous, physical labor. This is not what I thought would be the case before I started working on and finishing the four graduate academic degree I have. What they never tell you in college . . .

Technorati Tags: communication, instructional design, laying bricks, physical labor, what they never tell you in college, theory development

My teeth have been bothering me for a few days, and chewing hard food was starting to become uncomfortable. Having recently gone to the dentist about 3 weeks ago to have an old silver filling replaced as well as two bondings for my teeth where my gums are receding, I thought that perhaps something was stirred up in my mouth, and began anticipating a larger round of dental work.

Before I scheduled the appointment, I decided to floss. With some popcorn coming out from a movie I saw a week earlier, as well as the discomfort from not having flossed since the dental work itself, my teeth no longer hurt. As it turns out, it was the stuck popcorn itself that was causing the discomfort, with the pain signaling to my body that it had to be addressed. Rather than look for the simple solution, I was ready to have major work done.

I wonder how often I (we?) fail to notice signs and keep plugging away at other solutions that have little to nothing to do with the cause? The dentist would have found the problem, but the cost and time and efforts would have far surpassed the little it really took me to resolve the issue myself. There seems some lessons here beyond the value of periodic flossing . . .

Technorati Tags: popcorn, flossing

Alan Contreras, writing in the current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, raised the issue as to what makes a person an expert. Why do we always run to various people who have been deemed an expert or a spokesperson for some cause, and more importantly, how do people get recognized in this capacity. Education does not seem to be the clear answer, An example he gives is Noam Chomsky, who is deemed an expert in everything (especially in “world affairs and the human condition”). I can think of many others, such as Al Sharpton, Ed Koch, Michael Musto, and even Steve Jobs. They all have knowledge and experiences, but in some way they all manage to get in front of the cameras when there is a need.

Perhaps this is a symptom of the postmodern condition? I think of Lyotard’s definition of postmodernity in his book The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, as “incredulity toward metanarratives.” What made somebody an expert before (such as lectures or degrees or education) may not hold the same weight now (with television, always-on technology, and blogs that allow anybody to publish to the world).

I wonder what this may mean for the future of higher education?

Technorati Tags: postmodernity, Alan Contreras, Chronicle of Higher Education, Ed Koch, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Michael Musto, Noam Chomsky, Steve Jobs, incredulity toward metanarratives

I came across SPEP, the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy, while looking for something completely different. This seems so akin to my area of personal interest and research, though I have never heard of it before. Critical theory, post-structuralism, existentialism, phenomenology. Refreshing, huh?

I wonder how many other associations and organizations are also out there that fit my interests but somehow have not appeared on my radar?

Technorati Tags: critical theory, existentialism, post-structuralism, Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy, SPEP, phenomenology

I have become more interested in philosophy recently, and spent some free time today looking around online to see what is going on in the area of philosophical research and continental philosophy, when what a surprise but to find a reference on the APA Committee on the Status of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in the Profession Status of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in the Profession webpage for John Corvino, a classmate of mine during our undergraduate study years ago at St. John’s University. It seems John is quite prolific in his work in and around ethical theory. Small world after so many years of no contact.

Congratulations, John, on your recent tenure!

Technorati Tags: American Philosophical Association, APA, John Corvino, St. John’s University