SITEMAP

RETURN TO DIALOGUE WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS OF MY WORK

Dialogue David Morris and Peter Sinclair


Mar 24 06
David,
Winston Smith is from George Orwell's 1984. His chacteractisation follows soon.
Smith went on a quest and failed (Unlike Campbell, unless it is quest of self destruction) But the quest of totalitarianism wins out over its protagonist, Smith (Like Campbell).
Peter

Winston Smith

"Orwells primary goal in 1984 is to demonstrate the terrifying possibilities of totalitarianism. The reader experiences the nightmarish world that Orwell envisions through the eyes of the protagonist, Winston. His personal tendency to resist the stifling of his individuality, and his intellectual ability to reason about his resistance, enables the reader to observe and understand the harsh oppression that the Party, Big Brother, and the Thought Police institute. Whereas Julia is untroubled and somewhat selfish, interested in rebelling only for the pleasures to be gained, Winston is extremely pensive and curious, desperate to understand how and why the Party exercises such absolute power in Oceania. Winstons long reflections give Orwell a chance to explore the novels important themes, including language as mind control, psychological and physical intimidation and manipulation, and the importance of knowledge of the past.
Apart from his thoughtful nature, Winstons main attributes are his rebelliousness and his fatalism. Winston hates the Party passionately and wants to test the limits of its power; he commits innumerable crimes throughout the novel, ranging from writing DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER in his diary, to having an illegal love affair with Julia, to getting himself secretly indoctrinated into the anti-Party Brotherhood. The effort Winston puts into his attempt to achieve freedom and independence ultimately underscores the Partys devastating power. By the end of the novel, Winstons rebellion is revealed as playing into OBriens campaign of physical and psychological torture, transforming Winston into a loyal subject of Big Brother. One reason for Winstons rebellion, and eventual downfall, is his sense of fatalismhis intense (though entirely justified) paranoia about the Party and his overriding belief that the Party will eventually catch and punish him. As soon as he writes DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER in his diary, Winston is positive that the Thought Police will quickly capture him for committing a thought crime. Thinking that he is helpless to evade his doom, Winston allows himself to take unnecessary risks, such as trusting OBrien and renting the room above Mr. Charringtons shop. Deep down, he knows that these risks will increase his chances of being caught by the Party; he even admits this to OBrien while in prison. But because he believes that he will be caught no matter what he does, he convinces himself that he must continue to rebel. Winston lives in a world in which legitimate optimism is an impossibility; lacking any real hope, he gives himself false hope, fully aware that he is doing so."


March 24, 2006
David
I happy to engage in a stream dialogue focusing on your Website. Herein, I will learn from you.

At his Polytechnic, Einstein was a poorly "graded" student, but he was a good self-directed student. He was poorly graded, because he cut classes and didn't focus on the kernel of his coursework. He was a good self-directed student, because was smart, imaginative and committed to physics.

The Historian, Carroll Quigley, was interested in the relationship between military practice and the demise of civilizations. He alludes to this in his writings and had planned to write a book, but died before he could publish on this topic.

Civilizationalists say we live in Western III (Toynbee, Quigley), but if one takes the perspective of, Empire, then, perhaps the British core state (Symbolically) lived from 1588 (defeat of the Spanish Armada) until after WWI (c. 1922), when Britain accepted US equality with the Naval Arms Limitation Treaty. Is the US is trying to establish itself for Western IV? Obviously, "yes". However, the Hand has neither Written nor moved on: Interregnums can last for centuries. Our contemporary newspapers do not provide the necessary perspective to see the US (and contenders) on his timeline.

As portrayed in Pentagon Wars, I guess one can draw some parallels between the Military and Big Brother. With the Cold War, we had two Big Brothers with only Mutually Assured Destruction in between. Today, I think we have what Ethnologists call "flocking", herein a flock of sparrows will attack a bird of prey. The powerful West is under attack from many sides. Likewise, Rome had to deal with terrorism (the Zealots) in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE and later with barbarians. History, also tells the so called "civilized" societies are highly vulnerable to novel forms of military attack....Sparta/ Greece, Barbarians/ Rome, Mongols/ China.
Let me know if I ramble.
P.


Peter
Peter if you would please help me. Pick any category (section) on my website and give me your feed back. We can dialogue on that. I will put in that dialogue at the end of each category
You pick and we will start there.
DM

DM FROM PETER
It is interesting to see your response. I can see you are a real thinker.
In many cases my colleagues are aware of a broad range of understanding but they cannot or will not apply this to marketing. The reason I believe is real fear. This fear is real. All disciplines are what Ethnologists call "flocking", herein a flock of sparrows will attack a bird of prey. The powerful West is under attack from many sides. Likewise, Rome had to deal with terrorism (the Zealots) in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE and later with barbarians. History, also tells the so called "civilized" societies are highly vulnerable to novel forms of military attack.... Sparta/Greece, Barbarians/Rome, Mongols/China.
Let me know if I ramble.
P.


Mar 23, 06
Peter
Yes you are correct. Even though I was a poor student I majored in the liberal arts. Business educators and student have moved away from this.

I also realized early that all things can be related.

It is interesting to see your response. I can see you are a real thinker.

In many cases my colleagues are aware of a broad range of understanding but they cannot or will not apply this to marketing. The reason I believe is real fear. This fear is real. All disciplines are set up so that a scholar cannot include outside ideas.

This is ok in most cases. The discipline that must be the most open to new ideas is the military. The military has known this and they attempt particularly in war time to overcome this weakness. Their real problem is that it is obvious when an idea of theirs is not working.

Marketing education has nothing to do with marketing. This is ok if there is no need to test anything that is said against the arena.

Now this has lead to real problems because business does not have to employ our graduates. Also the government no longer has to support a middle class workforce.

I also thought that in institutions that were going to suffer that they may be open to new and innovative ideas. I thought that when marketing education started to decline that new ideas would emerge. The problem is there is no mechanism to put into place different models.

When the corporations are in trouble they just eject employees and cut cost. So this is what the universities are and will do. Most important of all their story does not change.

In a model that embraces division of labor communication across disciplines is dangerous. This again is real.

Wore Alderson was an outsider. He was protected by his European colleagues.

I also expect to never receive recognition for anything I have done. Recognition goes to power.

Marketing as we know it is part of a story.
David

On 3/23/06, Peter Sinclair and Carolyn Sinclair <sinclairs@netvigator.com> wrote:
David,
Perhaps, "The System" is the Hero or the Anti-Hero.

I won't say too much to my profs., if at all. My supervisor has already said my citing of Polanyi on Polanyi (epistemology) instead of Nonaka and Takeuchi (Knowledge Creating Company) on Polanyi will be a stir. However, I have the advantage of being able underline passages in Polanyi's books.

I wonder if at times your critics are well read, but too narrowly read? In Flowers for Algernon (Charley), the guy with the brain boost has problems discussing across disciplines with specialist topic experts.

Marketing is "categorized" as non-fiction. Are there fictional processes overarching non-fiction? I think we could say "yes" for the physical sciences and histographies of civilization. Moreover, marketing does have its human heroes (e.g., Wroe Alderson) and its structural heroes (e.g., the 4 P's).

Recently, I saw on DVD the story, "Longitude", about a carpenter and rural watchmaker, who took on the establishment ("real" scholars & astronomers) in the race towards developing a way to devise longitude at sea. John Harrison has an unusual background. He experiences technical ordeals and many protagonists, but finally the quest is achieved - triumph - fame. Excellent!

Perhaps, Michaelango in the Angony and the Ecstasy would rate as an example too.
Is Marketing a storybook? Or is Marketing a chapter in the story of Trade?
Peter

Mar 23, 06
Peter
You are going to have to help me. Are you are saying that in animal farm the system is the hero? I started with Campbell's framework and linked the same idea to Instructional design.

If so that makes sense. This is also what I have been thinking that pathological behavior has become marketing. Or marketing is pathological.

This is our choice the connection with the mystical hero or the machine. I will look up Smith.

You are the first one to have any interest in discussing these ideas in marketing. Be careful not to say too much to your professors.
David


Mar 22, 06
Hello D.,
I read the article at the following in the knowledge that it would not be a substitute for the real thing.

Just the same, it was very interesting. It is clear Campbell was influenced by Jung's Collect Consciousness. Also, the patterned nature of stories is noted, as I commented on earlier. Trying to play Devil's Advocate, I endeavored to find an exception: A well known writer, who does not adopt this style. I came up with George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 (Winston Smith as a victim anti-hero). Nonetheless, there is a victor at the end of these stories, "The System". 

I studied Freud a bit in 1970s, but would position myself more in the Humanist camp (Rogers). My knowledge of Jung is pretty thin, but I do know enough that there could be some connection with the mystical.
 P.

Hello P
Destruction is the whole purpose of the stories. The destruction of one stage of life and the entrance into the next.

Popper's view is the opposite of mine. Both the story and all of us are ever changing.
What you have just identified is the problem with marketing. They want to tell stories that limit our development into adult hood and keep us as children.
This is an idea I learned from Joseph Campbell.
DM


David,
I am not surprised that you have guru status in the storytelling field. It is obvious.
What then are mythical and theistic stories? These stories change. Mystical stories are formulaic (mystical birth -- exceptional childhood -- heroic or religious statue -- ordeal -- overcoming the ordeal -- resolution) The flood in Bible is retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Popper notes of Jung, that not changing the story leads to a series self-confirmations, wherein the accuracy of the first to millionth confirmation is dependent upon the first proposition.

What is goal of not allowing "creative destruction" in storytelling?
Peter

Peter
You actually know more about what I an doing in my work than any of them. Again it is not within most storytelling to actually spend a second within another story. The reason is simple that this second may lead to change.

They are actually more friendly at UNH than most story holders. Many times the outside story holder is killed to keep their story out.

When they come they come hard and fast. They will say and do anything. Anything.
As Dr. Phil says the real reasons are never revealed by either side.
David

On 3/21/06, Peter Sinclair wrote:
David,
I have just revisited some recent emails from you to see if I have missed anything. I don't think so.

You do seemed to have been maligned. I can appreciate differences of opinion, debate and discourse. But yours seems a gloves off experience - sadly.

Lakatos would have it that it is the role of an established discipline to guard its "protected core" . The place where the positive heuristic lives. Interdisciplinary tests are made, within the umbrella of the discipline but not against its positive heuristic. When one critiques the positive heuristic, horses have been changed: We are no longer in the domain of the discipline (at this time in history).

Perhaps some sort of synthesis between storytelling and Polanyi's concept of "indwelling" captures the student rather than threatens discipline. Herein, the storytelling approach is sold as pedagogy rather than marketing. Catch is, I suspect, such a move would be outside your story and removed from what you are endeavoring to achieve?

I find it easy to engage you with interest.
Cheers,
P.

March 19, 2006
David,
I thought the following article might interest you.

One point is your metaphor is at odds with the prevailing normative metaphor.

My story is that the formulation of a metaphor is leveraged from coefficient tacit and explicit knowledge. A process requiring internalization and interpretation. We are all storytellers but perhaps our institutions (e.g., Marketing) are normative systems with which individuals relate to a greater or lesser degree. Herein, most Marketers see the marketing textbook as Gospel, I see it as a toolkit a practitioner can choose to use or ignore depending on environmental factors and you see the textbook (correct me if I am wrong), as an irrelevancy or perhaps a means to keep the normative normative. Our stories are different, because our symbols are different. The world is internalized and interpreted (there is a tacit component) and our "personal" symbols are born.
Peter Sinclair

Creatures of the Metaphor.
by Robert Burdette Sweet
But let's not be naive. My imagery is freely lifted from Eliot's Waste Land, circa 1922. Doomsayers in all civilizations have supplied popular entertainment. Particularly intelligent people fall for the trap, refusing to acknowledge the inevitability of cyclic historical patterns. Like Eliot, they're often admired not just as poets but often as purveyors of religions, cults, and sects; not just because they're being dramatic but because they also do acknowledge truth. As Yeats put it, "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold ." Well, yes!
 
But the demise of the sun and all life on the planet is more accurately predictable than the disintegration of particular civilizations. The 3,000 years of dynastic Egyptian history reveal many peaks and chasms. That the United States now rides a strong cyclic downstroke of time's pendulum is as obvious as it is lamentable. What in all honesty we cannot presume is whether this is "it" or a necessary precursor of renewal.

Whichever, let's be practical. When you're not dead yet, proceeding with life is the only sensible course. And if you're ill, attempting to continue becomes an imperative - fix what you can and accept the rest. So what is it, precisely, that our culture lacks? What might be healed, and what must be left to inevitability? And who or what is capable of suturing the wounds?

The body politic and our daily lives lack meaning because belief in our metaphor grows frail. The world picture - and, hence, invented purpose - is becoming vague. I say quot; invented" because metaphors are tools, if you will, that lend drive and purpose to our otherwise insignificant lives. And they often appear silly, especially from the outside looking in. What could seem more ridiculous than the pyramids - devoting the highest percentage of your gross national product to insisting that a pharaoh (not you) can be immortal? Or in the case of the United States, to stockpiling a thermo-nuclear arsenal that can obliterate the earth many times over? Disintegration is the result in both cases. Or (in other places and at other times) that 2,000 ripped-out hearts in one afternoon can satisfy the blood-lust of the Aztec god Huitzilopotchli; that crawling on bare knees for miles makes the Virgin of Guadalupe happy; or that being cremated and dumped into the putrid Ganges assures a better life next time? Yet these are all metaphors offering purpose and (not insignificantly) producing the very greatest civilizations.

So long, that is, as a majority of the population believes and has faith in the validity of the metaphors of the civilization. When metaphors weaken or collapse, from sources external or internal - usually both are nearly simultaneous - the civilization ceases. Both Cortez and Alexander the Great were welcomed by the Aztecs and Egyptians they conquered respectively. We are creatures of the metaphor and, after even the barest subsistence is achieved, turn to pictures and images for purpose and meaning - and, most importantly, for political stability, order, and ethics. We even fight for or against invented beliefs, especially of our own uniqueness, the byproduct being coherence and, for a while, the semblance of tribal stability and unity. Exile is not only an ancient punishment; it is a slow and predictable death of body and spirit.

It is my contention that what may pass in some quarters as spiritual or artistic frosting on the cake of human endeavor is, in fact, a practical necessity - not for some otherworldly purpose but as the foundation of tribal identity, purpose, and, above all, cohesion. If we don't cohere, we die; it's as simple as that. A metaphor lost is ruin itself and a metaphor gained (or sustained) is tantamount to survival.
 
A society is as strong as the belief in its metaphors permits, and it lasts as long as that belief continues. And because metaphors are images, and images are pictures, and pictures can be made of or evoked through words, paint, clay, and sound, then art must be viewed as a fundamental means of sustaining existence and identity. After all, most cultures have assumed the primacy of art from the Cro-Magnons of the Lascaux caves, through fifth century BCE Athens, to the Florence of Michelangelo and da Vinci. When a general such as Sophocles wrote plays and popes knew power to be maintained via images, we'll have to assume those fellows were aware that fighting and praying were dependent on the metaphor and not the other way around, as our present culture would have it.

We erroneously assume that, when we have nothing better to do and are bored to distraction - retired, perhaps, or ill - then we can write or paint; but, above all, don't take crafts seriously! Give children piano lessons but hope they don't get carried away and decide to attend Julliard. Because neither the local politicians nor the clergy nor the army will take art seriously - despite all the historical evidence that in the past pictorial images were precisely what leaders depended upon. The human notion of reality goes something like this: if you can't see it, it ain't. Faith clinches the deal: for the tribe to adhere, it's got to believe its imaginings - even when they're absurd or downright dangerous.

Our tribe's present obsessive, absurd, and dangerous metaphor is the belief that money buys meaning. Money is pictures stamped on paper we agree to value, just as the Aztecs agreed to feed their war god Huitzilopotchli human blood. As Calvin Coolidge put it, "The chief business of the American people is business." When we cease to have faith in pictures of national heroes on green paper, dollars will become meaningless. Our metaphor will have collapsed. (atomic, drought, viral) - and even if - what will slouch again toward the new Bethlehem is the rough beast of fresh metaphor: a picture to present the new image for the new nation of old tribes so they may once again adhere to meaning, purpose, and identity. And it's to the imaginative creators of these metaphors we must pay homage, even to the often absurd and ridiculous content of their pictorial message. just like shamans, no artists worth their salt (and who remain sane) believe their own images are real. That's for the leaders to pretend and the populace to believe.

There is always historical change but, other than in the geomorphology of the planet, never anything that's particularly new. Nothing can be more "already known" than art and the creation of it. From cave-dwelling on, probably earlier, humans have been symbol-makers. Not for themselves as individuals, however, but to identify the tribe imagistically. "We belong; you don't" has always been the battle cry.

Until the late eighteenth century, art was essentially a group or service activity producing pyramids and cathedrals. Self-expression was discouraged or nonexistent. And though there are major exceptions to this collective preoccupation (Shakespearean sonnets, for instance), the idea of individual production, the concept of genius itself (Michelangelo accepted the dictates of church sponsor, ship; Bach, the same) had to wait for Blake, van Gogh, Tchaikovsky, and their exploration - even explosion - of the self.

With our late twentieth century's collapse of collective belief in general and the cynicism directed toward all authority, the burden and luxury of expression becomes the individual's. I would like to speculate that the process of producing art - any art - is the sleeping giant waiting to awake, the good we need to nourish our starving psyches.
It is not the imagistic product that is important in the long run. What is significant is the process which goes into the making of the artistic product, because the process itself does not disintegrate or, regardless of time or place, even change very much.
As we are unable to attempt any understanding of the world or ourselves except through images, and because the marketplace caters - as it must - to the lowest common denominator (typically spectacle, the lowest form of drama, according to Aristotle), we are left to ourselves to contemplate our sicknesses, fears, loves, defeats, and expectations. Popular culture won't do it: bestsellers and blockbuster movies lie (and we love to be lied to). Yet influenced by these lies, our confusion grows, and our inability to cope with the vicissitudes of ordinary living increases.

I suggest that inherent in the process itself of producing any art are the keys that open a person to enjoying or accepting what heretofore might be considered debilitating problems and confusions. All art has a structure, for instance, that persuades its creators to explore, to confront further whatever difficulties their anxieties have tempted them to express. Once known, once seen, our dragons are not as lethal; these nightmare beasts may even be corralled into becoming friends. And if that means I'm suggesting that, in this century, the personal production of any art is superior in the achievement of tolerance, coherence, comprehension, devotion, and relief for the ordinary person than any religion or psychiatric device, then so be it.

Among Aristotle's many brilliant investigations, the Greek philosopher examined the workings of drama. Recall that, for the Greeks, plays were movies, television (especially of the soap variety), and religion combined. Therefore, to contemplate a drama's under-pinnings was a crucial, even political, act. What makes the drama arouse terror and pity, awe and inspiration? Aristotle asked. He came up with six determinants: plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and song. Not much has changed, has it? And why does this combination excite and convince us? Because the essential trait of being human is to be imitative. Art is an imitation of an action, and through imitation we learn. Like ourselves, what a fictional character chooses or avoids in "life" determines its existence, and if we see these choices mirrored in the actions of persons greater (or lesser) than ourselves, the lesson becomes magnified. Since we an have a "fatal flaw," and since Aristotle conceived of reality as a process of becoming or developing, we can see that, by facing our flaws, we can reach at least an acceptance of them; we can experience a catharsis, a relief, through recognition.

Avoidance, then or now, gets you nowhere. But rather than merely seeing a play, a movie, a painting, or a ballet; reading a story or a poem; or hearing music, we should create these arts for ourselves. Process is more important than product. The rise of the proletariat as a viable social, political, and economic class permits the concept of everymen and everywomen producing a kind of every art to proclaim their own very personal understanding of themselves and the world they inhabit. Like the heartbreak of psoriasis, the unfortunate habit of observing rather than personally doing results in a scaly, even unsightly, inflammation of the emotions and comprehensions. We should study former and present "greatness" in order to emulate it. Not because we will all produce a product that will equal the great artists of any age, because we probably won't - but that's not the point. Through the process of artistic creation, we can all confront ourselves, others, and our culture with more wisdom and respect.

Many people are going to complain that they are peculiarly devoid of talent, skill, and knowledge - or that couching potatoes is all their free time will allow them. And yet these same people doodle when bored (ever glance at a student's notebook during a lecture?), tell stories of a friend's misdemeanors with dramatic enthusiasm, and sing in the shower. Remember before the age of 12 and pubescent self-consciousness, when you spent hours coloring, making sand castles, and stuffing your pockets with shiny stones? Nothing is cheaper than talent and artistic interest because everyone has some; it is a genetic inevitability.

Symbol and image producers we were born to be, and so symbol and image producers we must allow ourselves to become. That our particular culture gives short shrift to the obvious bodes not well for us. At present, the relatively new field of art therapy is one of the few acknowledgements that art is not merely decoration for the rich or the academic elite or the preserve of the obsessively talented. Art therapy's one error is that it views the production of art to be primarily therapeutic for the demonstrably ill and disturbed. The production of art should be viewed as a necessity for everyone - rich or poor, smart or dumb, disturbed or not. The contemporary tendency to diminish the importance of what used to be referred to as a "liberal arts education," and the down, sizing of art and music classes in our grade schools, underscores the society's miscomprehension of our basic need to know ourselves and the best means to exercise that knowledge.

Besides, aren't we all - to a greater or lesser extent - emotionally disturbed, socially confused, and fatally flawed? The most satisfied and adjusted persons are those who, through some capacity for personal diminishment, nestle their lives quite comfortably into the latest health fad, political sound bite, religious preoccupation, or whatever popular war or monetary value the world of advertising and the media suggests. Most of us, however, flunk adjustment somewhere along the line - at least in dreams and hidden desires.

So, as Aristotle saw all art as an imitation of life, and with wondrous success ferreted out the mechanisms through which the imitation could seem real, let's reverse the process and attempt viewing the laws and rules that permit even modern art to succeed as the mechanisms that promote an examined and more serene life - not for the viewer so much as for the creator. In other words, let's investigate the possibility that life imitates art rather than the other way around - or that it should and will, if only we citizens can home in on art's innate ability to reveal, relieve, explore, and redeem.
The mechanisms that make a painting or a story convincing are what make a life all it can be. Is your life a strong statement? Is your existence devoted to what can be viewed as significant and universal? Do you mix metaphors? Are you aware of repetitions with variations, of opposing needs for security and adventure? Do you explore and confront what bothers you or attempt to escape? Is your life replete with values that serve more than just yourself. Do you see the whole or merely its parts? Is your life structured or chaotic? Do you sing or whine?

Though the process of creating anything may well relieve emotional anxiety and set in motion the possibility of understanding, perfecting the process to produce a viable product is what rubs one's nose, as it were, into the realizations we all need, always have needed, and avoid only at our peril. Jung said that the twentieth century's prime problem was the death of Christianity and the inability to find a metaphor to replace k. Joseph Campbell speculated that art and its creation were the only religion left. De Tocqueville's Democracy in America suggests that art embodies the individual's power to combat the tyranny of the majority.

So let's give art a try. It's not that everyone can't do it, because we already do it. All humans everywhere - from every tribe, from all countries, and of all ages - always have. All that's lacking is the personal motivation to take the final step to refine our scribbles, doodles, and hums into a solid product. Because art isn't just what somebody else does but can be ourselves in action. If we accept that the proper study of humankind is ourselves - to paraphrase Pope and Socrates - comprehending our lives as the metaphors they are via metaphors themselves might bring us closer to being a work of art. Yes, I'm actually suggesting that we look at ourselves as a work of art ... in progress.

Robert Burdette Sweet was a professor of English and creative writing at San Jose State University for over 40 years. He is the author of numerous books, both fiction and nonfiction, including Dame America, Akbar the Great, and Writing Towards Wisdom: The Writer As Shaman. He is also a painter, sculptor, and musical composer.

March 9, 2006
To: Hi David,
Indwelling in the Marketing Masters Poetic Rhetoric
to compare two objects, as remote from one another in character as possible, or by any other method bring them together in a striking and sudden fashion, this remains the highest task to which poetry can aspire. Andr Breton.

Michael Polanyi (1975) would add that metaphors do not lead to perception, rather personal understanding travels from perception to metaphors: Man lives in the meanings he is able to discern. He extends himself into that which he finds coherent and is at home there. Polanyi (Ed. Prosch)

Poetry is a means, whose end is achieved by the student indwelling (Polanyi 1966) in the performance. Pedagogically, intellectual, methodological and even mystical comprehension flows outwards from the student to the poem.

Yours is a grand approach. Once the students discover knowledge, they are well placed to write Marketing poems from their own perspective. Learning via indwelling in a performance incrementally perceived away from the student would help in the management of the coexistence of explicit and tacit knowledge (again leveraging Polanyi). Explicit knowledge is interpreted in the realm of the tacit knowledge of the reader cum observer.
Best regards,
Peter Sinclair

March 9, 2006
To Peter
Thanks for your e-mail. It helped me to begin to learn about explicit and tacit knowledge.

I think my thoughts are different. Could a person suggest that all knowledge is perceived as what you are calling explicit.

Therefore a person knows marketing (or rather perceives that they know marketing) no matter what others would speculate that they know or do not know. The idea of testing human knowledge is impossible. Testing forces the rigidity of a few (6+ or -3) people on the many.

As humans even if what we do does not work we will still believe that we know marketing. One person increases and changes their information (knowledge) while maintaining the constant perception that they still know marketing. The other spends their time and energy in defense and destruction of other points of view still believes that they are evolving. The joke is that their ego is unable to accept that other are also evolving from their own life experiences.

For me marketing textbook knowledge has nothing to do with marketing. When a student and professor learns textbook content (controlled by testing and research) they believe that they now know marketing. Even when life proves it false these devotees still maintain that they know marketing. Anyone that believes and professes that the 4 ps is marketing has not learned anything since World War I.
Marketing segmentation, targeting, and positioning have never existed.

Can we determine for ourselves in marketing what is a product and a service or do we have to listen to the monolithic understanding of a very few? The unattainable challenge for any customer is to attempt to understand what the monolith is saying and doing. We pretend to avoid ridicule, rejection, and a loss of status. The storytelling approach applying a poetic form to marketing allows humans to interpret in unique individual ways at any point in their lives. I have always thought I knew everything. When I learned more I then realized that I did not know everything in the past but now I really think I know everything. This is an endless human circle.

Inept marketing education and practice forces us to continue to verbalize meanings that were unable to move with us beyond the child stage of life. Current marketing separates us from the human growth from birth to death.
David

March 11, 2006
To David,
Thank you for an interesting reply.
Perhaps, the variation expressed in our communications might not be as large as you initially suggest. Polanyi (and I lean towards his ideas) would have it that explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge are not merely coexistent (as I indicated): They are coefficient in the mathematical sense and indivisible.

The Polanyi proposition holds tacit knowledge is super-glued to explicit knowledge. These two domains are inseparable, yet separate at an atomic level. Polanyi, I believe, would not permit explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge-based matrices (popular in KM theory), because explicit knowledge and tact knowledge are too intertwined.
Knowledge of the explicit laws of motion and balance would go very little way towards knowing how to ride a bicycle. For the successful bicycle rider, there is a tacit component. Marketing is the same.

Tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge co-efficiency would not be the same as an explicit knowledge meta-domain. Tacit and explicit knowledge are different categories of knowledge.

Are you saying no knowledge is tacit, because all knowledge is explicit knowledge and some explicit knowledge is innate?

Polanyis position is very close to your own, but not quite.

Different people know marketing in different ways, just as French and English viewers would likely have different takes on the film, Waterloo. Testing their knowledge against some external pre-existing standard would yield a measurement against that standard. Yet, as you suggest, if I am interpreting you correctly, the measurement doesnt test human knowledge agreed.

The cognitive content of tacit integration cannot be made explicit. It can only be lived, can only be dwelt in. All knowing is personal knowing participation through indwelling. (Polanyi) Herein, various people will hold and defend a position, personally. Defending the geocentric universe against Galileo was as much to do about a penchant towards theism as defending Science. When the Jesuits visited China, their scholars were perplexed that such a technologically advanced civilization did not appreciate the Earth was the centre of the Universe.

As one, who was a marketing practitioner, I could confidently argue to an academic collegiate that measuring (direct) product profitability, as a dependent variable reflecting product success, is thwart with risk. The Bank where I once worked ran Private Banking at a loss in the knowledge by pandering to Company Directors corporate accounts came its way. Toyota

Australia uses expensive Japanese consultants to offset high Australian operating profits, so taxes are paid in Japan. Pharmaceutical companies liberally apply transfer pricing. Just the same, in face of strong evidence against their practices, I am sure contributors to JM and JPIM will continue accept product profitability as kosher.
Perhaps, one is deemed radical, if too far away from the locus of your community of practice. Having exiled debate, old ways remain entrenched.

For me a marketing text is a box of potential tools, it is not marketing; no more than a "How to Sail" handbook is sailing. It is background, but it is not the practice. Herein, I guess the issue for educators is how to best simulate practice? Simulated practice requires the internalization, from which understanding flows outwards. The ability to read x-rays requires internalization and tacit skills. This case goes beyond the explicit.
In class, I complement textbooks (because of the curricula requirements) with structured walkthroughs (IBM training). Using guided parsing of topics, we critique examples and provide our own perspectives. We interpret against experience. The textbook is no Holy Grail.

The 4 Ps, segmentation, targeting and position are attempts to make a dynamic process mechanical. In the 1920s and 1940s, quantum physics challenged classical mechanics, wherein the idea of reducing everything to Newtons laws and atoms was challenged. Many notable scientists held fast to their ideas. If I understand correctly, you are now making a like challenge.

What you say about the child stage of life, fits in with Concrete Operational Thought (Piaget). The situation you describe, I think would neatly dovetail into mechanistic reasoning.|

Storey telling involves performance. Observers indwell in that performance. It is real to them. Interpreting Hamlet is the same as interpreting a marketing poem. It is a personal experience, which flows from the individual outwards.

Not only does interpretation of a performance change throughout our lives (say our understanding of Animal Farm); understandings change across lifetimes. Herein, I have a friend (PhD in Education), who is studying changes in interpretation of late authors works from when works were first written and until the present day. One could do the same with Marketing.

1. With the endless human circle of thinking, one knows it all and is found wanting, corrects, then, does know it all again, corrects, and so on

2. Polanyi contends we hold a commitment towards a truth to be confirmed at some indefinite time in the future.

The former view holds a direct commitment to truth. The latter view a commitment towards the truth. The former view of truth takes the form of Greek dialogue, where the Master has the last word (truth is revealed). A position challenged by Peter Abelard in twelve century: Truth is approached.

Can we determine for ourselves in marketing what is a product and is a service? Might I suggest, yes? Personal experience and tacit knowledge would direct that determination. That determination is personal. That personal determination is a commitment towards truth.

What of Marketing?

I see marketing as something of a Creole. It is not Economics, it is not Selling, it is not Sociology and it is not Manufacturing. Yet, all of these areas are its constituents. These constituents change or have greater or lesser influence across historical times and in different situations.

What if we are in an intellectual Interregnum?
What if Marketing is never born at all?
Peter Sinclair

3/12/06
To Peter
Suppose if I were to say to someone writing something that their thinking is a million miles from the truth. Their idea is totally misinformed and if what they are thinking is allowed to prosper it will destroy the truth of my thinking.

Even if we are talking about the exact same thing and we can agree we will both struggle to convince others that what we are saying is unique to our story.

Both of us are invested in our story. This is our investment of a life time. As long as resources are not plentiful and we both need the protection from other more hostel story holders we can work together.
This must also include a positive understanding of the other's story. Criticism must not follow. Questions must be viewed as honest attempts to learn and not to sabotage. These story truces are very fluid. Other story holder that profess similar views of our story are always ready to attack any external story relationship. I just came up with the idea yesterday "Some lies are worth following."

Each story has it interpreters, reasoning, and beginnings.

Any categorization of knowledge must fit within our held story. If it does not it will be ignored and if need be identified and attacked. For example my story of marketing has been ignored until last year and then the attack came. I have tried to hold off the attack as long as possible to build a body of knowledge.
The marketing story that is in power is set up so that no other story will have a chance to build a body of knowledge and followers. Journal articles.

What I am saying is that no knowledge and terminology that threatens the dominant story is ever allowed.
 
The idea of riding a bike from a storytelling view is that we see riding a bike as reinforcing and assuming our position in the story.

It has nothing to do with forms of knowledge but rather forms of story construction. Marketing is the same.

I would take the idea of the French and English down to each persons individual experience and their interpretation. The smart ones know that their is a normative answer. To give another answer will result in rejection. Failing the exam.

Entry into another story is difficult and requires great humility. As a childlike desire to learn.
This is what should be happening between you and me. I made a story mistake by sending this e-mail. My e-mail should only be directed at learning your story not bring my story forward. It is a barrier to my learning from you. You have a great deal to teach me so please do not consider that I do not want to learn.

Right now on c-span a young black college student is introducing Angela Davis. She made about 20 mistakes in her introduction. I am sitting here saying to myself that she should have practiced the presentation and not have appeared to be reading it for the first time. Then it hit me. My negative position is derived from a dominant held story. One that I do not follow or believe. My own belief is that the introduction should be smooth but appear to be spontaneous in the moment. It now make prefect sense to me that the student would not want to practice and read the introduction like an actress reading a script. To outside story holders the student would be viewed in a negative way. Perhaps it is true. But if her 20 errors are connected back to a spontaneous approach to life it looks far different. From one story she is a failure and from another she is on the right track.

All radicals are competing story holders.

The bank and Toyota etc. examples can be viewed from a storytelling point of view that the role of the corporation's story is to take advantage of weaknesses in any story to attain benefit. Benefits that support their story.

My own story does not believe in practice. It has to be real. Protected from a distance but perceived as real. Poem on website.

The idea of a text that is in a book is part of our story. For example Celtic philosophy would speculate that textbooks destroy the future. Christian reliance on the book.

I am going to look up and learn what you are saying about the 4Ps. Thanks.

When I talk of child like I am referring to the mythological and religious stories that see life as a story directed movement through stages.

Yes performance but all see it differently.

History is created to support the current story holders point of view. Disney's job.

My Ph.D. is also in Education. Instructional Design.

The idea of moving toward a future truth is from Christianity. Moving toward the truth that is Jesus. The idea of current truth and future truth is also Christian. If we die with current truth and have not yet attained further truth we still go to heaven.

As of this seconds we have not yet had a dialogue. The key to dialogue is that both parties must be open to change. This requires on my part a great deal of reading about what you are saying. My beginning story rational is that it will help me protect my story. The truth is that I always change my thoughts. This is not ego but experience.

The idea that marketing has anything to do with a product or service is a deception. Marketing is to protect and control products and services to assure that no product or service interferes with the dominant story elite.

From my definition of marketing as the end of protecting and supporting the elite it will not change.
The only challenge that marketing faces is if we want to remain relevant to the elite.

Our current position with the addition of Internet and the loss of two world competing powers has made what we are doing in marketing a liability to the social elite.

Market has already changed and it happened in the US Military. It is now called information warfare. Nothing to do with what we are saying or how we are structuring what we are saying is valued.

Information warfare is still directed at the dominance of the social elite.

The storytelling approach that I am interested in is an attempt to return to the ancient role of storytelling and allow for individual success during out entire lives. Defined as selfless giving back to others. Hence the poems because it moves with us.
 
The story has changed and the terms have changed to a new story. My own thought is that we will not have something called marketing in the near future. To my shock at my university we are now going to call marketing, communication marketing. The problem with communication marketing is still the same. Nothing will and has changed.

Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me. You are the first person in my life to do so.
I am putting our dialogue on my web page. If you want I will put your whole name.
David

March 15, 2006
To: David
Were some people to write propositions injurious to a mode of thinking, we can ask why are their world views of truth different?
Philosophy provides many approaches to support an analysis. Fairly early on we would need to address the truth can be known - truth is approached issue. Is truth a zero sum game? Can their truth and our truth legitimately co-exist? To the question of, What is Life? A complementarily exists between Physics and Biology (Bohr, Schrdinger and Delbruck in McKaugh): Even teleology's (Kant in McKaugh).
Were two points of view striving to say the same things in different ways perhaps it would be best for these parties to engage in a dialectic to achieve a synthesis, before taking-on other parties. Alternatively, triangulation by "cousins" can be employed towards non-kin.

Given we have invested time and effort in protecting and "validating" our understanding, we would be reluctant to change horses too readily:
We might see the dangers in serial validation based on an incorrect initial premise (Popper) or we might foresee social risk (in a collegial sense) in looking too closely... like Lucy in Peanuts, "Don't tell me... I might have to change the way I think!". Just the same, the "nail which stands out is hammered down" (Confucius). Do we want be nails? Is the cost worth the benefit? Perhaps, it is. 

For some, an accepted fallacy labeled as a truth can be a safer shell than a heretical truth. With the Nicene Council, we had competing stories. Had the outcome been different, hundreds of millions of story tellers would now advocating a different tale.
[Modifying Lakatos, my own position is that it is okay to hold two or more propositions concurrently. Herein, we might assign one proposition dominant and another as a degraded heuristic.]

Truces and Mutual Altruism can be very powerful indeed. In the 1937-1945 Sino-Japanese War, the Communists and Nationalists joined forces against Japan. Afterwards, they fought each other. Given the Taiwan situation the matter remains problematic still. Fusion would have been a better outcome. But fusion in academic disciplines is hard to achieve as the sinologist Joseph Needham noted. But fusion does occur sometimes. Biology and Chemistry are distinct disciplines, yet we also have biochem. 

[After three years of undergraduate Psychology, I studied Economics. I was set the assignment question, "Why do economists differ?". The Faculty were looking for a comparison between classical economics and Marxian economics. Naively, I took a behavioral sciences perspective. I as told by professor "A" (my tutor) it was a good original paper, but it was all too much for professor "B" (who marked the paper) and that professor "C" would encourage me to write a book. I had to rewrite the paper and resubmit. Lots of stories here. Venn diagrams come to mind, when we are trying to understand dialogue. I don't see a ball flying back-and-forth. I see interlocking circles with varying degrees of overlap. Is it best to nibble at the periphery of entrenched thought, rather than go full-on, if challenging a holy-of-holies?

Where "each story has it interpreters, reasoning, and beginnings" and with the Waterloo example, is it required we first internalize before we can interpret? I think we will interpret in our own way and build our own stories.

If colleagues are attacking a certain person rather than what they say, this is a logical fallacy, called, Argumentum Ad Hominem:
"argument that is directed against the man, rather than against what a man says, in order to show that what he says cannot be true." (Popkin)

Changes in paradigm (Kuhn) can be problematic. It is okay to defend one's position. But to maliciously attack another's thought is stifling. Progress requires accommodation and synthesis. Stories merge and new stories are created but the best stories require sincere engagement. 

David, I will need to truncate discourse and exit at this point, but will gladly return to the rest of your comment soon.
You are welcome to use my full name on your Web site.
Peter Sinclair

March 15, 2006
To Peter
World views are different because of individual and collective exposure and adherence to stories.
I have a good friend that is a professor of philosophy Dr. and he also believes that their is the possibility of finding a single truth.

I would think that the concept of truth is also represented through stories. The concept of physics and biology are totally different when they are placed within different stories. For example from a Christian, Buddhist, secular, and Shinto point of view they both change. May I say that truth is always our truth.
A dialectic is very difficult until each story is understood and followed by the other. Until we can both think within that story we are not capable of real dialogue.

I do not think we want to be the nail and get hammered down. We just are the nail and for many reasons we can disguise some but not all our relations to our story.

Even with the Nicene creed. I would speculate that no two people that read or say these words see then in anyway as the same. You and I could try this and share with each other. We could both take the position of what we believed to be the common understandings that people are to embrace. Not necessarily what we think about it.

As long as you will take the position of the degraded heuristic.

The fighting of the Chinese against the Japanese was in the interest of both Chinese stories. They both realized that if the Japanese won neither of the Chinese stories would survive. They had to work together to have the chance to fight each other.

I would speculate that Biochem is not a fusion of bio and chem. A new story has been created that takes particular ideas from both. I am speaking here of something that I really do not know anything about. It would be interesting to see if the BioChem now has separate journals and course programs. It could be something like a religion that is created from one or more religions. Christianity and Judaism may be another example. Within Judaism particular adherents refuse to acknowledge that other interpretation are Judaism.

I had the same experience in college when I tried to relate John Kennedy to Hector in a classics course. I got a C.

My own experience is that the Venn diagrams have some applications. What I am taking about is what I just heard that in Iraq many Sunnis and Shiites Moslems have married. This has no impact on the possibility of this leading to understanding by those who married within the faith.

Most story interpreters are not members of story holders. They are interpreted by the story elite. This is one reason people fight. They fight to protect their story against power. I have lived this. For example my Irish, English, and Christian heritage has little overlap with what is presented as American marketing academic and practice.

Yes the attacks are at the person for the holding of a different story. If we allow other stories to enter it puts our story at risk. For example there are very few Irish heritage males or females that are of Irish heritage in marketing education. This was determined by looking at the names in the AMA directory.
I would like to believe that new stories emerge. My own thought is that the story remains intact but the examples are changes to appear to be different. This is a hard idea for people. One has to speculate if a person were emerged in an Islamic, Jewish, or Christian family and community that they could develop a secular model that is different. My own thought is no, it still stays the same. For example the secular drive for one truth is derived from the Christian model of one immutable truth. The religious stories remains in tack. If it did not the Christians would have destroyed the academics long ago. Perhaps the time has come.

Have you heard the term Irish Catholic? I believe this is derived from a Celtic foundation that still remains and influences.
David

March 16, 2006
To Peter:
David Morris is many things. A lot more is on my website.

I would say that my interest in life is to learn new things. Almost anything. Then to combine and apply what I have learned.

As a student I never figured out what any class was trying to teach me. I never identified any structure. Every action was separate to me.

I started to take adult trade evening courses after I graduated with a MS in Instructional design. I longed to learn something that I could actually do something with. I wanted to learn something that someone would pay me to do. The first few trades I learned were very difficult. After about trade 3 or 4 trades I stared to see overlap. By trade 6 I saw them as the same. I could figure them other almost instantly if I could get access to knowledge. I thought that I was the only one in the world who had this experience. I saw it as a curse because no one would believe me.

I could not figure out why this was such a difficult concept. (It is because it is the story that counts not efficiencies.) I then figured out that I was just one of hundreds of millions. My Celtic heritage.
I decided to return to get my Ph.D. in Instructional Design working in the area of business and combining. When I finished they said to me that there were not too many jobs in business for Instructional Design at the time. I did not know what to do. One of my committee the dean of the school of business said to me why don't you go into marketing? Your dissertation is on sales persons and sales managers. Identifying that there are no differences between sales force A and B.

I changed my vita to emphasize the marketing aspects. Sent it to AMA. I got a call from Ireland that a marketing professor was supposed to come for a 3 month program and could not make it. They needed a professor with real world experience.

I went without ever taking a course in business and marketing. When I began to read the textbook I quickly found that marketing was poorly designed and made no sense. I had a great experience and learned a great deal in Ireland. Before I left for Ireland I got the job at UNH.

When I returned I dedicated myself to designing and teaching my students marketing in a way that made sense. I took a look at marketing education and believed that I was so far away that it was best to keep rather quite. This was also best to follows in my own university to just focus on my students.
I experimented every semester with the idea of trying to help more students to succeed in marketing. I will not say that I was somehow a great success but I worker at it always.

I got depressed about 5 years ago after a divorce. It is extremely debilitating. Everyone was kind and helpful to me and I slowly worked my way out.

Just as I started out a new president came to the University. At first I thought that all my work would now be valued. My belief is I was a target because I had not done too much publishing over the last few years. I had a degree out of field. I was a different type of professor.

A campaign started against me for not teaching marketing. They said that they wanted to assure that the textbook was the foundation of marketing education. Their plan was to force textbook use and then compare my students to the textbook devotees using textbook exams. This was irrelevant it was just a search to bring back my depression. I will put it all on my website and invite them to put their position forth.

I said nothing and began to research to show the amazing problems with textbook and marketing instruction as a story with no value.

They continued to work at all kinds of ways to sabotage me with my students and push me back into depression. If you look at my page on discourse with opposing ideas you will see.

The president called for an outside objective assessment of the university. I knew at that time what was meant by objective. I saw this as part of a national master plan to destroy education and eliminate professors.

Long before the consultants came I made a compilation of what I thought they would say for probably hundreds of thousands of dollars. It took me about two hours.. I looked up the consulting firm on the Internet and found that they had a particular world view that always had the same findings and solutions. They always were very pro president and negative toward faculty. They wanted to reduce faculty and staff by high percentages. I plant to put this on my website.

When their objective report came out with great fanfare and administration was shocked and this was now a justification for them to take immediate actions.

I got up in a meeting and suggested that the consultants were ideologues. I also suggested that I had written the report in a few hours and sent it to myself long before they came.

I emailed it to everyone. Not a word of response from anyone. Everyone knew. The president in my view continued to come after me through others. My colleagues were happy it was not them.

The university offered a retirement program and I thought if I did not take it I would be fired for breach of contract. I thought I could win but I also knew it would cost a great deal of money that I did not have. I was also aware that they would say and do anything.

I have to thank them for their behavior toward me. I began to work very hard again. This time on my website. I was not the issue but they thought I was an easy target. I also thank them for coming for me in the beginning and having a good retirement program. I knew that others that followed me would have far more pain. It seems to be coming true.

This is what has come to my mind. I am not disappointed and will continue to work hard to help others. I am not bitter and as a matter of fact I never believed that I should be immune to pain in life.
I also see other that inflect pain as part of the process of life. I try not to do the same. We are all just living out our story wars.
David