Neuroscience Plasticity and Storytelling.
Dialogue With Different Views of My Work.
Factual But Not Truthful.
Marketing and Storytelling Award.
Discussion Page.
Linear Game Theory and Nonlinear Thinking
Marketing and Storytelling Links.




1996 - 2008


A long time ago and a short time ago. In a place both near and far away.

See If You Can Figure This Out

From The Perspective of

Different Stories?

Photo of David Morris Teaching in Russia




E-mail Your Contributions and Responses to Me. I just do not like open discussion pages. Advertisers put on junk that is hard to erase.

The marketing of textbooks and journals have cut off, controlled, and dumbed down all professors. The economic success of three international textbook conglomerates has given them the resources and access to expand into all aspects of university life. Internal discussions within academic disciplines about content is just not allowed and swiftly punished by university administrators.

As the government continues to cut back support for universities the American middle class student will continue to be sold to the highest bidders. There is just too much money to be made by the private sector off of our university students.

We are no longer cost effective as professors in a mass produced mass marketed education. It is far easier to control a society that is trained in math and science than educated in the classics. The social elite and a few exceptionally gifted people will continue to be given an education as long as they support the dominant story.

I ask that you do not slander anyone and keep your writing and other communication forms diplomatic.

Dialogue David Morris and J D
Back To Top

I have edited by taking out things that are not directly related to the discussion.

David Morris Wrote
Mar 1 07


You must be correct. Take a look at Chalmers Johnson talking about his new book Nemesis on Democracy Now a few days ago. He seems to agree with me on the point about military power. Chalmers and I differ in that I have hope that the military will adjust and maintain their moral foundations making the best decision for our country and its long term values. Their previous model was focused to face the Russians.

Let me know if Russ Ackoff responds. I would be very surprised if he did. His application of only secular Western philosophy to come to a philosophy of combining is disappointing and unfortunate for our nation. I am also not trying to get him to change his mind. Not even to recognize the limitations of his life's work. I am sure he knows this and does not need me to say anything. I simply wanted him to help you with interpreting his work in a broader or different context.

I have also read his work and I am positive he has not read mine. I would not encourage him to do this because his views are most likely set.

Keep in touch when you have questions.


J Wrote

Feb 28 07

Prof. DM,

It would seem that your worldview furnishes an apology, in the sense of a formal justification or defense, for the 'negative consequences' of business. In other words, inasmuch as they are perpetrated in the name of a 'higher good', i.e. national defense, they are inevitable/tolerable. I maintain this (business subservient to military worldview) is not the dominant interpretation, at least not in more learned circles and, although plausible, is not factual. The difference is far from trivial. I also furnished two book references and fifteen videos (approx. 10 hours of online video footage) depicting a 'big picture' for your scrutiny. So, I do have a coherent system, based on documented material, on which to base my interpretation of the most salient elements to account for, which does also have sufficient explanatory power. On the contrary, you have not put forth anything similar. Therefore, I do not have more to say on this topic, except perhaps a methodological criticism on your approach, if you are interested. In my opinion, in fact, your stance also seems to be an apology, if not an outright promotion, of what is sometimes referred to "blue-pill syndrome."

Many thanks for your time and concern.

David Morris Wrote

Feb 27 07

You think I am talking about you? I have tried to inform you I am not talking about you. I am talking about a story that you are attempting to support and put forth. I am attempting to point out that followers of stories including me are simply repeating a world view. I am also aware that other followers of competing stories will accuse outside story holders of things that have nothing to do with their actual world view. Hence your supposed fears of a society where my hypothesis is suggesting that business is driven from military requirements is somehow flawed. You seemed to be suggesting that no society can remain moral from this perspective. I would say that the education and philosophies put forth by the US military leadership is also aware of potential misuse. So far in my view since we became a nation they have done a good job of directing their resourced to protect the nation and its values. To see the military back away from such complete power after World War II is one of the most selfless acts in human history.

As far as my debating abilities I am only a student.

J wrote

Feb 26, 07

Prof. DM,

Hi. I don't like to quarrel either. However, I keep getting the impression that you jump to conclusions about me and then constructing arguments against what you perceive to be my characterizing features. That tends to hamper a discussion on the issues. I do not take offense, but I hope you don't mind if I keep to the matters at hand.

I am sorry I haven't been able to read your material, but I have watched your videos. My interest is on the issue I raised. For your info I have copied the text of the message I sent to Russ Ackoff (see below). Once he's been invited into the discussion, I thought it necessary to inform him. Thanks.

Dear Prof. Russ Ackoff,

Greetings again from Sicily. I thank you for your very kind reply to my note of February 12th. I am writing also to make known to you a discussion I have had with a professor of Marketing and International Business, Prof. David J. Morris at New Haven U. In brief, he decided to post on his website part of the exchange I had been having with him. As it were, I happened to mention I have been in contact with several thought leaders, scholars, editors etc. among whom yourself.

Well, he took a very critical stance on his (mis) interpretations of your ideas and systems thinking. Finally, he 'challenged' you to a debate, indirectly. I expressed my opinion that he was not very familiar with your teachings, as his criticism centered on what, in his view, was the defect, namely "linear thinking" (with consequent inability to deal with non-linearity). He added that total reliance on mere Western ("Enlightenment") philosophy, and lack of influences of Eastern culture in systems thinking represented another flaw in its underpinning. I have summarized these points pertaining to you, but I refer you to the webpage (see link n.1 of attachment) for a more complete account.

I would guess you have better things to do than reply to every single critic, so I would not have even mentioned this exchange had the discussion not gone public. He didn't even ask my consent to post.

However, at this stage I feel obliged to make you aware of your involvement, albeit indirect. If you see the webpage you might agree that Prof. Morris is not the most sophisticated of debaters (at least not by my standards). However, I watched his video series on Marketing and Storytelling and found them interesting. What bothered me about them was that he had an interpretation of the relative importance of business and military that was contrary to what seemed to me as given knowledge. Moreover, his worldview struck me as being 'dangerous', because his reasoning was plausible and thus provided an ethical justification for a higher good (i.e defense of the country and national self-preservation).

Thereupon, I asked him to back up his take with something, while providing my own documents for his scrutiny.

All the links sent to him are included in the attached document (for your info).

I think the 'big picture' coming out of this work-up has significant explanatory value that I would hope does not go unnoticed by you. Of course, I haven't forgotten your description of the volume of material you regularly are called to metabolize -- and there are several hours of video documentation in these links. Yet, I am hoping you might consider perhaps delegating the chore of investigating them, or save them for future reference.

Please do not hesitate to ask for further info should it be necessary. Thanks for your very kind attention.
All the best,

P.S. I have had to resend as message with attachment couldn't get through. If you are interested, please let me know how to send. The link to above mentioned webpage is:

David Morris Wrote
Data: 26-feb-2007 20.49


It is better to not be sucked into a fight or disagreement where the other's ego is derived from the child stage of self is at risk. It is better to attempt to take the subservient role as the teacher. Part of my Theory W. When ego is so great and the person has power to act upon that ego all others are in harms way. The King wanted to be number one at all costs in all things. The Chieftain was not their to fight but just visit and help, when asked. He quickly realized that it all was and would be just one way (the Kings) self at that time. He let the King go and express himself and remain trapped in his own knowledge or stage of life. In mythic terms the King was stuck in a childlike stage of life. He was not ready to hear the call of the next step in our development as a person. From this experience he has gained the Knowledge of how to help the King when he is ready. Until then he would leave. Leaving would be the best way to have the King begin to think about his future.

Forget about the masters and read the book by Joseph Campbell, The Hero With a Thousand faces. I was aware of all this you are trying to inform me about 40 years ago. You are on the path. Enjoy your journey.

Someday you will look at my work as I have yours.


J Wrote
Wisdom entails knowing when to speak... and when to listen. Please see attachment.

David Morris Wrote
25-feb-2007 6.49


This is an exact example of what I am talking about to you. If you get it you will understand what I am saying. Please be honest and write down how you interpreted this poem. When you send this to me I will not look at what you wrote before I tell you what I wanted to get across as the poet.

If you do not do this exercise I have failed you as your teacher.


2/23/07, David Morris wrote

Celtic Circle: Chieftain

In Erin there lived the greatest Chieftain of all the clanns;
he could never be defeated in battle;
it was said that the gods had given him the gift of strategy.

One day while the Chieftain was visiting the King of a far off land;
the King asked him which of them was the foremost strategist;
the Chieftain answered that he was just a student.

The King then taught the Chieftain;
all that he knew about strategy;
the Chieftain continued on his journey.

David Morris


David Morris Wrote::


Thanks for the email.

I believe I gave you the answer.

I also believe that our dialogue is exactly what I am talking about. If I am interpreting your think correctly.

I made an inductive statement based on my story.

I am interpreting that your story is premised on a contest of ideas.

Two ideas are brought forth and each person either takes a position derived from their beliefs or they are assigned a position.

There is then some kind of arbiter that decides who is correct.

The so called looser in good faith must admit defeat.

Everyone then lives happily ever after.

Now if one person does not want to loose or has not changed their views what is next? Are they unsportsmanlike?

What if the determined winner is not graceful in so called victory? What next?

So where does that leave the discussion?

So is it possible for someone to incorporate the position of another?

Only by a real master strategist.


I am putting these emails on my web page.

Go to my other web site and read the poem about the Celtic warrior. I forgot the title. I will figure it out and send it to you in a few seconds.

February 21, 2007 4:28
David Morris Wrote

I understand your reluctance I had the same challenge.

Ponder this. If your wish to allow combinations then how do you advise that people can work together.

Current division of labor goes back to Roman warfare. Before that to division of labor in the hunting tribes. Unfortunately the current war is a battle of western systems thinking against the nonlinear. We get mad when they adjust.

They are not playing by our rules. It is painful for me to see. I would like to help the US military to understand and adjust. As I have said they are the best chance for our survival. This is well known by our enemies of the past.

What you are suggesting has always been here but not for the masses.

Ask Russ Ackoff. How could he come up with an incorporating approach from just Western Enlightenment philosophy? It is a joke professed by a linear master.

Ask him how the concept of Dependent Origination fits into his views. If you like you can tell him that I suggested these questions. He does not know me. I would be happy to debate him anytime in a public forum. Have no fear he knows what he has done.

Also ask yourself and these so called system theory people how can they profess combining and then ask for and present evidence derived from separating.

This goes back to your desire for empirical evidence when you first contacted me. As long as you keep asking this question you are trapped in the linear.

Feb 20, 2007
John Wrote
Thanks for your intriguing message. I'll take your advice and reflect on your comments in order to come up with something meaningful, if I can. I'm glad you're familiar with systems thinking and I hope you've noticed the brief introductory section on the topic in my attached paper (see attachment)

I'm convinced one's mind (brain) becomes uniquely geared for 'synthesis' (in system thinking terms) around this time.

So, I haven't had teachers (in the sense of mentors) for years now and have been totally independent. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say I have learned from many (through their writings and resources).
Best wishes

Feb 20, 2007
David Morris Wrote


Thanks for your e-mail. I have been alone with my ideas for a long time. I know Russ Ackoff. He is the teacher of two people I know well. I have heard him talk. In my view he is a good talker but he has no real understanding of systems theory. This is because he is philosophically still linear. He has no understanding of the nonlinear. I would guess that this is also true of the other experts. No one gets to a position of power in Western academics without being linear.

I have stayed away from the Russ Achoff's of the world and did not attempt to clarify my ideas to them. They cannot and will not understand. They will just incorporate and change them. This concept is also part of my philosophy. If you believe they are such creative people with a real interest and your ideas and you have them use their influence and get you an academic job as a professor at a major world university.

I am happy you have contacted me.

Anyway what are you interested in learning specifically? Just ask me and I will help you.

What do you want to show me to receive feedback and advice?
Are you telling me that you have figured out a way to cross over thinking from one thing to another? How much of my work you actually read? My advice is to spend some time and see what you would like me to do to help you. If I can I will.
All the best,

John Wrote
Feb 2007

Dear Prof. David Morris,

Hello. I am an independent researcher (in medicine and health services). I have seen your videos and I found them quite interesting and informative.

With reference to the July 14th 2006 talk you invited e-mails on the topic of whether marketing is actually the determining factor of successful government-supported industries. I agree with your take on that point, but I think there's a more crucial feature in the order (ie hierarchy) in which you consider things. You seem to uphold that business serves the interests of the military. Most scholars I have read or heard argue it is the other way around. This is not a trivial difference. I would prefer your vision of things, but am skeptical. I would appreciate knowing any hard facts that stand behind your convictions, if my inferences are correct. Many thanks for your kind


Need help, wish to submit or comment.

"Our role in a story that we would choose is rarely given." DM