Beach Haven

At the end of June, I was able to help the Stake YM Presidency run a two day Aaronic Priesthood Encampment. Because of COVID we were asked to keep the camp local to prevent a long drive. We were also asked to make the camp a series of day-camps to eliminate overnight tent camping. So we did. We managed to offer two long days that included canoeing/kayaking, rifle/shotgun shooting, archery, geocaching, service projects, and competitions. At the end of the first night, each ward met separately and the bishops had time to hold a fireside discussion with their own youth. On the second night, the stake presidency came to camp and offered an inspirational fireside for the entire camp. We had nearly 200 campers including youth and leaders. As far as I can tell the boys enjoyed the camp. The front room in our home holds a number of lost-and-found items.

For camp we focused on the 2021 youth theme: A Great Work.

Doctrine and Covenants 64: 33-34

• 33 Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great.
• 34 Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days.
  

There certainly are many ideas to unpack here. ‘Be not weary’ speaks to my experience from time to time. We each need to find a balance to keep being about His work ‘in well-doing’ without burning out. ‘Out of small things’ feels like a fair description of me and my efforts. We tried to stress to the young men that we are the small things bringing about a great work, but we ourselves are the great work. Our immortality and eternal life is God’s ‘work and glory’.

The idea of a ‘willing mind’ is close to my personal thoughts. From my limited perspective, our personal will is the only thing we have that is truly our own. Everything else we have, including our agency, is a gift from Heavenly Father. Our will is our own. Everything else we might ‘sacrifice’ would be only returning to God that which He gave to us in the first place. For example, our time is measured. We have no idea how much we have in this short life, but we know it will eventually end. Our money we earn, but only by using the gifts of health, personal talents, the political and economic environment we live in, and the culture we are raised in as a few examples. Agency is another area to consider. There was a time that I thought of my agency as mine, but actually my agency has been given to me. We all have agency, but with limitation imposed by both earthly and heavenly powers. Our choices with the agency given to us often removes future agency. Every person sitting in prison has much less freedom to exercise agency than those of us not in that circumstance. People whose choices led them to physical or mental health issues have lost some agency as well.

I’m sure each of us can gain much more from a study of these two verses. One note about an experience that brought me some pleasure at camp. The events were held at two separate locations, The Accakeek Sportsman Club, and the Virginia Outdoor Center. Aside from participating in activities, the youth participated in service projects at both locations. Staff and leaders of both places repeatedly told us how impressed they were at the way the boys acted during the event, and how well they worked during the service portion of camp. It was clear the boys’ actions spoke to camp staff. They were doing very good missionary work. All the staff from both facilities understood what our organization is and which church we are a part of. 
​

My aunt Marqueen Kitta joined the church a few years ago, a short time after my mother, her sister, passed away. Marqueen has a wonderful conversion story, but it is her's to share. I learned the whole thing not from her but from Caden Judd. He was one of the missionaries who helped teach and eventually baptize her. Caden went with us to the temple. As it turns out, he was working in the Virginia Beach area for the summer so we shared a ride to Philadelphia. His missionary companion was Brigham Taylor who was also able to join us in the temple. He and his father visited his brother in New York City, then drove south to join us. My sister Lisa was also able to fly out from Utah to be there. Marqueen was joined by a sizable group from the Berwick Ward where she attends church. We were sixteen people in all.

Because of the pandemic, it has been more than a year since my wife and I have been able to step foot into The House of the Lord. We of course have attended church in our local chapel, but the temple is unique for its sacredness. As Marqueen made covenants in the ordinances, I had the privilege to act on behalf of her husband, Uncle Joe, who died some time ago. Later she was sealed to Joe, then to her parents, my grandparents. Finally, Joe was sealed to his parents. The previous generation’s work had already been done by my mother before she passed away two years ago.

Attending the temple is always a wonderful, sacred experience. In the temple one is much more open to promptings of the Spirit, at least I find that true for me. I think that is because it is a set apart space reserved completely for making sacred covenants, and we were there to give service for those who cannot make covenants for themselves. For me this is the epitome of acting as saviors on mount Zion. Likewise, when we go to the temple, we go setting aside worldly things. That attitude alone puts us closer to God.

My wife and I have some fairly large and looming decisions we are weighing. We entered the temple believing we had the answer to at least one of the questions about our future. Both of us were comforted in the temple that we had made the right decision. We also were able to articulate for ourselves remaining questions, and a plan to follow as well to clarify the answers in order to seek additional confirmations.
​
How blessed we were to be invited to join Aunt Marqueen at the precise time we were feeling inspired to make some of these decisions about our future. It is yet another testimony to me that God is in the details of our life whether we recognize or acknowledge it or not. He wants to help us if we will let Him.  

Ihde, Don. 2009. "A Phenomenology of Technics." In Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 76-97. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

In Don Ihde’s work A Phenomenology of Technics, he proposes three specific variants describing the relationship of humans with the world by way of technology. One central argumentative claim Ihde proposes is that humans have no relationship with the world except in relation with technology.

If interaction with the world involves anything manipulated by humans beyond the natural naked body, and one considers everything manipulated by humans beyond the natural naked body as technology, then Ihde has a point. He seems to contend that anything manipulated in order to shield one from the elements, or extend natural human ability is technology. There could be an argument made against such an assumption in that a natural part of humans is an intellect that leads to the creation of shielding or ability-extending devices.

Ihde claims that as technology becomes less demanding, less interactive, then it becomes a lesser part of human life. What about when we are not using more demanding tech? What about any tech at all when not viewed as separate from who or where we are? Could the human-technology-world relationship variants include another where the parentheses encompasses all three? Is there a time when people don’t view the world through tech or as tech, but rather humans and tech and the world are all wrapped into one, not separate? If people see themselves immersed in both technology and the world, they perhaps see themselves as integrated with both (like a fish in water?). In this view, whatever shape the tech and the world have become in a person’s individual life, the relationships are not separate. For example, a person is hiking the Appalachian Trail and simultaneously checking their position on a GPS map (or paper map for that matter). In some ways the person is experiencing nature through the hiking clothes, the trail, the map, the GPS, and the smart phone with the map and GPS. At the same time, they are out in nature, and taking in the sights, sounds, smells, and textures.  Does that mean that the person has a relationship with the natural world and the socially-constructed world separately at the same time?

In May I had a speaking assignment in the Garrisonville Ward as one of my duties on the Stake High Council. The stake presidency asked those of us speaking this month to address the following:

Doctrine & Covenants 50:24
"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day".

There are so many areas related to this scripture. I have thought about the idea of light for many years. The specific angle they have asked us to address related to this scripture is this:

Our Stake President characterized the speaking assignment topic as:

• "Staying away from the fringes" relative to church doctrine. The topic is intended to remind members of the safety that comes from a study of the doctrine in the standard works, messages in various forms from modern day prophets and other inspired church leaders.  You have the flexibility to present the topic as dictated by the spirit. As you see fit, it would be good to remind members to seek inspiration from the Lord when there are questions, and local church leaders as needed.

I have often thought of this issue as well. Over the years I have seen many members get attached to what I call their ‘pet topic’. I’m all for continued study, swimming deeply in the doctrines of Christ. In fact, just this past general conference we heard encouragement from President Nelson to face challenges through learning and faith. He said:

• Your mountains may be loneliness, doubt, illness, or other personal problems. Your mountains will vary, and yet the answer to each of your challenges is to increase your faith. That takes work. Lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith.
  

At times I wonder if I am a ‘lazy learner’. Adding light onto light will cause our knowledge to grow. So how to reconcile these two ideas of adding knowledge without being overly focused on some specific obscure matter of doctrine? Esoteric ideas may seem interesting, and may help to fill what we perceive as areas of weakness within our understanding. Here is the caution I guess that strikes me. As I listen to the prophets and apostles, and review typical lesson material published by the church, topics tend to be focused on the essential saving doctrines and principles of the gospel. Why is that? I would argue it’s because we are all at different places in our building of line-up-line, precept-upon-precept. Our personal learning journey is different than the journeys of others. God teaches each of us in the language and timing that is best for us individually. I would argue, that’s why in group settings we keep to the essential saving doctrines and ordinances. It keeps us grounded in common truth, and the Spirit is able to touch our hearts.

Another thing I have noticed over the years is how sometimes people expounding what they perceive as ‘deeper’ understanding can at times appear to do so in a form of self-aggrandizement. Perhaps I see it in others because I myself need to be careful not to share in order to display some sort of self-perceived ‘greater wisdom’. In my case it’s more likely self-delusional. When this approach happens, say in a Sunday School class, it can lead to confusion or even conflict. I’d guess this to be true for one or both of two reasons. It may be that the ideas are correct, but not everyone has been led down the same instructive path as the sharer. As I mentioned earlier, God teaches each of us in a way and time that is best for us, and our individual paths of learning are not identical. Our knowledge base will be different, not greater or lesser, just different. The other reason confusion may enter this sort of conversation could be because the Spirit won’t testify if either the ideas are wrong, or the person speaks with poor intent.

I believe personal gospel perspective can be categorized in at least three groups (there are likely more): doctrine and principles, tradition, or personal speculation. Sometimes we may be tempted to mix these up, confuse one for another. General church leaders always speak from doctrine and principles. Tradition can include how we do things. Personal speculation, though perhaps coming from a place of wanting to understand, yet may still be just that, speculation.

Light itself is truth, and opens our eyes to (illuminates) other truth. Life is short. We can be best strengthened by basic truths that are essential for making and keeping saving covenants. We are best strengthened by truths that grow faith. I believe we should gain as much light as we can, but be willing to trust Heavenly Father enough to accept we don’t need to learn everything in this life, nor are we capable of doing so. I recognize the tension between these ideas of increasing light while not putting our energy into topics that, though interesting, are not critical to salvation and exaltation.

2 Nephi 9
28. O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29.  But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

I guess what I’m trying to say is we should seek guidance from the Spirit in how to spend our precious learning time. Why we learn is just as important as what we learn. Let us do all things for the glory of God. In the Beach family motto, knowledge is only one of the three requirements for gaining wisdom.

Early in April was not only Easter, but also the Sunday of general conference for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thanks to technology we were able to simultaneously attend despite distance and time difference. This wasn’t true for me when I was serving a proselyting mission. I was in southern Spain in 1982 and 1983. There was no internet. On conference weekend we had no local meetings, but also could not listen to, much less watch, general conference. We had to wait a month or so when a Spanish version of church magazines arrived in the homes of some local members who were able to share. While that sounds at least partially promising, in reality we simply didn’t get access to conference materials while in the mission. Now, my normal approach to conference is to watch it live on the Internet, then over the interim six months between conferences I listen to the talks one at a time. When they come all at once there is a strong spirit, but I think I miss much of the meaning. Reviewing them individually over time helps me gain more insight. 

Following that process, in March I was listening to President Russel M. Nelson’s message titled Embrace the Future with Faith. In part of that talk the prophet referred to Captain Moroni from The Book of Mormon. President Nelson reminded us how in times of peace Captain Moroni continued to help the people to prepare against future military conflict with the Lamanites. “Even when things went well, Captain Moroni continued to prepare his people. He never stopped. He never became complacent. The adversary never stops attacking. So, we can never stop preparing! The more self-reliant we are—temporally, emotionally, and spiritually—the more prepared we are to thwart Satan’s relentless assaults".

I remember taking a Philosophy 101 course as an undergraduate so many years ago. The professor expressed disdain for religion because of its ‘other-worldliness’. Essentially, his beef was that we 'religious people' don’t make good ethical or moral decisions because we are not focused on the here-and-now. We make decisions based on some future expected outcome. Instead of ‘fixing’ issues in front of us, he argued, we are willing to suffer and allow suffering because we hope someday God will make it all better later. That may be partially true, but this line of thinking defines a false dichotomy. It assumes actions taken can only have immediate effect or later effect. Even if this line of reasoning acknowledges present and future effects, the position is that we who are making these decisions are only thinking about this life or the next. 

Interestingly enough, similar thoughts are expressed in several of the Star Wars movies as Yoda teaches Jedi principles to several apprentices. From The Empire Strikes Back Yoda refers to Luke while speaking to the ‘spirit’ Obiwan, “A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind. This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away…to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing.” Modern philosophical schools might refer to this idea of being in the present by the word mindfulness. Yet despite this focus on the present, Yoda expresses a need to make decisions. He concedes we are each in charge of our future through decisions we make today. In Star Wars Rebels he says, “Your path you must decide.” To make a decision, by definition, implies consideration of a future outcome. Again in Star Wars Rebels Ezra asks “Which is the right way?” Yoda’s answer? “The wrong question that is.” He explains how the journey is to decide.

My experience is that the gospel is all about deciding now for immediate circumstances, and understanding that one must look ahead. How do we do that? For me, the long-term is more about a way to live, a mindset. The immediate decisions are about navigating present circumstances (not ignoring them), but those decisions are also guided with our long-term goals in mind. In this way we can be both mindful, in the present, and guided by an eternal perspective. Referring again to the ideas of that professor, I take issue with his false dichotomy that one cannot simultaneously think of both the present and future in making decisions. His perspective is clearly atheistic. In fact he specifically stated such. I get it then. If one believes, as he did, that when we die we simply cease to exist, then there is no incentive to contemplate beyond the handful of years we have here in this short slice of time. In that form of philosophy we should be moral only because we all benefit when we all live a moral life. If we all agree not to hurt one another than each is protected from others. This is morality in the present for personal present benefit, not for present benefit and benefit in the world to come. It assumes that all our motivation is selfish. We look for immediate or post-mortality reward, and this is our only motivation. What a pessimistic view! In President Nelson’s quote above there is the consideration of immediate action by an adversary, Lucifer. If one does not consider that ever-present threat, then one is ignoring the present, not responding to it. 

Our hoped-for motivation should be less about self-benefit, and more about love. My favorite section of scripture is 1 Corinthians 13. This chapter defines charity which is the pure love of Christ. The pure love of Christ is our pure love toward Christ, and our pure love toward others like the love of Christ toward us. Charity is not about what actions we take, but rather about our motivation. Verse 11: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” Our philosophy professor friend assumed self-centered motivation. Does that not seem like a childish way of thought? Let us put aside childish things. Let us be motivated by love. Let us keep in mind both the present and the long-term future. Let us be both mindful of the world where we now are, and other-worldly as we consider eternity. 

​

Vallor, Shannon. 2015. "Moral Deskilling and Upskilling in a New Machine Age: Reflection on the Ambiguous Future of Character." Philosophy of Technology (28): 107-124.

Shannon Vallor links the use of automation through technology with a loss of ‘traditional’ moral values in the form of moral deskilling. I wonder if really the phenomenon is less about moral deskilling, and more about moral reskilling. Does an adjustment of morals exist with any technology, not just those described as ‘new’ or ‘automation’? Here is what I mean. There exists an argument from the likes of popular personality Mike Rowe which says that working with one’s hands is just as valuable as working with one’s mind (https://www.mikeroweworks.org/). This version of the Vallor argument is about equal value. For Rowe, value is linked to individual pay, but also a kind of mindset, a work ethic. I’ve heard a more snobbish version of the argument pro and con intellectual (or information-based) professions or the craft trades in which people take the position that one is more noble or important than the other.

The question that Vallor brings to the fore a number of times throughout the article is about what technology does with us, not just what it does for us. She argues in favor of a technomoral in that technology and character are not separate spheres. Whether one takes either the extreme position of one work ethic is more important than others, or the Mike Rowe position that the ethics are different but equally important, both of these perspectives is an agreement with Vallor on the co-shaping influence of a technomoral. Can differing technomorals coexist in society? To Vallor’s point, that would depend on how one defines society. 
​

Light, Andrew. 2009. "Ecological Restoration and the Culture of Nature: A Pragmatic Perspective." Chap. 30 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 452-467. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

What is Included in Philosophy?

In his article, Andrew Light focuses on the philosophical niche of environmentalism. His main argument is that philosophy should take a role informing activists, policy makers, and the public at large on ecological issues. “If we talk only to each other about value theory, we have failed…” (p. 453). To support this strong statement, Light argues from the specific perspective of ecology. Can such a normative pronouncement be generalized to other niche areas of philosophy, or even to philosophy in general?

In order to plead support for philosophical activism, Andrew Light examines the specific controversy of ecological restoration. The controversy is a normative should question. Should humanity invest in projects intended to restore ecosystems that have been changed through human activity? He examines positions by philosophers such as Robert Elliot and Eric Katz who are against any restorative attempts on several grounds; we have neither obligation nor ability, and any attempts yield artifacts not nature.

Light argues in favor of what he calls ‘benevolent restoration’ on a number of grounds. He notes how even an imperfect restoration can free nature to grow and replace itself where man starts the process. Without any effort by humans, nature often cannot replace itself in damaged areas except with maybe something completely different than what once was. He calls this catalyst approach ‘intermediate communication’. Light further points to how such attempts at restoration tend to restore a culture of nature, if not nature itself. This last point seems similar to Bruno Latour’s position that when a human actor and a technological actant join, it can result in something entirely different than either inter-actor would create on its own. Light calls this interaction “firsthand exposure… to the actual consequences of human domination of nature” (p. 464).
​

This line of reason by Light is persuasive to one who may already be inclined to support ecological issues, but doesn’t actually make the case of why philosophy should do more than contemplate. For example, is sharing philosophical perspective with activists, policy makers, and the public more akin to scientific communications than philosophy?

Here in Virginia the weather has been vacillating between too-cold-for-an-old-guy-like-me, and perfect-for-an-afternoon-jog-or-a-little-yard-work. Sometimes at night we get clear skies that make for perfect star-gazing so long as the wind isn’t blowing enough to make the crisp night air feel more like bone-chills. This is the time of year when Mother Nature can’t seem to make up her mind. They say it’s all about the jet stream. Recently my wife and I were able to make the trek over to Solomon’s Island were we keep our little sailboat. We needed to change out two mooring lines that were excessively chafed. While we were there we did a few other maintenance requirements. It was nice to get a few hours on the water, even if we were just tied up to the dock.

In March I filled a church assignment by speaking in the young single adult (YSA) congregation. It was a nice change of pace for me. I’ve worked with youth for so many years. We always tell the youth that they would be making the most important decisions of their lives in just a few years. For the YSA members, they are making those decisions now. Decisions about missionary service, career paths, marriage, and whether they will choose to hold onto the light they have gained up to this point, or allow the ‘wisdom of man’ to sway them.

This question of whose wisdom we should aspire is an important one to me. I’ve had many thoughts and experiences over decades that have brought clarity around issues of ‘fact’ and issues of ‘truth’. I find it interesting that the current academic field of study I’m pursuing puts a great deal of focus on these concepts as to their forms, or even their existence. There are so many ways to think about the arguments. There is no way to really do these ideas justice in such a short format as this blog post. I find it so interesting that schools or disciplines in science and engineering claim solidity in either or both ideas (facts and truth), yet ultimately reach so many differing conclusions that the variability of support for and against ‘established’ facts, and the supposed truth they lead to, are left suspect. This variability in itself puts in question why anyone would stand firmly behind conclusions that directly contradict truth revealed by way of the Spirit. Let me give you just a few examples of what I mean.

Scientific and engineering disciplines seek to define ‘truth’ in a very specific way. Its practitioners (I am among them by the way) will argue that it starts with data (facts). It really doesn’t though. It really starts with a question, followed by a hypothesis, then the design of an experiment, then the carrying out of that experiment, then an interpretation of the data the experiment produces, then a depiction of the interpretation. At every step of the way a human is making decisions about how to do something, as well as what to leave in, and what to leave out. We call this deciding what is relevant. The human is communicating all of this to other humans. Each human looks at the information and process along the way slightly differently. Eventually, by convention, experts generally agree on what the facts are. Assemble enough agreed upon facts and one has evidence. Assemble enough agreed upon evidence and one has proof. Assemble enough agreed upon proof and one has truth. Sadly, the road along this method is riddled with facts, evidence, proof and truths that with subsequent similar effort prove to be neither facts nor truth. I know what we immediately derive from this. That means such a method is self-correcting. Yes it is, so long as the later correction is closer to truth than the previous version. Since we don’t have absolute truth to compare the outcomes of our effort to, we can never really be absolutely sure with this method.

I use two tools to explain. These tools are really the same tool described from opposite perspectives. They both address variability. If you are a mathematical person, you might wonder where the magic wand of a ‘constant’ comes from. As a young student I was taught what constants were needed for a given formula to perform a specific calculation. Constants are used in all scientific fields. A constant is either an unchanging number, or a standard function that one inserts into a formula to reveal a hoped-for outcome. I always wondered what motivated the genius scientists to create such a powerful mystical tool that can make the formula (sort of) work every time. The answer as it turns out is that a constant is a trick. One takes the formula that is thought up to create or interpret data. Often the data has variability, meaning it does not form a perfect pattern of some kind (a line, a curve, etc.). If there is too much variability then the data (facts) don’t support a hypothesis. Run the numbers enough times, such as in use of a Monte-Carlo simulation, and the data might sort of fit the pattern one is looking for (meaning the data are statistically significant). How to make that better? Figure out a constant that can lower variability to something more acceptable. Like magic, the expected shape, though not perfectly adhered to within the data, gets closer than the non-constant-laden formula produces.

If science approaches variability by cleaning up data through use of a formulaic constant, engineering approaches it through setting limits of acceptability known collectively as ‘tolerance’. Engineers simply accept that there is no actual perfect answer, but there is a range of answers that work ‘good enough’ to complete a task at hand. The result is a requirement creation in the form of a measurement of some kind plus-or-minus some degree of imperfection. It might be a length, weight, pressure, temperature, etc. measurement with an allowable percentage of variation. In my world of communications networks we call this approach creating a ‘link budget’. Science adjusts a formula to better align data with what’s expected. Engineering leaves out anything that gets too far from what’s expected. Is that thing actually a meter long, or is it more-or-less a meter long? The second is always the best answer.

Where am I going with this? Truth cannot be a function of what we agree to. For me, truth is a discreet statistical sample. Something is or is not true. The same can be said for facts. What is not a discrete sample, but rather a continuum, is the validity of what one accepts as fact or truth when dependent purely on human logic and reasoning; this is the ‘wisdom of man’. The answer for me has been in coming to rely on the revelatory guidance of the Holy Ghost. One must put in the effort of reason and logic to understand truth claims, then seek direct confirmation from Heavenly Father who knows all truth and is eager to share with those willing to both ask and act. For me, this is the definition of faith. It’s not just believing blindly. Faith is purposeful action that leads one to truth. Faith is understanding that despite all we do on our own we can never really come to knowledge of truth through data and reason alone.
​

Feenberg, Andrew. 2005. "Critical Theory of Technology: An Overview." Tailoring Biotechnologies 1 (1): 47-64.

Andrew Feenberg concludes that Critical Theory of Technology is “the argument of our time” (p. 63). How can the philosophy of technology “join together… potentiality and actuality – norms and facts – in a way no other disciplines can rival” (Ibid.)?

That’s a strong claim. Feenberg seems to be saying that other disciplines do not have the ability to synthesize both theoretical and empirical approaches as well as not just the philosophy of technology, but the specific version of philosophy of technology known as Critical Theory. Perhaps a key focal point to his description of this approach is in the idea of recontextualization. Criticism (analysis) of technology leads to decontextualization. Try as we humans might, we are not able to fully separate technology from its context. The result is a redefinition of context. Feenberg claims these attempts tend to minimize social constraints, but not fully eliminate them. In an attempt to redefine social context, risk still exists that social and political decisions are biased due to unequal power.
​
Is that really what happens? This line of reasoning seems to answer the theoretical portion of Feenberg’s conclusion. What of the empirical? He notes how “technical advances break down the barriers between spheres of activity” (p.62). Although he advocates critical theory of technology, it’s not clear that there are no other approaches that are able to reconcile “many apparently conflicting strands of reflection on technology” as he claims (Ibid.).

Peletz, Steve. 2021. "Citizen Science: Helping Marine Biologists Push for Larger MPAs."
Alert Diver, 37 ed.:14-16
https://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?m=58549&i=693521&p=15&ver=html5.

The publisher of this magazine is Divers Alert Network (DAN). The organization specializes in helping injured SCUBA divers globally. As a PADI certified Dive Master the digital version comes to me each quarter. I tend to read several articles per edition. This time my eye was captured by this posting on divers as citizen scientists. I think it grabbed me because in my academic studies I have reviewed a number of writings on the topic.

The idea of doing citizen science while diving may be attractive to divers who have perhaps done plenty of sight-seeing dives, and are interested in blowing bubbles with more purpose. To be of use, though, one should work with some sort of program. With science, it’s all about data consistency and integrity. Some form of technology will inevitably be used beyond basic SCUBA gear, even if it is as simple as a way count fish types and numbers. The work may also involve some sort of sophisticated device.

Scientists may be mixed about enlisting the help of non-scientists. It takes more work on the part of the scientific organization. Participants need at least some information about what they are to be doing and why. Because the citizen participants may vary with each dive that makes for a lot of briefings. Scientists also wonder if the data they gather from their temporary assistants will be accurate. Despite these misgivings, some scientists see involving non-scientists as a plus. More people involved means more support for their efforts. Work can get done quicker than with fewer trained people. Involving citizens may also inspire future scientists as well.

I agree with some scientists that involving general citizenry takes more effort. In the case of SCUBA diving however, the participants are at least partially trained in that they already have the skills needed to work in the environment. I also argue that avoiding use of non-scientists to collect data is short sighted. An individual project may be more controlled, but it will take longer and cost more. The reluctance to use non-scientists includes an underlying assumption that the untrained citizen can’t be successful in tasks unless they have all the background information a fully trained scientist does.
​
For this periodical I’ve included a link in the reference above. I hope it works for readers. The early part of the document includes strong language against republication, so I am not including my normal pdf copy as I have with other article reviews. If you want to read it and have difficulty downloading it, put a note in the comments section and I’ll see what I can do.

Latour, Bruno. 2009. "A Collective of Humans and Nonhumans: Following Daedalus's Labryrinth." Chap. 11 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 156-167. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Bruno Latour is a seminal author in the field of Science, Technology, and Society (STS) as the architect of a set of ideas that have come to be known as actor-network theory (ANT). This excerpt was originally a portion of chapter 6 of one of his published books titled Pandora’s Hope. One of the base tenets of ANT is that anyone, or anything, or any group can be considered an actor (or more precisely an actant) in a network supporting a technological system. The more actors/actants in a supportive system, the more accepted the system is. Eventually, a heavily supported system is no longer scrutinized. It fades into the background as a nested system or ‘black box’ that nobody questions anymore.

This particular piece is focused on the idea of technical mediation, or ways in which one node in an ANT network influences another. Interference is a mediation when agent 1 enlists agent 2, and together they become agent 3. For example, a person enlists a gun, and together they become a killer. Composition is a mediation where an actor’s goal becomes interrupted by some obstacle, they seize another agent and return to the original goal (overcomes the obstacle). Folding of time and space is another mediation for Latour. In this example goals are redefined by nonhuman actants. A speed bump slows us down in a parking lot, not so much because we don’t want to injure a pedestrian, rather we don’t want to injure our car. The designers and builders of the speed bump are not present at the time when we cross the so-called ‘sleeping policeman’, yet use of technology by them in the present adjusts (mediates) our action with the technology of the car and the parking lot. The speed bump and the technology to create the speed bump are nested black boxes to the larger system of transportation through cars and roads. The last mediation is about crossing the boundary between signs and things. A change in technology is used to modify behavior, and behavior modifies the technology. Parking lot speed signs and painted crosswalks are intended to serve the same purpose as a speed bump. If a parking lot owner decides the technology of speed limit signs and painted lines do not invoke the behavioral change of slowing down, then the behavior inspires the addition of a speed bump, which in turn modifies the behavior of not slowing down.

The biggest critique of Latour and ANT has been his emphasis on actors, and ignoring of non-actors. If a person, thing, or group does not directly affect a technological decision, then they are effectively ignored. In the speed bump example, what of those who never drive? What of those who ride bicycles or walk? What of those who pay no taxes to fund the road or parking lot? For Latour they are not considered, but tax payers who don’t drive are also not considered since they have no direct impact on the technology. Despite this, the technology has some impact on them since they pay taxes, though any one person’s taxes are not directly attributed to the individual project of the speed bump.
​
The basic concept of mediation is a large one in philosophy, including to the specific branch of philosophy of technology. Are technological artifacts a result of societal values? Are societal values shaped by the technology available to a given society? Do society and technology ‘co-construct’? Is there an intent within a specific artifactual device? Is the device neutral, and the intent only lies within the person or society creating or employing the device? These are basic concerns of philosophy.

The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

This past Saturday I decided to take advantage of nice weather and a little time on my crowded schedule to go for a trail run. I went to Crow’s Nest Natural Area Preserve near our home. I have run all the trails in this place a number of times over the years. This particular run was along the Crow’s Nest Point Trail. 

A few hundred yards from the far end of the trail, near the point, there sits a monument containing a set of tableau erected on behalf of the Daniel family. They were early owners of the property that encompasses what is now Crow’s Nest. I sometimes hike the paths with a camera and shoot pictures. Sooner or later I'd like to get a stabilizing mechanism for my SLR and shoot a set of videos showing each of the paths. In either case, I thought I’d document for this blog the words on the memorial at the end of the trail. The far right tableau speaks to the family graveyard. I have not walked around to see if other headstones exist, but on initial look there are no more than what you see there. There are three flag stones on the ground in front of the memorial, but they contain no text. They may correspond to the three tableau above them, but it is not clear.
​

Tableau 1 Text
A testimonial of love and veneration for one who merited and possessed the veneration and love of all by whom he was known one faithful and exemplary in every domestic and social relation in every duty of a Christian: TRAVERS DANIEL, Senr. Born May 26, 1741 – Died June 18, 1824
​

Tableau 2 Text
This marble is erected in affectionate remembrance of the devoted wife, the tender mother, the humble and pious Christian: FRANCES DANIEL, (illegible) Travers Daniel, Senr. (birth and death dates illegible)
​

Top Center Grave Stone Text
Here lies the body of ELIZA TRAVERS DANIEL daughter of Travers and Mildred Daniel who departed this life in her 21 year Oct 29th, 1823 In the hour of death so strong was her faith in the savior of the world that her fondest friends in meditating on what they witnessed forbore to weep at what they lost: they communed with their own hearts and were still.

Bottom Center Grave Stone Text
E.T.D. (for Eliza Travers Daniel)
​

Tableau 3 Text
To the memory of Mrs. MILDRED DANIEL who was born in Charles County, Maryland Feby. 27th 1772 and died in the County of Stafford Virginia, October 17th 1837. She was the widow of TRAVERS DANIEL & daughter of Thomas Stone of Maryland, a signer of the declaration of Independence. Mrs. DANIEL lived and died an exemplary Christian. “Precious in the sight of the Lord in the death of his Saints.”  I. Psa. 116:15
​

Tableau 4 Text
DANIEL FAMILY GRAVEYARD
“Crow’s Nest”, 3500 acres, was granted to Raleigh Travers in 1665. He married Hannah Ball. Their daughter Sara, aunt of George Washington and great aunt of James Madison, married Peter Daniel, Justice of Stafford County. He was the son of James Daniel and Grandson of Capt. William Daniel, who settled in Middlesex County in 1669. Their son, Travers Daniel, 1741-1824, married Francis Moncure and had eleven children. Among them were:

Raleigh Travers Daniel, 1763-1824, married Mildred Stone, daughter of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. He was twice Attorney General of Virginia and Lt. Governor.

Peter Vivian Daniel, 1784-1813, first married Maria Niven in Scotland, where he had studied medicine. Second, Margaret Stone, sister of his brother’s wife. Their grandson, John Moncure Daniel III was minister to Italy and editor of the Richmond Examiner.

Dr. J.M. Daniel’s third marriage was to Maria Vowles in 1810. Their son, Dr. John Henry Moncure Daniel, 1813-1891, graduated from the University of Pennsylvania and married Fenton Mercer Brooke, 1828-1875. Their three sons, John Moncure, Selden Brooke, and Thomas Cushing were born at Crow’s Nest before the home was destroyed during the northern invasion.
​
Erected by their descendants 2002

A few postings ago I wrote about an article I read in National Geographic. I was favorable on the content, but somewhat critical of the television channel created by the same brand. After I posted, it hit me I had not watched the channel much lately. Truth be told, I haven’t been much of a TV watcher for quite some time. I have nothing against the medium. I worked in that part of the business for nine years. Other sorts of media, mostly reading, just keep my attention these days. I thought perhaps I should remind myself how Nat-Geo and similar channels present themselves lately. In some sense of fairness I started watching the cable version of the product, and some of its direct competition as a sort of research sampling.

Unlike ‘real’ research there is nothing written down, no data to analyze, no hypotheses to either support or refute through statistical patterns. Instead I just made time to watch some hours of Nat-Geo, Discovery, and History. These three in the past were similar in content approach with a similar appeal. To be at least somewhat thorough in my shabby research, I note that each of these offers a traditionally programed cable channel as well as a number of online video options. I focused on the cable channel version of Nat-Geo. I also looked at some of the program descriptions available online. So what did I find in this very loosey-goosey amateur research?

I was still disappointed to some degree with History and Discovery. Both had some interesting (to me) programs, but their line up seems more and more filled with reality shows that don’t seem to match the brand name, and competition shows that also seem misaligned. Of the three, Nat-Geo seemed closer to my fuzzy idea of what they are supposed to be about. Nat-Geo also has some ‘reality’ shows, but these seem more like documentaries about some real-life setting, and less like unscripted (or scripted) soap-operatic peep shows. To be fair to History and Discovery, they had these better quality programs also, but fewer of the better version, and more of the not-so-good sort. I’m ok with reality shows that are more like documentaries that are showing real life, but not so much with shows called ‘reality’ but are clearly anything but real.

One thing that does bug me a bit about all three of these offerings. They each clearly have quality tiers. For Nat-Geo, the content offered on cable is generally ok, but their best quality (the sort I might have more interest in) is guarded behind the Disney+ pay wall. It almost feels like the cable version is the tease to get you to pay for ‘the good stuff in the back room’. This is not unique to Nat-Geo. The business model of online streaming channels you have to pay for to get better stuff sooner is quickly becoming the norm. Just about every network out there now has a paid streaming service. The model really does lend itself to an ala carte. That would great if we lived in an area where we could just get Internet without cable. Sadly that’s not the case for us. The only real option we have for Internet comes from Comcast. Since they have no competition where we live they will not allow you to purchase Internet without also bundling their cable service. Every year they mess with the channels (to more and more stuff we don’t care to watch), and jack up the prices. It’s pretty ridiculous. The amount they charge makes it difficult to justify paying them and separately paying a handful of online streaming providers that we might actually want to watch now and then.

Some of the better programming on Nat-Geo, Discovery, and History is offered outside the pay wall, but it tends to be older shows. The truth is that’s ok to me since if it’s the first time we watch something, it may not be new but it’s new to us. On the other hand, some of the show trailers can be enticing and make me wonder if we should give in and scratch up the fee. So far the answer to this last question has been a resounding NO!

I don’t know what these business model shifts in media mean exactly. All three of these educational content providers are for-profit entities. The fact that they feel pressured to shift away from their original name-sake focus to something that less represents it could be a statement about us as an audience. If we weren’t up to watching something that helped us learn something then perhaps they are simply succumbing to our own focus on escapism in order to stay profitable. Perhaps, and maybe the more likely, is I’m just getting older and stuffier. 

Brey, Philip. 2009. "Philosophy of Technology Meets Social Constructivism: A Shopper's Guide." Chap. 7 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 98-111. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, and Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
In his ‘Shopper’s Guide’ approach to spelling out ways social constructivism could compliment the philosophy of technology, Philip Brey offers at least a partial answer to Langdon Winner. The latter had judged in previous writings that if one were to open the proverbial black box of Bruno Latour, one would find no tangible additions to philosophy by social constructivists. Winner argued this was because social constructivism harbored definitions that are too narrow in scope. To Brey, social constructivism does examine areas Winner claimed it was ignoring.

Philip Brey offers generalized descriptions of the ‘strong’ and ‘mild’ approaches of research (his shopper's guide). He agrees that the strict adherence to the symmetry principle in the strong program can inhibit some, but not all, philosophical supporting research. He claims the philosophy of technology is too abstract. It does not examine any particular technology or its impacts. Testable arguments within the philosophy of technology are often not supported by empirical evidence, he notes. Experiments and data derived through social constructivist research, Brey argues, can help philosophers of technology construct more realistic theories.

​For Brey, artifacts are socially shaped, but also embody a script that can influence outcomes. Social constructivism, he argues, allows normative and evaluative philosophical analyses of technology and its impacts not otherwise possible. He does temper his argument stating, “these approaches, if valid, do suggest new directions for the philosophy of technology” (p. 108). Brey had suggested throughout the article that the proverbial black box was not empty as Winner suggested, but was filling up as social constructivist research expanded, and rigid adherence to the symmetry principle was vacillating. One could argue that this idea of adjustment to the symmetry principle results in something other than social constructivism. Brey weakens his argument by adding the caveat “if valid” to his closing statement.

​The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

Anyone who knows me also knows that I’m not some sort of radical tree-hugger. At the same time, anyone who knows me also knows I’ve spent a lot of time in the wilds of this world, and I care about the planet. I do believe that God gave Adam and Eve and their descendants (us) a stewardship to take care of this world. There are many people who take political positions on both extremes of what we used to call conservation. Some would either seek to push us into paths that would have a strong negative impact on human life and livelihood through an overly restrictive approach. Others seek deeper exploitation with little-to-no restriction. In the midst of such heated polemics, I’m always happy to see good ideas that are neither irrationally restrictive, nor blatantly exploitative. I like practical ideas that are actually put into use.

While we were visiting relatives over the holidays this past year, my father-in-law decided I would be a target for his efforts to ‘spring clean’. For Christmas he gave me a stack of his National Geographic magazines, yes the printed variety. I’m already up to my eyeballs in reading between work, school, church, and even the occasional pleasure-read. Having yet another reading pile wasn’t exactly what I was looking for. On the other hand, I have respect for this particular brand, even if their TV channel seems less and less to mission. Last month I randomly pulled one out, and unlike the TV version, I was not disappointed.

The edition is from March of 2020. There is good story variety in this particular publication. Rather than add to anyone else’s paper pile, I’ll include a link to the online version of this specific edition. Then anyone can follow up if they have a mind to, and we won’t need to ship around a re-gift.

The main headline is an evocative assertion: “The End of Trash”. Although that statement seems unlikely, the focus is on ideas related to a circular economy with a growing emphasis on turning our waste into something useful. Although not completely circular, the idea of generating power through incineration is also not a new one. Since plastics are derived from petroleum products one could argue this approach is not that different from other electric generation plants burning carbon-based fuels. While that may be true, modern burning approaches do seem to produce fewer emissions then in the past. Using stored petroleum in the form of plastics can also reduce pumping demand. It does require transport, but so does every other form of energy in some way. Even wind or solar require manufacture and physical shipment for installation. In my opinion, nothing people do is truly neutral.

One interesting approach to trash incineration documented in the story is in Copenhagen, Denmark (my wife’s people) where they built a year-round skiing complex to hide the entire incinerator and the large pile of trash awaiting its demise. If we ever visit that town I will certainly be making some turns on the roof-top.

Here is a link to the edition:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/issue/march-2020
​
Here is a link to the specific story on trash and the circular economy:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/how-a-circular-economy-could-save-the-world-feature

Here in Virginia winter has continued. We have had a series of snow and icy rain storms moving through Stafford, and the forecast says there are more to come. Clearly Punxsutawney Phil got things right this year. Between storms it stays cold, and the ground stays alternatively frozen or muddy. It’s made outside yard chores a bit more challenging, but I’m managing to clear some wood-fall, seed some bad yard patches, and till up some garden spots. If you want things to blossom in their time, work is required early.

In our gospel work we know that too. It’s true that church work is about the harvest. Gospel work is also about preparing ground, sewing seeds, and feeding truth and the Spirit for those who will follow to the harvest. Others have done some of that work for our harvest. We do similarly for others who later harvest. I’m reminded of how the Mormon pioneers approached the westward migration from Illinois to Utah. Along the path they planted grain fields. These were fields they would never actually harvest and eat from themselves. They planted those fields for the waves that would follow them on the same trail.

If you’ve ever been through western Nebraska and looked at the various trails west you would see how God’s wisdom was at work. One year while traveling from our home in Lincoln, Nebraska where we lived at the time to visit family in Utah, we decided to travel along the pioneer route (now known mostly as Route 2). At one point we stopped in Scottsbluff and went to the top to look over the expansive valley divided by the North Platte River that flows from west to east. There’s an observation point on top the bluff with all sorts of information. As it turns out the Oregon Trail passes through the same place. Oregon-bound migrants traveled on the south side of the river. Church members traveled on the north side. I found that curious as eventually those bound for Oregon would cross the river and head northwest. Those bound for the Salt Lake Valley would follow the river to the west-southwest. That means at some point along the way the trails crossed each other. In either case, by traveling on the north side church pioneers were able to plant their storehouse fields for those to follow without the harvest being taken by other travelers who might not have understood their purpose.

In our studies of the Doctrine and Covenants this year, my wife and I discussed some ideas of predestination and foreordination as shown through the story of the lost 116 pages of translation from the book of Lehi within The Book of Mormon. Nearly two thousand years before Joseph Smith received the plates from Moroni, Heavenly Father inspired Mormon to include the small plates of Nephi in his condensed version of the Nephite history. A thousand years earlier still He inspired Nephi to keep two sets of plates with similar information, but with a different focus. Those two small decisions allowed God to inspire Joseph Smith to publish The Book of Mormon while thwarting the evil intent of whoever stole the 116 pages of manuscript from him.

Were those with the evil intent of changing the words on the manuscript predestined to harbor those thoughts and attempt to discredit the prophet? If not then Heavenly Father might not have needed to inspire both Nephi and later Mormon about the small plates. Yet, all have agency. If it were not so we could easily fall prey to the idea that everything we do is preset and we have no agency. Some argue in favor of predestination to excuse poor behavior as if they have no choice. Many scientists and philosophers argue this point about whether or not we actually have agency, not from a religious perspective, but relying on logic. Some combination of genetics, chemistry, and circumstance cause our actions, they say.

Yet the gospel teaches that we do have agency, and are accountable at some level for what we do, say and think. I argue the foreknowledge of God does not preclude our agency. We are certainly influenced by genetics, chemistry, and circumstance. Influence is not a determinant, no matter how much the reasoning of science and philosophy says so.

One of the blessings of this life is the ability to develop faith. That only comes because Heavenly Father wisely removed memory of our pre-earth life. What we call a veil of forgetfulness also helps answer the question of the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and our agency as opposed to predestination. He may know all things, but thanks to the veil, we don’t. We are influenced by our own strengths, limitations and circumstance. We all are responsible within the varying levels of light we have received in our life. Ultimately Christ knows the level of our culpability and repentance, and He will be our judge. The experience of it all is a learning and growth opportunity for us. The knowledge we do not yet possess, that He does, makes our choices an act of agency, not mechanical predestination. In the end we will all agree his judgement is both just and merciful.

Just as the pioneers knew the blessing their field planting would be to those who followed, God knew the small plates would bless those to follow. The pioneer planters and reapers both had the choice to plant or reap, but those who reaped only had the choice because of those who chose to sew. Oregon-bound migrants did not sew, and none behind them were blessed. This all sounds a lot like the work of bringing souls to Christ.
​

Jonas, Hans. 2009. "Technology and Responsibility." In Readings in thye Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 173-184. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Hans Jonas looks closely in this article at how technological change drifts inherently toward a Utopian set of actions. Utopian could be thought of in the sense that people effect change to make things ‘better’. One has to ask - what does better mean? Jonas specifically asks - what force (or insight, or value-knowledge) represents the future in the present? How one views a future that ‘ought to be’ reflects one’s technological decisions today.
​
Like others who examine ‘modern technology’, Hans Jonas makes the case that the pace and potential lasting effects (positive or negative) have outstripped our ability to adjust ethical wisdom. Former technological change was slow enough that we could examine potential outcomes through an ethical lens, and that ethical lens could be adjusted as societies gained technological knowledge. The knowledge we lack about new ethics is more urgently needed, he suggests, but wisdom is not gained urgently. The ethic of thou shalt not kill only exists because of our capacity to kill. Our capacity now has global implications both for humanity and for nature, though one can also argue that these are not independent of each other. Jonas notes how our capacity to bring about irreversible effects has likewise grown.

The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

Winner, Langdon. 1993. "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology." Science, Technology, & Human Values (Sage Publications, Inc.) 18 (3): 362-378.

Empty? Full? Something in Between?

In this article, Langdon Winner champions the need to look more closely at technical artifacts, the varieties of technical knowledge, and social actors. He views these research focus areas as black boxes much as Bruno Latour describes the concept in actor-network theory (ANT). He notes how constructivism also helps us consider these as well as the “interpretive flexibility of technical artifacts” (p. 366). Winner describes this sort of constructivist research as a narrow understanding of society in terms of ‘environment’ or ‘context’ that influences technology choices made. As helpful as this approach is, Winner argues that the narrowness of this perspective disregards important questions.

For Winner, the constructivist approach is a backward looking perspective with focus on technological origin and adoption. While constructivists note how context influences technology choice, it’s proponents often leave out social consequences that result once a technical choice is made. Constructivism tends to adhere to Latour’s concept of networks. By considering only those identified as actors who directly influence a given technology, groups considered ‘irrelevant’ are simply left out. ANT in particular notes dynamics of immediate needs, interests, problems, and solutions. While perhaps partially fulfilling some or all of those societal concerns, Winner notes the same technology often erodes community such as modern communications that can encourage human isolation.
​
By concentrating current and past interaction of technology and society, Winner points out, constructivism is essentially ignoring judgement (political, moral) of social use of artifacts. Temporally, he says, this is looking only at the present and the past with no thought toward potential futures. For Winner, this is a partial view that leaves empty the ‘black box’ constructivists claim to be opening up for examination. Couldn’t one argue instead that such an approach is not looking at an empty box, but perhaps conducting a partial inspection of the contents?

Marcuse, Herbert. 2009. "The New Forms of Control." In Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 34-42. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Review by Michael Beach

This article was shared in the aggregate referenced book, but is really the first chapter of a book written by Harbert Marcuse titled One-Dimensional Man. In the Marcuse reading The New Forms of Control, he argues, among other things, that use of mass media is one technological mechanism intended to align inner-dimension personal needs with outer-dimension societal (repressive) needs. The higher the personal level of indoctrination, the more the standards of priority align. Marcuse uses this idea of a societal need to indoctrinate as an implication of the two-dimensional person. ‘Society’ uses technology such as mass media to bring individual needs toward a goal of mimesis. When that societal goal is reached, the individual is now really one-dimensional. There is no longer any difference between personal or societal needs as expressed through technology adoption.

Marcuse wrote this in 1964. Mass media then was quite different from today. Television and radio broadcast channels, as well as newspapers and magazines, were essentially the communication technologies of the day. Marcuse focuses primarily on broadcast media, rightfully for the time in that these were the primary information and entertainment sources of most people, at least in many western cultures. Since then media have fractionalized considerably. One can make the argument that narrowcast two-way media is having the opposite effect as Marcuse depicts. As people have ever more choices, and increasing control over the sources they rely on for information, the number of ‘societies’ available through technical means has grown. Membership in any one society or culture has decreased. Many people even find themselves in multiple cultures simultaneously. Mistrust grows by way of technology in those cultures (societies) to which one chooses not to belong. Maybe this still makes each person one-dimensional as Marcuse implies. Does it also mean each ever-more-specialized society now adjusts its needs to match individuals in order to have enough ‘membership’ in order to exist? Is it the society that becomes more one-dimensional?

The attachment is of the specific reference above, but is the entire work. This article only reviews chapter 1. 

​Like many, December is my favorite time of the year. The holidays are at the core of why, but it may be as much about breaking the normal patterns of life as well. Thanks to COVID most of my days tend to blend together. Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s Eve all give each of us a change from the norm. 

Toward the end of summer I participated in a virtual missionary reunion. One of the elders who arrived in the mission at the same time I did, and who served for several months in one of the same cities I did, lives not that far from here. He reached out and we have been in contact again. My best memory of Elder Hoffman happened while we were both serving in the city of Algeciras, Spain. It was Christmas time. For the day before and the day of, we were not supposed to be out tracting (knocking on doors in a neighborhood to see if anyone was interested in our message). Elder Hoffman’s parents sent him some extra money and told him to do something good with it. There were four of us in the city (two companionships). He decided to use the money to purchase some nice fruit baskets. The four of us waited until after nightfall on Christmas Eve. We made up a list of families we knew would really benefit from the gift. Then we had fun stealthily putting the basket on each door step, knocking on the door, then running away laughing to some place where we could see them, but they couldn’t see us. I remember the look of surprise and joy as each door answerer picked up the present, then looked around to try to spy who might have done such a thing.

Algeciras was a very small unit. It was much like the branch where I grew up in Berwick, PA. They met in a rented apartment modified for meetings. The numbers were few. To give you an idea, when I first arrived, my senior companion was from Madrid and was serving as the Branch President. He was a young (20-ish-year-old) missionary like me. Can you imagine? When he transferred to another city a member brother was called to replace him as the branch leader. This brother had only been a member of the church about nine months at the time he was called to the position. It was up to us young missionaries to help the branch leadership with advice. We didn’t really know anything about how to carry out that sort of calling, but we could each share a bit of what we had seen of local leaders as we grew up in the church.

I’ve always appreciated the Christmas I spent in Spain. The next year I was actually supposed to transfer home in early January at the end of my missionary service. Instead of that, our group all got to go home about a week before Christmas. I’ve since had other holiday seasons away. One year while serving in the US Navy I spent Christmas day in 90°F weather in the Philippines. On that Christmas day I went SCUBA diving on Grande Island with several other sailors I knew including several SEALs. It was a bit surreal.

I hope we each can find ourselves closer to the Savior as we remember and celebrate His birth. As miraculous as His birth was, it is important of course because of his mission to atone for the sins of all of us, and bring about the resurrection as well. I am thankful for my testimony of the truth of Jesus Christ. I am so grateful that He lives and leads the church through a prophet of God.

Heidegger, Martin. 2009. "The Question Concerning Technology." In Readings in the Philosophy          of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 9-24. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto,                      Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Review by Michael Beach

In this seminal article on the topic of the philosophy of technology, Martin Heidegger seeks to define the essence of technology. He approaches this subject through a series of interconnected vocabulary. The essence, he says, is enframing which he defines as a destining or revealing. Other words in the circular argument include calling-forth, ordering, unconcealment, and setting-upon. In one sense, nature is a resource, a standing-reserve. Heidegger speaks further of a danger to ‘man’. If one is not careful, he says, humankind becomes a force of ordering up nature’s standing-reserve. If, then, man is only in the role of ordering up reserves in order to unconceal (reveal) technology, then man also becomes a standing-reserve in the destining of nature as technology. This risk Heidegger defines as danger, but notes that in that very danger man can find the saving power of recognizing the true essence of technology. To Heidegger, the highest dignity of man is in keeping watch over unconcealment of all nature and technology coming to presence.

Martin Heidegger is a foundational author in this branch of philosophy. All subsequent practitioners are forced to address his ideas. Historically, his works were published in the early 20th century. Heideggarians are forced to also consider his role in the Nazi regime of Hitler’s Germany. His arguments help to see technology beyond the simple ideas of technology-as-applied-science, or as human attempts to alter the natural world. For Heidegger, there is a difference between technology that sets nature in order such as subsistence farming, and technology that sets-upon nature such as coal mining. The former simply uses nature more or less as it is to benefit man. The latter increases nature, or changes natural processes. In the coal example, the sun changes energy into coal. Man then extracts the coal, distributes it, and then removes the heat to create other kinds of energy such as electricity. That energy is further distributed, and is again converted into heat, or mechanical energy for yet other uses, and so on.

One weakness of Heidegger’s argument is its circularity. Often he uses words to define other words in a chain which eventually is used to help define the words he used to start the definition chain. Some of this struggle comes from his use of Greek words that he explains in his original text written in German, then later translated into English for the version this review is concerned with. 

The posted pdf version of this article is from a source different from the opening reference.

Guldi, Jo. 2019. "Parliament's Debates About Infrastructure: An Exercise in Using Dynamic Topic Models to Sythesize Historical Change." Edited by Suzanne Moon. Technology and Cuture: The International Quarterly of the Society for the History of Technology (Johns Hokins University Press) 60 (1): 1-33.

Reviewed by Michael Beach

This article looks at data generated through text mining of debates held in British Parliament regarding social infrastructure from 1800 through 1890 with the specific intent to “test the usefulness of text-mining methods” (p.3) for a specific microhistory and for synthesized macrohistorical trends. The study links infrastructure words with specific project types, and also shows how evolving infrastructure terms show government priority shifts over time. Guldi intends to show how the data can “reveal new tensions and turning points that characterized the uptake of infrastructure” (Ibid.) over time.

Historians have long debated the usefulness of looking at a microhistory and extrapolating trends in macrohistory, or how such trends can be read into individual microhistorical events. One example shared based on the word association data was the amount of infrastructure debate investment Parliament put toward piers and dredging in the River Shannon. As expected there was more attention to major needs on River Thames, but what is surprising was how such a lesser-known body of water like River Shannon attracted so much attention. For example it is mentioned considerably more than work destined for the Nile, Clyde, Trent and Severn rivers, all of which the author notes as having more significant economic value.

The data tables offered are persuasive in terms of how computer-based datamining can quickly find these historical shifts not easily captured otherwise. Guldi ultimately concludes that micro- and macrohistories complement each other. This larger conclusion seems more opinion than can be synthesized from the arguments made through the word-association data. Historians of technology are the specific intended audience, but historians in general may find such a computer-based tool helpful in other areas of research. 

​ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS: EXPLORING THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP
By Andreas Ziegler and Jazmin Seijas Nogareda
IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, Second Quarter, June 2013, p. 72-86
 
The authors seek to explore causal effects of adoption of environmental management systems (EMS), voluntary environmental programs (VEP), and a specific VEP known as Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), specifically asking if such measures could be ‘reversely affected’ by environmental product or process innovation. An empirical literature review is also referenced. Ultimately the data seems to indicate some ambiguity to the question.
 
The paper offers a series of hypotheses related to the main question, then shows data collected through ‘econometric analysis’ of primarily German companies with ISO-14001 certification. The data is examined in order to understand simple and complex correlations, if any, encourage adoption of EMS and VEP if proven advantageous. Those most interested in such a question would include strategic planners at manufacturing companies, and regulatory bodies who may see motivation to encourage adoption though tax incentives.
 
The paper offers insights from literature review and specific data. The number of companies in the survey constitutes a large subset of the German economy. The authors themselves, however, note how the relationships among their chosen variables are complex, and limiting the variables further could mask actual causation. The authors are asking the right questions even if they cannot definitively point to specific causal relationships. From the perspective a scholar in the field of Science, Technology and Society (STS), the ideas directly relate to sociological interaction of policy (public and private), economic factorial influence on technological development, and a perceived need for scientific investigation into the specifics of environmental impact of process and policy implementation.