Patience Required

I was on a roll. Last week I finally finished reading Ricoeur's Interpretation Theory. Over the weekend, I wrote about 8 pages on the philosophical basis of my methodological approach. Then I hit a road block. I realized that before I could continue further, I had to have a good understanding of the first three chapters of Ricoeur's Time and Narrative (Vol. 1).

This was discouraging, I thought I had enough conceptual knowledge to complete the methodology section of the introduction. However, when it came down to it I needed a bridge between Ricoeur's theory of interpretation and my application of it to John's Apocalypse. That bridge is in Ricoeur's understanding of mimesis as the mediator between time and narrative.

So, I have spent the last three evening working through one and a half chapters. Patience. I have to remember that "reading is writing" in the sense that it is what I read that produces what I write. Perhaps the drive to keep getting words to page is a good thing. I hope it makes me read faster . . . it certainly makes me want to read faster!

The first chapter of Time and Narrative (Vol. 1) explores St. Augustine's concept of time from his Confessions (Book XI). I have found it intriguing how St. Augustine combines intellectual inquiry with communion with God. Indeed, his learning is expressed in a conversational (prayerful) interaction with God. Here's an example:

I would hear and understand, how “In the Beginning Thou madest the heaven and earth.” Moses wrote this, wrote and departed, passed hence from Thee to Thee; nor is he now before me. For if he were, I would hold him and ask him, and beseech him by Thee to open these things unto me, and would lay the ears of my body to the sounds bursting out of his mouth. And should he speak Hebrew, in vain will it strike on my senses, nor would aught of it touch my mind; but if Latin, I should know what he said. But whence should I know, whether he spake truth? Yea, and if I knew this also, should I know it from him? Truly within me, within, in the chamber of my thoughts, Truth, neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin, nor barbarian, without organs of voice or tongue, or sound of syllables, would say, “It is truth,” and I forthwith should say confidently to that man of Thine, “thou sayest truly.” Whereas then I cannot enquire of him, Thee, Thee I beseech, O Truth, full of Whom he spake truth, Thee, my God, I beseech, forgive my sins; and Thou, who gavest him Thy servant to speak these things, give to me also to understand them. (Book XI, Chapter III)

As a matter of a spiritual experiment, I want to try applying this approach in my own intellectual inquiry concerning this dissertation.

Building an argument for John's Apocalypse as the data source

Today I made more progress on the introduction and submitted what I've done to my dissertation chair for comments

I've spent a good deal of time setting the conceptual ground work for the choice of John's Apocalypse as the data source. I wrote a little over two pages on this - which I will not post. Here's the central proposition:

Like John and the first century Christians, our ordinary lives are full of contingencies. Some are locally chaotic and threaten global chaos. There are so many potential disasters on our horizon that finding “meaning,” if it exists, may seem pointless. As John spoke meaning into the chaotic and nihilistic context of the first century through his Apocalypse, his words as we experience them in the 21^st century context speak to our time – our chaos, our nihilism, and our contingencies.

Yes, I cleaned up the introduction

Tonight I cleaned up the text to the introduction to the research problem statement. I also cleaned up the research problem section. Here's the introduction to the problem statement which is the opening text of Chapter 1.

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Unexpected phenomena continually pierce the fabric of the 21st century organizational context. Change processes initiated by events, both internal and external to organizations, are continuous. Leaders are fearful that they cannot keep up with the pace of change in their organizational environment. Yet, they know survival of their organization depends on its ability to adapt its equivocal environment. With response times shorter and the stakes for failure ever raising, knowing and implementing what must be done is increasingly difficult (Conner, 1998, pp. vi-vii).

Traditional models of organizing seem ineffective in a world of constant flux and unpredictability (Wheatley, 2006). Bennis (2006) notes the traditional leadership ideal of the triumphant individual directing downward from the pinnacle of a bureaucratic hierarchy “is dysfunctional in today’s world of blurring, spastic, hyperturbulent change and will get us into unspeakable trouble” (p. 131).

Appearing to make the traditional forms of organizing and leading obsolete, the chaotic times of the 21st century introduce a crisis of organizational form and leadership behavior. A postmodern analysis of contemporary organizational reality assumes the underlying positivistic assumptions of traditional organizational forms and leadership behaviors are undermined (Johnson & Duberley, 2000). Consequently, one can postulate that the fundamental problem for 21st century organizations and their leaders is the rediscovery of meaning. What does it mean to organize and to lead in chaotic – even apocalyptic - times?

References

Bennis, W. (2006). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without full inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. In W. E. Rosenbach & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Conner, D. R. (1998). Leading at the edge of chaos: How to create the nimble organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2000). Understanding management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wheatley, M., J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Reasons why I didn't write yesterday

I did not write yesterday, because we had a special opportunity with my family last evening. However, I felt bad because I did not do anything, and in retrospect I could have done at least 15 mins. The reason I didn't is because I did not have a plan for the day and I did not follow the "write first" rule. So, today it is at least 15 min:

Cleaning up what I have already written on my introduction.