Desconstruction of the Moderinistic Myth in Quinns Ishmael :: Quinn Ishmael Essays

Desconstruction of the Moderinistic Myth in Ishmael When I read Daniel Quinn’s works, Ishmael, Providence, The Story of B, and My Ishmael, I find a common theme woven throughout which is to desconstruct the moderinistic myth that we are apart from nature and therefore not subject to natural law. I don’t find Quinn’s ideas to be much different from what I read into David Orr’s Earth in Mind or David Ehrenfeld’s books Beginning Again and The Arrogance of Humanism. I doubt that Quinn, as a writer, thinks for one minute that we are no different from other species who inhabit Earth. Language separates us, and writers probably know that better than the rest of us. Maybe I shouldn’t have grabbed his quotes out of context. Or maybe you had some other reason to be so quick to criticize Quinn. If the use of the word â€Å"stewardship† really â€Å"instills a healthy dose of love and responsibility for the natural world,† as you suggest it does, I don’t believe Quinn or Ehrenfeld or Orr would have many problems with our using it as platform for discussion to move forward. But I suspect that all three writers are fearful that most of us don’t differentiate between â€Å"stewardship† and â€Å"dominion,† also that our â€Å"stewardship† will likely not be practiced with enough humility--e.g. use of â€Å"precautionary principles,† recognition of how little we really know--to make it a useful starting point. If we stay with "stewardship" it will be up to us to prove them wrong. Assuming, of course, that they would agree with what I’ve alleged on their behalf. Does this mean we ought to throw away science or management, or even abandon the word â€Å"stewardship?† No, at least "no" with regard to science and management. I still wonder about our choice to use the word â€Å"stewardship.† Mostly I’m OK with it, but only if we take time to work through the baggage it carries. Mainly, though, we need to challenge theories, assumptions, and try to make sure they are grounded. â€Å"Grounding† theory and practice in pluralistic reality is what my favorite postmodern writers seem to be challenging us to do. But herein hides a problem. My problem. Perhaps the writers I am referring to – Anderson, Borgmann (Crossing the Postmodern Divide), Ehrenfeld, Merchant (The Death of Nature, Ecology: Key Concepts in Critical Theory), Orr, Quinn and others – don’t fit the label â€Å"postmodern deconstructionists. Desconstruction of the Moderinistic Myth in Quinn's Ishmael :: Quinn Ishmael Essays Desconstruction of the Moderinistic Myth in Ishmael When I read Daniel Quinn’s works, Ishmael, Providence, The Story of B, and My Ishmael, I find a common theme woven throughout which is to desconstruct the moderinistic myth that we are apart from nature and therefore not subject to natural law. I don’t find Quinn’s ideas to be much different from what I read into David Orr’s Earth in Mind or David Ehrenfeld’s books Beginning Again and The Arrogance of Humanism. I doubt that Quinn, as a writer, thinks for one minute that we are no different from other species who inhabit Earth. Language separates us, and writers probably know that better than the rest of us. Maybe I shouldn’t have grabbed his quotes out of context. Or maybe you had some other reason to be so quick to criticize Quinn. If the use of the word â€Å"stewardship† really â€Å"instills a healthy dose of love and responsibility for the natural world,† as you suggest it does, I don’t believe Quinn or Ehrenfeld or Orr would have many problems with our using it as platform for discussion to move forward. But I suspect that all three writers are fearful that most of us don’t differentiate between â€Å"stewardship† and â€Å"dominion,† also that our â€Å"stewardship† will likely not be practiced with enough humility--e.g. use of â€Å"precautionary principles,† recognition of how little we really know--to make it a useful starting point. If we stay with "stewardship" it will be up to us to prove them wrong. Assuming, of course, that they would agree with what I’ve alleged on their behalf. Does this mean we ought to throw away science or management, or even abandon the word â€Å"stewardship?† No, at least "no" with regard to science and management. I still wonder about our choice to use the word â€Å"stewardship.† Mostly I’m OK with it, but only if we take time to work through the baggage it carries. Mainly, though, we need to challenge theories, assumptions, and try to make sure they are grounded. â€Å"Grounding† theory and practice in pluralistic reality is what my favorite postmodern writers seem to be challenging us to do. But herein hides a problem. My problem. Perhaps the writers I am referring to – Anderson, Borgmann (Crossing the Postmodern Divide), Ehrenfeld, Merchant (The Death of Nature, Ecology: Key Concepts in Critical Theory), Orr, Quinn and others – don’t fit the label â€Å"postmodern deconstructionists.

A Newsletter About Solutions and Creating Exceptional Value Essay

High Impact Projects A Newsletter About Solutions and Creating Exceptional Value Software Company Narrows Focus from 1 Million Prospects to 40 – Closes 30 Sales in First Year! After 3 Years of Revenues Less than $2 Million, Sales Soar to $75 Million in 4 Years! Systems Produce Paybacks for Clients of more than 10-to-1 Stopped Trying to Sell to Information Technology Department – Found Line Executives With An Urgent Need to Buy CEO Found a Way to Reduce Risk and Capture Financial Upside A Repeatable Pattern Emerges Compiled by Tom Ingram, PMPi Before Jeff Miller took over as CEO, Documentum had suffered three years of flat revenues, never exceeding $2 million per year. After Miller took over, the next year’s sales increased to $8 million, followed by $25 million, $45 million, $75 million and an IPO in subsequent years. Granted, these were the boom years – but this success story carries some essential lessons which I have seen work in several other settings over the years. Below is a summary of these key lessons from several sources, including a Harvard Business School case study. None of this is easy. Documentum went through a period when it was burning $1 million per quarter, with only $4 million in cash reserve, and only two new customers. Success in the intangible, â€Å"black magic† world of software is difficult, and my hope is that you can take some useful lessons away from this summary. Following are some of the things that worked for them. Narrowed Their Focus from â€Å"everyone in the world that touches complex documents† to a â€Å"rifle shot.† Documentum chose to focus initially on the regulatory affairs departments of Fortune 500 pharmaceutical companies. This narrowed their universe of prospects from some 500,000 to only 40 companies worldwide. Urgent Need to Buy: Documentum was able to identify buyers in extreme pain due to the regulatory paperwork requirements for submitting new drugs for approval. They focused on finding prospects that were in a situation where (1) regulatory requirements created much pain, (2) prospects demanded a solution and (3) the solution could represent a significant competitive advantage. Documentum closed 30 out of 40 initial target prospects in the first year! Help for Struggling Software Companies tom@tomingraminc.com 972-394-5736 Newsletter #25 July 2004 Page 1 TOM INGRAM & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Huge Payback for Customer Every day that was saved in drug approval application time resulted in a $1 million incremental profit for Documentum’s clients. The system reduced drug approval application time from 1 year to approximately six months. Average profit per day of $1 million times 128 days saved = $128 million in incremental profits per drug application. A typical system might cost $4 Million – Resulting in a 32-fold Payback! Target Buyer: Documentum discovered that their target buyer was not the Information Technology (IT) department! IT departments are often happy with the status quo – while line executives are not. They also discovered that executives and department managers were really the ones that drove the priorities for IT. Documentum stopped trying to sell to IT department buyers and focused on line executives with a problem and a budget. I will add that I have seen this to be true in dozens, if not hundreds, of instances in my 24 years in the technology and software business. The boom times of the ‘90s were a slight exception to this rule. The IT department was buying a great deal, and companies got used to   selling to the IT department. When reality came crashing down upon us, and the techbubble burst in the early 2000’s, this aberration disappeared. I will note that this is an   extremely difficult shift for companies to make because their sales force, including sales executives, and even the CEO, often have experience only selling to the IT department – they have no skills, credibility or capacity to sell to line executives. Picking the Initial Target Niche: One of the key issues in picking the initial target niche is the size of payback to the customer. By focusing on the area which your customer has the greatest payback, they have the most to gain economically from purchasing from you quickly. Assuming you can consistently deliver this payback, it is much easier to get Niche 2, Niche 3 and Niche 4 going after you have a strong set of happy customers behind you. Subsequent Niches: After Documentum’s initial success in the regulatory affairs department, they spread to other niches in every department within pharmaceutical companies. (regulated chemicals, oil refineries, etc.) This included a big win in the document management area for oil and gas exploration and production companies, where Documentum helped them manage the property/lease/royalty paperwork. This approach is often called the bowling pin model, because you set up the initial niche as a â€Å"headpin†, knock it down and that makes it substantially easier to â€Å"knock down the following pins†. This approach also helps you keep a controlled risk (or cash burn rate) by requiring the software company to demonstrate that it can find and close customers with an urgent need to buy, one niche at a time. Changes to Software Product Offered: Note that Documentum had the discipline to stay focused on the needs of very tightly defined sets of customers. They started in the regulatory affairs departments of pharmaceutical companies, and slowly spread, niche-by-niche (bowling pin-by-bowling pin)   to other departments and other industries. It is critical to recognize that Documentum invested its precious cash in software product enhancements only for these customers. The Harvard Business Review Case highlights a particular situation where Documentum declined a $2 million order because it would have required them to make Help for Struggling Software Companies tom@tomingraminc.com 972-394-5736 Newsletter #25 July 2004

How to Conjugate Retourner (To Return) in French

The French verb  retourner  is one of seven ways to say to return in French. Its a very useful word and easy to remember because it looks and sounds like its English equivalent. It is also based on the French  tourner, which means to turn. Yet, before you use it in grammatically correct sentences, youll need to learn its conjugations. This lesson will introduce you to the most basic of those. The Basic Conjugations of  Retourner Retourner is a regular -er verb, so it follows the same conjugation pattern as the majority of French verbs. That does make it significantly easier than most French verb conjugations, especially if youve already studied similar verbs like donner (to give), arriver (to arrive), or countless other words. Its always best to begin with the indicative mood when studying a new verb. This will allow you to use it in the present, future, and imperfect past tenses and these should cover almost any use you may have. Using the verb stem (or radical)  retourn- and the chart, you can learn which endings to add that are appropriate to both the subject pronoun and the tense of your sentence. For example, I am returning is  je retourne  and we will return is  nous retournerons. Practice these in context whenever returning something and youll find them much easier to memorize. Present Future Imperfect je retourne retournerai retournais tu retournes retourneras retournais il retourne retournera retournait nous retournons retournerons retournions vous retournez retournerez retourniez ils retournent retourneront retournaient The Present Participle of  Retourner When you add -ant  to the verbs radical, you form the  present participle  retournant. Not only is it a verb, it may also be an adjective, gerund, or noun in some circumstances. Retournerin the Compound Past Tense A common way to express the past tense of returned is with the passà © composà ©. This is a compound, which means you need the auxiliary verb à ªtre as well as the past participle retournà ©. To form this, begin by conjugating  Ãƒ ªtre into the present tense, then attach the past participle to indicate that someone or something has already returned. For example, I returned is  je suis retournà ©Ã‚  and we returned is  nous sommes retournà ©. More Simple Conjugations While the conjugations above should be your first priority, you may need to use  retourner  in other simple forms. Each of these has special usages, from questioning the act with  the subjunctive  to saying its dependent on something else with  the conditional. The passà © simple  and  the imperfect subjunctive  are literary tenses, though theyre also good to know. Subjunctive Conditional Pass Simple Imperfect Subjunctive je retourne retournerais retournai retournasse tu retournes retournerais retournas retournasses il retourne retournerait retourna retournt nous retournions retournerions retournmes retournassions vous retourniez retourneriez retourntes retournassiez ils retournent retourneraient retournrent retournassent Exclamations such as Return! use  the imperative form  in French. When using these, the subject pronoun is not required, so you can simplify it to Retourne ! Imperative (tu) retourne (nous) retournons (vous) retournez