5 ms·
Another of many books I probably should have put on the list (but that's the problem with lists of "good books" in a world that has thousands of them). I knew G
by alankay1 10y ago
Another of many books I probably should have put on the list (but that's the problem with lists of "good books" in a world that has thousands of them). I knew Gregory slightly, and his daughter Mary Catherine more so. (And there are others from this circle that should be included: Gordon Pask, Heinz von Forester, etc.)
One way to think about this in the larger sense is that "an interesting person is one who is interesting whether you agree with them or not". This also goes for books. (This is the "it's about perspectives, not about relevance" point of view.)
It's worth it to try to understand what "interesting people" have thought -- it provides context for one's own thinking.
- paulojreis 10y ago> It's worth it to try to understand what "interesting people" have thought -- it provides context for one's own thinking. This is eventually the main reason why I mentioned Bateson's work in particular (besides the depth and orthogonality of his ideas). I've read Watzlawick's work on interaction and pragmatics of communication before I've read Bateson's. I found Watzlawick's ideas easier to grasp (at least, I'm under that illusion), clearly presented with e.g. axioms. Then I read Bateson's work, and got this strange feeling of dwelling around the same underlying concepts, but without a clear understanding of his main argument. I've read "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" quite a few times (I still re-read some chapters every once in a while) and always felt that a) I'm reading new material; and b) I'm not getting it all. Yet, I always get something new, and this is an extremely interesting insight on how my own perception changes over time. Of course, this happens with other books and authors. Still, personally, I have a clear feeling that not to the same extent as it happens with Bateson's ideas. It's my own mirror, so to speak.
- alankay1 10y agoWell, Gregory missed some important ideas in that book (partly from his background I think, and partly from his personality). You might get some perspective from looking at his last book "Mind and Nature". And, in many ways, much more powerful looks at "mind" are Minsky's "Society of Mind" and "The Emotion Machine". There is also Kahneman's "Thinking: Fast and Slow" more recently ...
- paulojreis 10y agoWould you have a place in your list for António Damásio's work on consciousness and, generally, the embodied mind?
- alankay1 10y agoI don't know whether I would include this book on the list for the Anderson Consulting people. It's worth reading for the context, perhaps not so much for the specific content.
- paulojreis 10y agoI forgot to consider your list as aimed towards the Anderson Consulting people. Having that audience in mind, wouldn't Manuel Castells' work (mostly, the "The Information Age" trilogy) be a good reference? Probably a little too vast.
- alankay1 10y agoInteresting suggestion! I think it was around when I made the list but I hadn't read it yet. I think it might be too long for the intended purpose (maybe a little too academic?). On the other hand Mumford also wrote a trilogy "Technics and Civilization" that I did hope they would read ... And certainly the McLuhan books are more cryptic for most readers. On the other hand ...
- paulojreis 10y agoCastells ideas are indeed presented in a very readable manner, most of the times complemented with figures and data. In my "academic" tradition (communication/media sciences meets IT, in continental Europe), Castells is essentially a mandatory reference (even more than McLuhan). Thinking about it, from a practical perspective, I'd eventually suggest "The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society" instead of the trilogy. It should be more readable, definitely smaller, while still addressing most important concepts (for me, it was the spatial configuration in the information society: the space of flows).