By David M. Boje , June 6, 2021
Overview: In each chapter of True Storytelling book, one principle is highlighted. The 7 antenarratives processes themselves are there too, but are not listed, for simplicity sake, for participants. Trainers (Guides) get both the 7 Principles and the 7 Processes, and associated Tools. This essay is for Trainers Only.
This study guide for GUIDES ONLY, is about the new version of how Guiding a Protreptic Dialogism works, and how it is not a Debate, and not a Dialogue (as in Bohm Dialogue Circles). The 7 Antenarrative Processes and the seven True Storytelling Principles, go together hand-and-glove with Practical development of solutions to problems participants bring to the table. Both old and new tool maps of principles and processes have spacing (vertically) and timing (horizontally) dimensions. The two dimensions are TIME (on horizontal (goes both ways), and SPATIALIZING-SYSTEM on the vertical (from Parts to Whole is the Guiding happening in sessions and in client consultations.). The learning in this handout is space is never without timing, and timing is never without spatializing parts or to whole systems in the storytelling eventums (a new term from Kirkeby, explained below).
Let’s us begin with the main points of Protreptic Guiding of True Storytelling Sessions
Protreptic Guide guides the hearts where they agree to go.
“The protreptic must care absolutely for the other person” (Kirkeby, 2009: 88). Thus, the Protreptic Guide must be sincerely kind, to assist the other “never to judge” him or her (IBID.).
Question: What happens if a Protreptic Dialogue is about to turn catastrophic (such as a debate)?
If the Protreptic Guides loses control of what is happening, or just feels something that cannot be controlled is eventing approaching, and does not act in time, then the event of dialogue, its reflective processes breaks down, the Protreptic Guide must be the facilitator of the process of liberation (p. 89).
Above are the 6 Eventums tool, just for Train the Trainer Guides.True Storytelling can be compared to three other approaches using the 4 D Tool.
Differences PRO Guides Accomplish
First Difference: In the new 4-Heart tool, TIMING (P4) moves in both directions (Retrospective Sensemaking & Prospective Sensemaking of antenarrative process) [chronos of clock time, and kairos of opportune moments]. BEING (P4 Timing).
Second big difference is to have at least four BETWEENS (P6 Staging of storyboard, between hearts). For example WWOK, have to do unidirectional past→present→future, but TIMING by Kairos moves future→present→>past. IWOK is more cyclic and spiral time/space, and WWOK is more linear timing, and very Beginning, Middle, End plotting of its storyboards (BETWEEN). Third, BEING is not just Timing, it is also Space (place), Matter (mattering), and these three are inseparable in-BEING-in-the-World.
Third point BEING is not only timing it is spacing and it is mattering, all are Primordial in what Ole Kirkeby (2009: 131-135) calls the six “eventums” of a Protreptic Guide, guiding and shaping a Protreptic Dialogue of conversational storytelling (Boje & Rosile, 2020) that is True Storytelling (Larsen, Boje, & Bruun, 2021).
About the Illusion of Time and PRO TIme:
1. Time has been divorced from Space and both divorced from Mattering, so BEING can be defined as uncovering the inseparability of SpaceTimeMattering-in-the-World we live in.
2. SpaceTime are inseparable, but without Mattering,
3. Mattering gets left out
4. In Quantum Physics SpaceTimeMattering are inseparable, anything else is illusion of metaphor
This study guide covers how to learn how to guide from WWOK to IWOK, and from divisiveness dialectic of narrative-counternarrative polemic debating, into the Beyond-Heart of dialogisms of living stories. It is a move Guides make from Abstracting junk to the Grounding in the ontological. It is about being a PRO Trainer.
What is PRO? Process Relational Ontology of Mary Parker Follett (Pelly & Boje, 2019a, 2019b). You can find Follett’s collected papers (1973, Fox & Urwick, Eds.) in the book, Dynamic Administration. Follett delivered papers, and published others, between 1896 and 1923. She is the forgotten mother of process systems, and developed PRO as an alternative to Frederick Taylor’s central planning system of time and motion studies. Our own Duncan Pelly, Grace Ann Rosile, and myself are fans of Follett.
One purpose is of this essay is to relate the 7 principles and 7 Processes of antenarrating to Mary Parker Follett’s work. Please read these essays:
Pelly, Robert Duncan M; Boje, David M. (2019a). “A Case for Follettian Interventions in Public Universities.” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. Accepted Mar 20 2019. Access PDF here.
Pelly, Robert Duncan; Boje, David M. (2019b).Neoliberalism in the North American UniversityToward Integrating Divisions in Agent Orientation Via a Follettian Differentiated Relational Ontology. Communication, Language At Work (CLAW) journal, https://tidsskrift.dk/claw/article/view/116132/164304
David M. Boje & Grace Ann Rosile. (2001). Where’s the Power in Empowerment? Answers from Follett and Clegg, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, issue on Historical Perspectives of Workplace Empowerment. March, Vol. 37(1): 90-117. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/CleggFollett4_index.html
|Where is the Power in Empowerment? by David M. Boje & Grace Ann Rosile|
|(1) Review current empowerment-disempowerment debate;|
|(2) contextualizing Mary Parker Follett’s work with a review of the democratic workplace movements of Marxist socialism, trade unionism, guilds, cooperatives, and non-union workers’ councils;|
|(3) discussing Follett’s theory of co-active power circularity, with its roots in Hegel’s and Dewey’s philosophy;|
|(4) summarizing Clegg’s circuits of power theory; See Diagram.|
|(5) combining Follett’s power-as-capacity concept with Clegg’s circuits of power in an assimilative reading we term “co-power,” which can move us beyond today’s empowerment-disempowerment duality (See Table);|
|(6) drawing implications for organizational development and change practices regarding co-power as a way of linking micro and macro issues; and|
|(7) offering conclusions regarding co-power as a way of increasing the effectiveness of organizational change efforts.|
|To MAIN MENU|
Mary Parker Follett’s PRO (Process Relational Ontology) is foundational to the Four Hearts. Each True Storytelling Principle has a PRO. This presentation is for PRO Trainers Only.
Each Principle of True Storytelling has a corresponding PRO. Each Heart and Between-the-Hearts points to BEING, which is depicted by the Nautilus Spiral.
Follett (1973 Dynamic Administration book) sees freedom through organizing relationships in what we in True Storytelling call together-telling joint action, co-operative action. Becoming correlation of relations in Whole of Direct Contact is for Follett horizontal, not a vertical process (p. 266). It is what Follett calls the Conference Method of conferring with one another in the early stages of process of co-ordination. Follett lists four Co-Ordination principles in developing Collective Control of an enterprise (what we in True Storytelling call ensemble leadership & ensemble storytelling):
- Co-ordination by direct contact of the responsible people concerned. this cross-contact is done by conferring with one another. No outside body of command-and-control hierarchy (Single Loop) can force co-ordination and adjusting because it is a process of auto-governed activity (p. 265). The Single Loop suppresses knowledge, confining knowledge to the executive suite (p. 140). In other words, the parts of an open system, adjust to one another in ways representation in vertical command-and-control (Single Loop) cannot fathom.
- Co-ordination in the early stages of the process by meeting and discussing (conference method). This notion of BEFORE, the fore-having of participation of the relevant parties meeting and discussing is what we do in True Storytelling dialog sessions.
- Co-ordination as the reciprocal relating of all the factors in the Whole Situation. In other word, the Whole Situation becomes a character in the True Storytelling of Being. the Whole Situation shows what co-ordination process actually is.
- Co-ordination is a continuing process, not something done once in a while. This is because co-ordinating that is continuing solves problems, and each problem solved uncovers more problems to solve, and because facts change.
Mary Parker Follett
Follett’s goal is to make collective control work out in self-control in ays that top-down bargaining and compromising fails to integrate. It is in these four principles of co-ordination that Follett moves Beneath the debate and dialectic of narrative-counternarrative, and moves into freedom through organized relations of freedom. “Freedom not from relation, but through relation, through organized relation” (p. 272). As for BEYOND-Heart, this is what Follett contributes: (“We have come to the end of our quick exploit of our natural resources” (Follett, 1973: 143). Follett sought integrative unities: “interpenetration of values”, “interpenetration of thinking” and to “undepartmentalize our thinking” (p. 149) in an enlargement of the understanding of system in its “environmental complex” (p. 156) in “totalness of the situation” (p. 157). and seeking a complex of causes rather than individual cause (p. 157). In sum “The Nature of Reciprocal Activity of Creating Unities” (p. 159).
All hearts point to uncovering our BEING-in-the-world, freedom of Being-authentically or Being-inauthentically.
This next image displays the 7 True Storytelling processes and correspoinding 7 principles.
We have to rethink what we mean by Time and Timing. Plot is arbitrary formulation of time and timing. A PRO delves into the ways the Future, Past, and Present, and the Past, Present, Future are what Einstein called a ‘persistent illusion.’ Why? Because humans assume they know what time is, that time is linear, a sequence of events with characters playing their roles. As Heidegger (1925/1992 History of the Concept of Time book) puts it:
“We must hold ourself aloof from all these significations of ‘future, ‘past’, and ‘Present’ which thrust themselves upon us from the ordinary conception of time” (Heidegger, p. 326).
The uncovering of ontology of time, its primordial, our Being in-time, and time’s inseparability from space and mattering, to remove the dualities, and understand spaceTimeMattering is what PRO trainers are facilitating in the TSI modules.
The temporalizing of temporality, its horizontal action, both the BEFORE and BETS point to BEING-in-the world.
Stepping out of clock time (& Chronos linear time pre-conceptions). The Becoming Process links the Before and Bets Hearts, the Little Wow Moments with Opportune Moments (Kairos).
The processes of spatializing spaces is fundamental to True Storytelling PRO work.
All Hearts Point to Being-in-the-World. Therefore True Storytelling Principles, Processes, and Tool are an uncovering of Being-in-the-World.
Each Heart and the Between has a ‘fore’, an antenarrative process we can relate to Follett’s PRO. What is Fore?
OVERVIEW of FORES Here are some of the definitions of the Before of fore-having in relation to the Beneath of fore-conception, the Bets of fore-sight, the Beyond of fore-grasping (by intuition, 6th sense), and the fore-structure of Between the 4 Hearts. Finally, there is the Restorying process of two locations of Becoming (one in Before, other in Bets) that get stitched together by protreptic.
BENEATH-Heart of Fore-conceptions:
Going beneath the opinions, concepts, facts, and thoughts people are stuck in that make for polarities, dualities of Western Ways of Knowing (WWOK).
BEFORE-Heart of Fore-having:
We are born into generations of background understanding that provides the context of interpretation and understanding of history. This history keeps being rehistoricized
BETS-Heart of Fore-sight:
Fore-sight is all the different Bets on the Future. People are working to produce different anticipated futures.
Fore-Conception of Beneath-Heart
A PRO investigation is a kind of interpreting of the storytelling to work out an understanding. Every True Storytelling interpretation has a BENEATH ‘fore-conception, its BEFORE fore-having, its BETS of fore-sight, what I call BEYOND of fore-grasping, its BETWEEN of fore-structuring, its BECOMING of fore-caring, and these all point to an uncovering of the essence of truth of BEING.
Heidegger (1926/1962: section 232) in Being and Time, does not unpack the meaning of the ‘fore’ notions:
BEFORE, BETS, BENEATH “Every interpretation has its fore-having, its fore-sight, and its fore-conception. If such an interpretation, as Interpretation, becomes an explicit task for research, then the totality of these ‘presuppositions’ (which we call the “hermeneutical Situation”) needs to be clarified and made secure beforehand, both in a basic experience of the ‘object’ to be disclosed, and in terms of such an experience” (read source).
BETWEEN Fore-structure (section 151) “... we must investigate whether what has become visible as the fore-structure of understanding and the as-structure of interpretation, does not itself already present us with a unitary phenomenon” (read source).
Fore-conception goes Beneath the initial abstracting of metaphor language as a way to get out of the Western Ways of Knowing (WWOK) debates, polarities about opinions, and into the Eventing (Kirkeby, 2009, Protreptic book), and what Mary Parker Follett calls the wholeness of the situation.
Principle 4 (Timing) and BEING (process of disclosure)
Hegel’s problem is in using the punctuality of time as its essence of truth (and confining space’s BEING to time) and its linear (METAPHOR). In True Storytelling (chapter 4), there is also clocktime (cycle time, the METAPHOR), and its linear time (another METAPHOR, the BME of narrative-counternarrative fame), and it is not primordial time of Nature (seasons, day and night, life and death cycles in spacetimemattering). We do this differentiation of kinds of Timing because, we are headed to Chapter 5, the pivot turn, to ‘helping story along’ in its BECOMING OF CARE, where the 7 Embodied Restorying steps, take root in BEFORE-BEING-BECOMING-BETS (and this can reverse in futuring arriving, affecting becoming-being-before).
What is Being?
BEING (fore-given) is primordial processes, the already here and there (Dasein) in-the-World (Heidegger, 1962). BEING an antenarrative, means, stories and narratives are constituted out of stuff already there. For example, a narrative is “nover a presuppositionless apprehending of something presented to us” its a “fore-given” (Heidegger, 1962: #150, #150 footnote). BEING is not the empirical (that is the ontic). Rather, BEING is something veiled, and we do an uncovering, by going to deeper levels. Being is not just the now, it is the place, the here-and-now of a Situation. Things in the here-now, are either present-at-hand (such as some broken tool that is unusable) or ready-to-hand in a process such as in blacksmithing, a hammer that works, and is accessible, is ready-to-hand. Example: The Trees (see photo) are already BEING-in-the-World. The trees are present-at-hand. Yet, if the concept of bonfire (BENEATH) changes to, burn trees ‘ready-to-hand’ in site, in the here-now, then BEING (fore-given) shifts. If trees are natural living systems of Nature, and if those are trees have entanglements of many other microscopic species (fungi, microorganisms, bacteria), and many species (birds, toads, rabbits) that are visible to us, then that presentment of bonfire-by-burning-live-tress is an existential shift.
To summarize, the BEING of SpaceTimeMattering is much more the for-itself, and not the metaphor which reifies space as BEING-outside-of-itself (#407, which is what Kant had done in abstracting both space and time other worldly-BENEATH). In other words, space has its own BEING and its own True Storytelling of its spacing (e.g., the silence that has fore-getting of eventums, that is not a for-getting to do silence guideline by Protreptic Guide, because silences are already there.
BENEATH (fore-conception) “does not understand in terms of a totality of involvements” and (#150) and this is the big problem for Guides of Principle 1 (What is True?). It is also the solution to the problem of Principle 1, to uncover what is BNEATH surface concept/value/motive to get to core values of Greek Square (which is a kind of IWOK). BENEATH is already in advance too, and it has connections to the BEFORE (fore-concepts).
Example: What is Multi-Use of Public Lands? Multi-use, I will claim, is “grounded in something we grasp– in a fore-conception” (Heidegger, 1962: #150). There are many fore-conceptions of multi-use, and each institution, holds theirs to be True (Principle 1). This is a story of the ‘multi-use’ concept, of the Federal government of the U.S., and the history of this place where I life and call Home, and my fore-conception multi-use which is rooted in IWOK (my True: let us humans copy the model of Nature, since we already are Nature).The BENEATH of ‘multi-use’ is a concept in U.S. law (with its own history-BEFORE:
“… the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787” for the settlement of the 13 U.S. colonies. In 20th century “the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands” (IBID). The Department of the Interior (under each President’s guidance) has two bureaus: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), State Land Office (SLO), and I live across the street from an SLO parcel (about 300 acres).
In 20th Century, these two conceptions (BENEATH) of uses of public land were enacted in history of BEFORE, so a link of BENEATH to BEFORE is already there for this place where I live. The lease fee I am to be charge to have authority to do conservation is thousands of dollars per month, but if I was to graze cattle it would be $1.35 or so per cow per month. You can see the inequity (the grazing is heavily subsidized, but not so, to set up a conservation lease). There are two BEFORE and BENEATH links to make in telling this story of burning trees on Inauguration Eve. The first is grazing (which has a much longer BEFORE), and second is BENEATH-concept of ‘multi-use’ and its BEFORE (history):
A.) “The federal grazing fee is adjusted annually and is calculated using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM), nor can any fee increase or decrease exceed 25 percent of the previous year’s level. The grazing fee for 2014 was set at $1.35 per AUM, the same level as for 2013. Over time there has been a gradual decrease in the amount of grazing that takes place on BLM-managed land. Grazing on public lands has declined from 18.2 million AUMs in 1954 to 7.9 million AUMs in 2013” (IABD).
B.) “Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 … Congress created a more unified bureau mission and recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. The law directed that these lands be managed with a view toward “multiple use” defined as “management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people”… “multiple use trails [are] used by motorcyclists, hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers” (IBID.) and off-road 4-wheel motor vehicles.
In the 21st century, this recent history the BEFORE has this development, public land conservation is funded by coal, oil, gas, and fracking leases: “On August 4, 2020, President Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act into law, committing up to $1.9 billion from energy development revenues to the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund each year for five years for needed maintenance for critical facilities and infrastructure in national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, recreation areas and American Indian schools. The Act also committed $900 million a year in royalties from offshore oil and natural gas to permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund investments in conservation and recreation opportunities across the country” (IBID).
 Source accessed Jan 23 2021 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management#History
Let’s begin BEFORE-Heart (the process of fore-having, ‘Vorhabe’ in German). Before we are born, history is presented to us, and living through traumatic event after event, we can forget Little WOW-Moments. Fore-having is one of six fore-processes of antenarrative. Fore-having is never alone, it always has the other fores, and they all point to Being of our existence. Fore means already-there, and thus the meaning of antecedent-narrative (or antenarrative). Fore-having is already there in layer upon layer of history. Fore-having is ongoing rehistoricizing. True storytelling aims at a more accurate history of events, while forces of propaganda and ‘regimes of truth’ (Foucault) aim at covering-up.
BEFORE lies before us, already, as something potentially articulable, “for the first time” that is existential “constitutive state of understanding” what is “a priori” and “in every case this interpretation is grounded in something we have in advance – in a fore-having” (Heidegger, 1962: section #150). The BEFORE is potentially disclosable. I encounter the already-history, where I life.
Fore-having (Vorhaben), a component of hermeneutic circle, is not given a detailed explanation in Being and time. In Ontology: the hermeneutics of facticity, which is based on a lecture course and lecture notes written by Heidegger in 1923, four years before the publication of Being and time, we get more clues” (source).
“Fore-having is described by Heidegger as “concretely giving basic experience” (184). We find ourselves thrown into the world at a given time and place. Definite alternatives are open to us: “I am in certain possibilities: my job, my occupation” (186). These possibilities are not uniform throughout history. Traveling into outer space is a concrete possibility in one age and not in another. Determinate possibilities are technological, socio-economic, political, cultural, artistic. Greeting us at the door of life is a language, with its determinate ways of making sense of the world” (source):
Being-there as being-in-the-world is primarily governed by logos…Coming into the world, one grows into a determinate tradition of speaking, seeing, interpreting. Being-in-the-world is an already-having-the-world-thus-and-so. This peculiar fact, that the world into which I enter, in which I awaken, is there for me in a determinate interpretedness, I designate terminologically as fore-having (74).
“But fore-having is never given alone. It works with a fore-sight and fore-grasp to interpretatively disclose the world” (source).
Beforehand we are born into the historiological that keeps changing generation to generation. For example, ‘whiteness’ has a historiological set of BEFOREs, we are born into.
For example, BEFORE colonialism people around the world did not think skin color a big deal. History shifted, as colonialism and capitalism combined to secure indentured and slave labor. Colonial laws privileged Christians by preventing Africans from joining the faith. As conversions happened by 1680, the Bishop of London objected to the practices, and baptism was invoke as grounds for seeking freedom from plantation slavery. All kinds of eventing took place, to legitimate African slavery (bogus gene & IQ junk science), all of it proffered the invention whiteness.
“By the middle of the 20th century, the presumption that a race of people called white were superior to all others had supplied the central justification not just for the transatlantic slave trade but also for the near-total extinction of Indians in North America; for Belgian atrocities in Congo; for the bloody colonization of India, east Africa and Australia by Britain; for the equally bloody colonization of north and west Africa and south-east Asia by France; for the deployment of the Final Solution in Nazi Germany; and for the apartheid state in South Africa. And those are merely the most extreme examples” (source: Guardian, 2021).
“This gradual rejection of explicit, government-enforced white supremacy was hugely consequential in terms of public policy. Yet it did not mean that whiteness, as a political force, had lost its appeal: in the weeks after Powell’s speech, to take just one example, a Gallup poll found that 74% of Britons supported his suggestion that brown-skinned immigrants ought to be repatriated. It also left unresolved the more difficult question of whether whiteness was truly separable from its long history of domination” (source: Guardian, 2021).
“Instead of looking too hard at the sordid history of whiteness, many white people found it easier to decide that the civil rights movement had accomplished all the anti-racism work that needed doing. The result was a strange détente. On the one hand, whiteness retreated as a subject of public attention, giving way to a new rhetoric of racial color-blindness. On the other hand, vast embedded economic and cultural discrepancies allowed white people continue to exercise the institutional and structural power that had accumulated on their behalf across the previous three centuries” (source: Guardian, 2021).
In Heidegger (1926/1962, click here for online text) in these sections to study ‘fore-having’: 150, 153, 157, 232, 311, 327.
Fore-sight is the ahead-of-itself, already grounded in the future (Heidegger, section #327). The BEFORE-heart indicates an already.
BETS (fore-sight) is a non-Western time, a time that arrives from the Future into the Present and Past. It is what I (Boje, 2001) call prospective sensemaking. Antenarrative is the total involvement-in-advance, in the 7 processes. Antenarrative makes distinctions between linear, cyclic, spiral, and rhizomatic plots of events.
Example 1: Multi-use I can see in advance – in fore-sight (Heidegger, 1962: #150) that since four trees (Sumacs) have been burned, and few are left unburned, the one remaining Hackberry Tree is quite vulnerable (i.e. a spiral scenario). It’s a BET, a fore-cast-scenario, a PLOT (P3), that instead of hauling in illegal dumping materials, Yahoos, will likely, most probably, just burn the existing living trees (changing their habit cycle of how bon fires happen, to an escalating spiral, just burn the trees already there).
Example 2: “The person who cuts off the first slide of bread gets the loaf ‘started’, the fore-sight – makes a start” (Heidegger, 1962: #150, footnote). The BET (foresight) is a linear progression plot (but reversed from usual past–>future), the FUTURE-time-in-advance, that hooks back into the Before (fore-having). Prospective sensemaking hooks back into Retrospective sensemaking, both already there. This is what I study in ‘quantum storytelling’ in which future-time is moving-in-advance into the past-time, and these both into present-time. It is not a linear PLOT of time events (Principle 3 of True Storytelling). In the book (Larsen, Boje, & Bruun, chapter 3) we try to get at all this with the notion of multiple futures (BETS) link back to P2 (Already There/BEFORE).
The FUTURING-Heart for Guides OnlyPlotting (Principle 3) and BETS process a fore-sightedness, ON THE FUTUTE arriving. What we do in the True Storytelling Book, chapter 3, is plot a BME to have initial direction so people are secure, and then do a punctum twist because plotting is dynamic process of prospective sensemaking. Plotting is also strategy, the BETS on the future, and the 4 adventure chronotopes (Table 1 above apply) as do the 6 others that are more IWOK-BEING & TIMEspaceMATTERING.
The Futuring-Heart makes bets on the future (it is plotting) by an eventing of ‘Negation of the Negation’ → a lack in 1st Negation, an Affirming of a Future-choice, in 2nd Negation, and so on and so on. The Future is BECOMING into BEING (here & there spacetimemattering)!
How BEFORE (P2 Already There) & BETS (P3 Plots relate: The Example of 4 Capitalisms
Question: What if here are at least 4 capitalism on the world stage today? Each has a BEFORE (P2 Already there), a retrospective history of itself and the Others (with opposite) BENEATH (concepts, motives, & values) as P1 (What is True). I will develop the example of 4-player chess to give an example of how the True Storytelling Principles have these Antenarrative Processes, in the gameplay of Global Capitalisms.
In Plato’s (360 B.
C.) Republic, a State Capitalism (called Timocracy) had a military bent, and was quite authoritarian, but presented itself as heroic and honorable. Each capitalism presents itself linguistically as a Noun, and in its rhetoric history has particular adjectives, while the other capitalisms have the opposite (concept, value, motive) of these same adjectives. For this example I will list what Richard Wolff (2020) has as a list of adjectives various capitalism constitute in narratives of BEFORE (their history) and counternarratives of the other capitalisms’ BEFORE. Wolff’s contends that each of the capitalisms has 3 root problems: 1. Enterprises are organized undemocratically 2. Unstable business cycles of boom & bust recur (3 in the current century), and 3. Inequality of wealth & income.
For Plato, the four governmentalities are a one-way cycle: State (Timocracy) falls into Oligarchy, which comes undone by its own excesses, and falls into Democracy, which gets too many interest groups in play to sustain unity, which then falls into Tyranny. My main point of the 4-player capitalism chess game of strategy, on the world stage is simple enough. In Antenarrative analysis, we are especially skeptical about linear plots, and of histories of BEFORE, and Plots (BETS) that are exactly recurring cycles. Plato’s Republic begins in Aristocracy, then becomes a cycle of repetitions of the same four-phases. There are two other options that may be much more realistic: the spiral because the whorls vary in difference from one time to the next (P4 Timing) in BEING-in-the-World, here and now. The other option is the rhizome, in which all four (or even more capitalisms) are in game play at the same time, making sense of their own internal situation and what is happening (strategically) on the world stage as they PLOT (P3) and ‘ante-up’ with their BETS ON THE FUTURE.
Plato’s Republic Out of the Greek aristocracy of city states, emerged a perfect repeating cycle of governmental successions. First came the Timocracy (a State Capitalism) in which a lover of power and honor cultivated obedience to authority, but was good to place, though not that educated or eloquent. Ofter a good soldier rose to be leader of the Republic.
As Plato’s cycle-story (its PLOT) goes, when the treasury grew, so did the enterprises (what are now corporations) that could finance political elections. As Oligarchy emerged, the State and Corporation had common interests, but opened up a destruction of the wholeness (unity) due to wealth disparity (inequality). To stay in power, the Oligarchic Republic (its wealthy families) and wealthy enterprises, inevitably get too much into pleasure and the system falls sick with extravagant leisure for some, and poverty for the rest.
Democracy is seeded, as people become arrears of Oligarch’s greed and the wealth-disparity. There is a call for judgment, and justice. Plato foresaw that Democracy has its own Achilles Heel, such as when there is so much diversity the Republic cannot remain whole, and everyone begins to do as they please. It is common to keep the Democracy in play by flaming the allies on other forms of capitalism (such as State run capitalism, too penalizing and taxing of Oligarchy). If and when Democracy becomes too unwieldily, there is a choice point, a return to Oligarchy (keep the banks and investors going), or a move to find a Tyrant to bring law and order.
The four Capitalisms in gameplay of the BEFORE (P2 Already There) are encountered in-BEING (P4 Timing), in the process as the four capitalism’s “arbitrary initial conditions” (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984: 310) play out in-the-World we live. The Complex Adaptive Storytelling System of 4 Capitalisms evolves according to TIMING (P4) on a global scale, but we humans experience our BEING process on a much shorter time-scale. Our TIMING and BEING relationship, or storytelling experience of events changes in antenarrative processes (BEFORE, BEING, BECOMING, & BETS) that are the irreversibility (entropy, dissipative, devolving structures) of time, but there is also chance, the concentrative (centering, unifying, conjoining, evolving) possibilities emerge. There is no ‘True Storytelling” spiraling activity which is not already echoing the BEFORE (P2 Already There) in our conversational storytelling (Boje & Rosile, 2020; Larsen, Boje, & Bruun, 2021).
In Sum, for linear conception of capitalism’s progress narrative, we examined the cyclic narrative of repeating cycle of sameness, and in my view its not reality. Rather we have choice between spiraling-process of temporal understanding and the instabilities of rhizomatic phase-shifts of the dynamic storytelling system of global capitalism. The evolving chance possibilities for evolving (centring) can give us hope to balance out the instabilities (entropy) dissipative structures of four-player capitalisms on the global stage, in-BEING (Timing P4).
BECOMING of Fore-Caring
BECOMING of care (fore-caring) is caring unconditionally. This is where (see Table 1, Embodied Restorying, the Little Wow Moments BEFORE, to counter a BENEATH (dominant narrative) by BECOMING (a new story out of Little Wow Moments). The BECOMING (Fore-Caring) is always done from a ‘point of view,’ and it can be in advance from BEFORE (fore-having something we have in advance, Little Wow Moments) or from BETS ON THE FUTURE (fore-sight, something we can see in advance), unveiled in Little Wow Moments of BECOMING. Something still veiled in Helping Stories Along (P5) into BECOMING by fore-caring is a major pivot point for Guides to do with people, families, groups, and or organizations.
The BEYOND HEART and its FORE-Grasping
The BEYOND-Heart for Guides Only! It is the embodied reflecting Principle 7 which meets the BEYOND). This would be so easy without the four illusions in the ocean of discourse.In IWOK, is a relation of BEING & BEYOND that is called by Boje and Pelly the ‘relational process ontology’ and eventing-process that goes deep BENEATH WWOK-word gaming into the spacetimemattering of the ‘vibrant mattering’ (Jane Bennett’s 2009) ‘onto story.’ In Embodied Restorying Process the material objects have vibrant energy aliveness in relation to the Intuitive participant’s work with artifacts, assembling artifacts into ensembles, in order to, develop awareness so the P5 Helping ‘new’ Story Along opens a space of freedom for a choice among futures. Here is where spacetimemattering meets in their indivisibility.
BEYOND (fore-grasping) is done by intuitive sense, not by the 5 senses (see, hear, smell, taste, & touch). Many animals have a 6th sense, such as how bats have sonar, and migrating Swainson Hawks, and Monarch Butterflies and migrate thousands of miles. In humans, BEYOND is intuitive, a flash of insight, and not something done by mind or heart inner dialogue or by speech acts. In Boje & Rosile (2020) we link BEYOND to abduction (spontaneous guess, in the moment), that we recommend gets checked out with inductive tests, as you go about making deductive (theories. We call it a Peircean triad of Abduction-Induction-Deduction (AID). There is another sense of the BEYOND that is more mystical, and about the mind-body-spirit, with sprit (as in Hegel) the 6th sense. Hegel’s (1807) Phenomenology of Spirit.
“If we look at the appearance of such a demand in its wider context, and consider the stage at which self-conscious spirit stands at present, it is clear that spirit has now advanced beyond the substantial life it formerly led in the element of thought,—beyond this immediacy of its faith, beyond the satisfaction and security of the certainty that consciousness possessed of its reconciliation with the essence and of the universal presence of the essence both within and without” (Hegel, 1807: Preface, p. 7 #7)
Hegel’s BEYOND is different from Kant (who makes a strict divide between BEYOND and WORLD. For Hegel the Spirit can intrude and realize in-the-World, not as ghost, but as reason, which people can access.
“The spirit is clearly so impoverished that, like a wanderer in the desert longing for a simple drink of water, it seems to crave for its refreshment only the meagre feeling of the divine in general. The extent of spirit’s loss is to be measured by what satisfies it” (Hegel, 1807: Preface, p. 8 #8).
The relation of AID (Abduction-Induction-Deduction) (see Boje & Rosile, 2020 Conversational Storytelling book), the Peircean BEYOND of abduction to BEYOND of spirit of Hegel, is that both allow for mysticism to mingle with reflection. This is why I locate P7 (reflect) with the A7 (BEYOND).
The BETWEEN (Staging) Tool is GUIDES ONLY
BETWEEN the Hearts Fore-structure:
Going Between the Hearts, into how the hearts are related, and to what constitutes the intra-structure, the networking. In True Storytelling we call it ‘Staging’ the artefacts, the scenography, and us various kinds of storyboarding tools to present it to various audiences.
What is the in-Between. It is the relation of the BETWEEN (fore-structuring in-advance) as Guides prepare a way to get to the Essence of BING in its spacetimemattering. Guiding BETWEEN the 4 Hearts takes great understanding of the eventing-process is NOT an event (noun), it’s a verb-process, that gets worked out in the storyboarding, and in breakouts using DIALOGISMS, sometimes using Negation of the Negation process of practical ensemble work. 1st Negation (lack gets fulfilled), then 2nd Negation (a positivity created out of a Future-potentiality), is an Antenarrative Process of Prospective Sensemaking (Futuring arriving in fore-sight). It is also Restorying finding little wow moments of BEFORE to go BACK TO THE FUTURE, into choices of futures not in awareness of prospective sensemaking work guides facilitate.
The BEFORE nexus with P2 Already There, is where to find ‘Little Wow Moments’ that can become (BECOMING) new story BETS ON THE FUTURE, and a new grounding, a re-grounding of the BEFORE.
|Table 1: 7 STEPS of Embodied Restorying Process (ERP)|
|1. Characterize (received Person/Organization identity) from how other persons/organizations are telling the BEFORE.|
|2. Externalize (re-label to an artifact, material object) Make the Problem the Problem, not the Person as the (root) problem (often ‘sick’ system is the problem, not the person).|
|3. Sympathize (benefits) – of old BEFORE story/dominant-narrative of or your Self or organization that has its payoffs in the present.|
|4. Revise (consequences) – What are the negative consequences, including the stereotypes (prejudices) of received person &/or organization identities, of this BEFORE still evoked?|
|5. Strategize (Little Wow Moments of exception to Others’ dominant master narratives of BEFORE); Guide to reclaim Little Wow Moments of memory from their BEFORE|
|6. Restory (rehistoricizes the old dominant narratives in BEFORE by collecting Little Wow Moments BEFORE (aka multiplicity of positivities) into A ‘New Story’ of there several possibility futures, to free up FREEDOM of CHOICE), to not be stuck in the past-BEFORE, reliving one event in endless loop (e.g. PTSD flashbacks)|
|7. Publicize (support networking) e.g. letter writing, social media, celebratory events with supporters of there very own ‘New Story’ of future and potentiality, so they stay in the ‘new world’ instead of STUCK-in-the-BEFORE) repeating that loop.|
The BETWEEN Tool for Guides Only!
What is in-BETWEEN the 4 Hearts of True Storytelling? It is where all that storyboarding pays off for participants.
Four D’s of 4 Hearts and The Guide Moves from Debates and Different Histories into the Ensemble Dialectic and into the 5 Dialogisms of True Conversational Storytelling Deep Listening
Next a look at just spacetime, but please keep in mind mattering is lurking there too, as we shall see in the chronotope dialogism.
The point is the 10 chronotopes of spacetime are interactive, additive, and cumulative in our existence, but the narrative word-work seems to focus just on time defining space, and time exploiting mattering. So Bakhtin sets out to do something never done before. Instead of typology, slotting and sorting into different (make one choice in 10), he lets them all interact in the chronotopic dialogism.
Keep in mind, Bakhtin went against all dialectics and all debates. His focus was on letting the chrnotopes interplay and interanimate. His big deal contribution is a system understanding called Heteroglossia (one force centers, the others unravels; aka centripetal and centrifugal forces).
So free your mind to let the chronotopes be dialogical in storytelling. It is a PRO (Process Relational Ontology) (PRO, Boje, 2019 book) of eventing as Kirkeby (2009) might call it, and work I do with Duncan Pelly and Grace Ann Rosile on onctributions of Mary Parker Follett’s RPO.
Based on Gilles Deleuze (1968/1994) Difference and Repetition. The BEFORE antenarrative is process always moving in the waves of rehistoricizing. A fish pretends to be a shark, while the shark pretends to be just another fish in the waters.
The point of these questions is to get at BEFORE as problem solving, that is not the same as problem-fixing, and is not the “miscognized” reduction to SAME of identity narratives as “the negative takes wing” (Deleuze, 1968/1994: 269). The four Illusions of the BEFORE antenarrative process are all about the potential distortions in repetition and difference in conversational storytelling. A Level II Guide can facilitate in ways the are journey from the surface of dissension and strife to the problem solving of a positive dialectic. The four illusions of the BEFORE are all about the process of restorying that relates P2 What is Already There to the P4 Helping Story Along BECOMING by P6 Staging, a New BET on the Future P3 is gets its clarity of Plot, and P7 its BEYOND of embodied reflection. Example: This relates to the 1st of 4 Illusions (model and copy are not the some), and Illusion 3 (the copy becomes more real than the real, a simulacra) (see examples of this simulacra, how leaders such as Colonoel Sanders, McDonald’s Brothers, and Sam Walton after they passes, became simulacra (more real than the real): Boje & Rhodes, 2005a, 2005b; Boje & Rosile, 2008).
There is One and only One spacetimemattering so reducing space, time, mattering by separations, then framing not yet Now, is a problematic Guides encounter (#430). You encounter participants treating spacetimemattering as a Metaphor (actually its a Simile, but why quibble) and both become Metonyms (2nd Illusion) so due to 3rd Illusion, the actualities of potential solutions are missed completely, and the whole conversation descends to level of judging, blaming, shaming, stereotyping (4th Illusion).
If space gets represented in narrative as BME line metaphor, or a metaphor of a cycle, then that narrative is indifferent to the subsistence of space BEING, in all its points of whole BEING. If BEING gets treated in narrative as a sequence of events, by the BME METAPHOR, of now-past, now-NOW, and now-not-yet then retrospective-sensemaking (BEFORE, already there) and prospective sensemaking (BETS plotting) have flattened out time eventums, to a reifying METAPHOR (all four illusions take hold). When time is flattened out, it is a pre-conception, a narrative of selected (cherry-picked events & characters & themes). History, is not usually the whole history, its a partial account, and BME, becomes a part substituting for the Whole of history. Some with BENEATH, a simplifying concept substitutes for depth of a problem, so the roots of the problem, never gets into the narrative. History and metaphor (simile, metonym) are selective language games. There is a potentiality-for-Being-a-Whole system understanding of situation, and be closer to truth (P1: what is true?; BENEATH). A fore-conception can be a stereotype, a prejudice, and becomes taboo to discuss in some circles. Who decides what part of History (BEFORE, P2: make room for already there), or the eventness of the Whole situation really matters.
This session two of Train the Train image is a tool for relating BEFORE as well as BENEATH to how illusions of what is space, what is time, what is mattering, and what is spacetimemattering get worked into dialogues (conversational storytelling sessions you are guiding). Illusions are not simple untruths or lies, they are a natural part of what happens in unguided conversations where Guides are not working the 6 eventums.
Question to Guides: How can the spacetimemattering that is time-point, matter-point, and space-point that “posits itself for-itself” to occur in Guiding conversational storytelling?
BEFORE →BEING → BECOMING →BETS is the simplified temporality dimension
BENEATH →BEING→ BETWEEN→ BEYOND is the simplified spatiality dimension.
Obviously, this is an interactive networking of all 7 antenarrative processes with the 7 principles not just in consulting but in Guiding Protreptic Dialogue in breakouts on line or in groups offline (Tamara-Land).
Hegel treats BEYOND as ‘pure intuition’ of spirit manifesting in time as its true, and in history (BEFORE). But, Heidegger finds Hegel’s spatiality too reduced to flattened time, and too big a (quantum) leap from BENEATH to BEFORE and to BEYOND, too big a jump that skips over several antenarrative processes in Whole System of processes. Instead of idealized (BENEATH) concept of space or time or mattering, the antenarrative processes are pregnant already with the future, and its eternity (#431). I am especially interested in uncovering the BECOMING of Heart-of-Care in the conversation/dialogue I am guiding and shaping that discovery. Hegel calls time ‘intuited BECOMING” (caps, mine, #431). I want spacetimemattering as the GROUNDING.
WHO FIRST USED EXPRESSION ‘True Storytelling’?
We are increasing our modern distance from True Storytelling the BEFORE because oral-“experience has fallen in value” and “communicable experience” is contradicted by the new technologies of narrative-information in Digital Age (Benjamin, pp. 83-84). Those IWOK living story-oral-tellers that could witness and communicate experience, are, now rare: “the art of storytelling is reaching its end” and the “epic side of truth” is dying out (p. 87). What I refer to as ‘grand narratives’ (Boje, 2001) is an info-digital-wave, washing away the BEFORE wave of ‘microstoria’ of the little people who once surfed ‘True Storytelling’ (see that chapters on Grand Narrative & Microstoria, aka ‘living story’).
Walter Benjamin is among the first ever to use the concept ‘True Storytelling.’ He uses the story of Egyptian King who is in a ceremony of succession, as the new king (conqueror) tries repeatedly to humiliate him. There is a realignment of mind and heart (and no doubt a speech act uttered) as the king sees his servant will be executed. It is a way of storytelling the events, in which one reads the Situation (context). There is no excess explicating or explaining. It is example of Indigenous Ways of Knowing (IWOK) as opposed to the Western Way of Knowing) of narrating it all (Rosile, 2016). Walter Benjamin’s main point: IWOK kind of storytelling is coming to an end, and in the Digital Age that came after Benjamin wrote this in 1936, ‘True Storytelling’ is quite rare. (click here for on line Benjamin pdf).
Walter Benjamin (1936/1968: p. 102, 2nd paragraph, section XVI). Benjamin’s example is the great storyteller of fairy tales, in maritime, craft, blacksmithing, silver-making, and such occupations. In their BEFORE, concepts were conveyed without lots of explanation, akin to what Rosile (2016) calls wisdom of Indigenous Ways of Knowing (IWOK) [see tools, session 1). It relates to Greek Square, to what is freedom:
“All great storytellers have in common the freedom with which they move up and down the rungs of their experience as on a ladder. A ladder extending downward to the interior of the earth and disappearing into the clouds is the image for a collective experience to which even the deepest shock of every individual experience, death, constitutes no impediment or barrier (p. 102).
Giving “good counsel,’ the tutor of not only children, but “tutor of mankind”, “The first true storyteller is, and will continue to be, the teller of fairy tales” (Benjamin (1936/1968: p. 102, 2nd paragraph, section XVI).
ra-Land is an analysis of Disney-Land (Boje, 1995). EXCERPTS: BEFORE Disney theme parks existed, premodern families went to medieval fairs, traveling circuses, and community and religious festivals. BEFORE – In 1919, Walt and Iwerks were equal partners in an enterprise called Iwerks-Disney Commercial Artists Company rather than something like Disney-Iwerks, a formulation that, Walt felt, made them sound like an optical firm. Ub Iwerks did 700 drawings a day, while Walt could do one (badly drawn). In the early 1900s, before Disney became partners with Iwerks, many animation studios “taylorized” cartoons. Like others in this industry, such as Max Fleischer, Gregory La Cava, Walter Lantz, Paul Terry, Raoul Barre, Charles Bowers, and Edwin Lutz, Walt Disney became an enthusiast of “scientific management.” Eisner will invoke Walt’s legend and then challenge it. Here Eisner discusses how there were no scripts at Disney for animated films before he took over:
I couldn’t follow it. I’d go down there and they’d go through the storyboards. And you go through one storyboard and they’d bring in another storyboard. And I’d sit there for hours and I couldn’t remember what was in the first storyboard. And it was a hard process for me to deal with. I’d been used to working in the script area.
And I was a little critical of some of our animated films that had been done before Walt died. Because I think there were great scenes but a lot of scenes put together. But sometimes the art of the story (as he motions his hands back and forth in an arc in the air) didn’t follow the way I was used to thinking about stories, or what I learned in school about the construction of — the stories and all that. MoreMain Point: The corporate narrative is the official ‘grand narrative account’ however the microstoria of little people (like Up Iwerk) does not survive. Walt was an oral storyteller and did staging (P6) with storyboarding, whereas, for Eisner, scripts were written out, not orally or visually performed. In the article I am the epic-“history-teller” of definite events and the course of events of BEFORE (Benjamin, p. 97). In living story web of remembrance of every point of history is epic, and Tamara-Land you only experience a room at a time, and what I am taking into the epic-account is how people come to a particular room from many different sequences of BEFORE-rooms, so their take-aways are quite different.
The Essence of Freedom in True Storytelling
There is a connection of corrections and freedom in Protreptic Dialogue that is about unconcealment-BEING (antenarrative process) and TIMING (principle 4). For me, it is moving out of ABSTRACTING, and deep diving into GROUNDING in Nature’s “domain of truth” (Heidegger, 1931/2013, on line). Please search the online text, for “domain of truth, Section IV, Essence of Freedom): “the ground of inner possibility of correctness” since Earth already had a more originary “essence of uniquely essential truth.” Freedom opens up in Nature, reveals itself, in an open region, where correct behavior (comportment) of beings: “freedom now reveals itself as letting being be”. We certainly do this in True Storytelling Protreptic Guiding of sessions (events). It is not about planning, managing, but rather “to let beings be as the beings which they are” (BEING meets Principle 4, Timing).
Now and Now as BEING and past-now as BEFORE, and not-yet-now as FUTURING BETS, all that is METAPHOR, not the flow of time or the subsistence of place in space, or the mattering of quantum energy vibrations of vibrant matter (see Jane Bennett’s books).
In sum, Heidegger’s quest, is to amend Hegel’s linear time, and his reduction of space to time-as-truth, by bringing space back into BEING, and making time arrive from futuring (not just from retrospective sensemaking the BEFORE), or plopping on the NOW-NOW-NOW series as if that is all that is in existential BEING. So two dimensions not one BME of time, and the spatializing and mattering are in-BEING, and all the other antenarrative processes and in the Principles if they be more than metaphors, and they are not just ABSTRACTING, the are GROUNDING something that is “self-manifestation” and the BEYOND is “progress of the spirit which actualizes itself in history” for Hegel, the BEFORE, but for Heidegger, and I agree, spirit (BEYOND) has more to it than that, that is truly amazing (#434) GROUNDING of Nature.
BEYOND – Spirit is restless for Hegel and for Heidegger, but not a nullity, of some version of the negation of the negation dialectic BEFORE) (#434). Rather than spirit as “concept-itself” BENEATH, or the BEFORE grasped as “World-history” spirit has its own Nature (#434).
Heidegger’s version of Hegel’s NEGATION of the NEGATION
Hegel’s “abstract negativity” is a concept BENEATH, and there are these other antenarrative processes (#435). “Spirit must first of all fall ‘into time”” but the dialectic of the “negation of a negation” has left out space and mattering that are primordial and the oneness of spacetimemattering of Nature, the spirit “in-itself” (#435). I am obviously into Nature spirits not into placing spirit BEYOND world. What “makes existence possible” (#436) is not just temporalizing, or spatializing, bu mattering of what is not just present-at-hand- but is the ready-to-hand (#437). Example, my blacksmith hammer is not just present-at-hand lying around my shop, it cared for, and prepared-in-advance, to be “ready-to-hand” (Boje, Quantum Storytelling Blacksmith Art in the Quantum Age, my keynote YouTube at the Process Conference in Greece on the Island of Kos
In sum, Heidegger makes important reforms to Hegel’s negation of the negation dialectic, by resituating what is TIMING (temporalizing of temporality) and by putting the existential BEING of spactial on its own BEINGNESS, rather than it being a metaphor of time sequencing or linear, or cyclical narrative. The next section is about how ensembles of organizing work, and forming alliances in transforming organizations and societies (Rosile, Boje, Herder, & Sanchez, 2020).
Jean-Paul Sartre’s (1960/2004) Negation of the Negation to understand the practice of ‘Ensemble Organizing’
Summary Jean-Paul Sartre (1960.2004) has done important work to develop kinds of pratial ensembles, and how organizational change, and work redesign works by a negation of the negation dialectic. Sartre is critical of Marxist dialectic (an application of Hegel’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis). The point Sartre is making is how the second kind of dialectic in the work of Hegel (negation of the negation) can be developed to both be an understanding of BEING (Principle 4 Timing) but is also spatializing BEING, and mattering BEING. A clear example can help your understanding of what Sartre is doing. Her eis a tool showing the Game interplay of multi-player strategy to illustrate the BETS PROCESS of Plotting that of a Development Spiral, on its own. The question is How the Guide and or consultant can intervene to begin about harmony in the WHOLE SYSTEM?
The Negation of the Negation Plotting and Betting Tool
Example 1 The creation of a tool that can diminish scarcity is the negation of the negation (Sartre, 1960/2004: 151). It is productive labor., and changes the practical ensemble of how work is organized. E.g. a tool to clean the plastic out of the oceans, is a negation of a LACK, a negation of the negation. Negation: negation of negation is the creation of the tool that was not there before. Negation is lack of something; the creation of something is negation of the negation. Scarcity of anything to change the gyres of plastic in the oceans (negation), gets resolved by creation of a new tool (negation of that negation). Example 2 The negation of the negation, such as “the unity of all” (Sartre, 1960/2004: 210) is not the negation of the machine in itself which crafts persons thrown out of work attempted in 1830.
The negation of the
negation, can only be the negation capitalism’s interest if it becomes the worker’s own destiny (IBID.). This negation of the capitalist’s interest, such as a protest to increase real wages in Lyon in 1830 (Sartre, 1960/2004: 211). E.g. The machine that cleans the ocean (a lack, negation), is a negation of the machine not there to a problem that is there (negation of the negation). But, it also throws people out of work to do it by hand (scooping it into barges, with hand tools).
Example 3 Negation of the negation of a group (seriality) and its relation between other groups, is a negations of the unity constituted by other groups’ praxis (363). A regroupment shifts reality. It is a reorganization of the environment of the work group, a shift in the “unity of the other praxis conditions” (Sartre, 1960/2004: 362), i.e. how processes of work are done by the group, and how work is organized. An alternative is to change the unity of the group by its own action (induction by action) (Sartre, 1960/2004: 362), i.e. just regulate the group by management or by apparatus (operating instructions that tells group what to do when). Example: A group of craft workers, has a computer program installed by operations (negating their autonomy to do the work), as the computer software (and its data engineers) dictate how work is done (its an apparatus that controls human behaviors, and their work processes). This second negation is behind-the-scenes, and further reduces freedom and autonomy of work, resulting in lower paid workers (deskilling), a 3rd negation, and the overall result is alienation and more division between employers and the employed (4th negation). In sum, a spiral of negations (not a cycle).
Example 4 Job rotation (is an organizing apparatus), so is teaching new skills (differentiating craft into division of labor), and a material effect (altering spatial distances between tasks and/or workers) in the work process is a negation of the negation, a practical negation of developing disorganizations of the craftwork, that had freedom, and is now a lack (a negation of the negation) (Sartre, 1960/2004: 545). Example: micromanaging a group of workers, by a central planning expert, who loves process reengineering, as a way to promote lower wages, downsizing number of workers, and to have deskilling of the craft and art of the work itself (this is a series of negations, of negations, that culminate in alienation, less pay, and less available work). This is why CEOs love reengineering because it accumulates higher bonuses for executives, and shareholders. Counter example: democratizing the work ensemble, has been shown to outperform reengineering, in empirical and in well-being results. See ensemble leadership work by Rosile, Boje, Herder, and Sanchez (2020): building ensemble alliances is actually more efficient, and has more learning for improvements than efficiency schemes in this example. Negation of the lack of democratic ensemble, allows for a series of negations of workplace problems that could be solved with an understanding of how whole systems and True Storytelling are related.
With these four examples of the negation of the negation dialectic, we turn now to how the antenarrative processes work with the True Storytelling Principles.
The Four Hearts Tool for Guides Only1
There are four kinds of conversations happening in Breakout rooms and Tamara-Land Storytelling Organizations: Debates of ABSTRACT-Heart, competing HISTORIES of BEFORE-Heart, the Negations of the BETS-FUTURING-Heart, and what we Guide todard, the DIALOGISMS of living Storytelling Conversations.
Here is an example of how to use this tool in working with groups as a Guide, and working with Organizations in a consulting. The Guide encounters people doing linear thinking, and working with parts in an us vs. Them dialectic of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, but the synthesis never works out, never gets realized (except in the logic, in the head). A move to a Dialogical is amazing. Its democratic, its practical ensemble of relating, by deep listening, and authentic involvements.
Negation of the negation, can work either way, a way to go into positive solutions to problems that have Situation grounding in Whole Systems, or a way to move into the other kind of dialectic )us versus them. For know, the point is these two dialectics are completely different processes, with very different results. A negation of the negation can be quit good at problem solving, filling a lack by innovation, creativity and democratic workplace healing. But, beware, there are practical ensembles of thieves, of mobs, and they do not operate for your well being. There are practical ensembles that negate problems, by coming up with solutions.
Summary Above is the Four Hearts Tool. In True Storytelling Guiding we move the conversation from initial dialectics of narrative fights counternarratives to the dialogical of living story conversations. The second move is Restorying, from uncovering LITTLE WOW MOMENTS of one or many histories that become OPPORTUNE MOMENTS of ‘New Stories’. The BEFORE HEART and BETS HEART are temporality moves (one is P4 ‘Timing’ moves from FUTURES to PASTS; second is P5 ‘Helping’ from PASTS to FUTURES). The Hearts are in interconnectivity by the P6 (Staging) of the four BETWEENS. BEING is pivotal, the Being of Freedom to open one’s Self to the Open Space of the in-Between. There are two quite different dialectics. The metaphoric Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis where unifying synthesis never emerges as unity. The ontological Negation of the Negation which can slip out of dialogic and become the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis of Abstracting polarities, once more. Guides of Protreptic Dialogical do their work to keep movements towards GROUNDING. It’s all about Guides helping participants find heart-felt attunements of Four Hearts. It is all about Guides guiding participants to uncover the BEING of attunements (4 Hearts).
Dialogisms of Mikhail Bakhtin
- I & Other is divisive (Debate); both Dialogue and & TSI move away from this
- ITS is Corporate-Centric, seeing everything as a resource (humans are resources, nature is a resource, …). Everything is a bunch of Its (parts in search of a whole). Both Dialogue and TSI Dialogisms move away from this
- IT of Eco-centric. Everything is a whole ecology, including humans (not spirit). This is science.
- WE – is Spirit-Centric, Everything is spirit (rocks, trees, rivers, mountains).
Note: I, ITS, IT, and We are applying Ken Wilbur’s work.
Bohmian Dialogue is leaderless groups (now on Zoom) doing leaderless projects (sometimes). True Storytelling uses Dialogisms as its Whole System Storytelling approach to guide participants from Parts to Wholes, and into practical results. Both move out of Debates.
We will return Bohmian Dialogue and True Storytelling Dialogisms. First, we will develop how BEING and Timing (P4) are related. For now you need to know that Bohmian Dialogues are leaderless groups, and True Storytelling has Protreptic Guides using 6 eventums.
The Primordial Disclosure of BEING as a Whole with Timing Principle 4
Next, I want to make a connection of BEING antenarrative process of the Whole System, and the Timing principle #4 of True Storytelling, eventums in a place, in a time, in mattering (all inseparable). Martin Heidegger’s (1926/1962) BEING and TIME could be called BEING and TIMING. The Being and Time book begins and ends with Hegel’s (1807) Phenomenology of Spirit and with Hegel’s (1817) Encyclopedia essay. Heidegger finds Hegel’s treatment of timing and of BEING of spacing problematic in both works.
All 7 Antenarratives and all 7 True Storytelling Principles help the Protreptic Guide to understand what Heidegger is amending in Hegel. It is important because a Protreptic Guide is facilitating a Protreptic Dialogue, in all its 6 eventums.
The Point: The 7 Antenarratives are all processes of existence in which Principle 4 Timing and is inseparable from Spacing and Mattering, all 3 inseparable together, in the quantum storytelling of ‘spacetimemattering’ without any dashes or separations. This next image is in the 2021 True Storytelling book in every chapter, to show the relationship of 7 antenarratives to 7 principles.
Heidegger thinks Hegel gets lost in BENEATH abstracting concepts (reifying timing & spacing, & let’s add mattering to the list), thereby losing all GROUNDING. To reify is to treat a subjective-concept as a METAPHOR, making it something objective. Boje and Heidegger don’t do metaphors!. Secondly, Hegel has several awesome notions, but besides reifying, he makes a non-quantum leap into the BEYOND. Heidegger introduces 7 (already there ‘fore’) notions, Boje defines as ‘antenarrative processes’ in his own writing from 2001 to 2021. Keep in mind Principles and Processes already there, go hand-and-glove in True Storytelling facilitation.
This is based on Bakhtin (1981) and on my book on storytelling organization strategy (2008). I put in some simpler labels. It combines 10 ways of SpaceTime (Spatializing and Timing together with Mattering) are in-BEING. #1 begins in something, common in organizations, but very abstract (SWOT) where tough CEOs never change character (don’t grow), but in #2, the adventure begins grounding as chance comes into play and people change their character Self & energy, #3 gets combined with 1 &2. Point is the 10 work in combinations. This is not choosing which of the 10, it is looking for how to combine what is there to transform by TIMING and BEING.
HOW BOHMIAN DIALOGUES, WILBUR’s AQAL and TRUE STORYTELLING/DIALOGISMS COMPARE?
Figure: Depicting the BETWEEN (P6: Staging) in relation to four quadrants of Ken Wilbur: I’s [& Others] (ego-centric), We (spirit-centric), It (eco-centric), and Its (corporate-centric) (adapted from Boje, 2008: 177, 189).
The 4-Hearts tool, in the above figure, is expanded from simpler version at beginning of this Guide handout, in order to show comparison and contrast of True Storytelling and Bohmian Dialogue (Bohm, 1996/2003, online text click here). It is also resorts Ken Wilbur’s 4 quadrant model, putting the I’s and ITS on top part (the parts) and the WE and IT (the Whole), what we have called Abstracting-parts, and Grounding in a Whole System understanding.
Bohmian Dialogues are the entanglement in quantum mechanics of two orders of ontology that are entangled:
(1) Implicative Order of enfolded surface notions of space and time that Bohm (1996/2003) goes to, what we call BENEATH-antenarrative to find surface of ‘P1: What is True’.
(2) Explicative Order of unfolded Wholeness of space and time in in mattering that is too small for the naked eye to see. Bohm observes that ways of solving this communication problem, the participants are not actually able to listen to each other.
Therefore, Bohm’s and the True Storytelling approach share a process approach in which every attempt to improve communication in WWOK, most always results in more confusion, and a sense of participant frustrating, shying away form talking about things that could erupt into argument, and for some more aggression of people defending positions, instead of metal understanding, and finding common ground, and trust-building.
What else we share in common Bohmian Dialogue and True Storytelling share many other similarities. Both are rooted in Whole System worldview in Indigenous Ways of Knowing (IWOK). Both move conversational storytelling from Western Ways of Knowing (WWOK) that enfold debate and dialectic polarities (thesis-antithesis; narrative-counternarrative; polarities; Part vs. Parts) into IWOK Whole Systems. A Bohmian Dialogue and True Storytelling both are meetings in which when one persons says something, the other person does not usually respond with exactly the same meaning (p. 2). This is also one of the key points of Tamara-Land (Boje, 1995). Intersubjectivity, is sharing something in common, from terse telling, even a ‘you know’. When intersubjective is not allowing the sharing of experience from one person to the other, or when people are not really listening to each other, prejudices take over, instead of “truth and coherence” (Bohm, 1996/2003: p. 3). There is a difference in understanding. Plus there is continual emergence of new content.Both Bohmian Dialogue and the Quantum Storytelling, have learned much about quantum for LeRoy LittleBear. Both focus on how in our modern economic, education, and political systems are different since the Digital technology took hold of the social and economic. People are in digital systems without the dialogue-ability to understand one another other. Bohmian Dialogue and True Storytelling conversations are enacted in small groups, and are encouraged to go deep, to share BENEATH ‘superficial assumptions; of ‘self-interest’ and to deal with barriers and issues, that in discussion or debate, would break and fragment meaning into taking sides. As with Walter Benjamin, True Storytelling and Bohmian Dialogue are deeply concerned with how newspapers, and now internet assemble unrelated fragments to produce sources of confusion and misinformation. “The point is that dialogue has to go into all the pressures that are behind our assumptions. It goes into the process of thought behind the assumptions, not just the assumptions themselves” (Bohm, p. 9).
|Table 1: 8 Quantum Reality Approaches|
|Quantum Reality 1: No deep reality. Neils Bohr believed quantum entities do not possess unique dynamic attributes, but instead are creatures of the measurement situation (apparatus). (Karen Barad, 2007 Meeting Universe Halfway, adopts Bohr and rejects Heisenberg (Q#2 & Q#8).||Quantum Reality 6: Neorealism (Bell and Von Neumann reject non-locality|
|Quantum Reality 2: Observation (observer) Effect creates quantum dynamics (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle; John Dewey).||Quantum Reality 7: Consciousness Creates Reality (aka, social constructivism)|
|Quantum Reality 3: World exist sin undivided Wholeness (Erwin Schrodinger & David Bohm)||Quantum Reality 8: Duplex Universe, Superposition of real and partly real (Werner Heisenberg).|
|Quantum Reality 4: Many Worlds Co-exist.||Quantum Reality 9: Quantum Spirituality (Goswami, 2012; Fred Alan Wolf, 1992)|
|Quantum Reality 5: World is non-Boolean Logic-Lattice (Bell’s Theorem).||Quantum Reality 10: Quantum Dialectic of Negation of the Negation (Zizek, 2012 reviews Barad (Quantum #1) and amends it with a Hegelian Dialectic and to include a Hegelian spiritual focus, Q#9).|
Note: First 8 quantum realities based on Herbert (1985).
As Richard Feynman, puts it “Anyone who claims to understand quantum thoery iseither lying or crazy. That said, Bohmian Dialogue and True Storytelling approach quantum storytelling differently (for more on Quantum Storytelling, see Boje & Henderson, 2014).
There is something important about WWOK turns to IWOK. As Walter Benjamin (1936) puts it, storytelling that conveys experience to the listener, is coming to an end. Benjamin is among the first to define ‘true storytelling’ (p. 90, last paragraph section VII; p. 102, 2nd paragraph, section XVI). Both Bohmian Dialogue (1996/2003) and True Storytelling conversations (Boje & Rosile, 2020) focus on importance of story-listening, that are often missing in debate and dialectics, and how communication breaks down resulting in an absence of intelligent action in groups, organizations, and societies. Finally, both approaches have people in groups, wo come into a storytelling and story-listening sessions from a wide range of contexts. In sum True storytelling and Bohmian Dialog share a common focus on deep listening, to create something in common, Boje and Rosile (2020) call ‘together-telling’. For True Storytelling and Bohmian Dialogue to function, the most important thing is all parties are honest in their telling and their deep listening. There is continual emergence of a new ideas, not turn tested, in emergent conversation. Both share a focus on self-reflection (BEYOND & P7 embodied reflection process). Relevant to P7, Bohm (1996/2003) says “Evidently then, what is crucial is to be aware of the nature of one’s own ‘blocks.’”
Both work with phase shifts. Protreptic Guides help build up phase waves (Principle 2, [waves] already there, & BEFORE wave patterns). Breakout rooms (or mountain hikes) can help people get to know one another, and coherent wave-phases emerge, first at a vague feeling level (intuitively), of coherent movement of the conversational storytelling.
Finding the “tacit ground” (Bohm, 1996/2003:p. 14) is something Bohmean Dialogue and Conversational Storytelling share in common (Boje & Rosile, 2020). The point is the 7 antenarrative process are tacit, already there, and constitute the manner of the conversational storytelling in a dialogue group.
Both move from parts (fragmented-narratives, tersely-told ones) to the Whole System. People in dialogue have different opinions about BEFORE (experiences, in memory). People defend opinions, but why? When another person challenges our options, our experience, pr our background, defenses go up. What is unique about dialogue is the group goes into the whole of the thought process (antenarratives), and are engaged in the process. “Fragmentation is one of the difficulties of thought, but there is a deeper root”, for example “The whole ecological problem is due to thought, because we have thought that the world is there for us to exploit, that it is infinite, and so no matter what we did, the pollution would all get dissolved away” (Bohm, p. 9).
By contrast Bohmian Dialogue’s quantum storytelling focuses on ‘dialogue’ instead of ‘debate’ (or discussion), whereas True Storytelling takes ‘quantum storytelling’ in a different direction: Mikhail Bakhtin’s (1981), four ‘dialogisms’ (polyphonic voices, stylistic materialities, chronotopic spacetime, architectonic discourses, & what I call (Boje, 2008), the ‘polypi’ a term from Hans Christian Anderson’s Little Mermaid that is the interplay of first four dialogisms). The 2008 book, is all about strategies (BETS) corporate-centric approaches, and how to move into IWOK ways. Discussion, for Bohm (1996/2003: 6-7) is different game from dialogue, it ‘breaks up’ flow by ‘percussion’ and ‘concussion’. In breaking up, the discussion, results in each person presenting different points of view, in a “ping-pong game” of batting about ideas “back and forth” (p. 7). Whereas Bohmian Dialogue treats groups of 5 to 50, in dialogue as microcosms of society, in True Storytelling, subgroups are smaller on average, and there is a purpose to generate projects that make a difference in lives of individuals and projects that change institutions. One of the main differences is in Bohmian Dialogue, the groups are leaderless and there is no agenda, other than to explore a theme (without debate & discussion). In True Storytelling, there are Protreptic Guides facilitating, especially in early stages of group formation (where storming and norming, happen frequently).
Bohm focuses on thought and assumptions. By contrast, True Storytelling (and antenarrative processes) specify core values, core concepts, and motives of how participants see a ‘problem’ , and what is producing that sort of problem, not just the particular problem (in other words, move to a systems thinking level) [Bohm, 1996/2003: p. 10]. Defense are pre-thought, thinking of the defense, in order to defend something, which means in BEING-present, a lot of things get pushed aside, issue gets distorted, in order to defend basic assumptions against evidence.
Dialogue groups work best when the groups are leaderless and without agenda. Of course, people are not used to meeting without leaders, agenda, or purpose. Without that structure, participants work through anxiety. It is therefore useful for Protreptic Guide to explain what is happening from time to time, and session to session. The Guide works themselves out of that role as the group learns to be an ensemble (‘everyone is a leader’ and the group is acting in together-telling). In Bohmian dialogue the groups are not going to decide or do anything, and are therefore free to explore an empty space, not an occupied space.
Protreptic Guides sustain dialogue day to day, week to week, and month after month. As people trust one another, and relationships build, the sharing is deeper. The point however is for the group to be a microcosm of society or the enterprise and its environs.
In sum, we have more similarities than differences. Bohm’s solution to the BENEATH (language) and all our assumptions about how society works” (BEFORE, P2: making room for the already there). To Get BENEATH and BEFORE is to go to the thoughts themselves, and listen to people with different basic assumptions and opinions (this in True Storytelling/antenarrative is going deep from Abstracting (debates & discussions of narrative-counternarrative) to the Grounding, in [polyphonic] dialogism (Bakhtin). How does Bohm answer the Question: What is True?
“Each one may hold to a different view of the truth, so they can’t get together” (Bohm, p. 12).
Example: A corporation producing pollution has a certain self-interest in proving that their pollution is not dangerous. Other sub-groups have a self-interest in proving that it is dangerous. Finding an unbiased WWOK science, dedicated to Truth, while some other group has another kind of truth (Native Science). Each sub-group produces its own best intentions.
HOW NEGATION WORKS out of usual ABSTRACTING to find FUTURING and DIALOGICAL GROUNDING
From the BENEATH (Principle 1: What is True) one problem is when the totalizing of a system-unity, its processes and practices is an ABSTRACTING that negates the situation of work (and living), that is realized in BEING (Principle 4: Timing).
“The transparence of praxis (let us say, for the moment, of individual praxis) has its source in the indissoluble connection between negation (which totalizes in situation what it negates) and a project which defines itself in terms of an abstract and still formal whole which the practical agent projects into the future and which appears as the reorganized unity of the negated situation. In this sense, the very temporalization of an undertaking is accessible since it can be understood on the basis of the future which conditions it (that is to say of the Whole which praxis conceives as having to be realized)” (Sartre, 1960/2004: Introduction: 60).
FUTURING and TOTALIZING TIMING (P4) and HELPING (P5)
The BEFORE → BEING → BECOMING → BETS and the associated True Storytelling Principles (P2 → P4 → P5 → P3) can also be the Futuring (BETS) that impact the BEING, and Rehistoricize the BEFORE. In other words, instead of the assumed past → present → future, it is reversed. More accurately, it is both ways. The ensemble of moments (BEING, Timing) is totalized from Future, and re-totalized by work of practical agents (all kinds of stakeholders) affecting their environment (not just other organizations, but also Nature).
“On this basis, all the activities of a practical agent are to be understood through the future as a perpetuate-totalization of the provisional totality. And the ensemble of these moments, themselves re-totalized by the temporalization, is in fact original intelligibility, for the practical agent is transparent to himself as the unifying unity of himself and his environment” (Sartre, 1960/2004: 61).
FIRST NEGATION, of the NEGATION of the NEGATION, then more NEGATIONS
Negations occur in series, so that is a kind of antenarrative process we can identify in groups and organizations and their environs. These appear in matter (see discussion above of spacetimemattering). The 1st negation can appear in the mattering (think of vibrant matter of Jane Bennett’s work). A need a person, group, organization, or society his is a lack. To preserve and sustain (Principle 1, BENEATH), enterprises work through the contradiction between socio-economic and Nature , in the double sense of existence (BEING → BECOMING) and (BECOMING → BEING), and the example is how organizations exploit ecologies, and how ecologies adapt to human activities (e.g. COVID-19, and its variants that sustain).
“Indeed, it is through need that the first negation of the negation and the first totalization appear in matter. Need is a negation of the negation in so far as it expresses itself as a lack within the organism; and need is a positivity in so far as the organic totality tends to preserve itself as such through it. The original negation, in fact, is an initial contradiction between the organic and the inorganic, in the double sense that lack is defined in relation to a totality, but that a lacuna, a negativity, has as such a mechanical kind of existence, and that, in the last analysis, what is lacking can be reduced to inorganic or less organized elements or, quite simply, to dead flesh, etc.” (Sartre, 1960/2004: Book I, p. 80).
NEGATION of the NEGATION and HOW FUTURING WORKS in PRESENTMENT-BEING
This is another example of how FUTURING affects the presentment of BEING and the BETWEEN by negation of the negation.
“Determination of the present by the future, oscillation between the inert and the organic, negation, transcended contradictions, negation of the negation – in short, developing totalization: these are the moments of any form of labour, until – at a dialectical level that we have yet to consider – society develops the division of labour to the point of the specialization of machines” (Sartre, 1960/2004: 91).
It all comes back to involvements, engagements, and entanglements in Whole of BEING, out of concealment of BEING – underlying interconnectedness of relationships in the Whole that have significance in antenarrative processes and all 7 true Storytelling principles, together. This ties significance into the space, time, and mattering, – spacetimemattering. Inseparability involvements, of interconnectedness matter a lot for the BETS/plotting and the BETWEEN/staging, and BECOMING/helping stories along in the eventums of Protreptic Guide work.
Heidegger reimagines temporality and the negation of the negation in Hegel. So too, does Sartre rework Hegel’s negation of the negation dialectic. The value of understanding the ways time moves in double sense (past to present to future, and future to present to past) is a major shift in change management and consultation, and in ways to facilitate groups.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist, trans. By Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Benjamin, Walter. (1936/1978). Illuminations: Edited and with an Intro. by Hannah Arendt. Translated by Harry Zohn. Schocken Books. 1936 is date of original essay ‘The Storyteller…’ Please click and read it before continuing.
Bohm, David. (1996/2003). On Dialogue. Edited & Foreword by Lee Nichols, 1st published 1996 by London: Routledge; e-edition, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003. Accessed Jan 31, 2021 at https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/David%20Bohm%20-%20On%20Dialogue.pdf
Boje, David M. (2008). Storytelling Organizations. Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boje, D. M., Haley, U. C., & Saylors, R. (2016). Antenarratives of organizational change: The microstoria of Burger King’s storytelling in space, time and strategic context. human relations, 69(2), 391-418.
Boje, D. M., & Henderson, T. L. (Eds.). (2014). Being quantum: Ontological storytelling in the age of antenarrative. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Boje, David M.; Jorgensen, Kenneth Mølbjerg. (2020). A ‘storytelling science’ approach making the eco-business modeling turn. Journal of Business ModClick here for pre-press pdfeling, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 8-25. . Please Click here for final print version PDF
Boje, David M.; Rana, Mohammad B. (2020). Defining a Sustainably-Driven Business Modeling Strategy with a ‘Storytelling Science’ Approach. Chapter to appear in Markovic, S., Sancha, C. and Lindgreen, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainability-driven Business Strategies in Practice, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Click here for pre-press pdf.
Boje, D. M., & Rosile, G. A. (2008). Specters of Wal-Mart: A critical discourse analysis of stories of Sam Walton’s ghost. Critical discourse studies, 5(2), 153-179.
Boje, David M.; Rosile, Grace Ann. (2020). How to Use Conversational Storytelling Interviews for Your Dissertation. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Download for free until published in 2020
Goswami, A. (2012). The visionary window: A quantum physicist’s guide to enlightenment. Quest Books.
Haley, U. C., & Boje, D. M. (2014). Storytelling the internationalization of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(9), 1115-1132.
Heidegger, Martin. (1926/1962). Being and Time. Translated Macquarrie, J., & Robinson, E. Accessed online Jan 20 2021, first in German 1926, at http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spliceoflife/BeingandTime.pdf
Heidegger, M. (2013). The essence of truth: on Plato’s cave allegory and Theaetetus. Bloomsbury Publishing. Online version date of original version: 1943, based on a translation by John Sallis This translation based on 4th edition of the essay (1961) was accessed Jan 28 2021 at https://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Martin-Heidegger-On-the-Essence-of-Truth.pdf
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Wilhelm. (1807). Phenomenology of Spirit. See online version (Oxford Press) http://ns210054.ovh.net/files/Georg%20Wilhelm%20Friedrich%20Hegel%20-%20The%20Phenomenology%20of%20Spirit%20(Michael%20Inwood%20Translation).pdf
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1817). Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Science. Accessed online version https://hegel.net/en/pdf/Hegel-Enc-1.pdf
Herbert, Nick. (1985). Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. Golen City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Kirkeby, Ole Fogh. (2009). The New Protreptic: The Concept and the Art. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Larsen, Jens; Boje, David M.; Bruun, Lena. (2021). True Storytelling: Seven Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Change-management Strategy. London, UK: Routledge.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. (1960/2004). Critique of Dialectical Reason.Vol. 1 Theory of Practical Ensembles. Translated by Alan Sheridan-Smith Edited by Jonathan Ree, Foreword by Fredric Jameson First published as Critiqlle de la &Jisoll Diale,1iqlle by Editions Gallimard, Paris 1960. This translation ftrst published by New Left Books 1976 © Editions Gallimard 1960, Translation © New Left Books 1976. Corrected edition ftrst published by Verso in 1991 based on the revised. French edition of 1985 © Editions Gallimard 1960, 1985. This edition first published by Verso 2004 © Verso 2004. Foreword © Fredric Jameson 2004.
Wolf, F. A. (1992). The Eagle’s Quest: A Physicist Finds the Scientific Truth at the Heart of the Shamanic World. NY: Simon and Schuster.
Zizek, S. (2013). Less than nothing: Hegel and the shadow of dialectical materialism. London/NY; Verso.