Working Papers -- Kent Palmer
<thinknet>
Working Papers
<title>
<tagline> THOUGHTS AT THINK.NET
<volume>
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D.
<author>
P.O. Box 1632
Orange CA 92856 USA
714-633-9508
palmer@think.net
Copyright 2007 K.D. Palmer.
<copyright>
All Rights Reserved. Not for re-distribution.
Version 0.1; 07.03.30
THOUGHTSatTHINKdotNET_PalmerKD
<filename>
070330 A0002a.doc
Abstract : Discussion of using Working Papers in
< >
Thinking through things.
<Keywords : Academic, Working Papers > </keywords>
Tags : Academic,
< >
Thought </Tags>
<\begintext>
<section>Working Papers
My whole intellectual career has been based on
writing working papers, not finished articles. I
learned this technique in my very first class at
the University of Kansas from Charles K.
Warriner, professor of Sociology and
Anthropology. It was an experimental class in
which there ware Graduate Students and
Undergraduates taking their first introductory
Sociology class in the same class. It was very
exciting to see what the Graduate Students
were doing, and that introduction it led
eventually to my getting a Ph.D. in Sociology.
That class opened up a new world to me where
sociology theory was a subject of intense
interest. And I took several classes from Dr.
Warriner whose own personal method was to
write working papers on subjects in order to
stimulate his own thinking about the subjects,
and to share those thoughts with others in an
unfinished form. After he had thought about
the ideas for a while and perhaps researched
</title>
them further he would rewrite the paper on the
same subject, and this would continue until he
>
was satisfied with the result. He encouraged
his students to do the same. And I picked up
</tagline>
the habit from him and have spent my life
SERIES A NUMBER 2 </volume >
applying this technique. If you look at my
</author>
works you will see that they are all working
papers. Very few finished papers exist among
<address>
them.
</address>
<phone> </phone>
<email> </email>
The good thing about this technique is that it
helps you think about the subject, and discover
what you think about it as you write, and thus
you can explore areas quickly that you might
</copyright>
not have been able to explore just thinking
</filename>
about them, making notes, and attempting to
formulate a final position. We live in a time
when the focus is on the final product of
</abstract> research not the journey of thinking. And so
most thinkers are afraid of exposing their
methods to scrutiny, because they do not want
to be taken to task for errors. So there is a lot
Thinknet, WorkingPapers, of polishing going on rather than new thinking.
And this slows down progress in thought a
great deal. For me the interest is in intellectual
</section>
exploration rather than in producing finished
publishable products. I am fortunate to live in
an age where I am my own publisher, on the
Internet, where I can publish all my half-baked
ideas for those who are interested to look at if
they wish. I do not bother polishing my works
unless they are accepted into a conference in
which case I get them edited and work at
polishing them as best I can since they are
going to be published. But I see this as
something of secondary importance. Not being
an academic I am not judged by the quantity of
my publications.
I thought in this thought capsule I would
discuss this method and my use of this method
to further my own thought. There is very little
guidance available out in the literature on how
to think, about the craft of thinking, and so I
thought I would start this series off with those
sorts of considerations. For me, a key
technique is the working paper. Many times I
will get interested in a subject and one of the
1
Thoughts at Think.net
 Working Papers -- Kent Palmer
first things I will do is try to write about it,
once I have done a little research into it, so as
to find out what I myself think about the
subject, and in order to clarify the questions I
am posing about the subject to myself. Many
times I discover that by thinking things though
myself I can say much more about a subject
than I thought would be possible initially. And
by trying and then failing to say something
significant I discover what my own limitations
are and what I need to concentrate on in order
to improve my own knowledge and thinking
about a subject.
I have a standard word template set up which I
use as the format of all my working papers. I
write them in series where I move from topic
to topic. Normally I either try to write twenty
or ten pages in a paper depending on the topic.
I try to make all the papers in the same series
of similar length. Examples can be seen in my
draft dissertations at http://holonomic.net. I am
starting on my seventh draft dissertation. Each
draft dissertation explores the subject from a
different angle or with different emphasis.
They record my discoveries as my research
progresses. But many times the papers really
emphasize what I do not know rather than
what I do know. And I think this is the key to
the use of the working paper as a tool for
thinking. In the working paper on is exploring
ones ignorance, not what one knows. Exposing
ones ignorance, rather than one’s knowledge
goes against the grain of academia, but it is
essential for intellectual progress.
I always write the paper as if I knew the
answer to the questions I am posing. But in the
process of attempting to say what I know about
the subject, I run into problems, and it is these
problems that become the focus of subsequent
working papers, or they become the strange
attractor around which a given working paper
may revolve, endlessly, many times without
any resolution in that working paper or even a
series of working papers. Many times the
actual answer to the question being attacked
appears only much later, many times years
2
Thoughts at Think.net
later. I will then try to write a working paper to
capture that answer when it appears.
Sometimes this is in the midst of writing on
some other topic completely, in which case
whatever I am writing at the time is high
jacked in order to address a earlier issue that
needs to be developed further. So working
papers can be very sporadic in their
development, not necessarily sticking to the
topic they intended to address. However, it is
important to capture what comes to mind when
it appears rather than waiting till later when the
context is more appropriate. Once one has
externalized the thoughts then it is possible to
rearrange the material later in order to make it
more rational. But inspiration is difficult to
kindle later on demand. So working papers
tend to be an extremely volatile medium,
because once one starts writing one can never
really tell where one is going to end up or what
the detours will be along the way.
At any rate it has turned out that this technique
has been very valuable as a way of recording
my intellectual journey, and even as a vehicle
for that journey. And I would encourage
anyone who is intending to take up the craft of
thought to begin writing working papers about
what ever you are thinking about. I write these
working papers in MS word and have gotten
fast enough at typing that it is not a problem to
sit down and just type away what I am
thinking. But before this I wrote my working
papers on paper in pen or pencil. What I like
about typing them out is that it means I can
immediately share those papers with others and
attempt to get feedback on them. Of coruse, for
the most part I get no feedback, but at least
there is a chance this way.
The down side of working papers is that you
tend to get caught up in the adventure of
thought and are not oriented toward finished
products, and so the number of finished
products produced is probably less than they
might be otherwise. So it is not recommended
for those who are interested in establishing
their reputations as scholars who are always
 Working Papers -- Kent Palmer
right and who only want to publish finished
products. In working papers what is made
visible is the path of thought itself, which is
normally hidden from view in academic
papers. But for those who want to learn how to
think, or want to expand their repertoire of
paths of thought, it is a boon. This is because
by reading working papers one can learn how
others go about thinking things through, and
thus sharpen ones own approaches to thinking.
A School of Thought
<section> </section>
While we are on this subject of learning how to
think, let us mention that there is a distinction
between Art School and Art History. But sadly
there is no School of Thought in distinction to
Philosophy Departments which study the
History of Thought. The fact that there is no
School where one can learn how to think
philosophically, and the Philosophy
departments try to fulfill that role, means that
there is a stultifying influence that the
Philosophy Departments have on thought in
general. We live in an anti-intellectual society
in general, but things are made worse because
of the claim of philosophy departments to be
the schools for thinking. Just as there is a
difference between being and Artist and being
an Art Historian, so there is a difference
between being a Philosopher and a Historian of
Philosophy. But in our society this difference
is made moot by the fact that there are no
Schools of Thought and only Philosophy
Departments which are mostly engaged not in
teaching people to think but to appreciate the
history of what has already been thought. I
would argue that Thinking is much more like
the practice of Art, and there should be schools
of thought just like there are Art Schools
where on learns to practice the art of thinking
deeply about things. The thinker is like an
abstract artist, the materials are concepts rather
than sensuous materials. The thinkers thoughts
are a matter of their individual style more than
they are determined by some sort of Logic or
formalism of thought. Knowing the history of
thought is essential, just like it is in art, but that
3
Thoughts at Think.net
is only a point of beginning for ones own
thoughts and self-expression conceptually,
which leads to a life work of thinking things
through thoroughly. So people like myself
have had to try to figure out how to become a
thinker oneself, and that is much more difficult
than learning it from a master thinker. Of
course, I have had my own teachers who have
influenced me like Charles K. Warriner who
taught me how to do working papers. But for
the most part, the others I found were not
interested in thinking as deeply as I wanted to
go, so I soon left my teachers behind. Once
one does that, one finds that one is profoundly
alone in the world, because very few people
are interested in thinking deeply about the
world and life and the meaning of it all. For the
most part, people are satisfied by finding out
what others have thought, and then adopting
some of the thoughts of others that appeal to
oneself. But it is another thing completely to
attempt to discover what one thinks oneself at
the most profound level of ones being and
existence. At that level each of us are unique.
The great philosophers of our tradition are the
ones who have managed to do that and capture
their thoughts in print. To my mind the goal of
each of us should be to be like those great
philosophers of our tradition, and think the
thoughts we are uniquely cut out to think in
our extension of our tradition. But this is very
difficult because what already exists in
philosophy is very sophisticated. And it is
difficult to master those earlier thinkers and
enough of the tradition to say something new
and interesting and relevant which is
recognized eventually as being on the cutting
edge of the tradition. It is important to take
into account what the History of Philosophy
tells us, and to attempt to master that to the
extent we can. Already that tradition is too
expansive for anyone to master completely.
And thus specialization is forced on all of us.
However, that should not prevent us from
trying to strike out from that tradition and
think our own thoughts that extend and expand
on that which the tradition has already thought
worthy. And in that it would be better for us if
 Working Papers -- Kent Palmer
there were schools of thought where those who
have tried to think deeply about things, teach
those who are trying to do the same things
what they have learned along the way. One
thinks of the schools of artisans in the
Renaissance who had their workshops, and
who passed down the craft of their arts to their
apprentices. What those workshops were able
to produce was something better than what
individual artists working on their own could
ever hope to produce. There is a huge
difference between naïve artists and those who
are schooled. And now we have the problem
that everyone who probes more deeply and
wants to go beyond historicism needs to
discover the techniques of thought on their
own.
I would make the case that what we are taught
in philosophy and other departments in the
universities is only the ground work for a life
of thought. Universities do not teach students
to think for themselves, outside the paradigm
that is being taught as the truth at any given
time at the university. University departments
with an emphasis on traditional scholarship
want their students to be somewhat creative
but not too creative. If you are too creative you
are soon labeled a crackpot and seen as being
beyond the pale, of what is acceptable. The
great thinkers are those who are able to hold
their own in that system, and produce material
that is radically new despite the pressures
against it. But there are not too many of that
type of scholar around. Rather the pressure to
conform and not to go too far beyond the
bounds of the acceptable is extremely great.
Careers are easily ruined in academia if one
gets too far out of the mainstream. And the
basic mechanism for that is departmental
politics. The number of scholars who are able
to produce what they see fit to produce,
without interference of this pressure are few.
This is to say that the number of scholars who
are able to take high risks in their thought, and
push the envelope as far as possible and risk
disgrace are only a few. The rest play it save,
and thus they get their papers passed the peer
4
Thoughts at Think.net
review, and they build a reputation that is in
line with the academic norms, but we never
know how many opportunities were lost
because of this very conservative behavior on
the part of most academics. The sign of this is
how much is worth reading in the academic
journals. There is a lot of material being
published out there in the journals, but to my
mind very little of it is worth reading, very
little of it is genuinely saying something new
and significant with respect to the cutting edge
of the tradition. And so I place as my evidence
for my assertion the products of this pressure
to publish papers that are acceptable to one’s
peers. What is acceptable to one’s peers is
what does not rock the boat too much. It is
thought, but it is for the most part safe thought.
It is very unlikely to be Great thought, or Deep
Thought. Take any area and look at the
sameness of the papers that are produced. The
bounds within which the thinkers are moving
is very narrow in many respects.
So what do we do since there are no schools of
thought which are the counterparts of the Art
Schools for Philosophy? My suggestion is to
read as widely as possible, following one’s
interest, and disregarding discipline
boundaries. Each discipline has its luminaries,
and there is a lot to learn from them. For
instance, Gregory Bateson is an excellent
example. His Steps to the Ecology of the Mind
is an excellent example of an eclectic mind at
work. There are many thinkers like this from
whom one can learn a lot by reading their
works and looking at them as guides on the
path of thought, rather than just thinkers who
have had certain finished thoughts. Steps to the
Ecology of the Mind are Bateson’s working
papers refined and printed. Much can be
learned by studying them to learn the
techniques of, and approach to, thinking rather
than just the content of the thought. The
content is good, but the teaching we can take
from the way of thinking are even greater.
My advice is to take each thinker’s works as a
whole and to attempt to integrate their
 Working Papers -- Kent Palmer
techniques of thought into one’s own
repertoire. When you can take their positions
on various issues beyond their stated positions
oneself, when one can go beyond the
information given and say what they would
have said, about some issue, then one has truly
understood their work. But understanding does
not mean just being able to repeat their
positions on things, but also to think the way
they have thought about other things than they
have talked about. When one can do that, then
one can be said to have absorbed a thinker, and
then one can move on to the next thinker,
attempting to absorb their way of thinking as
well. Out of this series of absorptions of the
approach of many thinkers one finds what
works best for oneself, and one finds ones own
sea legs so to speak, and eventually one can
develop ones own approach to thinking that is
unique to oneself. That is of course the goal, to
think for oneself, out of one’s experience, and
out of one’s own concerns. Not to think like
one’s teachers, or other great thinkers of
history. One should aim at different content
and different approaches than those one has
learned. But this can only be obtained after an
apprenticeship to the thinkers of our tradition.
The Crackpot is the one who does not know
where the cutting edge of the tradition is, and
therefore is saying things that are not aligned
with that cutting edge. To be relevant, or
significant, or sensible, or meaningful what we
say must align with the cutting edge of our
tradition of our time as we know it. Yet we are
always striving to go out beyond that cutting
edge and to realize the possibilities for thought
that exit there at the moment. This is what is
difficult to do, i.e. keep in mind the cutting
edge of the tradition, yet go beyond it in a
significant way. Where the historians of
philosophy think that cutting edge lies is
completely different from where the thinkers
of a given time would place that cutting edge.
The genuine thinkers are way out beyond the
cutting edge, while the historians are for the
most part behind that edge. The historians are
rethinking the past, where as the thinkers of a
5
Thoughts at Think.net
given time are thinking out past that edge. And
the greater or deeper the thought, the further
out past the edge that it goes. I give Nietzsche
as an example. He said his thought would not
be understood for 100 years, and he was right
about that. He was also very much alone in his
work, because his work was not understood in
his time. His books sold very badly, but he
continued to work regardless, because he was
on an intellectual adventure he was fated to
take. Now his work is recognized as being
more postmodern than the postmodernists.
Heidegger says his work ended the
metaphysical era. We are still confronting his
work as being alive within our tradition, and it
will be so for a long time to come. That is
because of all the thinkers he is one who went
out a long way beyond the cutting edge of the
tradition in his time. So far in fact that we are
still catching up. And this should be the goal of
each of us to the extent we can manage. We
want to avoid being crackpots but we also
want to avoid the stultifying sameness of being
no different from espousing ideas from the
structural permutations of the tradition as it
stands.
We need to join A School of Thought and
apprentice ourselves to the great thinkers in
our tradition, but we also need to take those
lessons and think beyond them to form our
own school of thought which explores the wild
territory beyond the cutting edge of our
tradition. We want to go far enough to
encounter the utterly new and unthought of,
yet not so far that we loose sight of the edge of
the tradition completely. Thinking deeply is all
about avoiding those nihilistic alternatives of
thinking so wildly that one loses ones way and
becomes irrelevant, and not thinking wildly
enough so that one is no different from all the
others who are thinking within the bounds of
the current paradigm, episteme, ontos, etc. But
from my point of view it is better to get lost in
the wilderness than to remain penned in and
tame within the strictures of the academic
fashions of ones time. It is better to be thought
a crackpot than to merely have the same
 Working Papers -- Kent Palmer

thoughts as everyone else, merely repackaged

and mashed up and served up reheated from
the microwave. Ultimately a school of thought
should be a school of one. But along the way,
one needs to learn as much as possible from
one’s teachers and peers. The best teachers and
best peers help you to become the thinker who
has thought their own quintessence.

<\endtext>

Author:
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. Thinker and
<bio>

Philosopher by inclination; System and Meta-

system Theorist by design; Systems and
Software Engineer by trade. See
http://archonic.net/kent_palmer.html. See also
http://think.net, http://dialog.net,
http://archonic.net, http://autopoietic.net.
</bio>

</thinknet>

XML

<xml>

<thinknet>

<title>

<tagline>

<volume>

<author>

<address>

<phone>

<email>

<copyright>

<filename>

<abstract>

<keywords>

<tags>

<\begintext>

<section>

<bio>

<\endtext>

</thinknet>

</xml>

Thoughts at Think.net