Illinois Books

This is not a book with lots of pictures; it is not a book with the stories of great golf matches. This book is an excellent study of American country clubs and golf in this country--about how they began and how they have evolved. It is perfect for serious golfers, for those who really want to understand what country clubs are and have been about and how they relate to the game they love.

The impressively accomplished author of seventeen books of poems and ten novels, David Wagoner is also the recipient of six prizes from "Poetry" and winner of the 1981 Ruth Lilly Prize for poetry. Good Morning And Good Night is the latest anthology showcasing a master poetry at the height of his craft and is a strongly recommended compendium of verse for personal reading as well as academic library literary collections. The Getaway: They had to act natural. They had to look like/They were still parts of an ordinary day/Together on the sidewalk across the street/To the unfamiliar car, yet they had to be/Quick about it without running. They had to think/Taking those steps, remembering, knowing/Every foot they could put between their bodies/And the scene behind them, where the noise/Of buzzers and bells and yowling/And terribly shocked voices was growing/Louder and louder. They pulled away/As calmly as possible, staring straight ahead/Straight-faced, not glancing once/To either side or backward, let alone/At each other, and took a turn in the most unlikely/Direction they could think of. Under the limit,/They drove steadily, legally toward home.

"Grace Before Meals ~~ Food Ritual and Body Discipline in Convent Culture" was written in 1989 by Sister Patricia Curran, SNDdeN and offers a very rare and important piece of research into an area of Convent life that had not yet been explored nor published outside those convent walls. The food rituals of two congregations of nuns are the subjects of this study ~~ the Dominican Sisters of Mission San Jose and the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. "Grace Before Meals" describes the waning days of the centuries-old convent meal rituals as performed by these two communities of nuns. The participating nuns from these congregations were divided into two groups ~~ those nuns who had entered before 1925 and those who had taken their vows in the 1960s. Drawing upon interviews, questionnaires, and other research, Sister Curran describes ~~ in GREAT detail ~~ the typical convent meal of the early 1960s and contrasts and compares the customs and rituals of these two orders of nuns. She treats the refectory (convent dining room) as a sort of stage on which the nuns are the actors. Gestures, postures, movement, speech and silence were all carefully blended to embody the ideal nun. There are so many mysterious customs revealed in this book ~~ customs and rituals which were, at one time, kept extremely secret from the outside world. Now, for the first time, these customs are not only revealed to the reader, but the nuns speak out and describe exactly how they felt when they were living this life. Twenty nuns from each congregation responded to Sister Curran's questions. These questions were specifically designed to stir old memories from Novitiate days in the convent refectory ~~ Food (quality, quantity, availability and familiarity of diet) Environment (textures and colors, seating and setting) Formal Behaviors (reading, speaking,penances, table manners) Next, the nuns were asked to describe how they had been initiated into these strange practices; how the unfamiliar had been explained to them as young novices; what each nun believed was the purpose of all of this strange behavior. "Grace Before Meals" is a fascinating read for anyone who was ever curious about life inside the convent. The details provided are amazing and most could, probably, be applied to any congregation of nuns.

This is a fairly good survey of the political landscape in the City of Chicago by a veteran journalist. It tries to address the perennial question, to paraphrase Alderman Mathias "Paddy" Bauler, of "Why ain't Chicago ready for reform?"

The book is concerned with political movements and the efforts of progressives and reformers to do battle with boodlers and spoilsmen. In the political language of Chicago, good government types are derided as "goo goos" for their infantile naivete. As Merriner points out, several successful politicins had to make it clear to the precinct workers that they were not reformers in order to secure votes from party regulars.

Given the number of candidates and elections to be treated, there are more than a few errors as to dates. For example, Big Bill Thompson was not elected alderman in 1902. He was elected to the Cook County Board of Commissioners that year. Similarly, Thompson was the sponsor of a reception for expelled US Senator Billy Lorimer, but not while serving as mayor. The welcome home rally occurred earlier. State's Attorney John Wayman did not resign his office in 1912. He chose to run for governor rather than to seek reelection as prosecutor and he lost the Republican nomination to the incumbent governor, Charles S. Deneen in 1912. Wayman left office upon the expiration of his term.

To quote Tip O'Neill, "All politics is local." Merriner does a respectably good job of trying to explain the political culture that is Chicago. The reform elements and progressives fought the good fight, but were outflanked by the grafters at almost every turn. The author is to be complimented for analyzing reams of archival materials, including meeting minutes, reports and correspondence from numerous civic organizations.

This book is an entertaining primer on practical politics in the City of Big Shoulders. It is more fun than stuffing a ballot box and less dangerous than serving as an election judge in one of the river wards.

A co-production of the Art Institute of Chicago and Hudson Hills Press, Graphic Modernism displays artworks drawn from the Francey and Dr. Martin L. Gecht Collection at the Art Institute of Chicago. Showcasing color illustrations of bold 19th Century, Twentieth-Century European, and Twentieth-Century American works that range from realism to more abstract constructions of shape and image. Graphic Modernism is enhanced with accompanying and extensively informative commentary, history, and critique by Suzanne Folds McCullagh (The Gecht Collection and the Chicago Tradition) and Mark Krisco (Francey and Dr. Martin L. Gecht: An Appreciation) to make Graphic Modernism a thoroughly impressive survey of modernism, displaying works by Cezanne, Degas, Gauguin, Pollock, and so many others. Graphic Modernism is a visual treasure that will superbly complement any personal, academic, or community library Art Appreciation and/or Art History collection.

This is one of the best Father Dowling books ever. It is very good. The only one better than this one is Judas Priest.

Thoughfully written, interesting from cover to cover and painstakingly comprehensive - there isn't much more you could ask from a reference book, particularly if you're not an expert on the subject. I really enjoyed reading The Graying of America, and found it much more interesting (and less dry) than I expected. As a gerentology novice who works as a volunteer with hospice patients, I wanted something that would show me many facets of living with aging, rather than my usual reading on coming to terms with dying. This book fit the bill to a "T", and I would imagine it would have a place on the bookshelf of anyone interested in aging well and understanding the life of the elderly.

This short book has one powerful poem after another. Zimmer's images pull you into each poem, as the persona of "The Zimmer" comes of age and learns about life. It's a cohesive collection that reads like a story, filled with the joys and sorrows of life. Celebrating things such as beer and love, and lamenting the aging of a father and the selling of a childhood home, this book will have you smiling on one page and then bring you close to tears a few pages later.

I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.

PHYSICS--Aristotle addresses the "why" questions. Aetia= causes, there are 4 causes. Only 1 cause actually sounds what like we call a cause today. A better translation is "explanation." 4 ways to explanations. Arche=origins/principles, something that is 1st, or rule, or, commanding, or beginning. Thus 1st thought that leads us to understand something and how we proceed. Begin how we think and rule or govern how we think. Phusis= "nature," like physics. He understands nature differently than we do today. For Aristotle the planets orbits never change so not part of nature. Everything below the moon, "lunar," is nature. Thus everything below lunar is not perfect and goes through change. Phusis root= to grow or bloom. Thus, emerging like birth. This term has to do with movement and change. Also connected to "coming to light." Also, connected to "being."

Physics (nature) is an arche (rule) of motion and change. Concept of physics (nature) has to do with motion and change. Paramedes denies change. Aristotle takes umbrage with this. Plato says change is a deficient condition; Aristotle is against both men's notion of change.
IMPORTANT--Aristotle talks about how we talk about how we talk about change all the time. Aristotle says no such things as "being" itself. For Aristotle there is change we always talk about it.

Potentiality and actuality- 2 terms that dominate Aristotle's thinking. Change is potentiality to actuality. Potentiality is a "not yet." He criticizes premises of philosophers for denying or denigrating change. His physics is his thought to explain change. Ousia can't mean something unchanging, it is always a changing phenomena. For Aristotle and the Greeks the "world" has no beginning or end it is always here. No God or creator. Big and small are opposites, but are only conceptual. Small things become big Aristotle sees this. Our language is the guide here. The fact that there is change doesn't mean it is chaotic, you plant a seed, and it grows from small to big, this is normal change.

3 senses Aristotle uses phusis or nature. IMPORTANT- 1. "Always or for the most part." 2. Telos-end, purposes. 3. Movement is self-generated toward something. When a seed falls to the ground it grows and moves towards growing. Contrast Phusis with techne="produce something by humans." Both have to do with change and movement. 1 is self-moving, 1 is moved by us. Trees are not brought into being by themselves; beds out of trees are made by us. What is a bed? For Aristotle it has no nature or physics, it can have an essence. Everything other than Techne "things of production" are physics, nature. It is natural that humans have productive capacity and skills. Techne and physics are distinguished to understand change. Aristotle is important in philosophy and science because he uses language of science. He sees that change is internal within phusis in their own nature, not from myth or storytelling.

His phenomenology says our primary access to things is the "whole" like a dog, once we analyze them we can break them down. This is different from the premises of philosophers who believed in "inarticulate wholes." This is a dramatic difference from Platonists and atomists ideas. Atomist says all things made up of individual stuff like atoms. Aristotle is against atomist doesn't accept describing atoms as real. Like atomist the "whole" or dog is real for him. He isn't a Darwinist because the earth is always the way it was, is and will be. He talks about elements earth, fire, water, air.

IMPORTANT- For Aristotle, "being" of a thing comes 1st, knowledge 2nd. He says knowledge comes to rest in the soul. The soul is calmed by knowledge. When the soul or the mind comes to rest this is out of a natural turbulence of the mind. When he says "by nature" it is intrinsic in us we are by nature turbulent like children, this is part of us. Knowledge achieves calming it emerges out of the turbulence like "wonder."

Techne and physics are not opposites they are distinct different ways to explain movement. Both parts of our world can illuminate each other. He doesn't have idea of a creator God but understands if their were nature it would come by way of god. He says nature is self-manifesting. Techne completes nature (physics) Art doesn't quite imitate nature but talking about shapes like a bed or cave like a house. More like impersonates nature. Craft or Techne our natural capacity to make things, we are elated by being able to craft we do have to be taught to produce things. When we build houses, we are completing something nature can't do. Today, modern science rejects idea "nature" has a purpose. Thus, Aristotle doesn't see physics, nature and techne craft as that different.

Aitia=Causes better definition is "explanation."

1. Material Cause, answers question "out of what"
2. Formal Cause, answers question "into what"
3. Efficient Cause, answers question "from what"
4. Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what"

Qua= Latin for "as." We understand something by questions we ask. He uses ordinary language. This arms us with information to look at whatever phenomena by deduction. Fill in the 4 causes and categories and then you have knowledge.

IMPORTANT- Most important is #2 the Formal cause. Efficient and Final cause fall under it. Usually he uses artifacts crafted by man to explain this. Example of a house:

1.Material Cause, answers question "out of what" Wood
2.Formal Cause, answers question "into what" A certain shape of house
3.Efficient Cause, answers question "from what" the builder
4.Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what" to provide shelter

Things of phusis can be explained by 4 causes a little tricky. Form isn't just shape for Aristotle.
He uses different works for form, like logos = ordering, or pattern, or structure, in this case, organization in living things it is richer our bodies are our being cause. A corpse is no longer organized for a functioning body. Same with material cause. Aristotle distinguishes between wood or real matter and less tangible, he uses idea of material cause thus doesn't just mean stuff like matter. Thus, in his book Politics, what is the material of the polis? The citizens. Material is just a way to explain it. The word matter works like "What subject matter are you taking"? Thus, Aristotle uses matter in the rich and varied linguistic way. Thus, he provides guides and 4 categories and causes to gain knowledge. He thinks his approach is an improvement over Plato and pre-Socratics like materialists.

IMPORTANT- Everything is what it is in combination of matter and form in the world except God. There is a difference between dogs and beds, thus he is against the atomists. If you don't know what a cake is ahead of time you don't ever get to the molecular structure to get you there. To talk about matter without form is to miss something. Any 4 causes alone doesn't work, all together give an apt account of how things are. Modern science breaks with him on #4 the Final cause; scientists say this doesn't exist in nature.

For Aristotle, if it is evident and real in nature it must be real. The Telos shouldn't be understood as "push pull." Understanding can shift based on different issues and topics so Aristotle is a "pluralist." Never think of telos, or end, or purpose as "design." Not all forms of telos are "conscious design" for Aristotle. There is no intelligent design of nature for Aristotle. (No God). He rejects it, no beginning, or end of nature. However, he believes nature has purposeful elements to it, so it is mind like. Therefore, when we think purposefully we are not violating nature. We are rational animals. There is no mind before or behind nature. For Aristotle idea of telos is built into nature. Aristotle's idea of an unmoved, mover is archaic. He believes that movement in nature must ultimately come to stop, can't go to infinity, thus unmoved mover. This is his idea of God. Doesn't mean first cause or creator but more a "draw" not a "push" like draw of a lover. Thus, he doesn't believe in universal laws of motion. This is a limitation in his philosophy.

IMPORTANT-Basic distinction between matter and form, form has efficient and final cause as subsets. Matter and form are separable in analysis but not in reality. Two sides of the same coin, always present together. You can't have a sculpture without matter like clay. Aristotle criticizes Plato and others for delinking form and matter. Form isn't just shape, form is structure and organization. Corpse has same shape as a human but Aristotle says, "The form is gone in the corpse" so form is more than shape. Matter is unknowable; form gives us something that we can gain knowledge with, example a hunk of clay vs. a bowl.

Bottom line of modern physics and science is math, Newton, Kant, etc. said this. Thus, H2O is proportions of elements. A "towards which" is not a phenomena to examine. Here he is saying math is legitimate form of knowledge but it is not primary way or status of understanding how things are. Natural motion has nothing to do with line and math, etc. for Aristotle. One can't explain natural motion with math. We never come across geometric shapes in nature. Form is natural phenomena but different from mathematical form. Thus, you can't understand nature by math, as primary knowledge only secondary. For Plato, math is real for Aristotle they only help explain nature.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

The Great Chicago Fire is brought to life in this graphic book for kids. I found it interesting too. I use the Graphic Library series for my ESOL students who are learning English and learning American History at the same time. It is very tough to do and these books help a lot.