Indiana Books

This book centers on the history of railroad development and expansion in Indiana and Illinois at the turn of the century as well as the lives and times of the movers and shakers that propelled this activity. I particularly enjoyed reading about where and why certain rail lines were built and then why some of them otlived their usefulness. It is interesting to see what exists in todays world and then read about how it started and occurred during the glory years of railroad construction in the Midwest. The insights on personalities, motivations and strategies of people like Wm. Riley McKeen, his supporters (Chauncey Rose) and detractors (Samuel Ives) were also extremely enlightening and entertaining. I grew up in Illinois and Indiana and always wanted to know more about the history of the Pennsylvania RR "Lines West". (Most PRR history books discuss the eastern portion of the railroad.) This book explains much about "Lines West" in an informative and entertaining fashion.

The extraordinary true story about a scrupulous midwestern entrepreneur who built a small local railroad into a strong regional system -- known as "The Vandalia" -- and resisted repeated efforts to be acquired for nearly 30 years or until he was ready to relinquish the reins. Belongs on the bookshelf of anyone interested in Indiana or Illinois history or the history of the Pennsylvania Railroad. A highly readable and entertainingly-written research masterpiece addressing an area of corporate history not often broached. Required exploration of corporate minutes, court files and private correspondence. "A railroad's history, telling it through the life of the man who made it what it was." Outstanding photos and diagrams. A keeper.

I read this book 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.

I found this translation easier to read than other translations of Aristotle. It is much easier to unpack and follow, only the content needs to be wrestled with, which is a project in and of itself. It includes the Becker numbers, which makes it easier to have a discussion with a group.

Amazingly comprehensive text, with objective, intelligent reviews of most of the works listed, written by the author and/or those who heard the music first-hand. I didn't find a listing for the composer Kjerwulf, but I found listings for many others, including many I never heard of. Every piano piece of importance, and many others, are listed here, along with publication histories for most all works, and suggested bibliographies. You don't know how much piano music has been written until this book informs you of it. Very interesting biographical sketches are included of the most important composers.

Maurice Hinson's _Guide to Pianist's Repertoire_ is now a standard fixture on the bookshelves of performers and teachers everywhere. The current volume is another staggeringly comprehensive repertoire guide, listing published chamber music written with the piano as an equal partner, in combinations of up to eight instruments, composed since 1700 (although a few works prior to that date are included). Hinson follows the format he has used before, grouping works by instrumentation, with the emphasis being on locating publishers. Other information is given as available, for example, movement titles, timings, no. of pages, level of difficulty, etc. (It may be noted that no discography is attempted.) Selected works are given descriptive annotations and evaluations. While a volume of this type will invariably require multiple editions to stay current, the information contained herein will be of value for many years to come.

I cannot imagine why any pianist would not want this book. Here, Goellerich provides a sort of window in time, allowing the reader to listen in on a master class of Franz Liszt. Liszt provides invaluable suggestions in interpretation, and suggests how the composer may have wanted his piece performed. Since he heard many pieces performed by the composers themselves (Chopin, Schumann, etc), his advice should be respected.

Further, this book provides a great way for the pianist to boost his or her repertoire. There is much music here that has fallen into disuse, and Liszt discusses these works and provides performance suggestions. For example, many of his students played music by Rubinstein, a composer who has, sadly, fallen out of fashion.

Also, since Liszt was taught by Czerny, who was taught by Beethoven, his suggestions for the performance of Beethoven's works are absolute gold.

There is very little technical advice in this book. If you were a student of Liszt, you had a good technique as a matter of course. He seems to focus more on expression, tempo, and clean playing. Technique is not the purpose of this book. Goellerich records Liszt's performance suggestions, and for that, this book should be read by all serious pianists.

Grab this one! If you play classical piano and have an interest in Franz Liszt and his methodology with the students at Weimar, this is the one! I'll add for the record that the diary notes of August Göllerich which is the basis of this book also has the blessing of Lisztian authority and scholar Dr. Alan Walker who commented, " ... as much a record of the life of Liszt's mind as of the life of his fingers [...] an extraordinary bond of friendship and collegiality that existed between Liszt and his pupils ... they were members of an extended family ... Liszt was not a mere piano teacher, but rather a Guru who treated his acolytes like equals."

So too, the quips of Liszt himself are recorded in abundance and unlike the Amy Fay letters home tome when she herself was taught by Liszt [and others] , Göllerich names the student names who were on the 'hot seat' including those times that the "master" was not pleased. One learns quickly that Liszt references to the 'conservatory' or 'doing wash' or those Liszt termed 'uninvited guests' [read: clinkers] made the rounds with some frequency where the clear 'message' for much more practice was quite evident! Or worse!

Score examples abound in the book while Liszt's input on the various pieces is virtually on every page. So too, just as Liszt could be lavish with his "Bravo!" praise, he could likewise pull no punches whatsoever in his criticisms! Ohh yes! While it is quite true that Liszt never charged anything for these group master-classes, which I'll add at once was a distinct privilege, well, it's also true that this was the original, shall we say, 'many are called but few are chosen' kind of thing so students sent packing, urged or self-assessed therein, did happen! Frequently.

It was a given that 'before' the student sought out Liszt, they knew what they were doing on the piano and, if not, they were duly informed forthwith not to mention recorded cases of those who showed up, heard 'others' playing and beat a hasty retreat at the get-go to save themselves any further embarrassment. It was said that if one could not pass muster with the pupils of Liszt, the chance of ever 'impressing' [!] Liszt himself was a virtual impossibility.

What's that? In other words, if I could make with the magic wand thing and we could go back in time, what, are you quite confident to play for Liszt and be 'automatically' welcomed to the fold with open arms? Ahhh! Of course ... the Cage piece ... 4'33" ! Be prepared tho' for the famous Liszt 'stare' when you pull 'that' one on him in between those [alleged] "movements" ! You could always try the "prepared piano" gambit! ;-)

Switching: Get the book, it's a keeper! It's as if you were there simply observing but getting a good dose of the Liszt methodology in the process and the literal awe in which his students held him ... and for good reason therein! Franz Liszt! That says it all.

Doc Tony

[and then ... ]

Voice A: "What's all this business about John Cage and 4'33" ?"

Voice B: [--mute--]

Voice A: "Well, answer me! Tell me what it's all about!"

Voice B: "I just did!" [!]

Voice C: [a 'believer']: "There it is!"

;-)

A series of story-like pieces about life in the center of Illinois. Bradway is excellent at getting to the central truth of incidents and relationships. Particularly compelling are the pieces that deal with her family and their relationship to the rest of the human world. Also a compelling and dark story about the effect of industrial pollution on the river system. Pieces about rock and roll and experiences of the midwesterner outside of the midwest (LA, NYC). A beautiful stylist Bradway brings a caring perspective to her subjects. The essays are personal without that becoming the reason for the words.

This finely-wrought collection of personal essays poignantly renders life in the midwest that is not Chicago, not cornfields, not well-scrubbed, not Norman Rockwell. Bradway is neither nostalgic nor derisive but, rather, sympathetically honest, in the ways the best writers are of places they love and yet which often disappoint them. The essays, several of which originally appeared in such pinnacle magazines as The North American Review and Doubletake, mix memoir and journalism. She writes about herself, yes, but mainly about people and places sometimes out of sorts with each other and the world beyond. The Mellencamp echoes (and she devotes an essay to him) ring true, as does her lucid prose throughout. Interspersed among the essays are poignant and provocative photgraphs. Having grown up in an Iowa town myself, I recognize this place, these people, this voice. But my friends and my students, who have grown up in midwestern cities and cities beyond, recognize them, too. If you're seeking vapid romanticism or scathing contempt, skip this book. If you're wanting something authentically distanced, yet close enough to carry the tone of life as it is here and was, please read.

Since the previous reviewer wrote, Mr. Swink passed away. The publisher is working on a new edition, which is expected to be out in summer or fall of 2003. There are only a few copies left of the current reprint. I'm waiting anxiously for the new edition.

Probably the most authoritative guide to plants that grow in and around Chicago. The entry for each plant even contains a map showing where it was found. This is the capstone work for Chicago's foremost Horticulturist.

Dr. Pierce details in an interesting and thought provoking way the struggles of the African-American population to gain an equal voice within the community of Indianapolis.

From the prospective of a 60's generation who grew up in Gary, Polite Protest was enlightening and disturbing. I was uncomfortable reading about how long African-Americans had to struggle for equality in education, housing and employment.

Without these significant changes in our society, it would be impossible for me to share a cup of coffee with the author, attend one of his classes, or live in the same neighborhood.

Thank you Dr. Pierce for writing and enlightening, explaining and exploring. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to understand and learn.

Much has been written about the Great Migration, and the evolution of African American protest in Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit. But the African American community developed differently in Indianapolis than in places farther north. Indianapolis already had a sizable black community during its formative years, making African Americans an integral part of the city-building process even though they occupied different strata within the city. When compared to other African American communities in neighboring states, they routinely outpaced them in quality of life measures such as educational advancement and home ownership.

The author argues that this investment in the city's political economy caused the black community to protect the status quo, eschewing violent protest and mass demonstrations when white civic leaders started to increase segregation measures shortly after WWI. (For example, Indianapolis had integrated secondary schools until 1927, when the school board created an all-black high school.) They instead chose forms of"polite protest," such as negotiation and coalition building.

The author examines five examples of this "polite protest," ranging from high school basketball to housing and work opportunities. He concludes that while the African American community did manage to hold some ground, they were unable to increase their fortunes once the wall of segregation was securely established. As he states, "...I am not dismissive of the protest strategies...but I remain critical of their choices..."

Clearly and concisely written , this book is an important contribution to urban studies.

The nineteenth century was the most radical and revolutionary period for women in American society. Ann Braude's RADICAL SPIRITS: SPRITUALISM AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA examines the development and progression of women's rights as it pertained to religion and spirituality; when combined, they provided women the pulpit and the voice to participate in a society where they had been previoulsy confined to duties in the home. Indeed, women and feminism emerged from the churches and beckoned to the calls from women seeking an outlet to be emancipated from both a hierarchical church environment and a patriarchal home environment.

RADICAL SPIRITS attempts and succeeds at relating religion and women's history within the context of American history. The most unique aspect of this scholarship is the inclusion of the subject matter of religion and spiritual mediums. Mediums had an enormous effect on women's suffrage, and escalated and accounted for women's leadership in the community. Despite the fact that the most notable leaders of women's rights, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton did not necessarily participate in such activities, Braude takes into account those closely related to them: Anna Blackwell, Sarah Anthony Burtis, Mary Ann and Thomas Mclintock, and Lucretia Mott's dinner guests, a way to suggest that religion played a significant role in encouraging activism (xxi). RADICAL SPIRITS acknowledges religion and spiritualism in women's activities, and helps to present a better understanding of what shaped and molded women's rights in the United States during the nineteenth century.

I first met this book in a seminar about Spiritualist history, and was most impressed by the research and breadth of the coverage. I was also startled by the involvement of the Spiritualist movement in all the major reform movements of the 19th century. Change was happening everywhere in the lives of women! Dress reform, marriage reform, divorce reform to mention a few. Also the involvement of major figures working in the suffrage movement, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. In the mid-nineteenth century, women became the leaders on the Spiritualist platform, as mediums. They brought through the messages and information. From being in charge on the platform, they went into other areas where they were dominated by men and began to take more control. This book is the story of that tremendous period on change that has landed women where they are today. Today's women stand on the shoulders of those courageous women of the 19th century. Some one said to me,"If today's women were as radical as those women were, they would be chaining themselves to trees!" Enjoy!

This book presents a brilliant and original interpretation of Talmudic reasoning and, by extension, a large part of the Jewish intellectual tradition. It has recently been the subject of academic meetings and a special edition of the respected Journal of Textual Reasoning (Volume 4, Number 2 March 2006). (You can see this scholarly discussion of Fisch's work online. Amazon will not allow me to include the URL, but it's easy enough to Google). An extraordinary book, by any measure, and sure to remain a seminal book on Jewish modes of reasoning for years to come.

Most people, when they hear or see this title say, "isn't that an oxymoron?" Perhaps. But that only illustrates Fisch's point that the "traditionalist" approach to the texts has come to dominate our understanding of them. Probing for what he calls the "rationalist" approach, one that responds to data, the rethinks materials, that thrives on challenge, Fisch reveals a world of complex intellectual interchange in the making of both the Mishnah and the Talmud, and then undertakes the very difficult comparison between modern science and talmudic learning. Challenging, intellectually exciting, and imaginative -- the book opens up important new approaches to thinking about both rabbinic and modern scientific thought.

If you have ever read a commentary on Hegel (or on any great and difficult philosopher about whom much has been written), you will tend to find a few illuminating passages here and there interspersed among difficult and technical discussions and digressions intended to satisfy the critical concerns of this or that critical reader. In short, you will tend to find (with rare exceptions, which include this exemplary reading of Hegel) that while occasionally the author gets at the subject matter itself addressed by the philosopher in question, they will as often address themselves through the lens of the book to working through their own idiosyncratic philosophical preoccupations combined with the preoccupations of those predecessor commentators whose views they could not safely ignore. I say this not to cast suspicion generally upon those who are willing to undertake the nearly thankless task of becoming a scholar (and not to suggest that such work is not important for the purposes it does serve of refining insights and challenging preconceptions among scholars and teachers) -- but merely to point out a fact that may be obvious to scholars but not to the casual or interested reader: whatever the stated intentions of the author/scholar, commentaries are for the most part not written for the casual reader but are written to a highly specialized group of peers to establish a reputation among and achieve recognition by these peers (of course motivated by a genuine interest in the subject matter that excites this small community).

That is why it is so refreshing to come across a work like John Russon's "Reading Hegel's Phenomenology": a philosophical commentary that is truly novel and accessible, and that approaches the Phenomenology of Spirit with the conviction that the subject matter of Hegel's phenomenology is the actual experience of each and every one of us. For Russon, this has the implication that above all a reading of Hegel's difficult book should make an effort to tie the initially obscure language of the text to illuminating and clear descriptions of real life. In each of Russon's provocative and powerful chapters, each focused on the different sections of Hegel's book, Russon attempts to identify a core phenomenon with which each of us can't help but be familiar, as a starting point from which to ground his analysis of the sections of the text. To find a commentary that employs a similar method as effectively, you would almost have to go back to Kojeve's "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel" (and I can't help but suspect that the similarity in titles is a deliberate move on Russon's part to suggest the affinity of his approach -- even where the substance of their analyses differ -- to that of Kojeve). The difference, that tells in favor of Russon's book, is that in Kojeve's book the primary experiential base from which he explicates almost the entire Phenomenology is his illuminating and provocative account of situations of unequal recognition, where in an intersubjective situation one person dominates and the other submits. Kojeve's insight into such situations, drawn from his analysis of Hegel's master/slave dialectic, and his recognition that they are widely characteristic of human social situations, provides a strong basis from which to consider a range of the developments in the Phenomenology -- and his work has with strong right been enormously influential on readers of Hegel. What his primary focus tends to obscure, however, is that Hegel's analysis aims at overcoming such situations of unequal recognition, and that he holds there to be real moments of contemporary existence in which such situations are in fact overcome. Russon's book is, for that reason, more widely applicable -- given his concern to highlight the relevance of Hegel's phenomenology to a much broader range of experiential phenomena: the existential experience of time, the feeling of one's own body, the power of desire, the encounter with an other, the experience of reading, the formation of communal belonging through ritual practice, moral engagement, and religious experience (to mention just some). It is an exceptional work of scholarship and teaching, that should serve as a model for philosophical commentary that is both rigorous in its responsibility to primary texts and philosophically illuminating in its own right. Highly recommended for anyone interested in thinking seriously about their lives and thoughts along with Hegel, rather than merely learning about Hegel. (By the way, if the task of thinking seriously about actual life intrigues you, it is worth taking a look at one of Russon's other books: "Human Experience" - a provocative and challenging investigation of the ways we attempt and fail to bring our lives into coherent and satisfying unity, and how philosophy can be an essential component of self-analysis and self-development.)

Russon's book is a superb companion to Hegel's notoriously difficult text. I used it this past semester in a university course on Hegel, and my students found that "Reading the Phenomenology" made an enormous difference to their comprehension of the Phenomenology of Spirit. Russon writes with profound insight into Hegel's argument, and yet does so in a remarkably clear and accessible way. Somehow he seems to do the impossible--he provides new and exciting readings of Hegel's text that I believe to be of great importance and interest to scholars, yet he does so in a way that undergraduate readers (or indeed anyone else ready to take on the challenge of cracking Hegel's book!) can engage with immediately. I recommend Russon's book very highly.