All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551
or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.
I am not on YouTube or social media
Awake, awake!
Wake up, you drunkards and weep...
[ 9 minute read ] - 2150 words
Why is it that persons abbreviate words to their initial letters. I have seen Creative Writing written as CW by students of creative writing. For goodness sake, how can anyone studying creative writing be too lazy to write 'creative writing'? I had an idea to revise a bit on Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperatives. I went to Stanford's 'Encyclopedia of Philosophy' which tellingly has a caveat at the top, 'First published Mon Feb 23, 2004; substantive revision Thu Oct 2, 2025'. Kant lived from 1724-1804, so I doubt if he has changed any of his ideas since 2004, so it must be a person who has come across the original publication of 2004 and decided to add their two penn'orth to it (a small or insubstantial contribution or opinion).
Wherever the words 'Categorical Imperative' should be written, instead we have 'CI'. I understand that 'Categorical Imperative' will appear many times in an article that starts with 'Kant [...] argued that the supreme principle of morality is a principle of rationality that he dubbed the "Categorical Imperative" - and no-one really wants to keep typing the same words over and over again. But, so do computer software businesses recognise this which is why we have 'copy and paste'. Reducing these rather important two words to their initials is, in my mind, plainly done by someone with no respect for the subject and values only their own 'precious' time. Of course, I am somewhat biased in that I don't access the internet with a phone or send text messages using a tiny on-screen keyboard. I sometimes fail to understand that there are actually people who do not have a lap-top or home computer at home and use a phone to do their University studies. I can't quite believe that they write essays on them too, do they? Surely, there is no person who would revise an article on Immanuel Kant on a phone and upload it from there, is there?
Of course, I have come across the odd one or two emails sent from a phone to me, in response to one I sent written on a lap-top. I feel insulted when I send a lengthy email and get a text message-length response. I won't be emailing that person again. It is disrespectful to give a lazy response born from the problems that we have created for ourselves (not using a home computer or lap-top) by believing a phone will do. That is a poor attitude that has crept into every aspect of society I have the displeasure of experiencing...'It will do. It is boring and I have other things to do. It will do.'
I believe in meritocracy. If you can't do the job then move away; don't apply for it. If you hate your job, get a different one. Just get out of the way of capable persons, I say. When I say 'capable' and 'apt' I mean that these attributes exist in a person who actually gives a damn about their job and other people, especially other people. Something I learnt, both by studying Customer Service and just because I picked it up because it is important to me to reciprocate good manners, is that if you get an email that addresses you by your first name, and the sender's first name is evident, you should reply using the sender's first name. If you get an email that addresses you by your last name....you get the picture (lazy me couldn't be bothered to finish the sentence. Actually no. I recognise that continuing the explanation would cause people who habitually read from phones to skip the ending anyway.) But just to over-egg the pudding, this reciprocation also applies to the signing off or closing salutation, 'Best Wishes' or 'Regards' or 'Cheers' or whatever. These are expressions that the sender is keen on and familiar with. Of course, they are also cultured to give a specific impression too. I notice a lack of reciprocation in emails and texts from habitual phone-users.
From studying Business Administration, I recognise an hierarchy of communication (Somewhat bumpy and disjointed sentence, eh?).
For emergencies and for time-critical messages make a phone call.
For directions and pointers send a text.
For explanations send an email.
For legal and personal purposes send a letter.
One should reciprocate in kind unless the circumstances become critical; time, personal or legal.
Essentially, if we extrapolate from what I have been saying. If you get an email of some length, respond to it with an email addressing the points that were made, at some length. Never send a text message-length email unless it is either a correction, an acceptance or a refusal. Above all avoid being rude by thinking, 'That will do.' Just because it fits you it does not mean it fits the circumstance and especially the recipient. My sister used to send me a 'Happy Birthday' text. She actually held her phone in her hand! How rude! She was fulfilling her duty to send her regards and showed her displeasure in doing it. How rude!
The Open University provides Forums for its students. All OU students know this. I had a discussion with a tutor a while back. He expressed his desire to see more student interaction in the forums. I also had the same tutor respond to one of my forum posts with a comment (on the forum) that I should expect more traction if I write shorter posts! It's a forum, not a dating site or social media snippy chat site. If you want more forum interaction ban the chatterers! There is only an expectation of rudeness delivered by persons posting text messages on forums; it is dismissive and disrespectful of contributors efforts. Contributors should make an argument with, of course more than one premise, and the responses should address the argument with either additional premises to support the argument or premises to discredit the argument. Yet, there are persons who just put their emotions in a comment and make no logical sense. In Rome, these people would be removed as drunken fools, back in the day. Yes, but this is not Ancient Rome. Things have changed. Nowadays, anything and everything will do. How could I tell the tutor who desired more student interaction in forums that he supported 'It will do' tactics that are only beneficial to persons using little to no logic and have no respect for the art of communication, or valid and fruitful discussion? Social media sites are not the same as academic study sites. It, of course, is quite impossible to convince tutors that their own inputs are detrimental because the tutors, it seems, have allowed the parameters of digital communication to blur and blend to make homogeneous messes. But that is hegemony for you; tutors must comply, and must do so without steering social change.
There is an exponential growth (I use that term tentatively because it is a term used by mathematicians and it may be as irritating to them when it is ill-used as it is to me when important words are reduced to their initials); there is an exponential growth in supporting a good work-life balance, even going so far as making sure everyone is happy at work. No, I mean joyous. It started with 'dress-down Friday' when office workers could wear casual clothes to work on Fridays. Many offices now don't insist on smart clothes. It will do. Where there was once a separation of attitudes and behaviour between social life and work, or corporate life, we have practically no such separation left in the rich Global North countries (I suggest). We no longer learn to curtail our feelings and get on with the job we are employed to do. We have our phones with us at work, for goodness sake. Why? people should be going to work to work, to do the very best they can in their role, to actually earn their wage. I suggest that the casual attitude we take to work has produced the 'It will do' attitude that is so prevalent in society.
Every blooming business wants to build a personal profile of me so they can, presumably, better attend to my needs. I studied Marketing, Logistics and The Supply Chain, so I actually know what they are doing, or at least were doing. If a business sells ladders, for example, they are unlikely to stock many in an area where there are very few practically minded residents; only trades-persons buy ladders there, and because trades-persons only buy their tools infrequently they will travel some distance to buy them. No point in a business wasting shop-floor space with poorly selling products. Instead canny businesses apply the Pareto Principle (80% of profit or revenue comes from only 20% of the products sold, so they stock the fast moving products). In the case of mobile phone service and device providers, then want to know what my usage is and where I go online.
I had a phone call from one of my mobile service providers to offer me a deal on a new phone or 'a reduction on my existing phone'. Whatever could he mean? Why would anyone reduce their phone? Did he want to make it smaller or deny me access to some of the software? I own my phone. I bought it outright with money from a shop. I don't rent my phone. Why would I pay to have a phone to do stuff that is entirely irrelevant? If I want to take photos I will buy a camera that does not access the internet. If I want to browse the internet I will use a device that I can restrict from uploading my voice pattern and contact list (a lap-top). This mobile service provider salesperson was working on the principle that I subscribe to the 'It Will Do' attitude as being a valid and useful position to take. Further to that, he made an assumption that I am stupid enough to continually pay to continue to live in that pigswill lifestyle. Everyone updates their phone! Not me. No need. I have maintained the separation of appropriate action that is essential for good living. My phone is for phone calls and texts; it never goes online or updates its software. One lap-top is for business use and studying. Another lap-top goes online for internet searches, including for study purposes; a third lap-top is a back-up device that I only really use to play DVDs (it never, ever goes online because I don't want the operating system to be corrupted by A.I.) I never take photographs of people or locations.
What I find bewildering is that I got a text message on my phone from my doctor's surgery with a link to an online site that showed me the content of a digital letter that had the form of a real letter, including my name and address where it would be seen through the plastic window on an envelope. I never received the real letter, and there was an expectation that it is safe to access anything online with your name, address, and NHS number by entering your date of birth as a security password. Ridiculous and wholly irresponsible. What, pray, is the most secure way to send information? Yup! Through the post. The digital letter was prepared as a postal letter but never sent! I mean, really? What is wrong here? I am expected to use a device that is similar to the devices that almost everyone has their personal details on (family photos, contact numbers, recordings of their voice - oh yes! and internet history) to access a digital file that has my name and address on it. I bet you can guess that I carefully typed in the link on one of my lap-tops to access that letter online. You know what? I couldn't just read it. I had to download it , for goodness sake. That meant that my name and address is on my lap-top. Sure, you can delete it the download. But it isn't actually deleted, it is simply not recognised by the operating system as existing. It can still be accessed by bad actors. You have to move it to a removable device such as a flash drive to get it safely off your system. What a palaver! But sending a letter by digital means from a level of cyber-security incompetence will do. It will do.
Just like the salesperson who assumed that I rent a phone, all businesses seem to believe that we are stupid enough to open a link sent to us by text message. Do we know who actually sent the text message with a link in it, now that A.I. has ALL our details? Well, maybe not all my details.
What I am saying is: we should only be using passive devices; cameras that do not go online; SatNavs that only receive data from GPS sources; and phones with a duplex system (talk and listen at the same time) that have no internet capability. You know when you sometimes hear weird noises when people talk on their phones. Those phones are owned by people who have never switched off or denied automatic downloads and updates and have multiple apps on their phone. Convenience for them is the reward they get for having a 'That will do' attitude.