ت765

۷ بازديد
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
dierent grains from each other? And nally, the most
remarkable thing about all this is the generation of animal
spirits,* which, like a very subtle* wind, or rather like a very pure
and living ame, rise continually in great abundance from the
heart to the brain, pass from there through the nerves into the
muscles, and impart movement to all our members. We do
not need to suppose any other cause to impel the most agi-
tated and the most penetrating parts of the blood (and hence
the best suited to compose these spirits) to make their way to
the brain rather than anywhere else, than that the arteries that
carry them there are those which come most directly from the
heart, and that, according to the rules of mechanics (which
are the same as those of nature), when many things tend to
move together towards the same place in which there is not
room for them all (as in the case of the parts of the blood that
leave the left cavity of the heart and ow towards the brain),
the weaker or less agitated must of necessity be displaced by 
the stronger, which by this means reach their destination on
their own.
I had explained all these matters in considerable detail in
the treatise which I had earlier intended to publish.* And I
had then shown what structure the nerves and the muscles of
the human body must have to enable the animal spirits, being
inside that body, to have the power to move its members, as we
observe in the case of severed heads, which we can see moving
and biting the earth shortly after having been cut o, although
they are no longer animate. I had also shown what changes
must occur in the brain to cause states of waking, sleeping,
and dreaming; how light, sounds, smells, tastes, heat, and all
the other qualities of external objects can imprint various ideas
on the brain through the intermediary of the senses; how
hunger, thirst, and the other internal passions can also transmit
ideas to the brain; what must be taken to be the sensus com-
munis* in which these are received, the memory which pre-
serves them, and the faculty of imagination, which can change
them in dierent ways, form them into new ideas and, by the
 

 
 
same means, distribute animal spirits to the muscles and make
the members of this body move, with respect both to the
objects which present themselves to the senses and to the
internal passions, in as many dierent ways as the parts of our
bodies can move without being directed by our will. This will
not appear at all strange to those who know how wide a range
of dierent automata or moving machines the skill of man can
make using only very few parts, in comparison to the great
number of bones, muscles, nerves, arteries, veins, and all the
other parts which are in the body of every animal. For they
will consider this body as a machine which, having been made
by the hand of God, is incomparably better ordered and has in
itself more amazing movements than any that can be created
by men.
At this point I had dwelt on this issue to show that if there
were such machines having the organs and outward shape of a
monkey or any other irrational animal, we would have no
means of knowing that they were not of exactly the same
nature as these animals, whereas, if any such machines
resembled us in body and imitated our actions insofar as this
was practically possible, we should still have two very certain
means of recognizing that they were not, for all that, real
human beings.* The rst is that they would never be able to use
words or other signs by composing them as we do to declare
our thoughts to others. For we can well conceive of a machine
made in such a way that it emits words, and even utters them
about bodily actions which bring about some corresponding
change in its organs (if, for example, we touch it on a given
spot, it will ask what we want of it; or if we touch it somewhere
else, it will cry out that we are hurting it, and so on); but it is
not conceivable that it should put these words in dierent
orders to correspond to the meaning of things said in its pres-
ence, as even the most dull-witted of men can do. And the
second means is that, although such machines might do many
things as well or even better than any of us, they would inevit-
ably fail to do some others, by which we would discover that
    

 
 
they did not act consciously, but only because their organs
were disposed in a certain way. For, whereas reason is a uni-
versal instrument which can operate in all sorts of situations,
their organs have to have a particular disposition for each par-
ticular action, from which it follows that it is practically
impossible for there to be enough dierent organs in a
machine to cause it to act in all of life’s occurrences in the same
way that our reason causes us to act.
Now we can also determine the dierence between men and
animals by these two means. For it is a very remarkable fact
that there are no men so dull-witted and stupid, not even
madmen, that they are incapable of stringing together dier-
ent words, and composing them into utterances, through
which they let their thoughts be known; and, conversely, there
is no other animal, no matter how perfect and well endowed by
birth it may be, that can do anything similar. Nor does this
arise from lack of organs, for we can see that magpies and
parrots can utter words as we do, and yet cannot speak like us,
that is, by showing that they are thinking what they are saying;
whereas men born deaf and dumb, who are deprived as much
as, or more than, animals of the organs which in others serve 
for speech, usually invent certain signs to make themselves
understood by those who are their habitual companions and
have the time to learn their language. This shows not only that
animals have less reason than man, but that they have none at
all.* For it is clear that we need very little reason in order to be
able to speak; and given that as much inequality is found
among animals of the same species as among men, and that
some are easier to train than others, it is unbelievable that the
most perfect monkey or parrot of their species should not be
able to speak as well as the most stupid child, or at least a child
with a disturbed brain, unless their soul were of a wholly dif-
ferent nature to ours. And speech must not be confused with
the natural movements that are signs of passion and can be
imitated by machines as well by as animals; neither must one
imagine, as did certain ancient thinkers, that animals speak,
 

 
 
although we do not understand their language. For if that were
true, they would be able to make themselves understood by us
as well as by other members of their species, since they have
many organs that correspond to ours. It is also a very remark-
able fact that although many animals show more skill in some
of their actions than we correspondingly do, it is nonetheless
clear than the same animals show none at all in many others, so
that what they can do better than us does not prove that they
have any mental powers, for it would follow from this that they
would have more intelligence than any of us, and would sur-
pass us in everything. Rather, it shows that they have no men-
tal powers whatsoever, and that it is nature which acts in them,
according to the disposition of their organs; just as we see that
a clock consisting only of ropes and springs can count the
hours and measure time more accurately than we can in spite
of all our wisdom.
Following this, I had described the rational soul, and shown
that, unlike the other things of which I had spoken, it could
not possibly be derived from the potentiality of matter, but
that it must have been created expressly. And I had shown
how it is not sucient for it to be lodged in the human body
like a pilot in his ship,* except perhaps to move its members,
but that it needs to be more closely joined and united with the
body in order to have, in addition, feelings* and appetites like
the ones we have, and in this way compose a true man. I dwelt
a little at this point on the subject of the soul, because it is of
the greatest importance. For, after the error of those who deny
the existence of God, which I believe I have adequately
refuted above, there is none which causes weak minds to stray
more readily from the narrow path of virtue than that of
imagining that the souls of animals are of the same nature as
our own, and that, as a consequence, we have nothing more to
fear or to hope for after this present life, any more than ies
and ants. But when we know how dierent ies and ants are,
we can understand much better the arguments which prove
that our soul is of a nature entirely independent of the body,
    

 
 
and that, as a consequence, it is not subject to death as the
body is. And given that we cannot see any other causes which 
may destroy the soul, we are naturally led to conclude that it
is immortal.*
 

 
 
PART SIX
It is now three years since I completed the treatise that
contained all the above. I was beginning to revise it so that I
could place it in the hands of a printer, when I learned that
persons to whom I defer, and whose authority holds hardly less
sway over my actions than my own reason over my thoughts,
had condemned a physical theory, published a little earlier by
someone else,* to which I would not want to go so far as to say I
subscribed, but only that I had seen nothing in it before their
act of censure which I could imagine being prejudicial to
religion or state, and which consequently would have pre-
vented me from writing about it, if my reason had persuaded
me to do so. This made me fear that there might be one of my
own opinions in which I was equally mistaken, notwithstand-
ing the great care I have always taken never to accept any new
opinions for which I did not have very certain proof, and not to
write about any which might work to the disadvantage of any-
one. This was enough to make me change the decision I had
taken to publish my theories. For even if the reasons for taking
the decision earlier to publish were very strong, my natural
inclination, which has always made me dislike the business*
of writing books, led me to nd a host of other reasons for
excusing myself from doing so. And these reasons, both for
and against, are such that not only do I have some interest
in declaring them here, but the public may also have some
interest in knowing what they are.
I have never laid great store by the products of my mind,
and as long as I reaped no other benets from the method that
I use (apart from satisfying myself about some problems that
belong to the speculative sciences, or trying to direct my life by
the precepts that it inculcated in me), I have not felt obliged to
write anything about it. For as far as mode of life is concerned,
everyone is so sure that they know best that one could nd as

 
 
many reformers as there are people,* if it were permitted to any
other than those whom God has established as sovereigns over
their peoples, or those to whom He has given sucient grace
and zeal to be prophets, to set about changing anything. And
although I was very pleased with my speculations, I believed
that others had their own which perhaps pleased them even
more. But having no sooner acquired some general notions
about physics, and begun to test them out on various particular
problems, I noticed where they may lead and how much they
dier from the principles that have been employed up to now,
and I believed that I could not keep them hidden without
sinning greatly against the law that obliges us to procure, as far
as it is in our power, the general good of all mankind. For these
notions have made me see that it is possible to attain know-
ledge which is very useful in life, and that unlike the specula-
tive philosophy that is taught in the schools, it can be turned 
into a practice by which, knowing the power and action of re,
water, air, stars, the heavens, and all the other bodies that are
around us as distinctly as we know the dierent trades of our
craftsmen, we could put them to all the uses for which they are
suited and thus make ourselves as it were the masters and
possessors of nature.* This is not only desirable for the dis-
covery of a host of inventions which will lead us eortlessly to
enjoy the fruits of the earth and all the commodities that can
be found in it, but principally also for the preservation of
health, which is without doubt the highest good and the foun-
dation of all the other goods of this life. For even the mind
depends so much on the temperament* and disposition of the
organs of the body that, if it is possible to nd some way of
making men in most cases wiser and more skilful than they
have been hitherto, I believe that it is in medicine that it must
be sought. It is true that medicine as presently practised con-
tains little of such notable benet; but without wishing to dis-
parage it, I am certain that there is no one, even among those
whose profession it is, who will not admit that what is known
about it is almost nothing compared to what remains to be
 

 
 
known, and that it would be possible to be free of innumerable
illnesses of both body and mind, and perhaps even the decline
of old age, if we knew enough about their causes and the
remedies with which nature has provided us.* So, intending to
devote my whole life to the pursuit of such an indispensable
branch of knowledge, and having found a path which, I think,
will inevitably lead me to it, unless prevented from doing so by
the brevity of life or the lack of empirical information, I judged
that there was no better remedy against these two obstacles
than to communicate faithfully to the public what little I had
discovered, and to urge good minds to try to go further by
contributing, each according to his inclinations and power, to
the observations and experiments* that need to be undertaken,
and by communicating in turn to the public everything that
they learn. Thus, as the last would start from where their
predecessors had left o, thereby combining the lives and
labours of many, we might together make much greater
progress than any one man could make on his own.
I noted, moreover, in respect of observations and experi-
ments, that the further we progress in knowledge the more
necessary they become. For, at the beginning, rather than to
seek out rarer and more contrived experiments, it is better to
undertake only those which communicate themselves directly
to our senses, of which we cannot remain ignorant, provided
that we reect a little on them. The reason for this is that rarer
experiments often mislead us, at a time when we do not still
know the causes of more common ones, and the circumstances
on which they depend are nearly always so specic* and minute
that it is dicult to take good note of them. But the order to
which I have adhered in this regard is the following. First, I
have tried to nd in general the principles or rst causes of
everything that exists or can exist the world, without consider-
ing to this end anything other than God alone, who has created
it, and deriving these principles only from certain seeds of
truths which are naturally in our souls. After that, I came to
examine what are the rst and most common eects which one
    

 
 
can deduce from these causes; and it seems to me that I have in
this way discovered the heavens, heavenly bodies, and an earth;
and, on the earth, water, air, re, minerals, and several other
such things which are the most common and the simplest of
all, and hence the easiest to know. Then, when I wanted to
proceed to more particular things, so many dierent ones pre-
sented themselves to me that I did not believe it possible for
the human mind to distinguish the Forms or Species* of bodies
that are on the earth from a host of others which might be
there, if it had been the will of God to put them there. Con-
sequently, I did not think there was any other way to make
them useful to us, than by progressing from eects to causes
and by engaging in many individual observations. Following
which, I cast my mind over all the objects that had ever pre-
sented themselves to my senses, and I venture to declare that I
have not noticed anything which I could not explain quite
easily by the principles I had found. But I must also acknow-
ledge that the power of nature is so ample and vast, and these
principles so simple and general, that I am able to observe
hardly any particular eect without knowing from the begin-
ning that it can be deduced from the principles in many dier- 
ent ways, and that my greatest diculty is normally to nd in
which of these ways the eect depends on them. For I know o

7y

۷ بازديد
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
himself obliged to continue, if only to avoid misrepresentation by
others (something about which he was very sensitive). In 
the Meditations on First Philosophy, Together With the First Six Sets of
Objections with Replies appeared in Latin; a second, enlarged, volume
came out a year later, and a French translation by the duc de Luynes,
to which Descartes gave his approval, followed in . The
Meditations, whose rst-person singular is not so much the historical
Descartes as it is any reective person working their way through a
set of arguments, do not describe philosophical discoveries, but
present them in the order in which readers are enjoined to enact
the process of discovery for themselves. In this they are unlike the
Discourse, which is presented as a personal and historical narrative.
In  his Latin Principles of Philosophy followed; three of its four
books are about ‘science’ (physics and natural philosophy) rather
than strictly philosophical principles. It was published in French in
 in a translation by Abbé Claude Picot (?–), a Parisian
priest who was converted to Descartes’s philosophy by the
Meditations, and who came as a friend to look after Descartes’s nan-
cial aairs in the last years of his life. Also in  a Latin version of
the Discourse appeared, which made this text accessible to the wider
learned community. Other writings followed, often in response to
criticisms of his work, for by the early s Descartes had become
notorious throughout Europe; these included the Comments on a
Certain Broadsheet (Notae in programma quoddam), which appeared
in . Descartes’s philosophy (or rather, a version of it which he
disowned) had been enthusiastically adopted by his disciple Henrick
de Roy (Regius) (), of the University of Utrecht; the rec-
tor of that same Calvinist establishment, Gijsbert Voet (),
had it condemned there in . Regius was the author of the broad-
sheet which provoked the Comments of , in which he set out a
version of Cartesianism unacceptable to Descartes, who very much
resented being drawn into such controversies; he looked upon them
as distractions from his true vocation, which was to develop his
system in order eventually to provide a secure grounding for ethics
and medicine. He himself had also hoped that his philosophy might
be adopted by the Jesuits for use in their colleges; but as he ruefully
told Huygens in a letter dated  January  (AT . ), he found
xvii

 
 
as many opponents in their midst as he did among the Protestants of
the Low Countries. 10
The last work to appear in his lifetime, in , was the Passions of
the Soul (Les Passions de l’âme), written, like the Discourse, in French.
This may well have been inspired by his contacts, beginning in ,
with Princess Elizabeth (), the Calvinist granddaughter of
James I and daughter of the deposed king of Bohemia, who was
living in exile in The Hague; in her correspondence with him, she
had pressed him to explain the interaction of soul and body in his
system. He had already made explicit his decision to write accessibly,
not only for members of the court but also for women; her lucid and
shrewd questioning must have conrmed for him the wisdom of this
decision.
By  the nancial stability which had allowed Descartes to live
independently and to reject all oers of patronage seems to have
been threatened. In that year he returned to Paris, to arrange to take
up the royal pension that he had been granted in that year––an
expensive procedure, involving the outlay of money to obtain a royal
warrant before any pension was received. The following year saw the
beginning of the civil wars in France known as the Fronde, which
eectively put an end to royal patronage for half a decade (in spite
of Baillet’s claim to the contrary, it seems that Descartes was never to
receive a penny of royal largesse). It may have been such material
factors that persuaded him to accept the patronage oered by Queen
Christina of Sweden (), who was actively seeking to sur-
round herself with prominent scholars and thinkers. In , having
put his aairs in order, he set out with all his papers for Stockholm,
dressed, to the astonishment of his acquaintances, in the clothes of a
fashionable courtier, with his hair in ringlets.11 After a rather unsatis-
factory beginning to his stay there, during which he made some new
French friends and was entrusted with some nugatory tasks, he was
eventually summoned to the royal palace on Christina’s return to her
capital, to instruct her in his philosophy. She ordained that this
10 Gaukroger, Descartes, .
11 AT .  has the description of Brasset, the secretary of the French Embassy at
The Hague.
xviii

 
 
should take place from a.m. to mid-morning; the man with the
weak chest, who had spent the greater part of his life rising late and
nursing his health, was now exposed not only to the rigours of a
Stockholm winter in the early hours of the morning, but also to the
infectious pneumonia of his friend the French ambassador, Hector-
Pierre Chanut (), in whose residence he lived, and whose
bedside he attended during his illness. Descartes in turn contracted
pneumonia, and died on  February .
Descartes’s correspondence, which was published soon after his
death, reveals something of the character of its author, as do his early
biographers. Baillet, in a somewhat hagiographical account of Des-
cartes’s life, describes him as a man with a serene and aable expres-
sion, careful in his consumption of food and wine, content to keep
his own company, without personal aectations or foppishness (he
only took to wearing a wig towards the end of his life, for reasons of
health). Baillet assures us that if he was at all vain, this was only a
supercial vanity; he was modest, indierent to public acclaim, and
had a gift both for fostering the careers of those for whom he was
responsible, and for the friendship of his peers. Among Descartes’s
modern biographers, only Geneviève Rodis-Lewis has retained
many of these features; she has also stressed his frequent changes of
address, and attributed them to his overriding desire to be left alone
to pursue his search for scientic and philosophical truth. His elu-
siveness was noted even by his contemporaries: his acquaintance
Claude de Saumaise () wrote to a correspondent in 
that Descartes kept well away from others (‘à l’escart’) even in a
small town like Leiden, and wittily suggested said that his name
ought to be spelt ‘D’escartes’ (AT . ); Descartes himself wrote
on more than one occasion that he disliked having neighbours (AT .
; . ). While conceding that he had a quick temper, Rodis-
Lewis also points out that he was often generous with his time, and
received even lowly visitors who came to consult him; and in spite of
his conviction that animals were no more than machines (AT . ),
he kept a dog called M. Grat (‘Mr Scratch’), of whom he may even
have been fond. 12
12 Baillet, Vie, ; Geneviève Rodis-Lewis, Descartes.
xix

 
 
The adage, ‘there is nothing more praiseworthy in a philosopher
than a candid acknowledgement of his errors’––advice oered by
Descartes to Regius in January  (AT . )––would ow natur-
ally from the pen of the Descartes described in Baillet’s biography;
but it has struck others as out of character in a man who seems never
to have accepted the correction and critique of others. He never fell
out, it is true, with his closest acquaintance Mersenne, although he
oended him on occasion, but with many other contemporaries his
relationship ran into diculties arising from his touchiness, his high
assessment of his own work, his low assessment of the intelligence of
those around him, and his fastidious and self-protective sense of
privacy. One modern philosopher-critic has described him as ‘lofty,
chilly and solitary’, cultivating ‘a certain reserve and self-suciency
in life and manner’; 13 to these unendearing characteristics others
have added arrogance, a contempt for others which was not always
justied, and a capacity to bully those he looked upon as inferior in
intellect to himself. He instructed the long-suering Mersenne to
treat his adversary Jean de Beaugrand (?–) with contempt,
and described his letters as t only for use as lavatory paper; the
work of Pierre de Fermat () was ‘dung’; mathematicians
who criticized his geometry were said to be ‘ies’; and although he
invited his contemporaries to criticize the Discourse and the works
that followed it, those who took up his invitation came in for a great
deal of contumely. Gilles Personne de Roberval () is said to
be ‘less than a rational animal’; Pierre Petit (), ‘a little dog
who barks after me in the street’; Thomas Hobbes (),
‘extremely contemptible’ for daring to call his work into question;
others who, having criticized him, did not accept his refutation of
them, were described as ‘silly and weak’. 14 Descartes was also not
above mystifying his correspondents, and making fun of them by
setting them dicult or incomplete mathematical problems (AT
. ); he compounded this with an unwillingness to disclose his
work to others (e.g. AT . ) which seems almost to make his
13 Williams, Descartes, .
14 Gaukroger, Descartes, , assembles these comments.
xx

 
 
attack on alchemists and occult philosophers for their secretiveness
hypocritical. Unsurprisingly, he had a low opinion of the vast major-
ity of his readers, conding to Mersenne that he did not believe them
capable of recognizing the truth of his arguments (AT . ). If
there is a feature which redeems to some degree such disagreeable
attitudes and behaviour, it is Descartes’s honesty and integrity. He
may have had an exaggerated sense of his own abilities, but (with the
possible exception of his snobbery and his silence over his sense
of a personal prophetic mission), the account he gives of his
thought-processes and his motivations is frank and scrupulous.
Descartes was buried in Stockholm; in  it was decided that
his remains should be exhumed and returned to Paris, to rest even-
tually in the abbey church of Sainte-Geneviève. At the exhumation
the French ambassador was allowed to cut o the forenger of
Descartes’s right hand, and a captain of the Swedish Guards may
well have removed the skull and replaced it with another. This
removed skull was then traded several times, before ending up in the
hands of the Swedish chemist Jons Jacob Berzelius, who in 
oered it to the palaeontologist Georges Cuvier; it is now to be
found in the Musée de l’Homme in the Palais de Chaillot in Paris.
The body, meanwhile, found its way eventually to the abbey church
of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, where it now lies. 15
This dismemberment is emblematic of the posthumous fortunes
of Descartes’s work and doctrine, parts of which have been taken up
in dierent ways at dierent times, even if his philosophical and
‘scientic’ doctrine was recognized as a coherent system in his life-
time. By  the adjective ‘Cartesian’ had emerged; it designated
principally his mechanistic philosophy. This was opposed not only
by Aristotelian traditionalists, but also by other radical thinkers, and
was a powerful motor in the debate about the nature of matter and
motion, even if none of his physical theories is now looked upon as
correct. At the same time, the Discourse had another, more diuse
eect. Its radical programme, which did not require philosophical
and ‘scientic’ training but only the employment of ‘good sense’,
appealed to those who had not received a formal education, notably
15 Ibid. .
xxi

 
 
women, who felt empowered by his promotion of the image of the
well-reasoning individual. By the mid-s, in Paris, ‘the free use
of reason’ was associated with various radical views, some of them
feminist, and Descartes was seen as its champion and a liberator
from prejudice: ‘Cartesiomania’ broke out. He was also seen as a
dangerous radical in another way: his theory of matter posed prob-
lems for the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation
(although Descartes insisted that it did not: see AT . ; . ,
; . ); in  his works found their way onto the Roman
Inquisition’s Index of Forbidden Books, in the category of those
which needed correction before they could be published: a
supremely ironic fate, given Descartes’s strenuous eorts not to
oend the Church.
Thereafter, Descartes developed into the national emblem of a
specically French kind of rationalism, and was attacked or
defended as such in contradistinction to the empirical philosophy of
the English. This opposition was fostered by early Enlightenment
thinkers such as Montesquieu and Voltaire (to the disadvantage of
Descartes). By the time of the French Revolution he had been
turned into a representative of republican thought, deserving of a
place in the pantheon of such French heroes; in the nineteenth cen-
tury he came to be seen as a petit-bourgeois Catholic thinker, before
being appropriated by the French educational system and made into
the model of clarity of thought and good style in French. It is hardly
surprising, therefore, that in , on the three-hundred-and-ftieth
anniversary of the publication of the Discourse, a book appeared with
the title Descartes c’est la France. 16
Across the Channel, meanwhile, in more recent times Descartes,
has been heralded as an honorary practitioner of analytical phil-
osophy, even in some ways its founding father; and although his
accounts of the relationship of mind and body, or the existence of
other minds, or that of possible other worlds are seen as awed, he
has set the agenda for a certain sort of philosophical training, and the
standard for rigorous introspective philosophical speculation. His
16 See Stéphane Van Damme, Descartes: essai d’histoire culturelle d’une grandeur
philosophique (Paris, ); the author of Descartes c’est la France is André Glucksman.
xxii

 
 
more recent biographers have enquired whether his philosophy
drives his ‘science’ or vice versa, whether they are interdependent,
and what role his religious belief plays in his thinking. To some
degree these are questions of emphasis, and mark the perpetual revi-
sionism to which all historical thinking is prone; they also reveal the
complex and many-faceted nature of his work, the interdependence
of its many aspects, and its continued ability to provoke even after
three and a half centuries.
The Genesis of the Discourse and its Development
Descartes never intended to publish a book like the Discourse; his
plan was to full a promise to his Parisian friends to set down an
account of his world system, which would be called The Universe. So
the Discourse and the essays which accompany it are a substitute for
something else, which would have been more comprehensive, more
coherent, and more ‘scientic’ in character. The essays which follow
the Discourse are described by Descartes as no more than ‘examples’
of his method in action; in a letter to Mersenne written a few months
before its publication, he claims that the Discourse itself only refers to
his method and its coming into being, and does not state it formally
anywhere in the text: ‘I haven’t been able to understand clearly what
you object to in the title,’ he writes, ‘for I am not saying Treatise on
the Method but Discourse on the Method, which means Preface or
Notice on the Method, to show that I do not intend to teach the
method but only to speak about it’ (AT . ). This was a matter of
disappointment to his Parisian acquaintances, as Jean-Baptiste
Morin pointed out in a letter to him dated  February ; it
prevented them from engaging in a direct critique of the principles
of Cartesian physics (AT . ).
I have already suggested that one might see the dreams which
Descartes experienced in  as decisive in forming in him the
ambition to discover some new general account of nature; one road
which he might have taken to full this was that of assiduous study
of all relevant previous authors. He explicitly discards this as a cor-
rect strategy in the Discourse, not only because he had already been
inculcated with what he saw to be unsound ancient philosophy and
xxiii

 
 
an unsatisfactory world system (the Aristotelian), but also, as he
frequently admits in his writings and his letters, because he found
reading the work of others tiresome. His (not very large) library at
his death consisted almost entirely of books that had been given to
him by his friends; to various of his correspondents he expresses his
dislike of ‘fat tomes’, and asks them to recommend short books on
subjects he wishes to study (AT . , ; . ; . ); an
early comment in his unpublished Private Thoughts (Cogitationes
privatae) runs as follows: ‘in the case of most books, once we have
read a few lines and looked at a few of the diagrams, the entire
message is perfectly obvious. The rest is added only to ll up the
paper’ (AT . ). There is another, more serious, reason to reject
the accumulation of the views of others as a road to truth. Descartes
does not quote the popular dictum, ‘Plato is my friend, Socrates is
my friend, but truth is a greater friend’ (to which I shall return
below), but he alludes to it. ‘We shall not become philosophers if we
have read all the arguments of Plato and Aristotle, but are unable to
form a secure judgement on the matters in hand’, he avers in the
Rules For the Direction of Our Native Intelligence (AT . ). He
consistently recommended the ‘light of reason’ as the best guide;
but he was later to recognize the power of philosophical name-
dropping, for he gloomily conded to Mersenne on  September
 that he had decided in future to back up his arguments
with the authority of others, as ‘truth by itself is so little respected’
(AT . ). 17
Throughout the s Descartes had been working on geometry
and optics, although it seems that the nal versions of these works
(and the meteorological treatise) were not written until . I have
already mentioned that he was known to be planning an auto-
biographical essay entitled ‘the story of my mind’ in ; Guez de
Balzac wrote to him on  March of that year that ‘it is [eagerly]
awaited by all your friends . . . it will be a pleasure . . . to read of the
path you have followed, and the progress which you have made, in
[discovering] the truth of things’ (AT . ). It would seem that
17 On these and similar quotations and their currency, see Ian Maclean, Logic, Signs
and Nature in the Renaissance: The Case of Learned Medicine (Cambridge, ), 

t4

۱۱ بازديد
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION REPORT 2021124CATCHING TECHNOLOGICAL W AVES
Innovation with equity
89 Gettinger, 2015
90 TechSci Research, 2018
91 Lanjudkar, 2017
92 Lanjudkar, 2017
93 Freedonia, 2020
94 Jenkins and Vasigh, 2013
95 Radovic, 2019
96 Schmidt, 2017; Philippidis, 2018; Acharya, 2019
97 GlobeNewswire, 2019a
98 Hercher, 2018
99 GlobeNewswire, 2019b
100 GlobeNewswire, 2019a
101 GlobeNewswire, 2019a; MarketWatch, 2019b, 2019f; Plumer et al., 2018
102 Thompson, 2017
103 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2019a, 2019b
104 Venture Radar, 2020
105 Cox, 2019; Nano.gov, 2020
106 Parker, 2016
107 Tewari and Baul, 2019
108 MarketWatch, 2019h
109 MarketWatch, 2019h
110 MarketWatch, 2019h
111 CareerExplorer, 2020b
112 Peterson’s, 2017
113 Infiniti Research, 2017; Lapping, 2017; Zong, 2019
114 Doshi, 2017
115 Sendy, 2018
116 Chamberlain, 2018
117 Shoham et al., 2018
118 Shoham et al., 2018
 
 
 
CATCHING TECHNOLOGICAL WAVES
Innovation with equity
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION REPORT 2021126
Figure 03
Conceptual framework from frontier technologies to inequalities
Source: UNCTAD.
Frontier
technology X
Other
technologies
InnovationDesign
Business
model
Other products
(goods or services)
& resources
Social and political
context
National Innovation
System
Actors
Interlinkages
Environment for
innovation
+
Technical
characteristics
Market
characteristics
Unit cost
Weight/Size/Color
Aesthetics/usability
Interface
Performance
Requirements
Target user
Unit price
Distribution channels
Instantiations
of technical
characteristics
Product Y
(good or service)
Characteristics
Security, Transportation,
Communication, Protection,
Nourishment, Comfort
Place and time
Conversion factors
Social context
Environmental
factors
Personal
characteristics
Social context
Environmental
factors
Personal
characteristics
Family, Social network, Culture,
Tradition, Biases, Discriminations
Prejudices
Mountain/desert, Urban/rural,
Climate
*******/gender/age, Physical
characteristics, Physical &
Psychological situation
Capabilities
to function
Person Person Person Person... Person Person Person Person...
Choices that
people make
Consequences
Intended or
unintended
Other Zero
hunger
Income
inequality
Health
inequality
Environmental
degradation
Climate
change
Gender
inequality
Poverty
reduction
 
 
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION REPORT 2021127CATCHING TECHNOLOGICAL W AVES
Innovation with equity
However, having the access (in the broader definition used above) to the products that use frontier
technologies, and therefore the capabilities associated with them, does not mean that a person
realizes those capabilities automatically. It depends on the choices that people make. The aggregation
of the choices that people make (including people who do not have access to the products that apply
frontier technologies) affect developmental outcomes such as inequality (in its various dimensions),
poverty reduction, environmental protection, and climate change. These consequences do not
have to necessarily move in the same direction (towards positive outcomes). An innovation applying
frontier technology could, for example, contribute to reducing poverty (e.g. use of blockchain to
enable a cryptocurrency that can be used to send remittances) and at the same time be harmful to
the environment (e.g. high need for energy in some of the cryptocurrency systems).
Products and services can also reduce the capabilities of people, either directly, for example when a
person takes a particular medicine, and that causes a severe adverse side effect, or indirectly through
some externality of the use by other people, for example through pollution. Therefore, technologies
are used in products that could benefit or harm people. In fact, it is possible that technologies are
beneficial for some people and harm some other people at the same time. Or even that it benefits
some people in some dimension (e.g. economic) and harm some of these same people in some other
dimension (e.g. environmental).
These implications of the products that apply the technology could be intended or unintended
consequences, based on the design and business model of the provision of the products.
The products that use frontier technologies are the fruit of innovations that emerge from the national
system of innovation. Therefore, these innovations reflect the context and biases of the actors of the
innovation system. Technology in itself is not neutral as it is developed in specific social and political
contexts which shape its attributes.
In summary, the design and business models affect the access (in broader terms) to the products that
apply frontier technologies, which could affect inequalities. Those that have access to the technology
first get an advantage. Inequalities in access to frontier technologies are the result of existing disparities
and reinforce those inequalities. Design and business models could also affect the consequences of
the use of the products that apply frontier technologies, intentionally or unintentionally, also affecting
inequalities (among other developmental outcomes). Therefore, to contribute to reducing inequalities
and to sustainable development, products that use frontier technologies should be designed, and the
business models to bring them into the market should be developed, taking into consideration the
access to these products and the intended and unintended consequences of their use.
1 Sen, 2000
2 Johnstone, 2007; Kleine, 2011, 2013; Oosterlaken, 2013, 2015
3 Roberts, 2017; Hernandez and Roberts, 2018
 
 
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION REPORT 2021128CATCHING TECHNOLOGICAL W AVES
Innovation with equity
ANNEX D. AI ETHICS FRAMEWORKS,
GUIDELINES, AND STATEMENTS
Organization / Institution Title Region Sector Year Type
Academy of Medical Royal
Colleges
Artificial Intelligence in
Healthcare
United
Kingdom
Academia 2019 Advice
Accenture Universal Principles of Data
Ethics
United States Private sector 2016 Advice
Accenture UK Responsible AI and robotics. An
ethical framework
United
Kingdom
Private sector 2018 Advice
ADEL ADEL France Private sector 2018 Binding
agreement
Advisory Board on Artificial
Intelligence and Human
Society
Report on Artificial Intelligence
and Human Society (Unofficial
translation)
Japan Government 2017 Advice
Agenzia per l'Italia Digitale
(AGID)
L’intelligenzia artificiale al
servizio del cittadino (Artificial
Intelligence at the service of
the citizen)
Italy Government 2018 Advice
AI Now Institut AI Now Report 2018 United States Academia 2018 Advice
American College of
Radiology; European
Society of Radiology;
Radiology Society of
North America; Society
for Imaging Informatics
in Medicine; European
Society of Medical Imaging
Informatics; Canadian
Association of Radiologists;
American Association of
Physicists in Medicine
Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
in Radiology: Summary of
the Joint European and
North American Multisociety
Statement
International Professional
association
2019 Advice
American Medical
Association (AMA)
Policy Advices on Augmented
Intelligence in Health Care
H-480.940
United States Professional
association
2018 Advice
Amnesty International/
Access Now
The Toronto Declaration United
Kingdom
Civil society 2018 Advice
Aptiv, Audi, BMW, Daimler
and other automotive
companies
Safety First for Automated
Driving – Proposed technical
standards for the development
of Automated Driving
International Private sector 2019 Voluntary
commitment
Association for Computing
Machinery
Statement on Algorithmic
Transparency and
Accountability
United States Industry
association
2017 Binding
agreement
Association for Computing
Machinery - Future of
Computing Machinery
It’s Time to Do Something:
Mitigating the Negative
Impacts of Computing Through
a Change to the Peer Review
Process
United States Industry
association
2019 Advice
Atomium - EISMD
(AI4Poeple)
AI4People’s Ethical Framework
for a Good AI Society:
Opportunities, Risks, Principles,
and Advices
European
Union
Civil society 2018 Advice
Australian Government/
Department of industry,
Innovation and Science
Artificial Intelligence Australia’s
Ethics Framework A Discussion
Paper
Australia Government 2019 Advice
 
 
 
CATCHING TECHNOLOGICAL WAVES
Innovation with equity
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION REPORT 2021130
DGB Künstliche Intelligenz und die
Arbeit von Morgen
Germany Civil society 2019 Advice
Digital Catapult, Machine
Intelligence Garage Ethics
Committee
Ethics Framework -Responsible
AI
United
Kingdom
Private sector 2020 Advice
Dubai Artificial Intelligence Ethics
and Principles, and toolkit for
implementation
United Arab
Emirates
Government 2019 Advice
Ekspertgruppen om Design:
malenehald.dk DATAETIK
(Danish Expert Group on
Data Ethics)
Data for the Benefit of the
People: Advices from the
Danish Expert Group on Data
Ethics
Denmark Government 2018 Advice
Engineering and Physical
Research Council
Principles of Robotics United
Kingdom
Government 2010 Advice
Ethikbeirat HR Tech (Ethics
council HR Tech)
PDF: Richtlinien für den
verantwortungsvollen Einsatz
von Künstlicher Intelligenz und
weiteren digitalen Technologize
in der Personalarbeit
(Guidelines for the responsible
use of artificial intelligence
and other digital technologies
in human resources);
Consultation document
Germany Private sector 2019 Voluntary
commitment
Ethkikkommission BuMi
Verkehr und digitale
infrastruktur
Automatisiertes und Vernetztes
Fahren / Automated and
connected automated driving
Germany Government 2017 Advice
European Commision For
the Efficiency of Justice
European ethical Charter on
the use of Artificial Intelligence
in judicial systems and their
environment
International Government 2018 Advice
European Commission Code of Practice on
Disinformation
European
Union
Government 2018 Advice
European Group on Ethics
in Science and New
Technologies
Statement on Artificial
Intelligence, Robotics and
Autonomous Systems
European
Union
Government 2018 Advice
European Parliament Report with Advices to the
Commission on Civil Law Rules
on Robotics
European
Union
Government 2017 Advice
Executive Office of the
President; National Science
and Technology Council;
Committee on Technology
Preparing for the future of
Artificial Intelligence
United States Government 2016 Advice
Faculty of Informatics, TU
Wien
Vienna Manifesto on Digital
Humanism
Austria Academia 2019 Voluntary
commitment
FAT/ML Principles for Accountable
Algorithms and a Social Impact
Statement for Algorithms
International Civil society n/a Advice
Fraunhofer Institute for
Intelligent Analysis and
Information Systems IAIS
Trustworthy Use of Artifici

d4

۱۰ بازديد
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Inductor-Water Analogy II
When switch S contacts A, the field generated by the applied positive voltage creates a reverse induced voltage that initially
resists current flow
Based on the value of inductance, as the magnetic field reaches steady-state, the reverse voltage decays
A collapsing field is generated when applied voltage is removed (switch S contacts B), creating a forward induced voltage
that attempts to keep current flowing
Based on the value of inductance, as the magnetic field reaches zero steady-state, the forward voltage decays
Mechanical inertia and
inductor both resist
sudden change in their
state
 
 
Inductance of a Cylindrical Coil
If number of turns per unit length
is n, then N= , so:n
2 2 2
2 2 20
0 0
( )n r
L n r n A



A = cross-sectional area of coil.
If a magnetizable material forms
the core of coil, then permeability 
will be larger than .
2 2
0 N r
L


= permeability of free space
N = number of turns in coil
= length of resistance-less wire
used in coil
= radius of coil cross section.

r
0
 
 
Inductor Variations I
 
 
Inductor Variations II
Antenna coil
contains an iron core that
magnifies magnetic field
effects
used to tune in ultra-
high-frequency signals, i.e.
RF signals
Tuning coil
screw-like magnetic field
blocker that can be adjusted to
select the desired inductance value
used in radio receivers to select a
desired frequency.
 
 
Inductor Variations III
Chokes
general-purpose inductors
that act to limit or suppress
fluctuating current.
some use a resistor-like color
code to specify inductance
values.
Toroidal coil
resembles a donut with a
wire wrapping
high inductance per
volume ratios, high quality
factors, self-shielding, can
be operated at extremely
high frequencies
 
 
Inductor Symbols
 
 
Transformer
Isolation
acts exclusively as an
isolation device; does not
increase or decrease the
secondary voltage
usually come with an
electrostatic shield
between the primary and
secondary. Often come
with a three-wire plug and
receptacle that can be
plugged directly into a
power outlet
High Frequency
often come with air
or powered-iron cores
used for high
frequency applications,
i.e. matching RF
transmission lines to
other devices
(transmission line to
antenna)
Audio
used primarily to
match impedances
between audio
devices
work best at audio
frequencies from
150Hz to 12kHz
come in a variety of
shapes and sizes,
typically contain a
center tap
 
 
*******choffs Voltage Law
The algebraic sum of voltage around a
loop is zero.
Assumption:
Voltage drop across each passive
element is in the direction of current
flow.
1 2 3 4 0V V V V
+ V2 -
- V4 +
+ V3 1
+ V1 -
-
I
 
 
*******choffs Current Law
Algebraic sum of all currents
entering and leaving a nod

croft مزرعه

۷ بازديد

express صریح روشن بیان کردن

۵ بازديد

frantic عصبانی

۸ بازديد

bemire کثیف کردن

۸ بازديد

3e

۷ بازديد
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cannot be looked at simply from the design perspective or from the point of view
of those managing and maintaining the golf course. Too often bunker design
decisions have been made without enough care given to how, and to what extent,
they will be maintained. At the same time, maintenance and management
decisions regarding bunkers often go in the face of the design intent of the
architect. Ideally the two viewpoints must be considered together. An effective
relationship between design and maintenance considerations will lead to more
efficient bunker management and in turn, additional cost savings.

The Design – Management Relationship

The relationship between design and management can be compared to a
professional football team where a general manager and player personnel people are in
charge of drafting and putting together a group of talented players, essentially designing
the team. It is then up to the coach to prepare the team, utilizing the strengths of each
player, in a way that gives the team the most chance for success come game time. This
process is more likely to work if the players on the team have strengths that fit into the
preferred playing style of the coach. It does no good to have, and pay, an all-pro running
back if they never get to run the ball. Of course what most teams do is involve the coach
in the process of determining which players will be playing for the team. The hoped for
result is that the players that are brought in will fit into the system more effectively, thus
leading to a greater chance of success.

Issues with the Current Relationship in Golf

In the same way as the football example, the golf course architect is designing the
golf course and then handing it over to the superintendent. The superintendent is
responsible for nurturing the course and getting the most out of it. Ideally the designer
has the task of the superintendent in mind during the design and construction phase. Most
projects involve a superintendent during construction, whether it is the superintendent
who will be overseeing the facility once open for play, or a “grow-in” superintendent
who is responsible for the maturation process of the course during and immediately
following construction (Figure 2.55).

99
 
 
Figure 2.55 – Golf Course During Grow-In Phase (Hurdzan, 2006)
It is very important not to overlook the grow-in stage of a golf course as it is vital
to the long-term success of a facility. Grow-in involves the establishment and maturation
of turfgrass throughout the course. No matter the creativity of the design or the soundness
of construction, if a course is not covered with a strong and healthy layer of grasses it will
not be appreciated by the general golfing public. Most golfers tend to place more
importance on maintenance than design and judge golf courses accordingly. Although
grow-in is usually the point in the process where the burden of care shifts from the golf
course architect and contractor to the superintendent, it is in the best interests of all
parties that grow-in is efficient and effective. The finished golf course following grow in
reflects on the architect and contractor, even if they did not have a direct hand in the
agronomic maturation process. (Hurdzan, 2006) Conversely, mistakes made during
design and construction can greatly hamper the grow-in process. Erosion and poor soil
conditions are two of the most common pitfalls during the grow-in period. This is why it
is so important for the designer to identify problem areas related to soils and drainage
early on in the process. Poor soils must be amended to help ensure a successful stand of
grass and appropriate drainage can help alleviate some of the threat of large-scale erosion
during the critical period before and during turfgrass establishment. Proper construction
practices are also important to giving grow-in a helping hand. Topsoil should be stripped
and stockpiled prior to grading and shaping and then replaced. In order to avoid
compaction issues, heavy construction equipment should be kept off of key areas when

100
 
 
possible. In the words of Dave Wilber, a respected golf course agronomy consultant,
fairways are not haul roads, they are fairways. (Urbina, 2002) Sometimes these details
may seem trivial during the construction process but they can make a huge difference in
the long-term maintainability and quality of a golf course.

Prior to even reaching grow-in, unforeseen on-site situations will always arise
during construction of a golf course. Examples include areas with poor soil or drainage,
microclimates within the site that make turfgrass establishment and growth difficult, and
even regulatory or environmental issues that were supposedly dealt with prior to
construction. The key in such circumstances is to remedy these issues on-the-fly while
not creating a situation that may lead to future trouble. If dealt with improperly,
shortcomings or oversights in design and construction often become apparent and begin
to cause problems during grow-in. Unfortunately, these are likely precursors to ongoing
long-term issues.

A key to dealing with issues that arise during construction and grow-in is to
involve a golf course superintendent in the process from an early stage. At exactly what
point this happens likely depends on the circumstances of the project. Fortunately the
trend in golf course construction has been to bring a superintendent on-board earlier than
was the norm in the past (Figure 2.56).

Figure 2.56 – Superintendent Hiring Trend for New Golf Course Construction (Hurdzan, 2006)

101
 
 
There are specific qualifications that are preferred in a superintendent who is part
of construction and overseeing grow-in. In many cases the superintendent and their staff
are integrally involved in the finishing aspects of the golf course construction process.
Additionally, knowledge and experience with grow-in is preferred due to the unique
nature of establishing and nurturing new turfgrass. Just like a designer who fails to
properly manage construction, trouble can arise when a superintendent does not
effectively manage grow-in. Grow-in tends to be a time-sensitive balancing act that
requires the superintendent to transition the property from a construction site to a golf
course while carefully managing the agronomic needs of new turfgrass and the often
impatient expectations of ownership. For this reason, many golf course contractors and
management companies have superintendents on staff that specialize in new golf course
grow-in. These professionals usually have significant experience in golf course
construction and maintenance. As a result they may be more prepared to handle the
exceptional circumstances presented by the grow-in phase of golf course development.

No matter the specific personnel used during construction and grow-in, one major
key to success lies in proper communication and teamwork among those involved in
design, construction and maintenance. All of these parties work for the project owner, but
under different contractual obligations. The relationship between the involved parties
varies depending on the project and those involved, but the following is a description of a
typical relationship. Usually the golf course architect has been hired to design golf course
features and commit the design to plans and specifications that communicate to the
contractor what is to be done. The contractor is legally bound to the owner to provide
materials and labor to build the golf course per the construction documents, with changes
authorized by formal change orders. Change orders are legal amendments to the contract
documents that are signed off on by the contractor, architect and owner prior to the work
being done and at an agreed upon price. Change orders can slow down the construction
process and are usually not used for small items. However care should be taken by all
parties, particularly the contractor, as without change orders they may not have a basis for
a claim of payment on changes that were made.

Although legally the superintendent’s only conduit to the contractor is usually
through the architect or owner, the reality is that during the construction process the

102
 
 
contractor and superintendent must work closely together to ensure a smooth project
(Figure 2.57). The superintendent and contractor should have the same common goal: to
build the best golf course possible within the limits of time and money provided by the
owner. Often times, especially as construction nears completion, the superintendent and
contractor will share equipment and even combine labor forces. Although the lines
between the two parties’ roles may become less clear, they should always respect the
legalities of construction work and document their agreements and joint-decisions.
(Hurdzan, 2006)

Figure 2.57 – Golf Course Construction Legal Relationships (Hurdzan, 2006)

With all of the involved parties working together with a common goal in mind,
great things can happen. An example is the construction of Pacific Dunes in Bandon,
Oregon (Figure 2.58). Tom Doak and his team from Renaissance Golf Design designed
and built the esteemed course in 2000. Jim Urbina, Doak’s lead design associate
personally spent 168 days on-site while overseeing, and integrally participating in, the
construction of the course. The following comments from Urbina describe the
construction process and some of those involved in it. They really illustrate the

103
 
 
importance of communication and input from those involved in all facets of the project as
well as the interconnection of each individual’s roles.

We built this course and we didn’t use a golf course contractor. Our labor
force was mostly local kids just out of high school and it fell into my
hands to teach and direct everyone involved as to how we wanted to
design and build this course. With all due respect to the last 100 years of
golf course architecture, all golf course designers must concede that
without a team of good, interested and talented people, the designs of the
best of the dreamers could never have been done. We had no one on the
construction crew who had preconceived notions about what our work
should be. The design wasn’t something we had to protect. It became
something we grew into daily.

The success of this course is certainly due to many things. Some things are
obvious, like the dramatic land and the great routing that Tom did. No
question the location and the area will take your breath away even when
the weather is bad.

Some things are a little less obvious, but certainly noticeable if you look. I
can’t say enough good about Ken Nice, the golf course superintendent at
Pacific Dunes. He was totally and is today truly dedicated to our design
and to the principles of links golf that the site requires. Ken was with us all
the time and he never gave the usual mumbo jumbo about not being able
to mow something or not being able to get us the look we wanted. He
simply said he would do everything he could to figure out a way. I have so
much respect for Ken and from him, I’ve learned that growing grass is
much harder than we all believe it is and growing grass our way on our
design may seem like we are asking for less, but in fact we are asking for
the superintendent to be as creative as we are. Ken Nice worked his butt
off during construction. He gave the project every bit of his attention and
the construction crew busted their butts as a result of his leadership. Ken
has quite a challenge for the future. He’s an American growing turf for
links golf and it is not always a surface that people who haven’t been

104
 
 
exposed to understand. He’s going to get a ton of pressure to make things
too green and to maintain or water when he should do nothing. I’m glad
he’s there.

Everyone loves the bunkers at Pacific Dunes. Tony Russell was a local
dairy farmer and small dirt contractor and his brother is Troy Russell, the
first superintendent at Bandon Dunes and now the Resort’s agronomy
director. Tony became our ace in the hole and he showed me a whole new
way to do bunker work without even knowing that what he was doing was
total cutting edge. Tony doesn’t golf. He didn’t want to debate the merits
of bunker design with us. He did help us understand how to be more
efficient moving dirt, even though I thought I was about as efficient as
anyone at getting dirt moved. Of course Tony knows everyone in the area,
so he was able to find us some good people for other heavy equipment
operator jobs. We would have definitely been hurting without Tony
Russell and not too many people would ever know that. (2002)

When the individuals involved in a golf course project are committed and able to
work together like at Pacific Dunes, great things can happen. Of course everything on
that project was not simple and easy. It never is. Urbina addressed the scope of the
difficulties they faced at Pacific Dunes by saying,

Not everything was easy. We had some tough issues to work out. The
agronomy alone was incredible. We ran into some areas that were not
blessed with great soil and we had to figure out how to make things right. I
think I could write a whole book on the everyday trials of building that
course. (2002)

105
 
 
Figure 2.58 – 3rd Hole, Pacific Dunes Golf Course, Bandon, Oregon (Author)
It is important to remember that the reason the design – management relationship
is so important is because there are countless potential pitfalls during every step of the
process. Those who have become successful practicing professionals are usually adept at
facing the numerous issues that arise and avoiding the pitfalls along the way. Good
designers seek to solve every problem at each critical decision making juncture in the
process. At the same time those in construction are problem solvers in their own right,
finding the most efficient and effective way to build something that is sound and lasting.
Finally those in management and maintenance roles are tasked with taking the result and
making it economically sustainable and enduring. After all, the initial vision of the
designer will never come to fruition without proper oversight, nurturing and care.

Unfortunately, the design – management relationship on many golf course
projects is not always as effective or efficient as it should be. It should be noted that this
is not necessarily the fault or intent of a particular individual or party; designers,

66ق

۸ بازديد
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
But by the time the Second Continental Congress met in May 1775, the mood
had changed greatly. Fighting had already broken out between colonists and
redcoats in a few Massachusetts towns. Americans had died. There was no
turning back now. The colonies wanted independence!
 
 
The Second Continental Congress began to prepare for war. George
Washington had arrived in his blue soldier’s jacket. He was forty-three now. He
had been a farmer for the past fifteen years. As for his early war record, it was
not great. He’d never won a field battle or ever commanded a large army.
 
 
Nevertheless, in June 1775 he was asked to lead the brand-new Continental
Army. He said yes, though he had serious doubts as to his ability. His first
reaction was to turn bright red, and then he ran out of the meeting!
 
 
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
GEORGE WASHINGTON HEADED THE SECOND CONTINENTAL
CONGRESS IN PHILADELPHIA. HE SAT FACING THE OTHER
DELEGATES WHO DISCUSSED PLANS FOR WAR. THOMAS
JEFFERSON WAS ASKED TO WRITE DOWN ALL THE REASONS
FOR BREAKING AWAY FROM ENGLAND. BEN FRANKLIN
HELPED HIM, BUT THE WORDS ARE MOSTLY JEFFERSON’S.
AND THEY ARE AMONG THE MOST FAMOUS WORDS IN ALL OF
 
 
AMERICAN HISTORY.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WAS SIGNED ON
JULY 4, 1776, BY THE DELEGATES AT THE CONGRESS. ONE
MAN, JOHN HANCOCK, WROTE HIS SIGNATURE IN HUGE BOLD
LETTERS. TODAY IF SOMEONE ASKS FOR YOUR “JOHN
HANCOCK,” IT MEANS THEY WANT YOUR SIGNATURE.
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 6
The Commanding General
The War for Independence lasted from 1775 to 1783. Of course everyone
knows how it ended: The colonists won the war. To us it doesn’t seem as if it
could have happened any other way. But during the war no one could be sure of
the outcome. In fact, it seemed as if the colonists had very little chance against
England.
The Continental Army that Washington led went into the war with no training.
Soldiers were young, poor, and uneducated. Most were between fifteen and
twenty-five years old. Most joined the army because few other choices were
open to them. They wanted the pay.
There were never enough soldiers. The living conditions were terrible. (In
fact, more American soldiers were killed by smallpox and other diseases than
from battle wounds.)
 
 
There often wasn’t enough ammunition, or food, or clothes. Soldiers went
months without pay. And as the war dragged on year after year, George
Washington found it harder and harder to get money for the army’s needs.
Compared to British generals, George Washington knew little about waging
war. (Before taking command of his troops, he bought five books that taught
military tactics.) Indeed, out of nine battles he fought in, he only won three.
 
 
The enemy he faced was the mighty British army. It was the biggest and best-
trained fighting machine in the world. The British navy owned the seas. British
generals and admirals were brave and war-tested.
So how, against all odds, did the Americans win?
One reason is that they simply stuck it out. The longer the Continental Army
hung in the war, the more likely it became that at some point the British w