| (no subject) |
[Nov. 6th, 2009|02:29 am] |
It is done!
After 18 hours of writing I have finished the assignment. And it is possibly slightly better than mediocre and I still don't understand the harvard referencing system. But it is done. I have a thing I can hand in.
5,088 words.
1 lesson plan.
1 handout.
A poem by osama bin laden and a youtube clip about Jihad that acutally gives a moderate, sensible and contrasting opinion.
I am going to bed now. Then I am going to wake up and hand this in and then sleep again.
And there was me thinking that I'd left the days of essay crises well behind. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jun. 10th, 2009|10:17 am] |
Somehow, it's over. I finished, was met by lots of lovely people, got very drunk, danced a bit and came home. The hangover is mostly gone and I still have lots of glittery, goth-piratey goodness all over my face.
I am free. Life is good. I shall spend the remainder of the morning watching Hellsing and South Park and possibly start a new game on Final Fantasy X. Yes.
Anyone at a loose end today, please do come by for tea any time today. BBQ will likely be an oven instead, given the weather, but a party / gathering shall there be nonetheless this evening. It seems to be rather ill-timed, but no matter. I'm off to return to freedom and trying to figure out what to do with it. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[May. 7th, 2009|09:39 pm] |
<3
Urge to rewatch all of firefly now.
Finishing essay plan on reformed epistemology. I don't have scores of quotes and thinkers at my back, but I think it's actually okay and I might be able to answer it, even if it is quite limited. Should be a low-mid 2/1 type of answer.
Will do another, then sleep. Continuous revision of random topics continues, PGCE interviews are done - went relatively well. Interviewers seemed a mix of interested, confused and slightly taken aback at being talked to about the existential and philosophical dimensions of teaching. They seemed to like it though. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 22nd, 2009|01:25 pm] |
Reviewing Theos report on Faith and Evolution for the interview tomorrow. Belief is broadly divided into 4 categories; Atheistic Evolution, Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism.
Atheistic Evolution is described as the following:
"Atheistic Evolution is the idea that evolution makes
belief in God unnecessary and absurd."
Does this stick in anyone else's craw as much as it does mine? The other definitions seem good enough. Granted, quantitative research is always going to be a very difficult enterprise and some questions will be too narrow, but this seems to be on completely the other side of shit and fail. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 6th, 2009|02:32 pm] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  awake | ] |
Sent off the application for Theos. Fingers crossed. Also, got an interview for a summer teaching scheme next week, which should help with cashflow in the short-term. Hopefully that'll come through.
In other news, the PGCE course at King's College London was full before they got my application. This is sad, because I really wanted to study there. They actually have awesome libraries and theology as well as just a department of education. Hopefully the Institute of Education in London will take me on next year. I'm consigned to the idea that I don't really give a fuck about the accountancy jobs; I'm not a city boy. End of. I'm hoping that if the things with Theos pan out well, I might be able to try and ask for a full time job there as a researcher or something. Or look at their affiliates and spam them for work. Failing that, the PGCE should be an option. I guess I'll worry about careers and life more once finals are over.
That said, sanity levels are quite high at the moment. The past few days I've been coldified and forced to slow down because of it, which was probably good for me. Although now I have two days to learn my lines and two essays to do by Friday of next week, one of which is worth 25% of a module. Eh, I've worked to tighter deadlines. It'll be fiiiiine.
Also, the Ginistry is currently a lie, for we have no Gin. Or indeed, cake. Sadness ensues. We are also out of bagels. Dark times indeed.
On with some work then, methinks.
Peace to all,
-Dan |
|
|
| Finals. Vitriol. Rage at insipid wanna-be student journalists |
[Feb. 2nd, 2009|10:58 am] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  angry | ] |
Warning. Neurotic, finals-panic filled rage ahead. Read rant at your own risk.
http://www.cherwell.org/content/8385
So, just because Regents doesn't own half of Yorkshire and can't afford to piss champagne down it's undergrad's throats means that they're all idiots, does it? I'm sorry, I managed to forget that your intelligence and worth as a human being was intrinsically linked to the size of your wallet and the depth of your self-involvement. I take it our finals papers are marked in a special pile labelled 'PPHs - be nice!' and nudged up a few percent just so that our poor little impoverished egos don't wither and die. Yeah, sometimes my quality of tuition hasn't been great. That's true. My tute partner wastes half of my tutorial by talking about cricket and saying how well my tutor has aged between casually racist remarks. If he kissed any more arse he'd actually end up with his head somewhere in our tutor's colon if I didn't insist on, oh, wanting to fucking about theology so I can feel like I'm going to be prepared for my hardest module.
But, no. We're not all idiots. We're not all homophobic religious nuts. We're the same as the other students and our exams are marked in the same system. If I balls up and get a shit grade, then it'll have been because I didn't work hard enough or because I burnt out. But it won't be because I don't deserve to be here - or because I was craven enough to sneak in through some back door. I'm not here to network and make contacts, I'm here because Regents is one of the best places to study Theology in Oxford and I love my subject. I will not be told that this year, that the stress I've been through, that the difficulty of this past two and a half years has been somehow less meaningful or valuable because of the circumstances that I learnt in. Usually we put up with the crap, but not this year. So, Cherwell journalist and others that sneer at PPH-goers: Fuck. You. Fuck the spineless, simpering lot of you.
*Dislaimer: I get the irony of a middle-class, straight, white male bitching about prejudice or discrimination. There are worse problems in the world, and lots of real discrimination that matters much more in actual terms. I am aware of this. At current, however, I feel entitled to 3 months of self-involved finals!wank until the damn things are over, because I've got to do what I can to survive the crazy without actually doing bad things. I'll engage with the real world again then and probably be less angry and twitchy later. Honest. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 3rd, 2009|06:05 pm] |
|
So, thoughts on Matt Smith? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Dec. 25th, 2008|09:13 am] |
Merry Christmas everyone!
Am currently at Helen's place. Her puppy is insane. He likes eating bubbles. And socks. He is quite excited. And decided to wake us up. Festive slobber is lovely. Festive curry is to follow on Saturday. Awesomeness.
Going to find some breakfast now. Latent issues of spirituality to be resolved later. |
|
|
| Reforming Masculinity: Halp, please? |
[Dec. 11th, 2008|12:28 pm] |
This is mostly a summary of my train of thought over the past few months, so a lot of it will be self-evident and old territory to some reading it. Bear with me though.
Lots of pro-feminist men often ask: How can men be actively involved in the feminist movement, if at all?
Men can support a struggle for women's liberation through calling themselves on behaviours which reinforce patriarchy - through being an actively existing individual attempting to raise consciousness of issues of gender equality through critical self-examination. I'm aware of issues that didn't even register on my radar a year ago, but mostly what I'm aware of how much work there is to do towards change.
Musing over the past few months have begun to take shape on something broader though and it's this that I'd really like some feedback on. From my perspective, the difficulty of men getting involved with feminism is that men are generally unaware of what constitutes their own masculinity, let alone having a critical self-awareness of it. Masculinity is a ubiquituous and yet altogether invisible. Whereas classical feminity in the patriarchal system was given identity through struggle and feminist criticism and theory, masculinity has never been so examined because it remains the dominant social paradigm.
Leading from this there comes another problem; reactionary masculism, which forms a strong segment of the male response to the feminist movement. It promotes an exploration of masculinity, to an extent, but an emotive, uncritical approach that seeks to maintain and 'rediscover' an essentialist concept of the masculine. It simply attempts to hold together the status quo by desparately attempting to mesh together the tattered remnants of classical gender norms. Worse than senseless masculism is the rallying battle-cry of 'WHAT ABOUT TEH MANZZ?!!!"11 >=(' - something that a lot of people reading this post will be all-too-familiar with. The idea that feminism is automatically misandric because there's a greater mention of issues effecting women than men (Or, rather, issues from the perspective of women) which is allegedly to the detriment of men. Although this may be spelling out the obvious, it comes down to a lack of male self-knowledge. The reason that the issues which masculists or anti-misandrists exist is because of patriarchy (Issues of child custody, for example) and gender norms - women win custody of children in court because the assumption is that they're the primary carer.
This rambling discourse aside, then, it makes me think that a next necessary step is attempting to raise consciousness of these issues in men. To attempt to identify, analyse, criticise and ultimately reform masculinity as something which isn't related to gender. I've no idea if that means the ultimate destruction of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' as terms or the simple broadening of the normal gender binary. These are things that I want to think about and try to figure out. But as it is, there seem to be quite a limited number of resources for non-reactionary men's studies; indeed, the majority of reactions to a challenge to masculinity are quite actively hostile. The long-term aim is abolishing patriarchy through critical self-reflection on the part of men, to mirror what feminism has effectively done for femininity. The problem is, rather than a revolution this requires an attempt to forsake gender privelige (And class or race privelige in many cases. Mine included. This is a whole different kettle of fish that I don't feel capable of trying to say anything useful about yet though.)
So, the question is, what can we do? I want to take this into research if I can, because at the moment I don't know enough to really do anything especially poignant and that frustrates me significantly. I don't even know if it's possible in the long run, or where to start or how or what. I often feel as if I don't have the right to speak like this, because I'm part of the oppressing class as a middle-class, white male - but in the long run, that's all the more reason for me to try and do something about it.
I'll try and summarise with a little more coherence. I see the next step in working towards gender equality as dealing with patriarchy through the study, criticism and evolution of masculinity. A necessary way to do this is by the liberation of men (The word rings strangely here, I know - but even the bourgeoisie are liberated by a proletarian revolt.) from an uncritical existence where they remain unaware of what constitutes their masculine identity and how there might in fact be alternatives. Where I get stuck is a figuring out a starting point; how could this be achieved without descending into reactionary masculism and lots of pointless bemoaning how middle class and oppressive we all are? In the very, very long run I see patriarchy tied in with capitalism, class-division and global imperialism, but that's at best a vague sketch. I'll finish there. Criticise with ardour, please. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Nov. 6th, 2008|09:46 pm] |
Okay, this is the last of this I'll post. I promise. Does this scan okay? I'm happy with the rest of it, this just makes me a little paranoid.
I feel compelled to offer a critique of the way in which the Religion and Ethics section is integrated with the BBC as a whole. Most specifically, the integration of this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/news
With this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
Whilst there exists a small feed for religion in the news within the Religion and Ethics section of the website, the subcategory of religion in the main BBC news area is quite conspicuously absent. This is problematic on a number of levels.
Firstly, it presents a significant practical difficulty. For the casual reader on the internet, it separates religion from the news. Finding the news feed on the Religion and Ethics website is very difficult. This both separates religion from the real world, and makes following specific news stories of religious interest which originally feature in the headlines in the main news section incredibly difficult.
Secondly, this suggests that religion plays a passive or secondary role in global affairs. The main emphasis on the Religion and Ethics homepage is on the encyclopaedia of world religions. Although a highly valuable resource in itself, in proportion to the space allotted to religious and ethical issues in the news, there is a severe discrepancy. Granted that in the British machinations of state its role is certainly subdued, its global impact is incredibly significant. The BBC’s focus on the private and theological domains creates a mere simulacrum of religion’s power in the public domain in the wider world.
From the horror of honour-killings and theocratic governments to the enormous support the Catholic church affords impoverished and neglected campesinos in South America, the scope of religious involvement in the world is enormous. The question is one of structure rather than content: The BBC has shoehorned religion into a single corner, cut off from the real world and the attention of the public. This is the dominant issue above and beyond any single story that most draws my attention. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Nov. 6th, 2008|09:03 pm] |
Finishing off an application for the BBC for some work experience. The last thing I need to do is offer a 300 word critique of a page of the religion and ethics section of the website.
The only thing that I can genuinely form a cogent opinion about at the moment is the fact that the BBC Religion and Ethics department is completely extricated from the main news. There's a small news feed on the religion and ethics bit (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion.news)
but there's no category for religion in the news on the main BBC website. I could probably fill out 300 words on the importance of religion as a force in politics and global affairs which might merit it being a category in its own right. (On a global level, if not necessarily in just British society). The problem being this is a comment on the entire section and its structure rather than a single web-page in itself.
But on looking at the sections of the BBC / Ethics website in terms of content I can't find a massive amount to critique. It's actually all pretty good. I could theologically nit-pick a little, but I don't think that would quite work. Likewise, their coverage of religion is generally appropriate for a national broadcasting company.
Is it a bit too much of a stretch, or should I just go for it? |
|
|
| The Concept of Anxiety. |
[Oct. 29th, 2008|03:46 pm] |
"The object of anxiety is a determinate something and its nothing is an actual something... and anxiety loses therefore loses its dialectical ambiguity"
*notes the 100 pages left to go*
*commence tumultuous weeping* |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Oct. 17th, 2008|12:35 pm] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  uncomfortable | ] |
Note to self: Do not attempt to rub your eyes when you have been cutting up chillies. In future confine rubbing to TV-Licensing staff, beardless man-pirates and the college bursar. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jul. 23rd, 2008|09:48 am] |
God moves in a variety of mysterious ways, and apparently in a number of delicious flavours. Formerly available in tomato flavour and chipati flavour, the divine has now seen fit to reveal himself in delicious beefy form .
Thousands of faithful believers have flocked to the site of the miracle to behold His glory, and leading members of the intellectual community have praised God's wisdom and infinite goodness in this wonderful act: "When the writings were discovered there were some Islamic scholars who come and eat here and they all commented that it was a sign to show that Islam is the only true religion for mankind".
Things like this really do warm the cynical cockles of my blackened heart. Also, now that God has manifested himself on delicious meat products, I believe we that we can state with absolute theological conviction that all vegetarians are completely fucked. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 19th, 2008|04:50 pm] |
Second break-in in two weeks. Luckily my laptop's been with me whenever I've been out the house, but the American interns have had money and computers stolen, and Ben's room (Directly above mine) was apparently kicked in. We saw a guy hanging around outside earlier in the week, pacing up and down our front path.
Fucking bastards. Technically I can understand that some people live in apalling conditions and will do what they need to to survive. But still, fuck them if they mess with my friends' heads and go through our stuff. I'm also really, really freaked out right now.
If anyone can give me some spare gin, that'd be nice. Also, two essays for Thursday and my bag is completely dead. I'm officially pissed of and somewhat despairing. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 20th, 2008|06:44 pm] |
So here's what I'm trying to figure out:
Many of you know that I've been a Christian for a good portion of my life, and that I've recently abandoned any pretense of having a religious faith. With Christian values comes the belief in an absolute, divine being. A divine being that has moral standards that are recorded, at least axiomatically, within the Bible. Said moral standards have been interpreted and codified - albeit somewhat loosely - into a set of tenets which define orthodox Christianity. Sex outside of marriage (And seemingly in general, for some sects of particularly flaccid Christians), homosexuality, murder, theft, drunkenness and so on and so forth. Such things are seen to encompass and define Christian values, and indeed God's will and 'plan' for human life. Such commandments are above and beyond time and society, and apply in an absolute sense, and are right because the bible (According to early patristic exegesis, at any rate) says so.
That was what I unfailingly believed. The only problem was that my logical reasons for doing so were formulated retrospectively. I had no reason to believe this other than the peer pressure and insidious, self-inflicted emotional blackmail that is the cycle of guilt and repentance. Apologetics is, appropriately enough, a string of apologies for your faith. Formulated when questioned as to why you believe what you believe, but in no way a valid premise for said belief, and certainly not relevant when you first believe it.
So, claims for absolute morals become difficult to support after a while. Then we reach the murky waters of moral relativism. All things are permissible and nothing is true. What each man says is his own truth; be it spiritual, moral or otherwise. There are agreements as a matter of convention and necessity, and the common consensus defines the right and wrong. Morals are a matter of common need to govern a large society. However, what appears objective is only a common agreement for a pragmatic end. And as such, the agreements we make are enshrined in the Law, and we have a Legal system to facilitate the execution of our justice.
But in the end, a well-established legal system becomes bloated, convoluted and complicated. Justice soon ends up with heavy hands. People become swiftly inundated with concrete moral standards, and an insatiable desire to measure others against them. We all do it subconsciously to some degree; seeing others, their behaviour and then applying said standard to them. But we end up back in the same place as when religious codices dictate our Laws. Our sense of morality becomes stagnant, and humans serve the law rather than the law serving humans.
It seems, from my perspective, that when our sense of right and wrong is abdicated to a text, then there are serious problems. There should never be a basis for establishing something that tells other how to live their life, but it nevertheless seems impossible to live without one. Of course, in my moral utopia, everyone would have a well developed sense of semi-fluid ethics. More-or-less fixed principles upheld by the ability to apply them situationally, and working without biased or vested interests that leads people to being abused or crushed underfoot.
Is there any argument for a fixed system of morals? Can we ever justify judging or prescribing moral behaviour?
How do each of you reconcile ethical dilemmas? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[May. 12th, 2007|08:45 pm] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  amused | ] |
Quirky old testament law of the day, from Deuteronomy 25:11-12.
When two men are in a fight and the wife of the one man, trying to rescue her husband, grabs the genitals of the man hitting him, you are to cut off her hand. Show no pity.
See the below URL for some lovely lego illustrations :)
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/brawling/dt25_11a.html |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
sccye's journal
creative