|
<< prev | goto page
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Message | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:09 pm 
Well yes, it's sad, but it's one of those facts of life. There will always be the haves and the have nots. _________________ 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 26 Jan 2006 | Posts: 2599 | Location: GA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
   |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:42 am
Saellys wrote: (though conventional masculinity hasn't lost every toehold)
I didn't see the movie Beauty and the Beast but isn't that one character they keep using as an example the a-hole bad guy in the movie? It is a far more disturbing that they are subliminally promoting satanic worship!:  _________________ 
we're really not alone, we have each other |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 | Posts: 2600 | Location: sitting in his nowhere land, TX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:42 am
Actually there's been far more talk about man and what he thinks, but that's to be expected really. Whether or not I have given up on man, I don't think is important. What's important is what God says about the whole thing: John 3:16-17 " For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. " |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 29 Jan 2007 | Posts: 479 | Location: Pearland, TX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:41 am
Yup, the world does need saving. Being a Christian, and former Anthropology major (bailed out senior year cause I failed to fill my core requirement for foreign language, meh.) I found it funny that Anthropological theory spends less time focusing on the failures that allowed us to be here now than they do the good fortune that we are here now. Truth be told Evolutionary theory tells of one thing in particular, we are in a war of attrition on earth. We have never done much more than lose ground (organic diversity) over time. Meanwhile technology (inorganic diversity) has increased, but has yet to replace organic life. Hardcore materialists like Rodenberry (whether he knew it or not) buy into the notion that our Technology is going to save us, thing is, the more powerful the tech, the greater the margin of error is if our intellect or execution fail in discovering/ utilizing it. To err is human... Anyways, we could get super hopeful that we will evolved further to attain a superior mind and connection with the forces of physics etc. to overcome the limits of our existence... but you're basically hoping that Humanity will evolve to become Christ-like, either in our Temperament or our capacity to manipulate the material aspects of nature. Something about that always put me on the fences. On the other hand, Christianity is VERY fatalistic, as most Spiritual practices are, but the promise of eternal life is the payoff. That's reassuring at times, if you're on that path, but when you're not, it looks pretty grim. One thing Christianity nails (IMO) is the nature of humanity, our weakness and arrogance, our tendency to be our own worst enemies and undermine ourselves. We have yet to reconcile this, and there's nothing short of some kind of "behavior modification chip/ drug" to correct it, rhetoric just doesn't work. So, for me, I've always found that Christianity paints a pretty clear picture that we are born things of beauty, but deeply flawed at the core, and it's beyond us to clear that hurdle of our own accord, and we have to humble ourselves and put out faith in something bigger, better, beyond. That's how I came to look at it, and it's crazy cause the way science Alienates it's theories and forces from the consciousness we have that allows us to discover these things, it makes gods out of the laws of the universe, gods mankind sucks at wrestling any real positive control over. Everything we do produces some latent effect that blows up in our face, and we distance ourselves from it and blame the intangible forces (or God) for our misfortune. It's the kind of thing that makes me hope we never get so far gone that we make sentient inorganic life, cause they'll crunch the numbers and Skynet/ Matrix us before we know it. In science we seem to be trying to wrestle away the throne from the Great Unseen, yet felt ____. We don't have it in us to win, and seemingly don't have the humility to accept it. Some people are willing to risk everything trying. Stupid humans. I haven't given up hope altogether either, but seriously, it's going to take a miracle either way, cause all our great achievements are only relative to where we were, as opposed to "compared to what we have learned about the universe." 2012 scares people because should a not too distant unseen star Explode or Implode, who know what could happen here? It's not like we could do anything about it? Now consider all the other cosmic kabooms that could do the same, known to us and unknown, given our limited knowledge an understanding of the universe, dark matter, etc. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB           
 = personal fave  = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
Last edited by wilsmith on Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:58 am
wilsmith wrote: and former Anthropology major (bailed out senior year cause I failed to fill my core requirement for foreign language, meh.) I found it funny that Anthropological theory spends less time focusing on the failures that allowed us to be here now than they do the good fortune that we are here now. I'm going to have to disagree with this... maybe the institution you were taught at didn't focus on failures, but Anthropology as the current field it is today is actually based on recognizing past failures, issues, etc (whatever you want to call it), and addressing it in various ways. That's what drew me to the field to begin with - Anthropology used to be pretty $#@! up, and a lot of injustices/racism were "scientifically" supported through the field. (Definitely not by all anthropologists, but Anthropology's past is somewhat shady). Now, the discipline has shifted into one that recognizes faults, including its own, and a great deal of both theory and ethnography holds its base in this mentality. Granted, this is somewhat of a new direction, and I'm not entirely sure when you took Anth... and also, the field is so broad that I'm sure some theorists/schools of thought within it focus primarily on "wins" over "losses." But still, I'm liking the direction we're heading in, with ethnography becoming even more literary and descriptive, focusing more on individuals/smaller groups which lessens over-generalization, that sort of thing. Ehhhh, and this is all coming from someone who, at the present, literally just sits around reading for Anth/is consumed by it. Might need to step back a bit pretty soon. And to kulver - yup! I just finished my intensive theory class and I'm finally only taking classes in the department, so it's been coming out in everything I say lately. :/ My apologies! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 25 Jan 2004 | Posts: 1847 | Location: by land, by sea, by dirigible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:23 am
I'm looking more at Physical Anthropology and Theoretical Anthropology and not Ethnography. Ethnography is just as much an aspect of Sociology (part of the reason they were a combined department at my university) in terms of it's aims and what it focuses on. Anthro is the study of humanity in general (overly broad amidst all the other social sciences) and human origins. Alot of the more "scientifically accepted" ( there was always a sense of inadequacy to the "empirical sciences from day one in Anthro) aspects of Anthro focus on explain how we got here, and no matter how you look at it, this was done by digging through stratified layers of sediment at fossils, skeletons, and the like. Let's put it like this: The Mounds in Cahokia were build up on dirt and death. So is the more "Empirical" side of Anthro. Paleontology, Archeology, it's a study of things that have come and gone. What we tend to find is that there's far more that's gone than there is now, and thus, and if you're studying what's still here, you're a Biologist or Geneticist, not an Anthropologist. Not to down your Ethnography, but a lot of the urgency I found in ethno was to document cultures at risk of being wiped out because of the industrialization, so even in that, Ethno's utmost value is a bi-product of impending extinction, albeit Cultural. Cultural Anthropology as a whole has this one problem I see: It will only ever mean something to people as long as cultural diversity is something they value. It's like History, what's it worth if we get past our problems and learn how to get along and preserve life? In the end it's totally dispensable science without mankind having the time and motivation to look over its shoulder. Forget your past and you're doomed to repeat it, that's true, but if the future of Anthropology is Ethnography, it's going to become about as relevant as the Travel Channel, a field for those fortunate enough to take it up as a past time. I say this because contemporary culture is hell bent on keeping people occupied and overwhelmed with the here and now. So yeah, I'm calling Ethnography a Vanity Field, a hold over from the era of Positivism that's taken on a modern progressive bent. To me it's like DGC signing Nirvana. *I shoulda said Sonic Youth.* _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB
= personal fave = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
Last edited by wilsmith on Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:14 am; edited 2 times in total |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:58 am
Nowhere Man wrote: Saellys wrote: (though conventional masculinity hasn't lost every toehold)
I didn't see the movie Beauty and the Beast but isn't that one character they keep using as an example the a-hole bad guy in the movie? It is a far more disturbing that they are subliminally promoting satanic worship!: The guy there is his buddy or servant. He follows the main guy around. _________________
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 26 Jan 2006 | Posts: 2599 | Location: GA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:03 am
Very interesting points. I don't know, though. My focus is Cultural Anth, but my specific interests lie within youth cultures/agency, injustices within current systems, issues with the US government and how it continuously breaks treaties and agreements with indigenous people (and issues with current reservation life, intrusions, nuclear waste/plants, etc). I find that the folks in my department tend to focus on issues of power/inequality, the intersectionalities of gender, race, and class, and where we go from here. Not so much "preserving cultures" or what have you. I think this mirrors an overall shift in the field. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 25 Jan 2004 | Posts: 1847 | Location: by land, by sea, by dirigible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:08 am
Also, I agree with the first part of your second paragraph, but our department doesn't stop at digging things up and looking at the past. Everything is done with a focus on the present - we apply our findings to today, see what's changed, where things are moving. That's a small section of the field, though. Linguistics, primateology, bio anth involving forensics, environmental archaeology - this is all (typically) done with a focus on today. Anth was definitely a problematic subject in the past, with findings, like you said, usually made to please the top of various hierarchal systems (kings and whatnot), skulls altered to "prove" that humans descended from this or that. I don't see this so much anymore. But, hey, I could look back thirty years from now and see the same things. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 25 Jan 2004 | Posts: 1847 | Location: by land, by sea, by dirigible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:01 am
It's been 10 years since I bailed in middle of my senior year with nothing but Senior Seminar to take, but I still keep up via skimming journals now and then. I'm going to be honest and say that most everything you mention as contemporary leans a lot more on the Sociology side, Elite Deviance, social contracts etc. Sounds like Anthro is encroaching more and more on sociology's territory, so I guess Sociology must be dipping more and more into Economics and Politics to compensate? In our oh so small department we had a few key Profs, each leaning on one side of the spectrum: Sociology only staff: 3 Anthro Only: 3 (1 part time) Both: 1 One Prof was into Institutions and how they work, Deviance and Elite Deviance, and Majority - Minority relations Another was into theoretical anthropology, materialism, and Human Origins One Prof was all about Social Psychology and Symbolic Interraction Another was 100% ethnography, polynesia specifically Another was into Linguistics hard core and ethnography, particular the connection between native america and upper mongolian and siberian language construction. And a hard core sociological theory traditionalist prick that had tenure, and didn't like students, so he would try and intimidate them to drop his class, so he'd have only 1 or 2 students and switch it to an independent study course and meet with them for a few minutes a few times a month and get paid like he was teaching a 100 level survey course. Again, Prick. Needless to say, Truman's staff was small, and occasionally overspecific (if all you Ethnography courses focus on your Profs favorite places in the world, you will get ripped off. It ends up being a "what I did last summer" + slideshow course). I picked up Communications Theory and Rhetoric as a second major and basically spent two years learning that Culture was a social construct (so is society, strange how things just spring from the ether when you get people together in numbers) that could be easily manipulated with a little persuasive speaking or writing, and its intrinsic value runs about as deep as collective memory. Physical Anthro as a component of History has some utility. Cultural Anthro as a component of the other Social Sciences, can offer some insight, but personally, the appeal of it has always struck me to be akin to the "Reality Show" of the Social Sciences. I kind of from on all of it these days, because the idea of Objectivity is so alienated and the Social Sciences depend on Objectivity to have any credibility. But to think a person can separate their mind, their training, their perspective from the work they do, which requires they make observations and judgments, is either Elitist to the Nth power, or a totally irrational aspiration that's borderline delusional. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB
= personal fave = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:16 am
johnip wrote: Nowhere Man wrote: Saellys wrote: (though conventional masculinity hasn't lost every toehold)
I didn't see the movie Beauty and the Beast but isn't that one character they keep using as an example the a-hole bad guy in the movie? It is a far more disturbing that they are subliminally promoting satanic worship!: The guy there is his buddy or servant. He follows the main guy around. He was talking about the blondes throwing up the devil horns. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:24 am
That actually means I love you.  _________________
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 26 Jan 2006 | Posts: 2599 | Location: GA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:34 am
johnip wrote: That actually means I love you. The one on the left is throwing up "I love you". The one on the right is throwing the devil horns. So what are they saying? Dumb pretty French bitches love Satan? _________________ Power is only pain It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in. "Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?" -memo from 1952 Project ARTICHOKE 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 | Posts: 10565 | Location: Somewhere in the middle of nowhere
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:53 am
Pantheon4 wrote: johnip wrote: That actually means I love you. The one on the left is throwing up "I love you". The one on the right is throwing the devil horns. So what are they saying? Dumb pretty French bitches love Satan? maybe _________________
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 26 Jan 2006 | Posts: 2599 | Location: GA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> General -> All this talk of God, what about Man?
Page 2 of 2 << prev | goto page
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
