koolherc

Im extremely confused by the idea that you guys wouldn't wanna read your field material "for fun." Why are you even going into academia if you don't like it?? reading: Dao De Jing (trans. Roger Ames & Davis Hall) and Anarchist Voices (Paul Avrich)

Of course they do. They're the fucking state. To them, knowledge is power. My academic focus is partially on the inherently positivist and hegemony-perpetuating character of knowledge as such, of language as definer of limits against the featureless all/one, and of knowledge as a tool against the un-reasoned/non-rational/non-expert larger population. Being able to engage in and explore a knowledge that doesn't automatically result in tangible product that the state (or other powerful institution) can use to further its ends is something worth validating. I used to take the skeptical, "anti-bourgeoise" position that intellectual defenses of the "liberal arts" were an artifact of the misplaced values (guilty of prejudiced judgement here) of the elite... but more recently I realized that the constant fetishization and commodification of knowledge and skills (in, say, technical colleges, or certain associate degrees, especially in law) is just a fast track back to the philosophical heart of industrial era---millions of human "expert" workers working to further empower the state and disempower themselves, all while having no sense of the larger whole (professors of knowledge included!). Not to impugne the acquisition of practical skills (I'm big on knowing how to take care of oneself medically, nutritionally, militarily, etc.), but, given some of the existentialist undulations that I feel my confidence constantly subject to, getting paid to read books for 5-6 years and then possibly doing something as "inane" and "pointless" as teaching armchair philosophy sounds fucking excellent. The feeling that I might be possibly adding to the mechanisms of oppression is pretty limited (justified or not) so, indeed, the "pointlessness" is a virtue in itself.

oh yeah.. positive: If one doesn't get into PhD programs, one's extremely academic and topically obscure opinions will never have to be challenged and/or torn apart because one is necessarily utterly unable to discuss those topics with non-academics.

This post is from the first page, but I thought it worth citing because of the underlined. I might offer a "I don't think you know what that word means" but you're an English PhD. It follows that I started getting kinda worried about your friends. This is the kind of fact that I feel like I should write down for my future 8 years later self, but I know there's no way in hell a piece of paper in some notebook is gonna survive that time. God, that sounds like such a waste of time (no offense). What happened to just studying what you're interested in? I realize the two things are largely co-extensive, but your plan sounds so externally imposed and dictatorial. It bothers me. Also, Trip, I'm at the GC, too! In Linguistics, though.

The UCs have money somewhere in there. I got my best financial offer from a UC. I think it's worth a shot. Say something like... you understand the larger financial situation of the UCs but that, realistically speaking, it's hard to make a decision that will disempower you financially so extremely. You might even tell them that "some other program is offering ____, but I really want to go to Berkeley, instead. Is there anything you can do?"

One can find a huge 1BR in Pelham Pkwy for 1100. A studio for less. Paying a deposit (1100) and first month's rent (1100). The students at fordham use as much drugs as the surrounding locals. There actually isn't a lot of violent crime, which is what matters for an outsider (not private drug usage/selling). Gangs as such, with large hierarchies (westcoast or midwest style), don't really exist in NYC, so I'm not sure where that is coming from. Crime rates in NYC are at 40-50 year lows. Sure, crimes do occur if you count them 1 by 1, but relative to the population density, it's really not any higher than a lot of cities and suburbs. The ones pissing and stealing are the Fordham students, not the locals. Id est, they've made the neighborhood "bad." Ahhh, excellent. Selective attention and small sample size... the very foundation of prejudices. "Well, this one time I saw...!!!" I've engaged with the Bronx longer than you have and can say with confidence that my sense of what actually happens is probably a good bit better and less skewed by expectations and veils of "information" sent out by institutions to brainwash. When I was a student at UChicago, the school would send crime bulletins all the time, too, because Hyde Park was supposedly so dangerous. I never saw a single violent crime in my four years there. Well, besides the ones committed by students, that is. Anyways, I suggest shirking realtors and brokers. One should choose a neighborhood one likes and walk through, jotting down landlord tel. #s, and calling them oneself. No broker fees. That said, that's tougher to do the first time one hits an area (though not impossible), so you guys should at least keep that in mind for future years.

I definitely agree with all that.* But I think we can do both. Silly psychoanalytic interps of his work are fine, too. *assuming we can access his understandings of truth, God, other things, etc. edit: I should say that I'm not pursuing graduate level English Lit studies...

Unless of course it is indeed the case, in which case it would be by definition enough to drive you. EDIT: woooooooooo friday night! I have work tomorrow morning. Quick, someone say something so controversial that I'm forced to just give up.

Heh. A wolf in sheep's clothing is no sheep. Just because he searched for and pointed to a bundle of cultural artifacts that he called "God" doesn't mean that God it was. Or, perhaps put most sympathetically, it was only such at his time and for his subculture, and is no longer. Indeed, there's a bit of culturalcentricity going on here. An anthropologist would easily be able to identify Shakespeare's efforts (and the efforts of the profs who study him subsequently) as part of a cultural exercise. Why not? People do it all the time. I mean, you just said an issue was "complex." *shrug*

With art it is a lot easier to just go ahead and admit that its underlying "true" forms are indeed consistent because of the fixed human visual system and neurology. When artists say that "space" is important to a painting, be it Rembrandt, the caves at Lascaux, or Mondrian, it's because conceived space is a foundational organizational structure for human sight. It's a lot harder to make a claim like that about literature, especially since literature is not naturally produced (eg. like speech is).

I think we need to stop a moment and consider whether this notion of some "truth" that hawkeye and stage are defending is nonetheless human-experience specific. I figure that a universal/noumenal/?objective? truth should have been as such before humans existed (being atemporal) and after we disappear. Since such a claim, to me, at least, seems preposterous, I would indeed embrace the idea that English Lit is just another cultural studies. Even if Shakespeare's insights into, say, nihilism, are indeed worthwhile for virtually the whole human race, the fact of the matter is that we are all linked by a biology and biology-derived culture. Shakespeare's insights can only have value relative to that nature and that culture.

Rent in the Bronx is cheap, but plenty of landlords will be looking to squeeze every penny out of you guys (or, your parents, more correctly). It is not at all unsafe around Fordham. The Univ kids have totally taken over the area (Arthur Ave) such that they have parties in the streets at late hours to the detriment of the locals who live there. My mother lives in the area and some Fordham kids urinated on her door. Another time, they stole a mail package of hers. When you go to school at Fordham, please be respectful. Any talk about the area being dangerous is largely hype and driven by paranoia and a huge culture gap. For renting apts, I strongly suggest the Pelham Parkway area. 15 min bus ride away, nice tree-lined streets with large prewar apartments and a commercial area, and rents that are well priced. Also Mosholu Parkway for the same reason. If anyone is looking for nightlife, besides the one that the Fordham kids have created in the area (through a handful of bars and their own house parties), you'll largely have to go into Manhattan. The Bronx is in a whole different part of the city; you don't just travel 20 minutes by subway in order to get into downtown Manhattan. There is a local nightclub across the street from Fordham Univ but I haven't seen Fordham kids frequent it.

Uhuh, but ideas aren't "important" in and of themselves but rather relative to a set of values decided upon consciously and non-consciously by a society. You say he has "important things to say" but they're only important relative to someone's culturally-informed belief-system. What he has to say is in fact pretty unimportant to a lot of people, which is (one reason) why a lot of people don't like his work.* *To be clear, I love Shakespeare. Dearly.

This thread walks a fine line, and somewhat unsuccessfully.

No,... what do you mean? I would say that that is the only reason that they're read. If you're claiming people read Shakespeare "instead for its content" or something, you're missing the fact that the content has come to take social import because of the influence that the plays themselves have had. Indeed, the only reason canonical works are ubiquitously read is because of the historical/cultural impact they've had---even if the readers are driven by a "shallow" reason: eg. "Oh, Shakespeare is high culture! We must all read him!" The person who might be quoted saying that has had their sense of "high culture" influenced/formed/informed by Shakespeare's work and how society has come to understand it as a substance in itself. (This long response may not have been necessary, but I'm bored.)

I find that TripWillis' Baldwin avatar makes his statements seem even more balanced, sincere, and well-intentioned. Inspired, I will upload an avatar, too. I find myself often hating Aristotle, but I don't read Greek, so maybe that's not fair.

Yeah, I meant the tone or something. "This" to the last two quotes. I'm big on the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas myself. I vaguely consider myself (philosophically) Daoist and I find a lot of similarities between the DaoDeJing and the G.O.T. I suggest "The Five Gospels" by Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar: an attempt to figure out, by looking at original docs and linguistic and literary tendencies, the source gospel (or, at least, the one with the earliest oral parables). They posit the Gospel of Thomas (with parables circa 50 C.E., written aout 100 BC) as the earliest form that we have available to us. It looks to be influenced by the Theraputae, the Essenes, and other "Eastern" influenced Jewish groups.

I'm dying over some of these :lol: . Ahh... the gap between native language use and normative writing. Please add more. I can't get over "Thnx boo." I was raised in the Bronx so that one really hits home.

My pick is Dickens' Oliver Twist. reading it was like swimming in a tar pit ............ while on fire. I could only make it 5 pages through White Teeth. Barf. Diaz's Drown is better than Brief/Wonderous; the former is a more traditional novel feel while the latter is more entertaining. lolwut what is this I don't even

if you think that you'll be able to ride your bike around while the zombies are on the loose, you're a fool. they would just have one run out into your way on purpose on some kamikaze ish and you'd be done. you need to learn how to fire a gun. how're you gonna make a getaway if you're living in an apt building? do you have roof access and accordant access to other buildings? are those buildings secure? forget about trying to flee. you're screwed. make sure you have a rope with which to hang yourself for when you hear them coming up the stairs

yeah, I echo the above comments that you shouldnt be studying analogies anymore. get a new GRE practice book.

haha, seriously yeah, as a [fellow?] linguist, this stuff is like listening to people complain to each other "hey, you're sneezing the wrong way!" or "you're supposed to stand up/sit down when you pee!" "Hey! The word stood is supposed to rhyme with food!! Your brain is so small!!!"

I didn't address prior bad grades in my SOP, but on a separate short document that I appended variously at the end of other documents, in "miscellaneous" uploads, or even mailed a hardcopy of. The SOP, imo, should be a place where you explain how you're the hot shit and a genius and your ideas. in terms of how to address it--be more or less honest. say you were determined to finish it, but realized eventually that biochem wasn't for you and/or your strength and that it was a mistake. i assume your grad school app is not in the bio sciences. A 2.7 is tough, but not impossible to work with as long as your other factors are strong. check this thread (ignore my joke in it): it mentions there's another thread on the topic; you'll have to search for it. good luck!

this thread is discriminatory against people with sub-2.0 gpas!!

well put; well put. add substance use to the list