Anela Pritchard Speech on Teaching

without consultation across the entire board. Anela Pritchard posted her speech to Facebook - the speech she says she was suspended from school for giving: I'm a decentlysmart kid, with some decently good grades. But sometimes I believe that, with the essays, worksheets and endless amount of study assigned tome eachday, that teachers secretly hate me, rather than actuallywanting tohelp me do better. Theymost likely, if anything really, just do it for the pay check. I'm not saying all teachers do, but the majority of them appear to be that way. I always think about how I do believe school is important, however I don't believe most of the stuff taught there is. Do I honestlyneedto know what a= 1+rnto the 2nd power is, go over the Treatyof Waitangi everyyear since I was literally5, or memorize the periodic table in order toget somewhere in life? Do I honestlyneedto know the structure of a seed and how it works and whatnot? No, I don't think so. I believe school should, instead, teach us more valuable information that we'll actually need for our futures. In High School, we should be learning about the real world, how to paymytaxes, applyfor jobs, mortgage my house, buya car, things that we will actually use in the future. Sofar, I've onlylearned that whatever I manage to get done in a short amount of time isn't enough. What's that? You did your homework, but didn't doone questionbecause you found it difficult and you were struggling? Well, there's a unsatisfactory for homework on your mid term report! Now, that's just not OK. What my point is, we all struggle, and work, and stress our selves over things that aren't important in the long run. Two years after High School, and the majorityof the students who've graduated have alreadyforgotten anything they've learned in the last four years of their school career. Stressing myself over end of year exams, because if I fail, I have myparents on myback, asking me why I didn't try hard enough, my teacher telling me I could have focused harder in class and mypeers simply telling me that I'm stupid? Ridiculous. I honestlyused tolove going to school. I thoroughlyenjoyed it, and it made me happyto goto school, tomeet friends, to learn things that I never knew. But the minute High School starts, it's either you fly, or you fall. Now I strongly dislike it, and want nothing to do with it. Some teachers are nice, there are a good few who are genuinely nice and want to help us but it seems that the teachers that are not willing to encourage and help me are all teachers of the subjects I'm not good at and it also happens to be that I don't enjoythem. It's unbelievable how some teachers play favorites. Theybelieve you can do better than your best? If theywanted me to do better, wouldn't they actually help me to understand? theywouldn't shove more work down my throat and expect me not tohave anytrouble with it. I'm not saying to treat me special because I struggle in the subject but because I'm a student who would like to learn things bya teacher, and not a book. Actually do the teaching that youwere taught and you are paid to do. Don't just give me worksheets todo and expect me to take a test onthe topic 2 days later. You know...the school system is reallyscrewed up...We have all these teachers that don't enjoy their jobs and are all angry about the cut backs in their paychecks. Making us feel like complete idiots and making us feel useless. Like it's our fault that we don't understand the work! Maybe some of us just don't understand it! Or maybe the teacher didn't teach it very well, but we're the ones dealing with the consequences of failure. It's teachers like this that make us students want toskip class and not go to school because we think we aren't good enough for the certain subject. Like we are stupid and will never understand it... Teachers are PAID to TEACH us.. not paid to hand out a piece of paper with words on it and sit around and do nothing!!!!!!! I'm not saying all teachers are bad, and I understand that us as students need to make an effort. But our teachers chose this career and need totryto cater for each individuals education. We spend 7 hours, 5 days a week, plus extra hours on top of that going over the days work, revision, studying, completing unfinished work and also homeworkgive, working to please everysingle teacher, the least the could do is have some understanding and simply teach.

The Four Aims of Indian Philosophy

A brief pictorial summary of the four aims of philosophy in the chapter of the same name from Heinrich Zimmer's book "Indian Philosophy". I just happened to stumbled across his book on the ethics shelve in the Auckland University library this past Friday. I would also recommend the last chapter in the book that discusses who gets into Nirvana.

My Thoughts on the "Interpellation of Django Unchained" and The Figure of Schultz

In writer Abigal Fagan's paper "Interpellating Django: The Functions of the Gaze in Tarantino's Django Unchained" accessed in the free open database of the International Journal of Zizek Studies

I found many thought provoking ideas and sociological readings of Taratino's Oscar award winning film. 

Fagan's perceptive analysis of Django Unchained incorporates the view of the Lacanian Gaze and Zizek's application of the symbolic, real and imaginary. At the heart of Fagan's essay are the issues of violence and racist ideology both two reoccurring themes in the millennial spaghetti western.    
      

The characters of the film most deeply concentrated in Fagan's critique are Schutlz an eccentric German bounty hunter oblivious to racism, Big Daddy and Calvin Candie both rampant racist slave owners and of course Django an emancipated black slave. In this article I want to offer a brief overview of the essay's main points and what I found most interesting while also offering a differing view to Fagan's conclusion that Tarintino's wild west movie is in fact not racist! 

To begin with lets identify what the theory of 'the real' means in the context of Django Unchained,;

"Lacan teaches us that human experience takes place in three orders, the real, the symbolic and the imaginary. While the symbolic order is the primary focus and venue for Django Unchained, Django's rise to the triumphant hero of the film is predicated on his internal and therefore imaginary-images of himself, just as Schultz's fall is predicated on his inability to symbolize his experience of the real. Indeed it is Tarantino's allowance for the real to destabilize the symbolic order or law that governs his film that makes the film so engaging." 

From this extract specifically the the last sentence one sees how director Tarantino deliberately unbalances the 'symbolic order' of the film's lifeworld coded in excessive racism through the introduction of the Lacanian 'stain' which is Django. As a free black slave Django the acted by Jamie Fox disturbs the ideological world of the inhabitants this is because he is situated in the place of the real, outside of the symbolic chains of racism championed by the white majority. The later who believe black people have a fundamental lack in character and intellect. The racists argue that blacks are naturally subservient and therefore should serve as the slaves of society. Hence there is an antagonism between the symbolic order and physical reality with racist ideology as the intermediary between both upholding racism for the symbolic and keeping the real; black people and their normality at bay and hidden from view.. 

The 'imaginary Lacanian stage' comes into play in Tarantino's work when the symbolic is fractured by the truth conveyed by Django. His mere existent is and characteristics of excellent behavior and 'street smarts' convey how black people are in no way deficient. The realization of black equality in relation to the hegemony of the white oppressors in the film conveys how the symbolic order can quickly become besieged in a state of emergency. For how can one maintain a universal and claim that African Amercian's are stupid if individual particulars like Django exist who are strong fit smart and black and more than able to do a white mans work. Hence, the 'imaginary' needs to be drawn into knit the symbolic order back together with physical reality saving the meaning and foundation of societies racism. This is done by cheating and circumnavigating the holes in the theory of societies racist ideology namely the inferiority of black people by creating new imaginative and racist claims to reinforce weakness and deficiency in their character. What must be maintained is the privileging of white people in society renewed again on a fresh false pretense of the 'imaginary' allowing the maintenance and grapple-hold of oppression over the personal freedoms of 'black people', the most significant being the power over black peoples bodies divorcing them from their  autonomy.

The German bounty hunter Schultz how has no concept of racism in Django Unchained. From my point
of view I find this character to be the most complex and multi layered in the film. I would argue Schultz is a subtly oppressive force in the film. Although he frees Django and agrees to help him win back his wife Broomhilda, I can't quite avoid the feeling that Schultz is a carrying out a deception of character even perhaps unwittingly to himself on a sub-conscious level. In a pseudo sense Django is freed by Schultz given
a gun a horse and fine clothes and even allowed to hunt white men alongside him but there seems an underlining form of exploitation occurring through their seemingly beneficial relationship. It is as if Schultz wishes to turn Django into the mirror of himself; a white man. This is evident in the scene were he takes Django to a tailor and buys him european clothes, allowing Django to exhude a sense of European class.       It seems clear that Schultz acting as the 'Lacanian screen' identified by Fagan helps immerse the viewer in the racist times and ideologies of Django Unchained. Schultz filters out the racism in the film in a way that avoids confronting the issue, he seems to think there is no real racist issue and by doing so helps us forget the elephant in the room that all the black people in the film are slaves. Indeed it is Schultz lack of racism that helps the viewer to solely concentrate on Django an object of desire above everyone else. Which is strange considering Django is only interested in his own self-preservation and life of his partner Broomhilda a seeming extension of himself. In contrast there is no real dialogue or talk between Django and Schultz of freeing other people other than the ones they know. In my reading it seems that Schultz only seeks to reinforce capitalist individuality and privileging of the self in Django Unchained in direct conflict with
real collective struggles of black people. Schultz weakness of character is embedded in his preference to sustain himself over others resulting in his own death because of his inability to place others before himself. He risks Django and Broomhilda's own deaths in exchange for a selfish act of murder against Calvin Candie because of his excessive subjective pride in face of the racist oppressor and in doing so becomes one himself. He is indoctrinated into the violent and racist ideology of the film by sacrificing himself and his black friends who are very lucky to escape his engagement in murder in the end spells out his own destruction for his due to his latent character of corruption. Schultz is a figure that makes his money of others by killing them and doesn't not transcend this urge to kill, in my view he is a psychopathic enabler.

Section on the racism in the film coming soon 

  

passing through a dream

Passing through a dream Nothing is ever quite how it seems Appearances deceptions distortions And all those dreadful unforgettable emotions Seeping through our pink organic skin A million things reoccuring Sometimes i wonder if anything is ever truly certain Like a game on a lost planet hidden in the clustered stars of the milky way

Why do we Desire views of Nature?

Why do we desire views in times of leisure at home or on holidays even when we are at work? Well recently ive been thinking about it and looking at some of the most desirable views available from regal pastures to wrestling wild seas, lush vegatative forests with there unabashed variants of trees yet what is it about them that we want? perhaps most likely is the reason that we want to possess them and recover what has been taken from us and our ancestors. Before our city dwelling experience we lived in a natural pri-mordial human enviroment. The times of neurotic ancient civilizations and there need to build very high walls still a faint but persistent idea in our heads. Amongst the soft grass and wild flowers as well as numerous predators we absconded. But the song forever remains the same we humans love the natural life giving phenomena of rivers that share food with us, trees that sheltered us and which we burnt for firey hest and grass for our herds and livestock when we started rearing flocks. A view from a window from our front room, hotel patio or sail boat triggers off our desire for nature that we have depended on and still do to this day and most likely always without an extreme tech revolution. In light of our gaze out across the landscape what is truly distressing is the fact that we should be satisfied with a multi million dollar view and deny ourselves the real tangiable thing nourishment and sustenence of our lifeblood without feeling an underlining primitive regression in our natural state of being typified by our dependence on natures unrefined natural capital. A view has the power to sweep us back into the pre-historic nostalgia of creation as a species which have so ardogantly stormed forth from to know real telling advances. Slavoj Zizek stated that the most pressing issue of our time is and will continue to be the 'battle for the commons'! For societal powers have taken our land our trees ours our animals our streams and rivers everything that can give and sustain life and then they demand that we buy it back with money generated off the backs of our own labour! It can not last either we will rip it back of them what is ours or the natural enviroment will become so alienated and degraded by us that we cant buy it back and we're really in a pickle then! But hey in the mean time admire the view, just dont forget not to touch.

What is Ideology? my own thoughts on the subject after reading Bert Oliver's recent article

                                                          Slavoj Zizek telling us why we should embrace indigestion problems with gusto to promote the revolution (joke)

"One might say that ideology is made up of the bits of fantasy that fill in social reality to “smooth it over”, that is, to make it seem as if everything fits together seamlessly, even if, without the bits of “fantasy glue”, it would not appear to be as palatable at all"  What is Ideology? written by BERT OLIVIER http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/bertolivier/2015/06/11/what-is-ideology-2/

It surrounds us constructs us cloaks our mental and physical selves and yet only the symptom of its affects are ever seen in our lives. Ideology is like the invisibility cloak in the famous Harry Potter books things are achieved because of it but it never acts in itself. In my view ideology is parasitic in nature feeding off reality and humanity like a mushroom sucking nutrients from a tree that is in turn dependent on its own roots buried deep within the soil.

Slavoj Zizek mentioned how he specializes in studying in the gaps, cracks and crevaces in the human physche and analysizing our everyday surroundings. Which seems appropritate as ideology functions possibly best out of sight or if thats not possible right before us but masked in some way by power relations, cynicism and lies. One can easily think of an example like modern politics, were we know we are buying into an empty false lie but the convincing and prevailing cynicism of the right wing government hooks into us by playing us off against our own selfish unmet desires, tax cut anyone? 

Like a liberal new age lover ping ponging back and forth between two or more people ideology is a hot potato and we are the object being juggled, the scorched hands competing views symbols and prejudices swirling in our heads. And yes not unlike a vast range of things in the world ideology does not want to be discovered at all and will do its utmost to hide in the shadows remaining a passive meek force while paradoxically once confronted becoming a violent catalyst for actions, that we find ourselves of doing, though we never thought we would be doing such things, not in a million years! 

From my perspective ideology in many ways seems like a sarcastic low-key friend that helps us function - perhaps like a drinking buddy but who is also prone to bouts of violence and instability when people refuse to follow him and annoyingly always go to his favourite bar, sometimes repetition is just so well oppressive haha! ;)

Moss 

What is the best Approach to work Quality or Quantity - A Suprising Answer below

A found a great excerpt on the internet trying to answer the question of quaility versus quantity and surprised myself! have a read: 

The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the "quantity" group: fifty pound of pots rated an "A", forty pounds a "B", and so on. Those being graded on "quality", however, needed to produce only one pot - albeit a perfect one - to get an "A".

Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the "quantity" group was busily churning out piles of work - and learning from their mistakes - the "quality" group had sat theorising about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.

written by an anonymous poster 

UMO - Don't Call Me Ever Again - Lyric Reversal of "Cant Keep Checking My Phone"

Just did some vibing on the song and wrote some lyrics trying to reverse the original ones :) 
Some of them don't fit exactly, I got them real good then used some creative license to make 
them more entertaining!! 

All the Oreos 

and theres not one left 

I don’t know who ate them all maybe me 

yes it was me I ate them all

Eat chicken, in the future, just tease me, on the phone 

Cheap fish in a Taco but theres no sauce 

I can’t hear you, what terrible news, who is this sorry wrong number 

Don’t call me ever again I’m very angry

When did You Lose my phone

Noooo!!

When did You Lose my phone

Noooo!!

When did You Lose my phone

Noooo!!

When did You Lose my phone

dohhhh

June rain in our universe 

Earthquakes breaking up worn pavement 

Little animals fight themselves 

over there mother 

Eat chicken, in the future 

just tease me, on the phone 

Cheap fish in a Taco but theres no sauce 

I can’t hear you, what terrible news, who is this sorry wrong number 

Don’t call ever again I’m very angry

When did You Lose my phone

Noooo!!

When did You Lose my phone

Noooo!!

When did You Lose my phone

Noooo!!

When did You Lose my phone

dohhhh

Spell Binding Live Preformance of "Can't Keep Checking My Phone"

Hatred, Capitalism and Creativity in Zizek's "Living in the End Times

In Zizek's latest book "Living in the End Times" the author or asshole as he is commonly referred to by less successful academics, emphasizes the flawed nature of seeing issues in every aspect of the world around us. The Slovenian intellectual argues that human beings can not fall into the trap of viewing everything as inherently evil. To convey his point he offers the example of the 'fanatic fundamentalist extremist' he notes destroys the perceived evil of the West, through acts of terror, to promote the greater good according to his view. However, what is generated is instead a cycle of continual pain, anger and resentment fueled by emotion and envy. Zizek believes that if a terrorist really dis-liked the ways of West they would simply rise above the West and the problems and conditions of their corruption. Instead by attacking the perceived evil of the US for example blowing up the twin towers they want what they do not have. The old tale of Confucius about "The Fox and the Grapes" seems appropriate to mention, for if like the Fox one can not get at the sweet looking grapes high up on the vine, after trying with all their might to get the grapes they declare them sour not worth eating and abstain, extremist's are like the Fox they see evil where there is none and in a fit of rage try to rip out the vines of the grapes. 

  

Although it seems all to easy to become a converted cynic of modern society typified by Badiou and his 'worldless' modern world view , we can not forget or take for granted the reality that meaningful social relations persevere and survive in the face of 'digital degradation'. The later being a problem of the commons, for once the land is taken and the rivers and the trees what is next but controlling people in their last place of resistance, their homes by attacking the mind. The rapid change occurring in-relation to social interaction introduced by new 'psuedo realities'created by Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms is increasingly hindering our grip on the physical construct of reality, the outside world. The later is becoming a more abstract thing travelling further and further into the horizon. Take for instance how many of us venture out into the world to socialize, in contrast to staying at home behind a computer comfortable watching game of thrones. 

It's clear that our lives are transforming. The very interaction and physical place of conversations between two people is now mitigated by computers and expensive internet connections, our meaningful dialogues reduced to pointless chatter and arguments in online digital boxes and forums. We are also now under complete surveillance by the state. The physical environment taken from us long ago has acted as a buffer preventing our conscious activity, thinking from being removed from us. Like the lobotomies dished out in Ken Kenseys' "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" the act of thinking will be the sight of the real historic fight for survival. The confiscations of neo-liberal rule are destroying and harming our connection and sense of belonging in our own cities, farms, houses and work places. This has occurred through the abuse of power, politics and money. But this will matter for naught when we are faced with a brutal siege against the abstract frontier of our own free thought.

If Rosseau thought we were enslaved when were forced off our ancestral lands, that was nothing, the worst is yet to come. If the freedom of speech is a basic human right, then how fundamental is the right of the freedom to think. The new rulers in the form of corporations have commenced the final battle and thrown the first spear. They seek to divorce ourselves from our own bodies, by shackling us in mental chains. By throwing us into the classical capitalist machine which they configure and control we are consequentially being turned into automatons, we are becoming inhuman unthinking things, in our bid to stay alive we are live a half like not unlike a Zombie. Denied our sanity by being worked to death our productive nature has turned into our private road to death. In a denaturalized non-physical environment we are facing the real possibility of being placed in box with no means to self-determination, again.     

All apocalyptic negativity aside! one might go out on a limb and hypothesize that capitalism is in truth a destructive veil, like a thin cooking plastic wrap, cutting off the oxygen to the vast multiplicity and truly exponential creative potential of humanity. Karl Marx emphasized how human beings are innately creative makers of things at the core of our being and nature, but our primal skill is curtailed by the capitalist order that seeks to deny and ownership over the things we create. Music, painting, films almost all the most famous and commercially successful instances are now owned by finance companies or rich families fueled by capital and money. In their false kindness a nominal ownership is then granted to the creator under strict legal conditions, amounting to a '9 for me 1 for you' mentality of remuneration from the work, or else.

Following from the creative argument that capital interferes with creativity the same is also true for our social conditioning. Zizek believes that the world and the way we are socially conditioned reduces all the colours of the rainbow down to the dull beaurcratic grey of modern times. Indeed in our first years of primary school we lose the joy and freedom of expression offered by 'colouring in', as we learn to conform to rigid societal norms as young as five years old, but is this really a postive occurence? 

Well after thinking about the reduction of colour the famous image of Pink Floyd's "Darkside of the Moon" sprang to my mind, on one side there is single white line but after hitting the light prism the one is fragmented into red, purple, yellow dance across the rock poster in subversive defiance. The noted counter example created in the UK seems to argue the reverse of Zizek's thought from his own standpoint, true grey or white light is good, but it only exists for one reason to be converted into colour. The meaning drawn out form this reading is possibly that the singularity associated with capitalism i.e the pursuit of the money of which everything stems from is needed only in order to later collapse into the creative multitude of a world without money were artistic expression reigns supreme. 

Going back to my original point to which we have arrived in a roundabout way; Is the hatred of the world in reality a Freudian dissimulation of what is truly hated, namely ourselves. It seems there is a fundamental desire to bypass the issues of the self by mediating them through the lens of the outside world. The reason why millions flock to Disneyland even if they are unhappy is because one and all can go on all the rides, children smile and you get artificial happiness for a day. Maybe the secret to dissimulation and hatred of the world is that there is no big overhanging issue, even the issue of self-hatred is empty and if you forget there is a problem even if there is one, and carry on with your existence like business as usually. 

But is Life more like a fast-food meal, we are conscious of the immediate joy that it will bring us, but once eaten its gone.The moment prior to consumption, the parlay before attacking our deep fried chips is were our deepest enjoyment bursts forth from. Especially the sinful chips we eat on the the way to our cheap plastic seat, made even sweeter if they are a friends. Picture this if you will its pointless but do it anyway, someone is drunk and needs to sober up in order to drive home.The apparent link between partying and sobriety demands by necessity a quick, greasy fast-food meal in the city. Is happiness then transformed into a relative sublime object e.g a hamburger that needs instantaneous consumption that should only be accessed under certain strict conditions of drunkenness. Well it is if it makes you happy, and if happiness is in part relative so might hatred be also, irrelevant of scale e.g hating the world. 

Finally to live a life devoid of enjoyment is synonymous with the unfeeling character of modern neo-liberalism. Zizek states that we live in a time oppostive of feudalism were relations between individuals are not fetishisized. Instead only individuals and objects are fetishisized like a drunk eating a transnational hamburger, objects alone take on the full capacity and projections of our desires, do you want more chips? Furthermore, our freedom to act autonomously wih subjects allows us to attain what we think we want; object accumulation, in a harsh fixed hierarchical society. Which is wrong because in truth we live in an overtly pre-ordained society shrouded in a blurred mysticism of confusion. To be born a slave or to slowly realize one is are very simmilar propositions. However the later seems to be the greater of two evils, as it places uneccessary blame on the slave person as they slowly come to realize they were duped into thinking they were free when they weren't. The pain of a slaves false hope only grows more bitter over the passing of time.