Information for 'unseen' test on Thursday

Been a while since I've blogged so its redemption time. I'm treating this blog post as a revision aid for the test on Thursday; basically just typing my notes into the form of legible sentences.

The first question we looked at in the elaborate 'symposium' was in reference to modernisn, James Joyce's Ulysses, and how they have no single point of view...

It's pretty clear to me that the literary work of Joyce conveys the complexion of the modernist movement that he himself pioneered. In life, and in the mind of the individual there is no single point of view, but many versions and diverse ways of looking at things. Joyce uses the narrative technique of a 'stream of consciousness' to convey this idea. It creates a de-centred narrative with no single point of view. Through the use of this form of narrative Joyce has broken free from traditional forms of literature, where the structure of beginning - middle - end rule the book. Life is not like this, it contains a vast amount of beginnings, middles, and endings, with many ways of looking at each. There is a clear Freud influence in Joyce's work, just look at the sexual content of Molly Bloom's soliloquy!

The second question was to summarize the work of Freud and his cultural impact...

The first point I think of when looking at Freud's works is his obsession with sex. Freud detailed that all of our actions were revolved around sex, with motivations defined through sexual desires. He noted that many of his patients had sexual hang ups and he stated that this caused mental issues. He viewed that civilisation causes people to suppress their natural urges, which damages the individual. For example, a young child wishes to defecate freely, but society creates rules that this is unacceptable. Also, there is a masturbation taboo, when it is a natural human desire.
Freud's analysis method was to interpret peoples dreams. He said that 'dreams are the royal highway to the sub-conscious'. He stated that in each human mind there was a constant conflict between the conscious and sub-conscious which caused mental distress.
The cultural impact Freud's work has had is huge. His work has been viewed as sexist (he stated that women are hysterical because they have 'penis envy') and thus he has had a great impact of the debate of gender politics. Also the impact of Freud in advertising is highly significant. Companies have used Freud's work as a guide of how to appeal to consumers desires.

The third question we looked at was how the control of language can control behaviour and thought with reference to George Orwell's 1984...

In '1984' Orwell suggests that the control of language by an authoritarian government is such a powerful notion to the extent that if they were to remove a word, they remove the idea. For example, without the word 'rebellion' there can be no action of rebellion. Through the control of language, the government in the novel are able to control the thoughts and actions of the people. The new edition of the Newspeak dictionary in the novel is described as 'going to be tiny', clearly showing the eradication of words, and thus the ability to think about the meanings behind the words. The government also changed meanings of words to control the thoughts of people, for example, 'love is hate' and 'peace is war'. This Orwellian idea can be seen in modern terms. For example, the British Army used to be ruled by the Ministry of War, but now the exact same ministry is known as the Ministry of Defence. The use of language changes the implication of meaning.

The fourth question was a look at Steinbeck's great novel The Grapes of Wrath and whether it was a work of journalism...

Steinbeck's novel was a very controversial book, with some people criticizing Steinbeck accusing him of exaggerating the conditions of the migrants in the book. The book itself was born from a photojournalism project for Life magazine. Steinbeck wrote the book as a journalistic campaign to highlight the experience he had seen through his research into the plight of the migrating people. It is a very political book, a propaganda book even. A campaign for massive state aid in the wake of the Great Depression which resulted in worldwide economic meltdown and mass unemployment.
It is a journalistic book, written in a very journalistic style. In fact it has been used as a guide for journalists to write in the correct style. It is clear to see the journalistic style research Steinbeck conducted before writing the book in his dialogue, with quotes conveying a journalistic form. The novel gives a voice to the voiceless, which is what all good journalism should do.
The fact that the book won the Nobel Prize conveys it in a literary light, not a work of journalism.

The fifth and final question was an extremely long winded question about Emile Zola's Germinal, social inequality, violence and realism...

Zola's novel is an example of the movement of realism. The vivid descriptions within the book are like none I have ever read, with many moments of genuine breathlessness. The best example is when the miners are escaping from the flooded mine, with the only means of escape through a rusty metal ladder which sliced through them like razors. The book is an incredibly crude metaphor of people with different political outlooks dropped under ground like seeds that germinate. It is a sensational and phenomenally violent book describing the politics of anarchism and the embracing of violence - a very Nietzsche idea, with violence being good.
Woman are described in the novel much more realistically than had previously been seen in much of literary works. They are described as pillars of strength, keeping society going in the most inhumane conditions.

Now I just have to remember all this for Thursday...

Citizen Kane

"Rosebud." - The last word of a dying man that starts an intrusive investigation into that man's extraordinary life.

'Citizen Kane' is a remarkably significant film that conveys many themes and motifs. It offers a damning verdict of the 'American Dream' and materialism while also mourning the loss of childhood and innocence.

I have read that 'Citizen Kane' was one of the first movies to oppose the traditionally positive view of the 'American Dream' to gain financial prosperity and material luxury. Kane's accumulation of wealth and material goods is done for love and control, not happiness. For Kane the 'American Dream' is seen as a hollow one. He is depicted as a happy child playing in the snow during his childhood where his family were poor and had no elements of materialism. This is in stark contrast to his death where his seen as an lonely isolated figure, surrounded not by the love he craves, but by his material possessions that symbolize all that is wrong about the perception of the 'American Dream'.

I wonder whether Kane's obsession with acquiring statues and other possessions portrays his want, his need perhaps, to control people. He is able to control them whereas in the real world he found difficulty controlling things the way he wanted. His mother sending him away, his failed political career, and Susan's failure as an opera singer. In his lavish palace Xanadu, he is able to exert control over everything.

I believe the fact that Kane's last words 'rosebud' represents his realization that the life he has led hasn't given him the happiness or love he craved. It conveys the loss of his childhood innocence, where he was happy, playing in the snow with his sled 'rosebud'. This is contrasted with his lonely existence in the grand palace of Xanadu. The significance of 'rosebud' to Kane is of paramount importance. It is the only love he truly encountered.

More Ulysses...

I have just read Molly Bloom's soliloquy in the final chapter of Joyce's and I feel it really conveys the groundbreaking modernist aspect of Joyce's novel. It is an enormous section of interior monologue narrative, with minimal use of punctuation. In fact it is split into eight 'paragraphs', with just two marks of punctuation.

Alongside the narrative technique and distinct lack of punctuation, Joyce makes use of sexually explicit language and vulgar phrases. For example:

• 'Ill let him know if thats what he wanted that his wife is I s l o fucked yes and damn well fucked too up to my neck nearly not by him 5 or 6 times handrunning theres the mark of his spunk on the clean sheet I wouldnt bother to even iron it out'
• 'if he wants to kiss my bottom Ill drag open my drawers and bulge it right out in his face as large as life he can stick his tongue 7 miles up my hole as hes there my brown part'
• 'I know every turn in him Ill tighten my bottom well and let out a few smutty words smellrump or lick my shit '

It was this use of language that found Joyce's work banned in many countries over the world. It was too different, too modern for the audience of its time. It is a mark of the change of times that nowadays people, myself included, can read this passage and feel offended. The text will always have the shock factor, but in this modern age, taboo is becoming a thing of the past. Most products are sold by sex, beit newspapers such as The Sun, The News of The World or men's deodrant. This is the age where sex sells, and Molly's sexually vibrancy would produce millions!

Modernism and Freudism

I have to admit to being slightly disappointed that we were not shown a screening of James Joyce's Ulysses as scheduled for the lecture of week 4. I was looking forward to seeing a cinematic represenation of Joyce's great work. (I guess I'll have to watch it in my own time.) However, I must also state that the material shown in its place was of high interest.

Intrigued would be the best word to describe how I felt after reading Chris warn us that the lecture would contain 'SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL OF AN ADULT NATURE INCLUDING SEXUAL CONTENT OF A POTENTIALLY DISTURBING OR OFFENSIVE NATURE.' Now if you want people to attend a lecture, this is the way to do it! Offer a group of young adults a lecture containing sexual material and more than likely they will turn up!

However, this wasn't just some big screen porn show (although I did take down some notes on how Chris has an average sized member, potentially a homosexual, and something about a nazi disco!), this was a lecture of interesting observations in reference to psychoanalysis and modernism.

Early on in the lecture Chris commented on the fact that with todays technology we can use incredible advanced machines to see how each and every one of our brains and bodies function. Through the advancement of science we can literally see inside someones brain, which is essentially what Sigmund Freud set out in doing. His machine was mythological literature and comparing ancient myths with patients' problems in his practice. The most classic example of this is the Oedipus complex. Wikipedia explains:

The complex is named after the Greek mythical character Oedipus, who (albeit unknowingly) kills his father and marries his mother. According to Sigmund Freud, the Oedipus complex is a universal phenomenon, built in phylogenetically, and is responsible for much unconscious guilt.

So basically, within our subconscious, we all want to kill our fathers and have sex with our mothers. On the face of it this seems a truly rediculous theory. Who in their right mind has ever even considered this act? Freud maintained that the supression of this subconscious desire could result in neurosis, paedophilia, and homosexuality.

I think it is interesting to compare Freud's reading of the brain with some of the material Chris showed us in the lecture. The fact that the parts of the brain called the Amygdaline and the Hippocampus light up when sex, rage, fear; emotions are engaged shows Frued's work as mere speculation. It conveys my earlier point that scientific breakthroughs in neurology seem to undermine Freud's methods and theories. You cannot aruge with this sort of high level science, but people have been arguing over Freud for years.

BNP Fiasco

"Anti-fascist protesters broke into BBC Television centre ahead of British National Party leader Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time."

Today my friends is a sad day in British politics, and NOT because the BBC scheduled the BNP leader Nick Griffin to attend Question Time, but because of the actions of the 'anti-fascist' protesters. The actions of those people plays straight into the BNP's hands.

In using violence and force to protest against the BNP these people are in fact making themselves appear no better than the party they are opposing. Why are they trying to deny the BNP the chance to show themselves and their politics to a widespread audience on BBC? By allowing Nick Griffin to speak, there is the opportunity for him to highlight the pathetic, ridiculous, and racist views of the far-right party.

It is a golden opportunity for the people of Britain to fully understand the extreme and dangerous opinions of the BNP, why give them a chance to make the accusation of people attempting to silence them? The main way the BNP have been damaged is when they have been interviewed in detail. This is when their true colours are shown and they make themselves look laughably stupid.

I have read much about the protesters saying that people died in the Second World War to oppose fascism and its views. But these heroes also died for our freedoms, and one of the main freedoms we have as British citizens is freedom to thought and expression. By attempting to stop a man air his views (albeit disgusting views) they are guilty of doing exactly what the fascists our forefathers died to stop did sixty years ago.

Let this man speak. Let him dig his own grave.

A thought for now

I will blog more on Brian's lecture today once I have had a proper chance to reflect on it. But for now I feel obliged to write a little on one of the topics from the lecture.

Einstein's theory of relativity is not one I expected to be blogging on, yet after Brian mentioned it today I felt I should. Wise old Albert said that time is relative. Brian gave the example of young lovers holding hands and being with each for 30 minutes can feel like a a measly five minutes, whereas five seconds of your hand being on a hot stove can feel like 30 minutes! I definitely support Einstein's theory in regards to the relativity of time, and I'm sure the majority of married couples do too! The first three months with someone special can pass without relent in a week. Yet after a year with the same 'special' someone it can begin to feel like a century!

An interesting thought for now.

(And I'm not bitter at all!)

James Joyce's Odyessy

The first experience I had of James Joyce's groundbreaking novel Ulysses was during my ill-fated stay at Bath Spa University. I had signed up for a degree in 'Creative Writing' and it was on my way to one of those lectures that I overheard first year English students complaining about the fact Joyce's book was one of the texts they had to study. Comments like, "it doesn't make sense" reverberated around the walls of the holding pen outside the lecture room. Thus, my first impression of Joyce's work of imperative importance in modernist literature was a negative one.

However, after doing a little bit of research into the book I became fascinated of its contents. I discovered that the title and contents of the book paralleled Homer's Odyssey, an epic poem that I had great pleasure in reading during my college days.

After dipping into Ulysses I did have sympathy for those poor Bath Spa students (mainly because they are still at Bath Spa). It is a difficult text to get to grips with. It's premise is of Leopold Bloom passing through an ordinary day in Dublin. Joyce uses a stream of consciousness narrative technique which makes for highly descriptive reading, sometimes overwhelming the reader.

I haven't been able to read all of Ulysses so I can't comment on themes within the text or what the text promotes, but I can see from what I have read that Ulysses is a very progressive novel, a complete standout novel of its generation and highly deserving of its place in the modernist literary canon.

Year Two, Lecture One

So another year of higher education has begun, and for this blog it begins with the topic of socialism with particular attention paid to Karl Marx.

Chris lectured us on the works of German idealist philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and his theory of dialectical argument to convey how change occurs. Hegel developed the formula for change that went as such:

• Thesis
• Anthesis
• Synthesis

Chris showed us how this formula could be used to describe any sort of change. He gave the example of:

• Thesis - Home team
• Anthesis - Away team
• Synthesis - Football match

Interestingly enough he also showed us how Hegel's works anticipated atomic theory:

• Thesis - Electron
• Anthesis - Proton
• Synthesis - Matter

German socialist philosopher Karl Marx, best known for his Communist Manifesto, supported Hegel's ideas and adapted and incorporated them in his own works. He embraced Hegel's theory for change. Marx described the 'story of history' as such:

• Thesis - Ruling Class
• Anthesis - Slave Class/Working Class
• Synthesis - Revolution

Marx's vision of historical change came true most memorably in 1917 through the Russian Revolutions. The ruling class of Tsar Nicholas II was victim of an uprising from organised workers (Soviets) and this resulted in revolution. True to Marxist theory the workers had 'nothing to lose but their chains' and they claimed state control of Russia.

Looking at things with a modern day hat on, the British government were recently accused of adopting socialist policy during the nationalisation of banks during the credit-crunch bail outs. The government insisted this was a crucial step to ensure the stability of the country's economy, but critics were quick to throw out the comparison of 2009 Britain to Leninist Russia where all banks were immediately nationalised.

Generally Speaking

The front pages have been flooded with stories about MP's ludicrous expenses claims and the speaker has been forced out of parliament for the first time in 300 years. Welcome to UK democracy folks.

When I was first taught about politics and the political system I was told how an MP was representative of your local area, presented your ideas in the House of Commons, listened to your opinions and did what was best for you.

However, now that I have roamed this Earth for 20 years I have learned the real truth about MPs. Shady, slimey and sleazy.

These bungling fools have been spending the taxpayers money by claiming everything under the sun for their 'essential second home' in London:

• Bed sheets
  
• DVD players
• A massage chair
• A moat
• Mortgage interest payments

I'm not sure how constructing a moat helps represent the people of Sleaford and North Hykeham. In fact I highly suspect that the building of moats feature prominently in their political views and opinions.

The prime minister MUST call a general election immediately and allow the British people to hold these MPs to account. The Sun have (for a change) started a campaign which the leader of the opposition David Cameron has given his support to.

It is time for the people of Britian to have there say on this matter.

Catch Up 1

I realise I've fallen behind in terms of blogging on topics introduced in Chris Horrie's Tuesday lectures. Time to catch up...

So the lecture a couple of weeks ago concerned itself with the topic of political parties and the history of the party system in the UK. What started with the Torys and Whigs has resulted in well known parties such as:

• Conseratives


• Labour


• Liberal Democrats


• Green Party

There are also many other minor parties such as:

• Official Monster Raving Loony Party


• Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain


• Pensioners Party

And so on...

The political period I have been interested in since school is the Liberal welfare reforms between 1906-1914. This period essentially saw the birth of the modern 'welfare state' in the UK.

In short, the Liberals, under the chancellorship of David Lloyd George, issued a series of reforms to improve working and living conditions in the UK. They created the Children's Charter, introduced pensions for the elderly, set up Labour exchanges to help the unemployed find work, and created the National Insurance Act.

The reforms were paid for using Robin Hood tactics. Lloyd George named his Finance Bill 'the People's Budget' where he taxed the rich to benefit the poor, ill and working class.

Cartoon from Punch, 1908

Despite a number of limitations and problems with the reforms, I believe they really were a positively pioneering set of Acts aimed for the good of the country. A far cry from the greedy MPs claiming expenses for horse manure and swimming maintenance.

Mexico Sneezes and the Whole World Catches a Cold

The end is nigh, and it came from a pigsty.

So the dreaded 'swine flu' has spread to the sacred shores of Great Britain, cue the fear-mongers. We're all going to catch a cold, cough a few times and spend the day in bed. Spare a thought for the male population as we all know the men are going to be hit worse from this horrible outbreak.

I can't really take this 'pandemic' that serious at this moment in time. Its not the first time we've been told we're all doomed. Bird flu seems to have flown away and SARS, BSE and Foot-and-mouth never really got going.

In fact, I can't help but think about the timing of this 'crisis'. It couldn't have come at a better time for Gordon Brown and his withering Labour party. What better way to get the collapse of Labour off the front pages than to go into full crisis mode?

My thoughts were shared in yesterday's Sun. Columnist Fergus Shanahan wrote an article entitled 'Epidemic...or Porkies?' where he discussed the timing and over exaggeration of the whole disease.

One particular paragraph struck me as highly relevant:

"Swine flu may escalate here, but it is unlikely to kill as many as the
NHS bumps off on dirty wars."

Remember the awful 'good time to bury bad news' email in the wake of 9/11? Seems like this attitude is being adopted again.

I'm probably just scared about catching a cold...

Lecture 5. The West Lothian Question

Lecture five dealt with the intensely joyful and extremely intriguing topic of local government. (Feel free to go back on facebook now...)

I learned the differences between Whitehall 'civil servants' and Town Hall 'executive officers'. In short, Whitehall runs the country (subject to parliament) and the Town Hall runs counties and cities.

The main area of interest for me within the lecture was the issue of the West Lothian Question.

According to Kingdom the question is:

"Should Scottish MPs at Westminster be permitted to debate policy for England, while English MPs are excluded from the Scottish Parliament? Should Scotland maintain its existing over-representation at Westminster?"

How is it fair that Scottish MPs have a say in important issues in Westminster, but English MPs cannot influence law in Scotland? I don't think it is. Surely it would make much more sense for England to have a seperate parliament where the Scots couldn't stick their whiskey soaked red roses in?

Or maybe let the Scots have their independence. They have moaned about the English for many years now. (Mel Gibson has done his bit to stir things up with great success!) The SNP had drafted a bill to stage a referendum on Scottish independence but that doesn't have the legs to take off according to the Guardian.

Alex Salmond's Scottish independence referendum bill 'dead in the water'

So it doesn't look like the Scottish folk will be getting their independence anytime soon. And don't we all get along too well to split up?!

The Special Blog

I've just come across this on the BBC website...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7939501.stm

Despite Mourinho's alleged boxing antics, it was Nemanja Vidic and Cristiano Ronaldo that delivered the real knock out blows for Jose and his Inter team.

A real sucker punch...

Lecture Numero 4. Smash the (electoral) system!

Unfortunately I missed last Tuesdays lecture due to having a stomach that felt like a womb at the wrong time of the month...

I have read through the notes on the Public Affairs Web and the relevant chapters in Kingdom, and the one thing that really struck me was the issue of our electoral system and whether it is fair etc.

The electoral system that is used in the UK general election is known as first-past-the-post (FPTP). In short, citizens vote for a local MP to represent their constituency in Parliament. The party with the most seats in parliament forms government. This system, like everything in life has its pros and cons.

I'll keep it simple. In short, the pros are:

• It is simple and easy to understand for the mass plebs that form the British public.
• It develops a close link between MPs and their constituencies.
• It produces a strong, stable, single-party government. FPTP lends itself to enable one party to have a majority of seats and therefore able to govern to their own principles. Not having to compromise in a a weak coalition.
• It prevents dangerous extremist parties gaining power.

Despite these positive aspects of FPTP there are also many disadvantages of this system:

• Many votes are considered 'wasted'. In a single-member constituency only one set of opinions can be expressed.
  
• The issue of 'safe seats'. Many constituencies have had the same MP or political party in control for a number of years. For example, my constituency of Fareham has had the same useless MP ever since I have lived here. So a vote for Labour in this constituency is pretty much wasted.
• Voters have become more interested in the leaders of the political parties rather than their local MPs. The Prime Minister is becoming an ever more 'presidential' figurehead.
  
• Voter Apathy. Due to the reasons above, (and some I will explain below) many voters have become disenchanted with the electoral system. Too many votes simply don't count towards the final result.

The main gripe most have with the first-past-the-post electoral is that on the face of it, it just isn't fair! It is disproportional. Looking at the 2005 general election results highlights this:

Percentage of votes Seats
Lab.: 35.2% 354 MPs
Cons.: 32.3% 196 MPs
Lib Dem.: 22% 62 MPs
Others: 10.5% 34 MP

There are 646 seats in the House of Commons. So depsite getting 35.2% of the total votes cast in the election, Labour actually received 54.8% of seats. This is clearly disproportionate. In contrast, the Lib Dems got 22% of votes cast, but only 9.6% of seats. How can this be fair? It's not really is it.

Now for something completely different...John Cleese describing Proportional Representation.



Of course PR has its weaknesses. It was used during the 1920s in the Wiemar Republic (Germany) but that eventually led to Hitler so....

Lecture 3. A Stones Throw from Home

Yet again this blog is a bit overdue, but here it is...

So Chris gave us a lesson in British history describing the various invaders and settlers. From the intellectual prowess of the Romans bringing with them their roads, to violent Vikings bringing with them their well rehearsed skills in rape and pillaging.

The one thing that stuck out to me from the lecture was the various mentions of Stonehenge.

Now, despite settling down south (no rape or pillaging involved) I originally hail from the west country. Yes that is correct, I am a country bumpkin. My mother speaks like a farmer, but she is not also my sister and lover. I have had the pleasure of witnessing the musical genius of the Wurzels and meeting them after. I drink up thee zider etc etc.

The majority of my family still live in Wiltshire and we frequently drive up to visit them. Just coming out of Salisbury, along the A360, on a clear day, you can see the mysterious sight of Stonehenge from your window.

I have done this journey loads of times since I was four years old, and those stones have also interested me. I can remember watching a video my nan had about them over and over again.

Archeologists had believed that the iconic stone monument was erected around 2500 BC. However one recent theory has suggested that the first stones were not erected until 2400-2200 BC, whilst another suggests that it could have been as early as 3100 BC.

Stonehenge is believed to have served as a burial ground from its earliest days. According to Professor Mike Parker Pearson, head of Stonehenge Riverside Project:

"Stonehenge was a place of burial from its beginning to its zenith in the mid third millennium B.C. The cremation burial dating to Stonehenge's sarsen stones phase is likely just one of many from this later period of the monument's use and demonstrates that it was still very much a domain of the dead."

It all seems a far cry from all the druids, wizards, warlocks etc that turn up at the site for the Solstice festivals. How jolly of a bunch of 'stoned' simpletons to dance on people's graves!

My mother used to tell me how she and her sisters would have picnics on the stones. The health and safety police have since put a stop to this sort of outrageous behaviour. That seems fair. I mean a prawn sandwich is far more damaging to those sacred stones than a one eyed wizard armed with a bongo drum!

Its incredible how after thousands and thousands of years, Stonehenge remains a site of mystery and intrigue. The sheer force of human power needed to carry the stones from one part of the world over to Salisbury plain is one that baffles me to this day.

Empiricism vs A Priori

Disclaimer: The following blog is in response to a lecture delivered by Chris Horrie on Tuesday 17 February. I apologise to my vast readership for my slack timekeeping. 

The first thing that occurred to me whilst listening to Chris's description of empiricism was my old teacher from junior school. I always knew Mrs Rendal was an empress within the land of her classroom, but I never knew she was an empiricist. In fact she had encouraged me to think empirically from the tender age of ten years old. 

She said:  "Never take anything anyone says as fact. Always question them, and make sure they can prove it."

In essence this is what the ideology of empiricism is all about.  The notion that evidence is everything. To never succumb to blind faith and assertions. That seeing is believing.

Empiricism has lead to a highly sophisticated technological advance. Particularly in science.

I read recently about studies at the University of Texas and the University of Bath that scientists specializing in genes had created headless mice and headless tadpoles. This is a dangerous discovery. I mean, take the mouse-frog technology, apply it to humans, combine it with cloning, and become a god. With a single cell you could produce a headless replica of yourself! A sort of mutant twin, arguably lifeless, that becomes your own personal organ farm. Dangerous stuff. But certainly highlights the extent of the search for fact and evidence of how our bodies work, how we are created and what we are made of. 

Speaking about how we are created, everyone is talking about the 'baby face baby maker' Alfie Patten and his want of a DNA test to empirically prove he is the biological father. What I want empirically proven is how he managed to get fuel in the engine to produce human life at that age?! Pretty sure there was no lead in my pencil...

From what I gathered 'a priori' is knowledge independent of evidence or experience. Something that can't really be proven either way. The classic example of this is the hysterical view of David Icke that the world is run by super intelligent lizards. No evidence will defeat this view. In fact, the nutjob might have a point, there are certainly plenty of slimey characters about!

Now I am sure poor old Mrs Rendal regretted saying the empiricist stuff to me as I took her words very literally. 

"Miss, how can you prove that Christopher Columbus discovered America?"

"Its written in books Chris."

"Can you show me these books?"

"We only have this cartoon version of the events."

"But you said everything should be proven."

"Shut up and get out Chris."

Murray Gains Edge Over Nadal

I watched Andy Murray collect his 10th tour title at Rotterdam this afternoon. Not only did he win over £200,000, he has got into Nadal's head.

The world number one, who has now lost his last three matches against Murray, is starting to look fairly one-dimensional and doesn't seem to have any ideas how to beat the brit.

Obviously the deciding set (which Murray won 6-0) can be written off as it was apparent Rafa was clearly injured and struggled to move. But, the first two sets highlighted the problems Rafa has with Murray. He can no longer just power him off the court with his heavy groundstrokes, because Murray has the same weapons.

It will be very interesting to see how future encounters between the two go, because Murray certainly has the measure of the world number one.

Lecture 10 Feb - What a State

I found Chris's mention of city states interesting in today's lecture.

It is common knowledge that each city in the UK has its own identity, so wouldn't it be interesting if we were divided into city states?

Ancient Greece housed some wonderful contrasts just miles apart from each other. In one Polis you had the military efficient, socially strict, blood-thirsty Spartans; and just miles away was the center for the arts, learning, philosophy, the young male shagging Athenians with their direct democracy.

Can you imagine some of the variations the UK would get? Norwich would be ruled by the webbed feet masses passing laws encouraging breeding between relations, Lemington Spa would be controlled by turn of the century gents, and can you imagine Glasgow governing itself?!

In all seriousness, it is highly unlikely to happen. The first step would of course be devolution for Scotland and Wales, but that still seems some way off.

Interesting thought though.