Fuck. (Religion and Sexuality Paper)

[wolven7]

Screamin' Jay Hawkins - [Orange Colored Sky]--- B on the Religion and Sexuality paper; B+ in the class. He didn't find my comparison of Crowley and Freud convincing enough. He thought it was too tenuous, and that I should have focused on one more heavily than the other, relating it to the goals of the course.

Repression, constraint, using both to generate, not being able to operate, within the world, without them, but using them to rise above. (Screamin' Jay Hawkins - [Alligator Wine]). this was the majority of the class, and this was the majority of the paper.

Look, those of you who read the damned thing, I could really use some honest feedback, right about now. I need to know if I'm being defensive (as I tend to do, when i feel attacked, if only briefly), or if he's just being a shit. I don't ever have to take a class with him again, if I don't want to, so that's not at issue. I just want to know so I can feel better about it. Won't really help, except in the pride department.

Screamin' Jay Hawkins - [Darling Please Forgive Me]--- Still not in the right place to read all of the comments. Spent too much time, too much brain scraping horror, to get a shitty grade, here.

Fuck it, i'm out.

{4.43pm: I looked at most of the comments, and there were some valid problems, but certainly not enough to warrant a B. Some things were lead-ins, which were then explained later, in more detail. Some things actually needed clearer explanation. Sure. I'll gfrant. But you'd think the man had never heard of a damned introductory paragraph before.

Christ.}

Comments

[renatus.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the paper, but I think you're freaking out way too much - in what universe is a B a shitty grade?

[emmasfriend.livejournal.com]

Mine. I hate those shits. You know you earned better.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

That too.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Grad School. :\ Standards are way higher, now, than they were. Hence my even worrying about it, at all.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

I didn't read it, but I will if you give me a link. Then I will give you my honest opinion.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I'll e-mail it. Thank you.

[emmasfriend.livejournal.com]

Did you discuss with him in fair detail the topic before you wrote the paper? Because that should've been when he suggested focusing on one or the other would make a better paper for his course. *shrug* Sorry you're disappointed with your grade.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I did.

It's ok, things are as they are.

Introductory Paragraphs

[emmasfriend.livejournal.com]

Every department and every prof wants something different. In history, at FAU, we ARE TO INCLUDE THE THESIS, SUPPORTING INFORMATION, AND CONCLUSION IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH. PERIOD. I've written paragraphs that were like, two pages long. Could have something to do with who taught him to write. *shrug for the 92nd time today*
-Comment Whore was here

Re: Introductory Paragraphs

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I just want to fucking WRITE.

It is my belief that professors shouldn't give a SHIT how you arrange your papers, as long as you Do, and they can follow them.

And I swear to Gott in Himmel that i will read your paper all the way through, twice, before commenting. I swear. It may take me longer, but know that I will have Actually Read It.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

not being sure exactly what your prof said, I'm not sure my comment should be phrased through the prism of "yes/no"

That being said, I happen to agree with what you say he said, in essence. I'm not at all sure I agree for the same reasons but I assume some of his reasons are mine.

If you want me to go into detail I will.

On the subject of paper-writing, profs expect papers to be written in certain standard formats because the world of liberal arts suffers from a lack of "science" and therefore makes up by attempting to standardize results as they are presented. If you don't follow the format, you can't claim to be misunderstood and get any sympathy. It's kind of like my argument about social rituals and mores: if you won't follow them, don't bitch about not getting the benefits. It's a language, for the most part and one must follow the proper techniques in order to receive proper translation and corresponding reactions.

err, what I meant was

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

for "techniques" read "semantics"
for "reactions" read "conversations"

Re: err, what I meant was

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

So far as that goes, ther isen't a problem. Semantics are what they are. I rule the proper handling of the English language, as if it were a country, and I the benevolent dictator. Or some shit.

Anyway, thank you.

disclaimer: (my bias)

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

I subscribe, primarily, to the theories of Evolutionary Psychology and mostly reject Freud's specific beliefs/theories because they are clearly dated and came from within a rigid socio-sexual culture of repression. He was a product of his environment (ironicly) and his specific theories/beliefs mirror that fact.

Now, more generalized interpretations of Freudian psychology, I'm fairly down with, but Freud himself? Outmoded.

Re: disclaimer: (my bias)

[wolven.livejournal.com]

As do I. In this case, I was only looking at what they felt they were trying to accomplish, and viewing it as stemming from the same factors, and reaching for the same goal. Not that that goal was correct, or that their methods were, only that it was what they were both doing, and that it has lead us to a more fully realistic place, so far as both sets of practices go.

rambling thought from my sleep-deprived brain

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

since that's the case, then I definitely agree with the prof: just about ANY psychiatrist/psychologist/philosopher/guru/hippy will agree with the notion of "the nature of man needs to be free in order to root out the best that lies within man" - thus your comparison is too tenuous or vague. There are correlations between Freud and Crowley and better than what you focused on such as Freud's concept of the Fear of Death compared to Crowley's fascination with ego-death as described within Tibetan practice and Buddhism. Both were terribly affected by the Victorian atmosphere and both reacted in intelligent ways to combat it and both were nearly ignorant of non-repressive culture which made it easy to romanticize- which they both did shamelessly. Both rejected the notion of biochemical dominance within the brain and both believed that self-revelation was the key to personal self-mastery.

Most of what you mention in the paper is either interpretations of their work (some of which I view as not-quite compelling interpretations) or generalizations of their work. Crowley's insistance upon "thelema" or Will referred primarily to the will of the inner self trying to break free, but the WHOLE of "the law" was "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; love is the law, love under will" clearly implying that Will is only true when it is filtered through basic human respect and enlightenment - one cannot be true to the self if one is dishonest with all others likewise one cannot be exercising true free will of the inner spirit if one does not recognize the inner spirit of all humanity. Freud believed that neurosis was a result of repression, as did Crowley (different phrasing) but Freud also believed that self-actualization could only come to a person through assistance of a more knowledgeable person by rooting out the repression, the instigating event especially, and in a sense reliving it to come to a healthier conclusion. Freud had a tendancy to rationalize repressive events on behalf of his patients with the notion that "healthy" feelings would be experienced once the patient recognized the rational explanation. Freud's fascination with the phallus as a specific symbol is one of the primary resons feminism derrides Freudian thought altogether. Crowley's fascination with sex as a release mechanism thus relegating the female form to that of mere receptacle does the same for him. Both men failed utterly to realize their subjectivity and had a bad habit of ascribing their own experiences and beliefs to the greater public despite the fact that they were both clearly living within a freak culture unique to Western man. Both men possessed monumental egos which they acknowledged yet never examined fully - coloring their work forevermore. Both acknowledged the enormity of societal pressures to conform as something that distorts the psyche but each one felt quite differently about how to deal with that problem. Crowley secreted himself away and attempted to create a new society - even if just on paper although his attempts did go as far as creating a new community which failed quickly - whereas Freud tried to dissect the society of his time and find the failings within it, hoping to find a greater psychology.

There are many correlations between these two men. I am surprised that you decided to focus on the more generalized and philosophic correlations rather than the specific and algorthmic.

Re: rambling thought from my sleep-deprived brain

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I did not feel that a 15-20 page paper, meant to focus on the topics of religion and sexuality would benefit from an over-specific focus, without background. Crowley was not covered, in the class, but Freud was, and I felr that the comparison, between the two, deserved attention.