HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 14:38:58 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS)
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<html lang="en">
<head>
	<link rel="stylesheet" href="clarksite.css" type="text/css" media="all" >

	<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
	<meta name="author" content="Clark Goble">
	<meta name="robots" content="all">
	<title>Mormon Philosophy &#38;  Theology</title>
	

</head>

<body bgcolor="#ffffff">


<div id="top">

	<a href="http://www.libertypages.com/clark/">
	<img src="Title.gif" alt="Mormon Metaphysics & Theology"></a>

</div>


<div id="left">

<h1 class="date">PoMo in High School?<br>
July 25, 2005</h1>

<p>I was browsing various searches in <a href="http://www.technorati.com/">Technorati</a> and came upon a most frightening discovery.  I gather in Australia they actually are "teaching" deconstruction in High School English classes.  I put that in quotations because I'm fairly certain what they are teaching is anything but deconstruction.  Deconstruction is difficult and I'm convinced requires a philosophical background before attempting.  Either these are some pretty freaking brilliant teenagers or they are being fed a bunch of blather by confused muddle headed English teachers.</p>

<p>Now I suspect the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16017455%255E601,00.html">original story</a> is more an example of tabloid journalism than too much of an insight into what is actually going on.  (Journalists are often even more muddle headed than ill informed literary types trying to engage in readings beyond their ken)  The story suggests that deconstruction is merely looking for hidden ideology in texts  However I suspect that the creative readings High School students are being forced to endure bear more in common with conspiracy theory proof texting than actual close <i>reasoned</i> readings of texts.  This is almost certainly more the "when you are a hammer everything is a nail" school of reading.</p>

<p>That's not to say that reading texts to discuss problematic ideology isn't helpful, especially at the High School level.  Discussing racism and presumptions regarding race can be very fruitful while reading Tom Sawyer, for instance.  And I think high school students are quite capable of doing so.  Further it starts to teach critical reasoning skills - skills which I've found from teaching Freshman in college are rarely taught to High School students.  More interesting is reading a few history texts or newspaper articles from a century ago to better highlight how presumptions affect writing.  Heavens, one of the more interesting philosophy classes I took involved reading newspaper articles very closely so as to try and discern presumptions.  Close and critical reading is simply a very valuable skill.</p>

<p>The problem is highlighted in this <A href="http://pacifichighlander.blogspot.com/2005/07/critical-literacy-debunked.html">blog entry on the issue</a>.  "However it becomes clear that some teachers have a fixed viewpoint when it comes to critical literacy. 'These are the angles you should take, and these are the examples you should provide.' It's postmodernist technique driven by modernist ideology."  That is the danger is that students aren't simply taught to be critical but merely to privilege the teacher's opinion above others.  That's a danger even in college.  Students think they are being critical free thinkers whereas all they've done is adopt a new culture's views and ape that culture's criticisms of their old culture.  They then feel informed, critical and free when they are anything but.  It's the old issue of teenagers wearing exactly the same clothes to rebel and express their individualism.</p>

<p>I think the problem is more with teachers than the idea.  However I think High School curriculum authors really ought take in mind that most teachers <i>aren't</i> able to do these sorts of things well.</p>
<br>
<h2 class="block">Comments</h2>

<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Clark | 
July 25, 2005  11:53 AM</h1>

<p class="comment">
Also check out <a 
href="http://home.exetel.com.au/darley/?p=239">this post on 
the subject</a>. He makes the well made point that before 
teaching criticism and skepticism in literature we should 
teach love of reading and appreciation for what texts can 
do. Skepticism probably is more healthy when combined with a 
healthy appreciation for what is good in things. Otherwise 
there is the danger of mere cycnicism or worse being trapped 
in yet an other ideology of someone else's making. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Ivan Wolfe | 
July 25, 2005  03:39 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
It's rather bad on the college level. I actually decided to 
read "Of Grammatology" to see what Deconstruction really 
was. It's not what's being taught in English departments. It 
really does require a lot of background in philosophy, and 
unfortunately, most English profs I know have very little 
background in philosophy. Deconstruction in America usually 
means one of two things: 
</p>
<p class="comment">
1. Arguing that all meaning falls apart and so discussion is 
pointless. At this level, it's relativism taken to an 
extreme. Instead of saying things are good or bad depending 
on context, it says that good and bad are ultimately 
meaningless concepts that can't be fruitfully discussed. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
2. A game of "let's see what we can do to the text" which 
often includes "let's see how evil the author is" by showing 
the various ways the text is sexist, racist, capatilist, 
etc. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
At the Graduate level it's a bit better, since you get to 
work with profs who specialize in Deconstruction, but at the 
Undergraduate you can't be sure, especially in survey 
courses. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Clark | 
July 25, 2005  03:49 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
I tend to think English professors often are just amazingly 
ill informed on topics they teach about. I can't recall how 
many lit professors I had who kept bringing in science 
topics (typically chaos theory and thermodynamics) without 
having a clue what they were talking about. It really was 
bad. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
I don't want to paint with too overly broad a brush. I 
suspect people in all departments sometime pontificate on 
things they aren't really educated in. However it does seem 
like some departments are worse than others. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
Don't get me wrong. I'd love for people to become informed 
in science and philosophy. It's just that when they do a few 
brief readings out of some popularizations, miss the point, 
and then apply it that things become very, very dangerous. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Gad | 
July 25, 2005  09:17 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
Let's give some credit though to those who misunderstand. It 
isn't exactly entirely their fault. I'm not brilliant, but 
with whatever meager skills nature has endowed me with I've 
been able to come to a reasonable level of competence in a 
number of what would probably be viewed as very difficult 
subjects. Philosophy is usually like gravy when compared to 
most subjects. Why is postmodernism so hard in comparison? 
I've waded through a few books by Derrida and some of the 
others. The only one who I think is even enjoyable to read 
is Baudrillard. Postmodernism in undergrad phil courses I 
took was easy for me to ace. But there is no question that 
reading these guys is an absolute nightmare. Is it *really* 
that hard? I've had a lot of discussions with Clark, a 
number of email correspondences with popular commentators, I 
have a friend who is a Vandy Ph.d, studied pomo, but no one 
seems to think I understand Derrida very well. And I've 
really tried (though most of that reading was years ago). I 
don't think there is a subject out there where my return to 
effort has been so strikingly bad. Of course, I'm a little 
tricky if nothing else. And what I used to do is after a 
conversation with one pomo expert, without plagiarizing, 
present that view in my discussion with the next one, 
ultimately getting told the same things, "it's not exactly 
that...but think about it this way.." I mean, come on. Was 
Derrida's mind that far above Einstein's, Godel's, Milton 
Friedmon's? 
</p>
<p class="comment">
Anyway, I have a friend who is a English Lit major and took 
a course from an understudy and very good friend of 
Derrida's. She got a high A, and even thought I had helped 
her tremendously -- with as bad as I apparently understand 
it and all. This class wasn't exactly literary crit, but an 
intro to pomo for english majors. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
But anyway, while I never got too far into the literary crit 
side of it, my impression is that this area of 
"deconstruction" is commanded by Barbara Johnson and Stanely 
Fish, who are rather easy to read and seem to have made sort 
of a science out of deconstruction. Which I think is suppose 
to be a great evil or something if you are a "true" 
Derridean. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Clark | 
July 25, 2005  09:43 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
I don't think the basic ideas are that difficult. But they 
are so often misread and the differences are subtle enough 
that unless you understand what they are reacting 
<i>against</i> you can miss what they are doing. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
It isn't like Derrida's mind was that great. Just that you 
have to know what he is reacting against. Most of his texts 
are critiques of other writings that presuppose a lot of 
background with philosophy. Occasionally you can get by not 
getting all his references. For instance while I have a 
passing acquaintance with Kierkegaard and Hegel, I don't 
claim to be well versed in them. But I can catch a few of 
the references. However some texts really have to be read 
quite carefully. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
I'll hold off commenting too much on the lit. crit. use of 
Derrida. Some people get him very well. Even those who 
disagree with him. But by and largely I think most lit. 
crit. people don't. I'll hold off critiquing Johnson and 
Fish as I've read somethings I agree with and other things I 
don't. But I'm just not well enough versed in their writings 
to be able to say much. Especially not off the top of my 
head without reading some texts. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
I think Derrida is great to read. But you just have to come 
with him with at least a passing understanding of Husserl, 
Heidegger, semiotics, Descartes, Hegel, Plato and perhaps 
the positivists. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Clark | 
July 25, 2005  10:34 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
BTW - I didn't address the second point about why philosophy 
is so hard. It's so hard because traditionally philosophy is 
concerned less with the ideas than with arguing for the 
ideas. But that means both attacking other positions and 
simultaneously showing why your own position is better. For 
the kind of topics philosophy is concerned with, that means 
the arguments are often very subtle and difficult. Far more 
difficult than just explaining the ideas being argued for. 
</p>

<p class="comment">
Of course one might well ask why then English and Lit majors 
so often get it wrong.</p>

<p class="comment">
I think there are two reasons.  The first is that they just
don't approach the text as philosophical texts and often
they just don't have that kind of background.  As I mentioned
I think they have similar problems when dealing with 
science texts.  They just haven't learned in their major a
certain kind of rigour.  That's not to deny a rigour in their
major.  (I know I'm walking on eggshells here)  Just that
often they are taught to read in a fashion different from how
philosophers or scientists are taught to read and analyze.
</p>

<p class="comment">
In classes people are then given fairly complex texts and
they read it in often naive ways because they are ill 
prepared for it.</p>

<p class="comment">
I should offer one other comment on the history of lit crit
that was raised in the <a href="http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/archive/C41/">
Valve discussion of <i>Thoery's Empire</i>.</a>  
They suggested that there was a generation of really crappy
teachers who when faced with even moderately complex texts
misread it and taught these things to a generation who bought
it hook line and sinker.  Yet behind these "incompentents"
were grad students who did engage with the ideas in a more
philosophically rigorous fashion.</p>

<p class="comment">
I should add that I'm just not well enough versed in
lit crit to say too much.  So I don't want to be a hypocrit
in all this.  I fully admit to taking a very dim view of
many lit crit folks.  But I also have books by lit crit
folks I enjoy a great deal.  For instance Christopher Norris
has written many books which I think largely get the figures
right.  Even if I don't necessarily agree with him in 
everything.  I thoroughly enjoyed his 
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801841372/qid=1122353013/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/102-0219658-1907333?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"><i>What's Wrong with Postmodernism?</i></a>
and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415280109/qid=1122353083/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-0219658-1907333?v=glance&s=books">
<i>Deconstruction: Theory and Practice</i></a>.  I should also 
add that the site I usually recommend as where to learn the
terminology and ideas is <a href="http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/contents.htm">John William's</a> which is very lit crit
focused rather than purely philosophically focused.</p>

<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Gad | 
July 26, 2005  01:10 AM</h1>

<p class="comment">
I've had a few email discussions with Norris which were 
probably my most productive actually. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
So Clark, out of all the summaries you've read of Derrida, 
which one gets it the *most* right? I'm just curious. I've 
moved on to other things, but I might have the patience for 
the very best book ever written on Derrida. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
The english department deconstruction essays i've read 
online I thought were interesting and creative enough. But 
the thing is, I hate literature and literary crit in general 
because of certain deep seated prejudices I have. English at 
BYU drove me up the wall. We're going to give our opinions 
on this stupid essay and now that one. So the 
"deconstruction" applied to literary pieces seemed more fun 
than anything I had ever seen come out of english so I'm 
sympathetic to it for that reason. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
Well, the only bad part is when you run into someone who is 
really into stanely fish online, which has happened to me a 
couple of times. And they begin sharing their deep 
philosophical insights, and I just loose it. So I guess 
that's where the problem comes in you were talking about, 
not being trained to think carefully enough. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Clark | 
July 26, 2005  10:24 AM</h1>

<p class="comment">
Honestly I've not read that many summaries. Were I to 
suggest one, I'd probably suggest Moran's <a 
href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415183731/qid=1122394120/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-0407505-3647358?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"><i>Introduction
to Phenomenology</i></a> and then perhaps read Derrida's <a 
href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226143260/qid=1122394282/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-0407505-3647358?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"><i>Margins
of Philosophy</i></a>, especially "Signature, Event, 
Context." Moran's book, while definitely not covering 
everything in Derrida, provides the phenomenological context 
for him. If someone wanted something better then I'd 
definitely suggest Lawlor's <a 
href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0253215080/qid=1122394387/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-0407505-3647358?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"><i>Derrida
and Husserl: The Basic Problem of Phenomenology</i></a>. 
That's a bit more involved and technical though.  But it
probably is the best book for really "getting" Derrida's
early development and ideas.</p>

<p class="comment">
However in general I think understanding Heidegger's 
<i>Being and Time</i> is just very important to understand 
Derrida. Perhaps not everyone will agree. But he certainly 
made a ton more sense after I familiarized myself with it - 
even though I already had a fair grasp of Derrida at the 
time. Perhaps nab Dreyfus' influential <a 
href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262540568/qid=1122394482/sr=8-13/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i13_xgl14/102-0407505-3647358?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"><i>Being-in-the-Word:
A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time Divsion I</i></a> 
or Gelven's <a 
href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875805442/qid=1122394632/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-0407505-3647358?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"><i>A
Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time</i></a>. Actually 
there are wandering the net MP-3's of Dreyfus' class at 
Berkeley on <i>Being and Time</i>. It's the full class 
except for I think the last 4 classes. (Students had stopped 
coming to class, so he stopped recording) That's very 
worthwhile. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
Regarding Lit Crit, I have to admit a physicist's prejudice 
against them as well. I love close readings and analysis of 
texts. But I just found too much muddle-headedness among far 
too many. Most deconstructive readings I've read were kind 
of frustrating, in my opinion. An interesting critique of 
that whole approach is the debate between Richard Rorty and 
Umberto Eco over the meaning of Eco's book <i>Foucault's 
Pendulum</i>. <a 
href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521425549/qid=1122394872/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-0407505-3647358?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"><i>Interpretation
and Overinterpretation</i></a> and was actually one of the 
Tanner Lectures. (If you're familiar with O. C. Tanner from
SLC)  It's an excellent and very readible discussion and a short
little book I recommend a lot.
</p>
<p class="comment">
I should add that with a few exceptions, the English 
department at BYU wasn't very good. Further while it likely 
has changed since I was there, a tremendous amount of 
political infighting was going on through the 90's. I liked 
the classes I took from the department and the professors I 
knew. But most of the classes I took I took from grad 
students I knew. At least one professor I knew moved his 
office out of the humanities building and into the library, 
partially to get away from things. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
BYU has some fantastic departments. But like all 
universities, they have some weaker ones. So I'd be careful 
to judge English on the basis of BYU.  There were some great
classes though.  The Dante class (partially taught in the
Italian department) and the Shakespeare classes were classics
though.  I never heard anything but positive comments about
those classes.  But by and large I found that the analysis
conducted in English classes lacked rigour and argument.
People just didn't have to defend their readings and far too
many seemed oriented at pleasing the professor.  It was quite
frustrating.</a> 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Alex Leibowitz | 
July 26, 2005  11:20 AM</h1>

<p class="comment">
I mean, these ideas circulate -- misunderstanding is not 
necessarily a moral fault. It's so hard to -- everyone is -- 
convinced of his own ideas. Well. I wish I saw more 
tolerance, I wish I were more tolerant. Everywhere I go -- 
the intellectual current of the day -- is rage. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Alex Leibowitz | 
July 26, 2005  11:38 AM</h1>

<p class="comment">
Or I think what I meant to ask was...well what are we 
literary types good for if we're nothing more than confused 
and confusing pseudo-intellectuals? Of course I suppose 
we're rather amusing, but when the phenomenlogists come over 
for dinner, it's off to the kitchen, isn't it? 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Clark | 
July 26, 2005  11:45 AM</h1>

<p class="comment">
Someone mentioned to me an apparent inconsistency in my 
discussion of Lit classes. Sometimes I say how much I 
enjoyed them, other times how frustrated I was, sometimes 
how much I enjoyed the reading and others how much I found 
the analysis more oriented towards pleasing the teaching. 
Good point. An aporia that points one beyond. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
I think that often what one gets out of a class is what one 
puts in. Further just because I wasn't impressed with some 
of the other students didn't mean I didn't learn a lot from 
the questions raised and difficulties faced. Often 
frustrating classes are ultimately more rewarding. Further 
there is just something amazing at looking back and 
realizing you read fairly complex books at the rate of about 
one a week. With analysis. I'm not sure that encourages 
close readings or good analysis mind you. But I certainly 
was exposed to a lot. Further it did interest me in theory. 
Not enough to take more than a handful of classes mind you. 
But then I already had a triple major. I wasn't about to add 
an other one! 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Clark | 
July 26, 2005  11:48 AM</h1>

<p class="comment">
Alex, not all are. It's just that often there is too much 
shallow and shabby thinking. But it doesn't <i>need</i> to 
be that way. Think of it more as a call for more rigour and 
the like. I often make similar cries within the soft 
sciences. There's a lot of egregious writing in psychology 
for instance. But the people that are good are often very 
good. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
As to what the value is. Now that's a more interesting one, 
especially since I've in the past been critical of the sense 
of "truth" in literature. Personally I like the breakdown 
between literature and criticism. I enjoy criticism because 
I enjoy it as literature. I enjoy reading books about 
Shakespeare and Dante, for instance. I just get nervous when 
people sometimes try to draw deeper things from the texts. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Alex Leibowitz | 
July 26, 2005  03:02 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
Well I guess here is my problem: 
</p>
<p class="comment">
The definition of intellectual, of rigorous as I understand 
it is so narrow that it excludes all but a tiny portion of 
the population, which is in turn isolated from "the masses". 
This seems like a problem, if only on this count -- 
according to our understanding of intelligence, so few 
people are, that it seems more like a fluke than a human 
characteristic or an expression of nature. Take the Stoic 
idea of virtue, for instance -- they thought up something so 
rigorous that, according to them, nobody on earth was (or 
possibly ever had been) virtuous. When anything becomes so 
distant from actual experience, it's no wonder that there's 
talk of anti-intellectualism, which isn't really at all, 
it's just the everyday man who has to worry about eating, 
paying the rent, and keeping his family alive, is laughing 
at the stooges who have the nerve to claim *he* doesn't know 
what he's about. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
Now at this point I might sound like someone from over at 
the "Arts and Letters Daily," but I'd like to go on to say 
that this notion of intellectual purity extends to art and 
culture as well. Because our concept of the intellectual is 
so rarified, only a slim category of all the writing, music, 
theater that's produced becomes "worthwhile" and everything 
else is supposed to be a mountain of crap. I think there's 
something wrong with the idea for the same reason that 
there's something wrong with the idea of a few geniuses and 
a horde of nitwits. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
It almost seems to me, from my limited grasp of the term, 
that if we really wanted to be phenomenlogical we would have 
to somehow evaluate the expression of the intellect for what 
it is, rather than creating some ideal of how it might 
operate that is rarely, if ever achieved and then, working 
back from that ideal, complain about the general stupidity 
of our race. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
As for literature and whether people "draw deeper things 
from texts" -- are you claiming that Dante, Virgil, etc. 
aren't themselves deep? Because I might take some issue with 
that. Or is it that they're deep, but in a different way 
than philosophers are deep? Of course, things start to 
become highly problematic, because if philosophy and 
literature are both deep, but in different ways, then how in 
the world are we supposed to forge some kind of unified 
discourse out of the two? If there are different ways of 
being intelligent, well then...I begin to wonder whether any 
one is worth something more than the others. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
There's my rant. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Clark | 
July 26, 2005  03:27 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
It seems to me that we are conflating "intellectual" with 
"rigour and reason." Surely it is true that one can be 
"intellectual" without using "rigour and reason." At least 
in the sense that we're talking about. It's not that I think 
a sculpture isn't using rigour and reason. Just that clearly 
it is a different kind. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
My complaint is when some attempt to do things requiring 
rigour and reason and then don't apply them. I'm certainly 
not arguing that all that is valuable in life is either 
philosophy of science. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
There are lots of things we can do that are much more laid 
back. Indeed I'd probably agree with you to a degree that 
perhaps a failure of English and Literature departments is 
trying to be overly "intellectual." I think it does often 
make them miss the forest for the trees. Reading can and 
ought be fun. And I think one can do close readings of 
history, literature, music and art without missing the 
point. It's sad that many do. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
As for Dante, I think he clearly is drawing deeper things 
from texts. But then Dante isn't doing commentary or 
anlaysis. (At least not in the texts we typically read) 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Alex Leibowitz | 
July 26, 2005  05:06 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
But would you say that there's a distinction, even an 
opposition, between what's "rigorous" and what's "fun"? 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Clark | 
July 26, 2005  05:07 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
Well I think there is a distinction in that they have 
different meanings. But clearly what is rigourous can be 
fun. (Look at math and mathematicians) Likewise things can 
be fun and not be rigorous. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Alex Leibowitz | 
July 26, 2005  08:12 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
And so, to generate a facile Aristotelian turn: 
</p>
<p class="comment">
Activities are either an end in and of themselves, or they 
are the means to some other end. What is pleasurable (i.e. 
fun) is an end in and of itself, provided that it does not, 
in the long run, cause pain. If you accept these premises, 
then it would seem clear that what is rigorous must either 
(a) produce pleasure or (b) of itself be pleasurable; rigor 
alone, unless you can prove that it always leads to or is 
accompanied by pleasure, cannot be an end, whereas what is 
pleasurable (within reason, and one shouldn't underestimate 
the force of that last word, or the possibility that reason 
emerges as the indelible bond between rigor and pleasure) 
will always be an end in and of itself. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
But I suppose the upshot of the argument is that there is 
nothing compelling in the exercise of reason for its own 
sake, a conclusion with which Aristotle might perhaps have 
disagreed. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Alex Leibowitz | 
July 26, 2005  08:59 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
And more effusions, because this is so perfect I thought I 
must include it: 
</p>
<p class="comment">
"Mais un ouvrage, meme s'il s'applique seulement a des 
sujets qui ne sont pas intellectuels, est encore une oeuvre 
de l'intelligence, et pour donner dans un livre, ou dans une 
causerie qui en differe peu, l'impression achevee de la 
frivolite, il faut une dose de serieux dont une perosonne 
purement frivole serait incapable." 
</p>
<p class="comment">
"But a production, even if it applies itself to a subject of 
no intellectual merit, is still a production of the 
intellect, and to give either in a book or a conversation 
(which is little different) a successful impression of 
frivolity, requires a measure of sobriety of which a person 
of pure frivolity would be incapable." 
</p>
<p class="comment">
Proust, Le Cote de Guermantes 
</p>
<p class="comment">
That's exactly what I mean! Thank you, Proust. 
</p>


<br>
<h1 class='comment'>Posted By: Clark | 
July 26, 2005  09:08 PM</h1>

<p class="comment">
Heidegger's particular "use" of Aristotle is rather 
interesting here, leading to his notion of 
"for-the-sake-of-which." I've been meaning to write on this 
for a while. No time tonight. 
</p>
<p class="comment">
I think the big problem with Aristotle is over his sense of 
pleasure. But I'll leave that for now. 
</p>


<br>
<h2 class="block">Comments are Closed</h2>
<p>I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.</p>
<h3 class="block"><a href="http://www.libertypages.com/cgw">Please check us out at our new blog</a>.</h3>

<h1 class="break"><a href="www.libertypages.com/clark">Main Page</a></h1>
</div>

	<div id="right">

<div class="listquote"><br>
     Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.<br>
     
     <div class="listref"><i>&#151; Wittgenstein</i></div><br>
 
 </div>


		<h2 class="block">Contact</h2>
 
		<a class="links" href="mailto:clark@libertypages.com">Clark@libertypages.com</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="index2.rdf">Article Syndication Feed (rss)</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="index3.rdf">Comments Syndication Feed (rss)</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.libertypages.com/clark/index.html">Main Home Page</a><br>
 
        
        <h2 class="block">The Blog</h2>
		<a  class="links" href="http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/">Join us at the New Blog</a>
		<br>
        <img src="dot1.GIF" height = "0" width = "20">
		<img src="PBack.gif" height=1 width=20 align=center class="links"><br>
		<a class="links" href="archive_list.html">Archives</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="archive1.html">Older Archives</a><br>
        <img src="dot1.GIF" height = "0" width = "20">
		<img src="PBack.gif" height=1 width=20 align=center class="links"><br>

        <a class="links" href="10670.html">Reading Atran</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="10671.html">Reading RSR</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="reading2.html">Reading Tomasello</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="reading3.html">Reading Nibley</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="readingclub.html">Reading Ostler & McMurrin</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.libertypages.com/clark/readingblake2.html">Reading Ostler 2</a><br>

		
		<h2 class="block">LDS Links</h2>
		
        <a class="links" href="http://www.smpt.org">Society for Mormon Philosophy<br>
            <img src="dot1.GIF" height = "0" width = "30">and Theology</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.fairlds.org/apol/TNMC/">New Mormon Challenge</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.farmsresearch.com/">FARMS</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.fairlds.org/">FAIR</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.aliveonline.com/ldspapers/home.htm">Nathan Oman's LDS Papers</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.aml-online.org/list/">Association of Mormon Letters</a><br >
        <a class="links" href="http://www.libertypages.com/clark/lds-phil.html">LDS-PHIL Mailing List</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://eyring.hplx.net/">Eyring-l Mailing List</a><br>
        <img src="dot1.GIF" height = "0" width = "20">
        <img src="PBack.gif" height=1 width=20 align=center class="links"><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.millennialstar.org/">Millennial Star</a><br >
        <a class="links" href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/">Times and Seasons</a><br >
        <a class="links" href="http://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/">Messenger and Advocate</a><br> 
        <a class="links" href="http://moblo.blogspot.com/">Mo Blo</a><br >
        <a class="links" href="http://www.bloggernacle.org/">Bloggernacle Times</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://mormoninquiry.typepad.com/">Dave's Mormon Inquiry</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.motleyvision.org/"> A Motley Vision</a><br>	
        <a class="links" href="http://mormanity.blogspot.com/">Mormanity</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.bycommonconsent.com/">By Common Consent</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://mormonwasp.blogspot.com/">Mormon Wasp</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://newcoolthang.com">New Cool Thang</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.spinozist.us">Spinozist Mormon</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.ldsliberationfront.net/">LDS Liberation Front</a><br>        
        <a class="links" href="http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/">Splendid Sun</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://backyardprofessor.typepad.com/">Backyard Professor</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/">LDS Science Review</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://mormonrhetoric.blogspot.com/">LDS Rhetoric</a><br>        
        <a class="links" href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/">The Western Geologist</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://evolution.nfshost.com/">Mormons & Evolution</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.ldselect.org/">LDSelect</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.ldsblogs.org/">Mormon Archipelago</a><br>  
         
        <img src="dot1.GIF" height = "0" width = "20">
        <img src="PBack.gif" height=1 width=20 align=center class="links"><br>
		
		<a class="links" href="http://www.lds.org/search/0,5523,165,00.html">Online Scriptures</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/">Joseph's Sermons</a><br>
		<br>
        <h2 class="block">Philosophy Blogs</h2>

        <a class="links" href="http://philosophycarnival.blogspot.com/">Philosophers' Carnival</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://tangledbank.net/">Tangled Bank</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://worldupsidedown.blogspot.com/">Carnivalesque</a><br>
		<A class="links" href="http://broodsphilosophy.wordpress.com/power-blogroll">Phil Power Blogroll</a><br>            
        <img src="dot1.GIF" height = "0" width = "20">
        <img src="PBack.gif" height=1 width=20 align=center class="links"><br>
		
        <a class="links" href="http://enowning.blogspot.com/">Enowning</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory">Mixing Memory</a><br>  
        <a class="links" href="http://broodsphilosophy.wordpress.com/">A Brood Comb</a><br>  
		<a class="links" href="http://mindsmeaningmorals.wordpress.com/">Minds, Meaning and Morals</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://branemrys.blogspot.com/">Siris</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/">Philosophy, et cetera</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/">Maverick Philosopher</a><br>        
        <a class="links" href="http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/">On Philosophy</a><br>        
        <a class="links" href="http://gfp.typepad.com/">Garden Forking Paths</a><br>      
        <a class="links" href="http://heideggerian.blogspot.com/">Heideggerian Denken</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://blog.johndepoe.com/">Fides Quaerens</a><br>       
        <a class="links" href="http://duckrabbit.blogspot.com/">Duck Rabbit</a><br> 
        <a class="links" href="http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/">Splintered Mind</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://fidotheyak.blogspot.com/">Fido the Yak</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.continental-philosophy.org/">Continental</a><br>
        
        <br>
      <a class="links" href="http://brainpains.com/wordpress/">Brain Pains</a><br>        
        <a class="links" href="http://dissoiblogoi.blogspot.com/">Dissoi Blogoi</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.positiveliberty.com/index.php/">Positive Liberty</a><br>
       <a class="links" href="http://sauer-thompson.com/conversations/">Philosophical Conversations</a><br>                           
        <a class="links" href="http://www.thevalve.org/go">The Valve</a><br>


        <br>
        
        <a class="links" href="http://branemrys.org/">Houyhnhnm Land</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://claytonlittlejohn.blogspot.com/">Little John</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://obscureandconfused.blogspot.com/">Obscure and Confused</a><br>                      
        <a class="links" href="http://philosophy.jollyutter.net/opp/">Recent Philosophical Papers</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://matthew.ektopos.com/">Mattew Mullins</a><br>
	

        <a class="links" href="http://fragments.consc.net/djc/">Fragments of Consciousness</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://ideasofimperfection.blogspot.com/">Ideas of Imperfection</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://fleetwood.baylor.edu/certain_doubts/">Certain Doubts</a><br> 
        <a class="links" href="http://pasaudela.blogspot.com/">Pas au-dela</a><br>       
        <a class="links" href="http://www.umsu.de/wo/">Wo's Weblog</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://peasoup.typepad.com/">PEA Soup</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://gfp.typepad.com/online_papers/">Papers on Agency</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/">3 Quarks Daily</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.platonicrelationship.com/blogger.php/">Mumblings of a Platonist</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/">Dangerous Idea</a><br>

        <a class="links" href="http://tuquoque.blogspot.com/">Tu Quoque</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.logicandlanguage.net/">Logic and Language</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://prosthesis.blogspot.com/">Prosthesis</a><br> 
        <a class="links" href="http://scholasticum.blogspot.com/">The Scholasticum</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~easwaran/blog/">Antimeta</a><br>        
        
        <a class="links" href="http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/">Prosblogion</a><br>         

        <a class="links" href="http://thinkblog.org/">Think Blog</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://rightreason.ektopos.com">Right Reason</a><br>

        <a class="links" href="http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/">Ethics and Science</a></br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.philosophyofbrains.com/">Brains</a></br>        
                <a class="links" href="http://rhineriver.blogspot.com/">Rhine River</a><br>      
        <a class="links" href="http://guidetoreality.blogspot.com/">Guide to Reality</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://enlightenmentunderground.blogspot.com/">Enlightenment Underground</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://wwwcriticalvision.blogspot.com/">Critical Vision</a> <br>      
        <a class="links" href="http://mauberly.blogspot.com">Mauberly</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://drrob.typepad.com/hpb_etc/">HPB etc.</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://withallyourmind.net/">With All Your Mind</a><br> 
        <a class="links" href="http://limitedinc.blogspot.com/">Limited Inc</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.tobeablog.com/">What Is It Like</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://onegin28.blogspot.com/">Philosophy as Such</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://oohlah.blogspot.com/">Blog Does Not Exist</a></br>
        <a class="links" href="http://kantphilosophy.blogspot.com/">Kant Blog</a></br>
        <a class="links" href="http://firezdog.livejournal.com/">Firezdog</a></br>
 
        <a class="links" href="http://jeffrubard.wordpress.com/">The Fortunes of the Dialectic</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://agorametaphysica.blogspot.com/">Agora Metaphysica</a><br>
       <a class="links" href="http://michele-journal.blogspot.com/">Philosophy Journal</a><br>

       <a class="links" href="http://blog.kennypearce.net/">Kenny Pearce</a><br>       
       <a class="links" href="http://andreasstokke.blogspot.com/">Plurality of Words</a><br>       

      <a class="links" href="http://philosophersplayground.blogspot.com/">Philosopher's Playground</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/">Brooks Blog</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://knowability.blogspot.com/">Knowability</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://jonathanderbyshire.typepad.com/blog/">Jonathan Derbyshire</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://alex.golub.name/log/">Golublog</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://long18th.wordpress.com/">The Long Eighteenth</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://gracchii.blogspot.com/index.html">Westminister Wisdom</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://inrethinking.blogspot.com/">Rethink</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://thespaceofreasons.blogspot.com/index.html">Space of Reasons</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://aidanmcglynn.blogspot.com/">Boundaries of Knowledge</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com">Neurophilosophy</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://higherthebetter.blogspot.com/">Search of High Places</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/">Check Your Premises</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://movementofexistence.blogspot.com/index.html">Movement of Existence</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://worldlyliving.wordpress.com/">Worldly Living</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://philosophy.missouri.edu/show-me/">Show Me</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://www.petemandik.com/blog/">Brain Hammer</a><br>
      <a class="links" href="http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/gnoxic.htm">Intimologies</a><br>
            <br>
       <h2 class="block">Science</h2>

		<a class="links" href="http://www.newscientist.com/">New Scientist</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://scienceblog.com/community/">Science Blog</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://physicsweb.org/">Physics Web</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://slashdot.org/">Slashdot</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.scitechdaily.com">SciTechDaily</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.sciencedaily.com">Science Daily</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&group=sci.physics.research">Sci.Physics.Research</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=index-html">PLOS Biology</a><br>
        <img src="dot1.GIF" height = "0" width = "20">
        <img src="PBack.gif" height=1 width=20 align=center class="links"><br>

       <a class="links" href="http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/">Gene Expression</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/">Evolving Thoughts</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/index.shtml">String Coffee Table</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/">Musings</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.realclimate.org">Real Climate</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.corante.com/">Corante</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://motls.blogspot.com">Reference Frame</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://dabacon.org/pontiff/">Quantum Pontiff</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/">n-Category Cafe</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://realityconditions.blogspot.com/">Reality Conditions</a><br>
        
		<a class="links" href="http://cosmicvariance.com/">Cosmic Variance</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/">Not Even Wrong</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.physorg.com/">PhysOrg</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/">Cognitive Daily</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://johnhawks.net/weblog/">John Hawks</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.scienceblogs.com/">ScienceBlogs</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.scienceblogs.com/goodmath/">Good Math, Bad Math</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://neurocritic.blogspot.com">Neurocritic</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/science_law/">Science and Law</a><br>
        <img src="dot1.GIF" height = "0" width = "20">
        <img src="PBack.gif" height=1 width=20 align=center class="links"><br>      
        
		<br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.geocities.com/diahmed/bookmark2.html">Particle/Fields Resources</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/">Physics/Fusion Resources</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.generativescience.org/books/pnbp.pdf">Philosophy of QM</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://mmf.ruc.dk/~PVC/">Quantum Semiotics</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/">Philosophy of Science Repository</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://xxx.lanl.gov/">Physics Repository</a><br>
		<br>
       <h2 class="block">Phil Resources</h2>
		<a class="links" href="http://phonline.org/">Philosophy Repository</a><br>
		<br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://humanities.byu.edu:16080/rhetoric/">Silva Rhetoricae</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb8/misc/lfb/html/navigation/navigate.html">Introduction to Linguistics</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/">Introduction to Semiotics</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/cyber.html">Online Semiotic Lectures</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SEMIOTER.html">Semiotic Terms</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.cspeirce.com/">Peirce Gateway</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/people/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm">Peirce-L</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/papers/redbook.pdf">Peirce & Postmodernism</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html">Peirce Dictionary</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.jfsowa.com/">John Sowa Logic and Ontology</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.hum.auc.dk/cg/">Conceptual Graphs</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.pragmatism.org/">Pragmatism.org</a><br>
		<br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.webcom.com/~paf/ereignis.html">Heidegger Resources</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.mythosandlogos.com/Derrida.html">Derrida Resources</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.mythosandlogos.com/Gadamer.html">Gadamer Resources</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/d-g_html/d-g.html">Deleuze Resources</a><br>		
		<a class="links" href="http://www.theology.ie/thinkers/ricoeur.htm">Ricoeur Resources</a><br>	
		<a class="links" href="http://www3.baylor.edu:80/~Scott_Moore/Continental.html">Continental Resources</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/contents.htm">Deconstruction &amp Critical Theory</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.formalontology.it/index.htm">Descriptive and Formal Ontology</a><br>	
		<br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.hyattcarter.com/hartshorne.htm">Hartshorne Resources</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.firstthings.com/">First Things</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.arsdisputandi.org/">Ars Disputandi</a><br>
		<br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm">Determinism and Freedom</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html">Stanford Encyclopedia</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.iep.utm.edu/">Internet Philosophy Encyclopedia</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/">Philosophy of Mind Dictionary</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.swif.it/foldop/">Philosophical Terms</a><br>
		<a class="links" href= "http://www.thoemmes.com/subjects.htm">Thoemmes Continuum</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/people.html">Online Philosophy Papers</a><br>
		
        <br>
		<h2 class="block">Articles</h2>

		<a class="links" href="Intros/pratt_england.html">Orson Pratt's Influences</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="Intros/absurdities.html">Absurdities of Immaterialism</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="Intros/kabbalah.html">Kabbalistic Hermeneutics</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="evolution.html">Mormons and Evolution</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="Intros/agencyshape.html">The Shape of Agency</a><br>
        <br>	
		<h2 class="block">Stats</h2>
		

        <p class="links">
        Number of unique visitors:<br>
		<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
		<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
		var sc_project=262379 
		</script>
		
        <script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
        </script>
        <script type="text/javascript">
        _uacct = "UA-610318-1";
        urchinTracker();
        </script>

		<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter.js"></script><noscript><a href="http://www.statcounter.com" target="_blank"><img  src="http://c1.statcounter.com/counter.php?sc_project=262379&amp;java=0" alt="site traffic analysis" border="0"></a> </noscript>
		
		<!-- End of StatCounter Code -->
		<br>
		
   
		Blogged by <a href="http://www.libertypages.com/clark/">Clark Goble</a>
		</p>
			
	
		<div id="customindent">
        <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" 
        src="http://technorati.com/embed/y78j2ey3jr.js"> </script>
		<!-- AXS stuff -->
				
				<script type="text/javascript">
		<!--
			document.write('<img src="/cgi-bin/axs/ax.pl?mode=img&ref=');
			document.write( escape( document.referrer ) );
			document.write('" height="1" width="1" style="display:none" alt="" />');
		// -->
		</script><noscript>
			<img src="/cgi-bin/axs/ax.pl?mode=img" height="1" width="1" style="display:none" alt="" />
		</noscript>
		</div>
		<!-- End AXS stuff -->

		
        <h2 class="block">My Other Pages</h2>

		<a class="links" href="Literature/index.html">Film &amp; Literature</a><br>
		<a class="links" href="personal/index.html">Clark's Family</a><br>
		<br>

	    <h2 class="block">Others</h2>
	   
        
        <a class="links" href="http://www.blognitivedissonance.com">Blognitive Dissonance</a><br>
        
        <a class="links" href="http://bystudyandalsobyfaith.blogspot.com/">By Study and Also By Faith</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://abev.blogs.com/abev/">Bird's Eye View</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.kulturblog.com/">Kulturblog</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://inmediasrays.blogspot.com/">In Media Rays</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.asoftanswer.com/">A Soft Answer</a><br>
      
        <a class="links" href="http://headlife.blogspot.com/unitedbrethren/">United Brethren</a><br>

        <a class="links" href="http://ethesis.blogspot.com/">Ethesis</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://ldslaw.blogspot.com/">LDS Law</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://www.ericjamesstone.com/blog">Eric James Stone</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://threehours.blogspot.com/">Three Hours</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://whenigodeaf.blogsome.com/">Strange Pulse</a><br>        
        <a class="links" href="http://ldspatriot.blogspot.com/">LDS Patriot</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://faithpromotingrumor.blogspot.com/">Faith-Promoting Rumor</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://philosophieren.blogspot.com/">Philosphieren</a><br>     
        <a class="links" href="http://www.musicshelter.net/">Music Shelter</a><br>
        <a class="links" href="http://liberalpreacher.blogspot.com">Beyond Ourselves</a><br>
        <br>
		</div>
		
			</body>
</html>

