I showed how parties and times have evolved since the good old 1950’s. What makes a good party back then wouldn’t even be in the picture today. Thanks Guys

I will be finished and have it posted in a couple hours!!! Sorry!

SORRY FOR THE DELAY BUT IT WILL BE POSTED TONIGHT….ADDING THE FINAL TOUCHES! MUCH BETTER THAN MY LAST VIDEO!!!!!

I attempted to juxtapose Evolution and Revolution. Evolution can be used in different contexts and I tried to display that with two different views. The first was the slob evolution and the second was the trailer from the movie “Creation” which is the story about Darwin and the impact his new theory had on the public as well as his wife. I found this particularly interesting because by him publishing the “Origin of Species” it was a revolution in and of itself. I chose The Beatles’ song “Revolution” because it was during a time of musical revolution and evolution of rock and roll.

According to Keywords:

This term was introduced in French in 1815, to describe a party which attempted to reconcile two extreme positions. and the contempt in doctrinaire was an expression of what was felt to be the merely theoretical nature of this attempt, which included no practical understanding of the real interests and ideas of the opposing parties.

Today the term is now widely used in a political context, to indicate a group or a person or an attitude which can be seen as based on a particular set of ideas; the implication, always unfavorable, is that political actions or attitudes so based are undesirable or absurd.

To bring a better understanding of how people define this term today:

doctrinaire

1. stubbornly insistent on the observation of the niceties of a theory, esp without regard to practicality, suitability, etc.2. theoretical; impracticala person who stubbornly attempts to apply a theory without regard to practical difficulties

ALEXANDER GEDDES AT THE LIMITS OF THE CATHOLIC ENLIGHTENMENTMARK GOLDIE. The Historical Journal. Cambridge: Mar 2010. Vol. 53, Iss. 1; pg. 61, 26 pgs

Abstract (Summary)

ABSTRACT

In the closing decades of the eighteenth century, Alexander Geddes (1737-1802) pressed Catholicism and the Enlightenment to the limits of their tolerance. A Catholic priest, he fled the censure of his Scottish superiors and settled in England, where he became a spokesman for the Catholic laity in their controversies with the hierarchy, and mingled in radical Protestant circles among the ‘Rational Dissenters’. In three domains, he appalled his contemporaries. First, Geddes prepared a new version of the Bible, which threatened to undermine the integrity of revelation, and offered mythopoeic accounts of the Old Testament that influenced Blake and Coleridge. Second, he embraced ‘ecclesiastical democracy’, denouncing papal and episcopal authority and proclaiming British Catholics to be ‘Protesting Catholic Dissenters’. Third, he applauded French republicanism, and adhered to the Revolution long after Edmund Burke had rendered such enthusiasm hazardous. Geddes was an extreme exponent of the Catholic Enlightenment, yet equally he was representative of several characteristic strands of eighteenth-century Catholicism, which would be obliterated in the ultramontane revanche of the following century. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

WAS THIS AN ATTEMPT TO INDOCTRINATE? I’M LEAVING THIS OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION.

This could be an example of how one attempts to indoctrinate. By Alexander Geddes taking critical steps (one of those being ‘preparing a new version of the bible’) he demonstrates actions of the description of the modern definition of doctrine:

2. a principle or body of principles that is taught or advocated

By searching this term I was led many times to the word “doctrine”, which I think I will use for my official keyword for the week.

doctrine

n1. (Philosophy) a creed or body of teachings of a religious, political, or philosophical group presented for acceptance or belief; dogma2. a principle or body of principles that is taught or advocated

I just read the first chapter on “Coming to Terms”. First off I have to say that I am learning alot so far about how to read, understand, and write about text. I came into this class expecting to come out with a new and improved way of thinking about text and I am glad to say that I seem to be making progress.

The point Harris is trying to make is clear. He is trying to get the reader to look at and read text differently. Instead of simply rewriting what one has already read, he wants the readers to dig deeper and put their two cents in.

In writing as an intellectual, then, you need to push beyond the sorts of     bipolar oppositions (pro or con, good or evil, guilty or innocent) that frame most of the arguments found on editorial pages and TV talk shows.

Harris is trying to get the reader to acknowledge that most of the content from these examples are limited to only one way of thinking, suggesting that you must pick a side in order to play the game per say. On the other hand this might limit the reader to only think about content from editorial and TV talk shows and the reader might not even think about other forms of text to read.

In case you did not notice, I am attempting to put the techniques I have learned from this chapter into use. I attempted to make three moves described at the bottom of page 15. I am still learning so I expect to better in time.