HS junior excited for DS

Colleges and Universities A-Z Deep Springs College
81

<p>Regarding the Beatles: just because a lot of people like it doesn’t make it good. I can understand <em>why</em> people <em>like</em> the Beatles, but that’s not what this discussion is about. Your enjoyment of them is different from their quality as a band.
My metaphysics… if we both make it to round 2, I’ll tell you then. Very difficult to summarize, as a lot of it is based on 20th Century stuff, and requires a lot of background and jargon-knowledge to make a digested version.
As for unchecked consumption and inefficiency of the industry, I simply do not care. Of course, as you suggest, <em>reform</em> is possible, but I thought we were talking about Singer’s radicalized ideals as opposed to his proposed solutions.
But unchecked consumption honestly seems fine to me. I have no problem with it and see no need to “move past it”. In the bovine context, anyway.</p>

<p>Yeah, okay, I dislike Harvard for the same reasons as you.</p>

<p>Dawkins and Wilson are dogma-hawkers of the highest order. Dawkins, for one, at least in “The God Delusion” is supremely ignorant of theology as a whole. The “religion” Dawkins attacks is like some hyper-religion, twisted and perverse, worse than any other religion ever before conceived. To quote the great literary critic Terry Eagleton,
“it is also a device to outflank any more reflective kind of faith by implying that it belongs to the coterie and not to the mass. The huge numbers of believers who hold something like the theology I outlined above can thus be conveniently lumped with rednecks who murder abortionists and malign homosexuals.”
Okay, so a sociology-type.
Those most influential to my thinking (and this list is filled with a bunch of idiots) are, umm…
the early Wittgenstein, Frege, Russell, Derrida, Ayn Rand (I know), Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, Hayek, Galbraith, Marx, Engels, von Nuemann, Carnap, Brouwer, Dummett, Forbes Nash, Lenin, Trotsky, Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin, Nietzsche (though he’s widely and pervasively misinterpreted), Ivan Illich, Terry Eagleton, Baudrillard, Debord, Frank P. Ramsey, W.V. Quine, David Lewis, Rabindranath Tagore, William Blake, David Foster Wallace, Joyce, Aquinas, Tsunetomo, Mishima, Musil, Kafka, okay, that’s enough. Suffice it to say the list is long, and this is a brief sampling.</p>

<p>Politically, I’m more or less and old-school Socialist. I’m pretty involved with politics, too, but I’m involved with a third party. I, too, am strongly feminist, socially liberal, all that good stuff.
I’m always curious to ask liberals this, though: what do you think of polyamory??</p>

<p>I think that covers everything, then. </p>

<p>Are you guys into film, at all? Read any film theory? Do you have any favorite films? Have you seen anything you liked, recently?
I just saw Seven Psychopaths, which I enjoyed thoroughly.</p>

82

<p>May I remind you that you’re question was “Why do you like Sgt. Peppers” COUGH words have meanings my dear. You’re right that appreciating something BECAUSE it is popular is not a valid. So is dismissing something for that reason. </p>

<p>As far as our lovely sociobiologists, you’ve got a valid (ish) point about Dawkins. He definitely emphasized his point in a way that was a little divisive. He’s certainly not writing with Virginia Woolf’s beloved “incandescent mind” (yeah I’m currently pouring over AROO sorry!) That said, he’s got many other works, and many valid points in the God Delusion. I think his science is sound, even if you can call him out on tone. I’d recommend “The Social Conquest of Earth” if that’s your primary criticism of the two-- I found it totally compatible with religion. It’s an easy read and it’ll make you warm and fuzzy and “omg this ***** on cc is totally right”. Just a predication. </p>

<p>I see you in that little Ryan shout-out… <em>shrugs</em> and oh gosh are we going to be revealing ourselves if/WHEN we make it to round two? </p>

<p>As far as polyamory… fine by me. Again, I think there are evolutionary reasons for monogamy but I see more value in understanding that baby-making and not starving are pretty much a given, at least in our small part of the world, so there’s no sense in forcing people into monogamy. Love is love is love. (Also, I work on a Civil Marriage campaign right now can you tell by the corniness? 24 days !!!1!) Tee hee. On a personal level, my thinking is “there are a lot of ****ing cool people that I could imagine falling in love with.” I don’t buy “soul mates” (at least not singularly) and I don’t see why the overlap is so stigmatized. Other opinions loves?</p>

<p>Also, if you all don’t mind sharing, I’m curious about your faith backgrounds. I’ll be the first to admit that my application to DS was motivated spiritually, so I’m curious as to the role that religion has and will continue to play for each of you.</p>

83

<p>Ah, I forgot how I phrased my question. Sorry about that. But I resent the notion that I dismiss the Beatles because they’re popular. The Doors are popular, but are great. Same goes for a lot of the Kinks’ work. Anyway.
Hmmm. I know a lot of people working on a civil marriage campaign, as well. I don’t know about “Love is love is love”. When people use that logic, they tend to suggest that we should exempt “love” in some way from our logical processes due to some perception that the “love” is somehow warm in a way that logic is cold. I’m not saying you think this – it’s just a phenomenon I think such rhetoric gives rise to.
My “faith background”… Hm. I wasn’t raised in a religious environment. My mother calls herself “spiritual”, though I’m not sure how that manifests itself, exactly. My father is a hard atheist, but has the occasional fanciful flight. I’m personally a general sketpic with deistic leanings.
I’m as skeptical of science as I am of organized religion. A posteriority corrupts everything. I reject the Quinean web. But I’m willing to compromise for functional purposes, most of the time.
I’m very interested in theology, though, and I’d love to study it in some context in the future, but through a Saamkhya-an, post-theistic lens.</p>

84

<p>I have to say that I side with livivid with the utilitarianism - I think that anyone who is sensitive to the health and happiness of others will not want to put all energy “towards cultivating and advancing culture and knowledge” and work more on ensuring the wellbeing of humans and their environment. But that’s my opinion.
As far as monogamy/polyamory - I have had a boyfriend for over a year and a half, with some time long-distance and, while I know that neither of us are perfect, I believe that our excusive, romantic relationship is a lot more intimate and loving than anything I would experience while dating several guys or constantly changing partner. I’ve tried that - and it’s not nearly as satisfying a lifestyle and there isn’t as much “love”, I think. </p>

<p>Do you guys like any folksy music? Bluegrass? What about the blues/swing music?
That’s what I’ve really been getting into lately. </p>

<p>BTW - DS has opened a Google Group to act as a forum for the girls applying to the college. Have they done this for the boys? It’s very helpful - and I seem to have a lot in common with most of the applicants.</p>

85

<p>As far as spirituality - I’ve been a pretty regular church and youth group member at the Presbyterian church for the past three years. I go alone because my parents don’t have as much interest in it as they used to - one of the churches they went to was none too welcoming and they kept sending letters requesting tithes 2 years after we moved away. I think that Christianity as a whole is a good thing for our culture, and I believe that God has plans for all of us. I don’t think that everyone who isn’t Christian is going to Hell, because there are many good-hearted people who don’t declare themselves as such but have the same moral values. My journey in spirituality has helped me be more confident and has given me more of a purpose in my life - God gave us nature, and I think there is a good reason for that.</p>

86

<p>where can we find that google doc you mentioned?</p>

87

<p>it’s only for girls and everyone’s name is on there… DS invited us. there isn’t one for guys?</p>

88

<p>See I’m a girl too… Awk. Do yo know how I might go about getting on it? Is there an email address or something?</p>

89

<p>Ahh! I can’t seem to get peoples’ genders straight. I thought melody was a girl… ugh. Sorry. :confused: yeah, email DS and they should include you in the conversation. {:</p>

90

<p>what about the guys? is there a discussion group on google for the lads? {:</p>

91

<p>Back to musical preferences, what do you guys think about Jack White?
Creepy pale and emo or independent of modern rock/blues trends?</p>

92

<p>I used to be a big Jack White fan when I was younger. Now I suppose he’s a decent blues musician.
His stuff with White Stripes was incredibly consumable, very stripped-down, yet essentially countercultural and blues-y. As such, it appeals mostly to adolescents. His newer stuff is in the same vein as his stuff with the Stripes, but much more musically complex. I don’t really think White has the chops to pull it off, and because of this most of his albums since White Blood Cells have been mediocre. What made the Stripes unique is their stripped-down, raw quality, and abandoning that simply makes Jack White seem tired, to me.</p>

93

<p>You guys are all so interesting. I am not applying to Deep Springs, but was interested to find out what kind of people were. WOW. You guys are intensely intellectual and all so interesting.</p>

<p>Um. And also to ThePinko: I used a derivative for your username to make my own because… imitation is, uh, the greatest form of flattery.</p>

<p>I am interested in knowing where all of you do end up.</p>

94

<p>Howdy y’all</p>

<p>just thought I’d share I’m mailing out my Deep Springs application tomorrow and am very excited about the whole process. I wish everyone the best!</p>

95

<p>Congrats!
I have my application ready, but I can’t get a copy of my transcript because my school was shut down for the past week because of hurricane Sandy with no hope of reopen king soon.</p>

96

<p>Word on the street is 40 kids get called back for round two. Can any one confirm whether this is a percentage of the total applicants or a fixed number?</p>

97

<p>Ah that’s lousy! I think the best course of action would be to mail in your application as is with a note on Hurricane Sandy’s effect on getting your transcript, which they say you can mail in separately to the admissions office.</p>

<p>Anyway, hope everything is alright where you’re from. I know Sandy was devastating.</p>

98

<p>They pick about 40 students to apply for the second round - not a percentage. So, probably 15-20% of the applicant pool, give or take. I’m not sure how many girls are applying.
I hope everything is going okay where you are hminot! DS is giving those affected an extension on their applications. I don’t know if you recieved the email but if you contact them about it they will postpone the due date for you.</p>

99

<p>I got my application out and about a week later I retread the instructions.
I forgot to add the appropriate number of copies, and used STAPLES not paper clips. It’s all good though. I checked with the ApCom and I didn’t disqualify myself with negligence.</p>

100

<p>My name is Ann Schnoebelen and I’m a reporter for The Chronicle of Higher Education. In light of the recent court ruling putting admission of females to Deep Springs on hold, we’d really like to talk to some women who either applied or looked at applying. I’m curious about your thoughts and feelings on the situation, how far into the application you were and how you think it might affect your future plans.</p>

<p>I’d love to hear from you: <a href="mailto:Ann.Schnoebelen@chronicle.com">Ann.Schnoebelen@chronicle.com</a> or 202-466-1060 (weekdays from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. EST)</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>