10,281 research outputs found
Rythme, affordance, enregistrement, ontologie de la performance : de nouveaux objets d’étude pour la musicologie. Un entretien avec Mark J. Butler
No full textMark J. Butler est professeur de théorie, d’analyse et de cognition musicales à la Bienen School of Music de la Northwestern University (Chicago). Ses travaux sur l’EDM depuis le début des années 2000 se sont distingués par leur approche formaliste, tout en ayant pleinement intégré la dimension interdisciplinaire des popular music studies. En 2012, il dirige une collection d’essais sur l’« Electronica, dance and club music » chez Ashgate, qui a permis de prendre la mesure de la vitalité des recherches internationales dans ce domaine. En France, les travaux sur l’EDM se sont développés à compter des années 2000 tant dans le champ des sciences sociales (Jouvenet, Racine, Petiau, Pourteau, Birgy) que de la musicologie (Grynszpan, Kosmicki, Guillien). L’impact du mouvement techno et de la free party tout au long des années 1990 sur le territoire hexagonal n’était sûrement pas étranger à cet intérêt de la part d’une nouvelle génération de chercheurs. Si cette dynamique s’est poursuivie depuis, les discussions avec la recherche anglophone n’ont toutefois pas été aussi actives qu’elles auraient pu l’être, faute sans doute de traductions et d’espaces concrets de discussion. Bien que familier de l’Europe et notamment de Berlin où il avait effectué plusieurs séjours de recherche dans les années 2000, Mark Butler n’était ainsi jamais intervenu dans le débat académique français. À l’automne 2017, il était invité à prononcer une série de conférences à Rennes et à Paris. Ce passage en France fut donc l’occasion de le rencontrer et de parler de la genèse de son travail, de ses méthodes et de ses positions. La publication de cet entretien intervient au moment où s’ouvre l’exposition « Electro. De Kraftwerk à Daft Punk » à la Philharmonie de Paris (avril-août 2019) – là même où s’était tenu cet entretien deux ans plus tôt, le 14 octobre 2017
Rythme, affordance, enregistrement, ontologie de la performance : de nouveaux objets d’étude pour la musicologie. Un entretien avec Mark J. Butler
No full textMark J. Butler est professeur de théorie, d’analyse et de cognition musicales à la Bienen School of Music de la Northwestern University (Chicago). Ses travaux sur l’EDM depuis le début des années 2000 se sont distingués par leur approche formaliste, tout en ayant pleinement intégré la dimension interdisciplinaire des popular music studies. En 2012, il dirige une collection d’essais sur l’« Electronica, dance and club music » chez Ashgate, qui a permis de prendre la mesure de la vitalité des recherches internationales dans ce domaine. En France, les travaux sur l’EDM se sont développés à compter des années 2000 tant dans le champ des sciences sociales (Jouvenet, Racine, Petiau, Pourteau, Birgy) que de la musicologie (Grynszpan, Kosmicki, Guillien). L’impact du mouvement techno et de la free party tout au long des années 1990 sur le territoire hexagonal n’était sûrement pas étranger à cet intérêt de la part d’une nouvelle génération de chercheurs. Si cette dynamique s’est poursuivie depuis, les discussions avec la recherche anglophone n’ont toutefois pas été aussi actives qu’elles auraient pu l’être, faute sans doute de traductions et d’espaces concrets de discussion. Bien que familier de l’Europe et notamment de Berlin où il avait effectué plusieurs séjours de recherche dans les années 2000, Mark Butler n’était ainsi jamais intervenu dans le débat académique français. À l’automne 2017, il était invité à prononcer une série de conférences à Rennes et à Paris. Ce passage en France fut donc l’occasion de le rencontrer et de parler de la genèse de son travail, de ses méthodes et de ses positions. La publication de cet entretien intervient au moment où s’ouvre l’exposition « Electro. De Kraftwerk à Daft Punk » à la Philharmonie de Paris (avril-août 2019) – là même où s’était tenu cet entretien deux ans plus tôt, le 14 octobre 2017
Rythme, affordance, enregistrement, ontologie de la performance : de nouveaux objets d’étude pour la musicologie. Un entretien avec Mark J. Butler
No full textMark J. Butler est professeur de théorie, d’analyse et de cognition musicales à la Bienen School of Music de la Northwestern University (Chicago). Ses travaux sur l’EDM depuis le début des années 2000 se sont distingués par leur approche formaliste, tout en ayant pleinement intégré la dimension interdisciplinaire des popular music studies. En 2012, il dirige une collection d’essais sur l’« Electronica, dance and club music » chez Ashgate, qui a permis de prendre la mesure de la vitalité des recherches internationales dans ce domaine. En France, les travaux sur l’EDM se sont développés à compter des années 2000 tant dans le champ des sciences sociales (Jouvenet, Racine, Petiau, Pourteau, Birgy) que de la musicologie (Grynszpan, Kosmicki, Guillien). L’impact du mouvement techno et de la free party tout au long des années 1990 sur le territoire hexagonal n’était sûrement pas étranger à cet intérêt de la part d’une nouvelle génération de chercheurs. Si cette dynamique s’est poursuivie depuis, les discussions avec la recherche anglophone n’ont toutefois pas été aussi actives qu’elles auraient pu l’être, faute sans doute de traductions et d’espaces concrets de discussion. Bien que familier de l’Europe et notamment de Berlin où il avait effectué plusieurs séjours de recherche dans les années 2000, Mark Butler n’était ainsi jamais intervenu dans le débat académique français. À l’automne 2017, il était invité à prononcer une série de conférences à Rennes et à Paris. Ce passage en France fut donc l’occasion de le rencontrer et de parler de la genèse de son travail, de ses méthodes et de ses positions. La publication de cet entretien intervient au moment où s’ouvre l’exposition « Electro. De Kraftwerk à Daft Punk » à la Philharmonie de Paris (avril-août 2019) – là même où s’était tenu cet entretien deux ans plus tôt, le 14 octobre 2017
The sense of a beginning : Bakhtinian dialogic criticism on 'the gospel' in Mark.
No full textContemporary literary approaches have caused paradigm shifts in Biblical Studies in the last two decades as it appears in a great deal of Markan studies using narrative, reader-response, deconstructive, feminist, and new historicist approaches. However, literary studies on the Gospel of Mark have not taken into account theoretical questions underlying those approaches. As a result biblical critics are driven by new trends without ever having a chance to examine the critical baggage of the approaches. Consequently, there is a gap of communication between the old and the new one. Therefore this thesis is an attempt to meet the need of enhancing the quality of critical endeavour in biblical studies. In the light of most recent competing critical theories of literature, the first contribution of this thesis is the methodological finding that Bakhtinian dialogic criticism contains the most profound philosophical and practical foundations for solving some crucial theoretical problems in contemporary literary theories. It is a critique to a Saussurian linguistic system of language which becomes the very foundation of modern and postmodern literary criticism. Bakhtinian literary theory shifts the foundation of literary criticism on linguistic signs into the creative activity of the socio-cultural production of human communication. The shift into socio-cultural reality of language communication makes the notion of 'genre' very important to unlock the problem of text and context in literary studies. Since the Gospel of Mark has fascinated most literary critics in Biblical Studies, the problem of 'genre' of this gospel is chosen as the focus of this study. Secondly, as no agreement is reached as to what 'genre' the Gospel of Mark belongs, this thesis makes its contribution to the discussion by locating the problem of 'genre' of Mark in the context of genre theories and argues that the Bakhtinian suggestion to find genre in the socio-cultural sphere by analysing artistic intercourse between narrative agents in Mark has freed the competing analysis from the unresolved problem between the kerygmatic (content oriented) approach and the analogical (form oriented) approach. To achieve finding 'genre' in the socio-cultural sphere, this thesis focuses on Bakhtinian analysis of the process of artistic intercourse between narrative agents. The narrative communicative interrelationships between narrative agents is constructed in this thesis as a 'stereophonic' Bakhtinian model of dialogic communication. This model is an original contribution of this thesis for revising the traditional two dimensional model of narrative communication. Based on this dialogical model of communication, a special role is given to the Bakhtinian 'author-creator' in the realization process of genre through the interaction of polyphonic voices. Through the interaction of voices of the author-artist and the hero we are led to discover a relatively stable type of portraying and controlling reality in Mark, known as the genre of Roman 'satire'. The closest literary affinity is Satyrica by Petronius. This narrative strategy of 'satire' in Mark has its root in the prophetic discourse of the Old Testament which is saturating the speech of the narrator, John the Immerser, the centurion, the people, and even Jesus. Finally, the whole search for Markan 'genre' culminates in the analysis of the realization of genre through the analysis of Bakhtinian chronotope. The reality of the genre of Mark is its social reality that is in its role as dpxrj/ 'beginning'. As the Gospel of Mark proclaims itself as 'a beginning', it defines its claim of socio-cultural 'authority' in early Christianity. It is this 'sense of beginning' which enables the narrating and the narrated world of Mark to interact dialogically
Michel Foucault and Judith Butler: troubling Butler's appropriation of Foucault's work
No full textOne of the main influences on Judith Butler‘s thinking has been the work of Michel Foucault. Although this relationship is often commented on, it is rarely discussed in any detail. My thesis makes a contribution in this area. It presents an analysis of Foucault‘s work with the aim of countering Butler‘s representation of his thinking. In the first part of the thesis, I show how Butler initially interprets Foucault‘s project through Nietzschean genealogy, psychoanalysis and Derridean discourse, and how she later develops this interpretation in line with the progress of her own project. In the main part of the thesis, I present an analysis of Foucault‘s thinking in the period from The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969) to The History of Sexuality volume 1 (1976). This analysis focuses on the aspect of his work which has most influenced Butler‘s thinking: namely the notion of a relationship between knowledge, discourse and power. The other issues in his work which Butler addresses—genealogy, the subject, the body, abnormality, and sexuality—are discussed within this framework. I show how, in the early 1970s, Foucault develops the notion of power-knowledge, and sets out a relationship between power-knowledge and discourse which is overlooked by Butler. I argue that Butler interprets Foucaultian power through the notions of repression and social norms, and ignores the concepts of technology and strategy which form a key part of Foucault‘s thinking. I show how, from The Archaeology of Knowledge on, Foucault develops a socio-historical ontology and a genealogy of the subject, both of which are at variance with Butler‘s interpretation of his thinking
The Gospel on the Margins: The Ideological Function of the Patristic Tradition on the Evangelist Mark
No full textIn spite of the virtually unanimous patristic opinion that the evangelist Mark was the interpreter of Peter, one of the most prestigious apostolic founding figures in Christian memory, the Gospel of Mark was mostly neglected in the patristic period. Not only is the text of Mark the least well represented of the canonical Gospels in terms of the number of patristic citations, commentaries and manuscripts, the explicit comments about the evangelist Mark reveal some ambivalence about its literary or theological value. In my survey of the reception of Mark from Papias of Hierapolis until Clement of Alexandria, I will argue that the reason why the patristic writers were hesitant to embrace the Gospel of Mark was that they perceived the text to be amenable to the Christological beliefs and social praxis of rival Christian factions. The patristic tradition about Mark may have little historical basis, but it had an important ideological function in appropriating the text in the name of an apostolic authority from the margins or periphery
Well-known trade mark protection: confusion in EU and Japan
No full textIn this thesis concerning the protection of well-known trade marks against confusion in the European Community Trade Mark (CTM) and Japanese trademark systems, the author critically considers the difficulties in comprehensively defining ‘well-known trade mark’ in the relevant international trade mark instruments. After critical analysis of various definitions of both ‘trade mark’ and ‘well-known trade mark’, she undertakes a comparison of the definitions of the parallel concepts of ‘trade mark of repute’ and ‘syuchi-syohyo’, and also undertakes an assessment as to the extent to which these trade marks are protected against confusion and kondo in the CTM and Japanese systems, respectively. It is concluded that the protection of well- known trade marks against confusion in the CTM and Japan cannot be said to be completely clear, and the author identifies some areas for legal refor
Bill Butler
No full textBill Butler oral history interview as conducted by Mark Madison. After leaving Alaska, Bill went to Washington D.C. as the aviation manager for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Butler started out as a pilot/biologist for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska, where he and his wife would spend 12 years there before moving to Washington, DC to become the National Aviation manager for FWS.
Organization: FWS
Name: Bill Butler
Years:
Program: Refuges
Keywords:History, Biography, Aircraft, Biologists (USFWS), Employees (USFWS), Migratory birds, Waterfowl, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Pilot, Aviation, Alaska, Aviation Manager in Washington, DCINTERVIEW WITH BILL BUTLER
APRIL 16, 2004 BY DR. MARK MADISON
NCTC SHEPHERDSTOWN, WV
MR. BUTLER: Hi, my name is Bill Butler. I am 59 years old. I was born in Memphis, TN on December 27, 1944.
DR. MADISON: When did you started working for USFWS?
MR. BUTLER: It was later in life. We moved from Memphis to Cleveland to Chicago and finally to California where I went to high school and college. I was always interesting in flyways. I actually saw a copy of Flyways while I was in high school. I began to be fascinated with becoming a pilot/biologist. But I didn’t really realize that dream right away either. I went to college first at University of California at Davis. When I graduated from there, I went into the Navy and became a pilot. When I got out of the Navy I went back to college and got a master’s in wildlife at Arizona State and went to work for the Bureau of Reclamation. But I still had in my mind that I wanted to be a pilot/biologist. After working for Bureau of Reclamation for a few years I talked to by wife about becoming a pilot/biologist. There aren’t that many of those jobs. I got the Conservation Directory. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that but is has all of the natural resource agencies in the country. I looked in that and found all of the ones that may have pilot/biologist positions and I wrote letters to them. It took about a year and it became pretty obvious that I was going to have to go where pilot/biologist positions were located. A job came available in Bethel, Alaska on the Yukon Delta NWR. I applied and it was in 1982 that I got a job as a wildlife pilot/biologist on the Yukon Delta NWR. We went up there and I stayed in Alaska for about twelve years. After three years on the refuge, I worked on Canada geese, and a position came open in migratory birds to develop goose surveys throughout the State. I applied and was fortunate enough to get that job. I worked up there for total of about twelve years. When we first went to Alaska, my wife wasn’t all that enamored with the idea. But we spent twelve years and she decided that she needed to leave. I was really reluctant to go because it was kind of a lifetime dream to get a pilot/biologist position like that in Alaska. We decided to start looking for jobs and the position of Aviation Manager in FWS came open. I decided to apply for that in 1994 and I was fortunate enough to get it. We moved to Washington, D.C. and basically I’ve been there ever since functioning as the National Aviation Manager for FWS. As part of that I continue to work with migratory birds and continue to conduct surveys and be responsible for the central Ontario strata in the breeding pairs survey. I’ve also continued to do some winter waterfowl surveys.
MR. MADISON: That’s great.
MR. BUTLER: In some ways it’s been a… I’ve been able to stay in touch with the biology as well as move into more of the oversight and management of the aviation program.
MR. MADISON: Well, let’s trace that evolution. When you first went up to Yukon Delta, what was it like in 1982?
MR. BUTLER: Well, it’s been a long time ago now. I can remember after looking for that type of job for a year. My wife and I sat down and discussed it. I told her that if I was really ever going to realize this dream we would have to go to some place like Alaska. She said it would be okay. If I could find a job, she would go with me. If it was something with, I mean, Bethel is 400 mile east of Anchorage. It’s a native community that is about 50% Upik Eskimo and 50% white. It’s very much like moving to a third world country. The interesting thing about that is that as soon as we put in into our mind that we were going to get a job like that, she said that if this is what it would take, we’d go together. The funny thing about it was that I didn’t have a float rating when I first went up there. I had gotten accepted for the job and had given them my application. They called me and told me that I was going to be de-selected because I didn’t have the float rating. I called up the Assistant Director of Refuges. I think his name was John Redforn. He told me not to worry and to go get the float rating. If I could get it, I still had the job. I went to the Salt and Sea. There was a J-3 Cub floatplane at the Salt and Sea. I went there and in two days got the float rating. I called them back up, sent it to Personnel and we were on our way to Alaska. In the interim there, when my wife knew we were going to Bethel, the Refuge Manager sent us the local paper. She applied for a job in the native hospital in the Strept Surveillance Program. She had a degree in Bacteriology. She was actually accepted for her job in Bethel before they finally accepted me, which I thought was kind of interesting. Anyhow, we both went to Bethel and I would say that it was one of the best experiences we’ve ever had. I think she would say the same thing. We were getting to know the native culture. We were in Bethel for three years before we moved back to Anchorage, but it was a wonderful experience.
DR. MADISON: Now, you were flying up there. Would did you have as observers when you were there?
MR. BUTLER: When I started the project with Migratory Birds, to do the goose surveys I worked with a Biologist up there whose name was Bill Eldridge. He was my observer for ten years. He and I together probably conducted one of the more consistent goose surveys that’s ever been developed and done. In the ten years since I left, they have continued to do that survey and I think now they are using the data as part of the management information they use to manage Cackling Canada Geese. When I went up there it was a very interesting time because goose populations in the pacific flyway were at their lowest level in history. They managed them using winter ground counts. In the mid 1960s the winter counts of Cackling Canada Geese were over a million birds. In the year that I got up there, 1982, that count had dropped to forty-five thousand. It was a subsistence species for Upik Eskimos. When I got there they would egg nests every spring. They would drive geese into traps. Even today, they still mostly live a subsistence lifestyle. It was a particularly satisfying because people’s lives, essentially, depended on our management of these geese. It was very satisfying to participate in a program that improved the information to manage the population. And over the time I was there for then years, the population went from the forty-five thousand estimates to over a quarter of a million. Now, I think it’s fully recovered. I am not sure what the most recent estimates are.
DR. MADISON: That’s great! What was it like, flying in Alaska?
MR. BUTLER: It was very enjoyable. Even now, in the lower 48 flying is a much more complicated situation from the standpoint of airspace, and just rules and regulations. In Alaska, it’s still…well here’s a good example. When I moved from Alaska down here, flying even in the Washington, D. C. area, I was used to flying in Alaska where it’s not exactly by the seat of your pants, but you learn to fly by the terrain; the rivers, the mountains and it was much tougher down here. When you look down on the ground here, all you see is highways and towns. It took me anyway, a much longer period of time to get used to it. I had to start flying by instruments in the D. C. area! It was hard to tell where you were, and you had to be very careful that you were where you needed to be, particularly after September 11, 2001. One that was really dramatic…there are no power lines in Alaska. We fly at 150 feet. We fly along rivers. In Alaska, there was one power line that I became aware of. It was down by Homer. I actually flew under it without knowing it! It was up the side of the hill about 500 feet. You just never think of power lines there. Here, it’s like your mindset has to be, “There IS a power line, everywhere you fly!” It’s the same as there is always a car in my rearview mirror down here. If you change lanes, you might expect for one to be there. That was a different mindset. It makes the flying less enjoyable. You could really concentrate on flying the country you were in. Here you have to be aware; there is much more danger from other aircraft. So the flying in Alaska was truly enjoyable.
DR. MADISON: What was the work like when you became Aviation Manager?
MR. BUTLER: It was totally different in a sense. I mean, as a pilot/biologist one of the attractions other than the flying, is that you are very autonomous. This is to the extent that I can’t think of any other job in the government that offers you that kind of autonomy and ability to make your own decisions. When you move into a position like the National Aviation Manager, there are many more things…the decisions you have to make and the people you have to deal with, it’s a little more political. And while I have enjoyed it, nothing was more enjoyable that the pilot/biologist position that I had in Alaska. But I’ve been able to maintain…and it’s fortunate that FWS allowed me to continue to function as a pilot/biologist while assuming the management responsibilities of the National Aviation Manager. That has made the job that much more enjoyable. There are some aspects of this job, like; I’ve been intimately involved in trying to get a new survey airplane. That’s been a very satisfying part of this job. If you can successfully do that, you will have made a contribution that benefits the Service and all of the other people that are flying the surveys. That’s been the satisfying part of it.
DR. MADISON: How have the planes changed since you started?
MR. BUTLER: Interesting enough, the planes haven’t changed so much as the equipment, or the electronic; GPS type capabilities that are now available. When I first went to Alaska, even in my twenty-five year career, it’s a good change. In Alaska there weren’t a lot of aides to navigation. When I first went up there, you learned the terrain and you flew based on your knowledge of the area. There were a few ADS stations on the coast. If you can imagine, you fly from Anchorage across the Alaska Range west, it’s about 430 miles to Bethel. And it’s another 120 miles when you are on the Bering Sea. Go another 400 miles and you’re in Russia! There were a couple of ADS stations where you could get bearing off of and they could help you find where you were. About that time Loran, which is was actually used to navigate boats came into vogue. It really enabled us. Just think about it; it that location at the mouth of the Yukon River, 500 miles from the nearest city of any size, we were able to use Loran-C to accurately fly transect lines. One of the problems with Loran however, was that the reception change. There was a 230-mile change in latitude on that coast. The error would increase in this Loran system so that when you were halfway through your survey, all of a sudden you might be a mile or two off. But, it was a quantum leap, compared to what we did before. The early guys flew their transect lines basically by lining up with mountains and things they could see. I don’t know, to this day, how they did it. When you get lost at 150 feet, or if at least, you lose track of your transect line you’ve got to climb up to 5,000 feet find yourself and go back down. With the advent of GPS you are able to fly to with several hundred meters of accuracy in a place as remote as the Yukon Delta. It’s revolutionized the quality of information you can collect from an airplane. When you have guys like Jack Hodges who have written computer programs, where the computer is hooked up to your GPS and your intercom system. In real time you record observations; species and group size and get a coordinate, a position of that observation that’s accurate with 100 meters. One of the things we did on the Yukon Delta; the native lands were part of the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act. Even within this FWS, which was about nineteen million acres, which by the way, is about the size of Pennsylvania, there were only about 13 staff people. One of the things that the new technology allowed us to do was to get really accurate distributions of these species that were really important to the native communities. We could look at what the relative importance of these native lands to the various species, versus the refuge lands. It was really important information to the natives and to us, to help manage those populations. They’ve started to incorporate that into the North American Breeding Pair survey. They are starting to use the point locations to relate… if you think about thousands of miles of basically featureless terrain, how do you relate the distribution of observations from the air to various habitats? The early way was that you had sixteen-mile segments. If the smallest unit of accuracy is a sixteen-mile segment, it’s hard to relate it to the highly accurate satellite habitat maps. But now that we have this capability to do accurate point locations you can really start using aerial surveys. You get highly detailed maps over thousands of miles of featureless terrain that can be compared to satellite habitat. It’s revolutionary, no doubt about it.
DR. MADISON: Yeah, this has come up again and again; Jack Hodges and some of the technological changes. Let me ask you another question. I ask it of all pilots. [End of side A] ….any close calls when you were a pilot?
MR. BUTLER: Well, I don’t know if I’ve had…I had one engine failure in my career. It was a pretty interesting story. It was shortly after I went to Alaska that I started flying a standard Beaver, which was a radial engine and a very good airplane. I had several situations where the engine began to run rough. I always had enough altitude that before we had to do an emergency landing, we got it going again. I went back to our maintenance people and we’d talk about it. They would recommend that I do certain things, and I kept trying to do that. But nothing seemed to work. Finally, I was taking off from a field camp at a place that was called Konogiak. It’s about 120 miles west of Bethel. It’s about a 2,500-foot long lake. I initiated the takeoff. We got about 300 feet in the air and the engine quit again. That time we weren’t high enough and we couldn’t restart the engine. Fortunately, there was a slough right below me. It was basically just a straightforward emergency landing. In other words, I landed in the slough and taxied back. But this time I said, “Hey, I’m not flying this plane again until you guys figure out what’s wrong with it!” It turned out to be a kind of insidious thing that was kind of difficult to detect. The magnetos had gotten wet at some point in the past and it resulted in an intermittent loss of power. You couldn’t, even though they had me…you do power checks before takeoff. We did power checks and never detected anything. What the rust did was that somehow intermittently short out the points in the magneto. When that happened the engine ran rough. When the engine ran rough it would plug up the spark plugs. As long as it happened to you and your were 5000 feet in the air, by the time you descended a little bit, you could get the engine going again. But when it happened at 300 feet, you couldn’t. So that was…it wasn’t really a close call, it actually helped my confidence. I realized, ‘Hey, you had an engine failure and you were able to handle the emergency. Nothing happened to you or the people with you, or the airplane.’ So from that standpoint it was a good learning experience.
DR. MADISON: Speaking of learning, and as someone who has been in the field a long time, what advice would you pass on to people just entering as pilot/biologists?
MR. BUTLER: I have a lot of young and aspiring people. I guess the advice I have for them is what you put into mind is going to become your experience. If you really want one of these jobs, put it into your mind. Write down your goals, and then every action you take after that will take you one step further to getting one of these positions. I really think it’s true. There are not that many people who have the interest and ultimately get the experience required. If you really want it, and you put it in your mind, you can get it. I have seen people do it. John Solberg is a good example. He got on permanently with the government as a Secretary in Alaska. He always used to talk to me about becoming a pilot biologist. After getting on permanent, he got his own pilot’s license and ultimately became a pilot/biologist. It’s a wonderful career, and like I say, if you really want it, it’s there to be had.
DR. MADISON: What’s the most important thing you’ve learned in your career?
MR. BUTLER: I guess, I mean it’s to really enjoy what you’re doing. I mean, really appreciate it. When I left Alaska…I can remember with I first went up there and I first got the job it was a situation where, and it’s rare in my life when I’ve felt this, I couldn’t wait to get up in the morning and go to work. You need to cherish that kind of feeling because they don’t last that long. I would just remind that once you’ve achieved it, enjoy every minute while you’re doing it. We are in one of the few jobs, and I think the people that have them truly love the work. It’s something that we need to appreciate.
DR. MADISON: That’s great! Your thirty minutes are up! It goes really fast doesn’t it
Incomprehension or resistance? : the Markan disciples and the narrative logic of Mark 4:1—8:30
No full textThe characterization of the Markan disciples has been and continues to be the object of much scholarly reflection and speculation. For many, the Markan author’s presentation of Jesus’ disciples holds a key, if not the key, to unlocking the purpose and function of the gospel as a whole. Commentators differ as to whether the Markan disciples ultimately serve a pedagogical or polemical function, yet they are generally agreed that the disciples in Mark come off rather badly, especially when compared to their literary counterparts in Matthew, Luke, and John.
This narrative-critical study considers the characterization of the Markan disciples within the Sea Crossing movement (Mark 4:1–8:30). While commentators have, on the whole, interpreted the disciples’ negative characterization in this movement in terms of lack of faith and/or incomprehension, neither of these, nor a combination of the two, fully accounts for the severity of language leveled against the disciples by the narrator (6:52) and Jesus (8:17–18). Taking as its starting point an argument by Jeffrey B. Gibson (1986) that the harshness of Jesus’ rebuke in Mark 8:14–21 is occasioned not by the disciples’ lack of faith or incomprehension but by their active resistance to his Gentile mission, this investigation uncovers additional examples of the disciples’ resistance to Gentile mission, offering a better account of their negative portrayal within the Sea Crossing movement and helping explain many of their other failures.
In short, this study argues that in Mark 4:1–8:26, the disciples are characterized as resistant to Jesus’ Gentile mission and to their participation in that mission, the chief consequence being that they are rendered incapable of recognizing Jesus’ vocational identity as Israel’s Messiah (Thesis A). This leads to a secondary thesis, namely, that in Mark 8:27–30, Peter’s recognition of Jesus’ messianic identity indicates that the disciples have finally come to accept Jesus’ Gentile mission and their participation in it (Thesis B).
“Chapter One: Introduction” offers a selective review of scholarly treatments of the Markan disciples, which shows that few scholars attribute resistance, let alone purposeful resistance, to the disciples.
“Chapter Two: The Rhetoric of Repetition” introduces the methodological tools, concepts, and perspectives employed in the study. It includes a section on narrative criticism, which focuses upon the story-as-discoursed and the implied author and reader, and a section on Construction Grammar, a branch of cognitive linguistics founded by Charles Fillmore and further developed by Paul Danove, which focuses upon semantic and narrative frames and case frame analysis.
“Chapter Three: The Sea Crossing Movement, Mark 4:1–8:30” addresses the question of Markan structure and argues that Mark 4:1–8:30 comprises a single, unified, narrative movement, whose action and plot is oriented to the Sea of Galilee and whose most distinctive feature is the network of sea crossings that transport Jesus and his disciples back and forth between Jewish and Gentile geopolitical spaces.
Following William Freedman, “Chapter Four: The Literary Motif” introduces two criteria (frequency and avoidability) for determining objectively what constitutes a literary motif and provides the methodological basis and starting point for the analyses performed in chapters five and six.
“Chapter Five: The Sea Crossing Motif” establishes and then carries out a lengthy narrative analysis of the Sea Crossing motif, which is oriented around Mark’s use of θάλασσα (thalassa) and πλοῖον (ploion), and “Chapter Six: The Loaves Motif” does the same for The Loaves motif, oriented around Mark’s use of ἄρτος (artos).
Finally, “Chapter Seven: The Narrative Logic of the Disciples (In)comprehension” draws together all narrative, linguistic, and exegetical insights of the previous chapters and offers a single coherent reading of the Sea Crossing movement that establishes Theses A and B.
Recommended from our members
Thames River subwatershed soil, sediment, water data
No full textAssociated publication in Science of the Total Environment and their interpretations can be found there.
Title: "Accumulation and transport of nutrient and pollutant elements in riparian soils, sediments, and river waters across the Thames River Watershed, Connecticut, USA"
Authors: Mark J. Butler, Brian C. Yellen, Oluyinka Oyewumi, William Ouimet, Justin B. RichardsonTrace element and nutrient data are for riparian soils, suspended sediments, eddy bottom sediments, and river water collected between 2019 and 2020 in the Thames River watershed of Connecticut, USA. Trace elements and nutrients were measured using EPA 3050B digestion method and analyzed by ICP-OES or ICP-MS
- …
