Saturday, 4 January 2014

Quick Construction Update From Kasese Humanist Primary School

Main Hall and three classrooms.
Here's a really quick update on the construction of the new Kasese Humanist Primary School on their permanent site in Rukoki, Uganda.

Bwambale Robert emailed me on January 2nd with news about the progress on the Main Hall (Administration Block).

Check out how this building fits into the overall plan here.
Hope you are well. Attached to this message are pictures of the work on block 3 which is now at wall plate level. 
Upon funds availability, I will work on applying a coat of plaster on this building, source out for timbers, adding some corrugated iron sheets on block 3 and finally plastering and flooring inside of nursery classes plus its veranda.
As mentioned, the nursery block requires plastering and some more final work. I found this picture of the nursery block on the school's Facebook page.

Nursery building exterior plastered.

Here's more pictures of the new Block 3 building:

Main School Hall. 
Main School Hall.

Block 3 (Main Hall) at plate level.
Since it's sometimes hard for me to keep track of which buildings are which and at what level of progress each is in, I asked Bwambale for a summary of where they stand and he sent me this today.

Status of buildings on the KHPS Site

Original building:
Plastered, powered, partially floored, 
no ceiling, shuttered.

Nursery Block (3 classrooms):
Structure standing, roofed, not shuttered,
not floored, already plastered outside, 
inside not plastered yet, not floored yet.

Block 3 (Main Hall and three classrooms)
Structure standing at wall plate, 
not plastered yet, not roofed, not floored

So you can see that although some structures are up, they are far from complete. If you're interested in pitching in to help.


The original plan was to open the nursery school in February because local demand for the services is high. However, it's looking more like this will be delayed until more funds can come to finish the building.

12 comments:

  1. NicholasFrankovich4 January 2014 13:50

    Thanks for your comments.


    Re religion and atheism: The definition of "religion" is disputed, even among scholars of religion. I don't attempt to define it in the article. I don't say that being morally or philosophically serious necessarily means one is "religious." I only note that it's a position that was argued by Dworkin, for example. It's also held by Ethical Culture Societies, which self-identify as a religion and are officially atheist (though emphatically not antitheist).


    If religion as you define it is bad, you'll reject the label, as many do (including some Christians). Dworkin and the Ethical Culture Societies define religion as good, and so they claim the label. That's all.


    It sounds like you're unfamiliar with Jurgen Habermas. Check him out. He's been prolific over the years, so no one except him (and not even him, given that he thinks a lot and so probably changes his mind about things now and then) will agree with all of it, but you might find in his writing over the years some nuggets of insight that you value.


    Re atheism and sidestepping the mystery of Being itself: If you don't sidestep it, you're probably not an atheist, insofar as classical theism, commonly understood, is the response to that mystery. Are you sure that your experience of it is different from that of those who consider themselves theists? I'm not.


    The God of faith, the God of the philosophers: It's a longstanding distinction, and helpful. I gather your identity as an atheist is based on your rejection of the God of faith. I'm not convinced that you reject the God of the philosophers, though it's clear that you reject the term "God" and the identification of the God of the philosophers with the God of faith.


    Re "nothing": The concept is problematic in mathematics, formal logic, and philosophy, for reasons that I touch on in the article. Heidegger's treatment of the question in "What Is Metaphysics?" is good, and I recommend it.


    A couple of corrections:


    Moses does not ask God why there is something rather than nothing.


    I say not that atheists are too quick to assume they've understood God but that they are too quick to assume they've understood someone who ventures to speak about the mystery of being.


    Be well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. GodlessPoutine25 January 2014 12:42

    Even if you were just a brain in a vat, you'd still exist. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. GodlessPoutine25 January 2014 12:47

    Thanks so much for this comment. I missed it somehow in my filters. I'll read it carefully today and perhaps get back to you. As ornery as I often seem, I do enjoy dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bahaha oops, you got me there!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why would an Atheist need to side-step the "mystery of Being"? The classical theism's response to that mystery is "God doneit". I think Atheistic philosophers delve a bit deeper into the issue than that.
    What is the God of the philosophers?? Is that like Deism? I am pretty sure Godless Poutine rejects all conceptions of god. There is no proof of one, nor any good reason for believing in any of them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. GodlessPoutine4 February 2014 23:34

    Right. I'm slowly writing a very short response to this. Not that it's going to be fantastic but rather because of other things constantly delaying it. One thing I've noticed is often when discussing with more intellectual Catholics they throw some book or series of books at me and say "read this". I'm not saying anything for sure, but sometimes it seems like it's their way of tossing the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  7. NicholasFrankovich5 February 2014 01:40

    "What is the God of the philosophers"? Classical theism, based in ontology, the mystery of being. Forget labels ("atheism," "theism"), tribal loyalties (to atheism or theism), and semantics ("atheism" and "theism" again).

    The fact of being elicits wonder in you when you think about it slowly enough. It elicits wonder in me too. It elicits wonder in people who call themselves atheists and in those who call themselves theists.


    Over the centuries people have established linguistic conventions for naming the mystery of being, though no one can explain it. We can only point to it.

    If we're going to use the word "God," either to deny or to affirm it, let's define the term. If you're allergic to it, fine. We can call what it points to something else. It's not a proper name. It's only a label.

    As I explain in my article. It's not that long. Tolle, lege.

    ReplyDelete
  8. NicholasFrankovich5 February 2014 01:43

    Thanks for taking the trouble to reply to my reply. I haven't checked to see whether you've posted it yet. I'll be back eventually. I have to take care of other business in the meantime.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes I am "allergic" to the word "god". Why not just call it "the mystery of being", rather than attach a word with so much baggage to it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. GodlessPoutine6 February 2014 18:44

    Other things keep getting in the way. I'll email you when I've posted something. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  11. GodlessPoutine6 February 2014 18:48

    I'll have to say that I have similar feelings. "God" has a whole lot of baggage.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was once a big fan of the God of the Philosophers. But then I realized it was no god at all and it faded away into pantheism and then atheism.

    ReplyDelete