i named this blog LIGHTWORKS because i want my writing to flow without judgment, especially from me. i want to write without the conditions of propriety or primness, or the desire to please. the mood will dictate or how the experience for the day unfolded. i can talk radically about any mainstream issue or just go with the flow because i believe. the only condition therefore is honesty to me.
i am now at the stage of my PhD of developing my own theoretical framework for the study, the initial strategy of which is to frame an existing framework by which fieldwork and secondary data could apply. but as of today, none fits; which is both a boon and a curse. a boon because it reinforces my study's uniqueness but itself a curse, because at this time, i am still not sure how unique my study is. a hazy outline i can see but the contours are far from perfect.
i have not been writing since submitting section 2 of chapter 5 last july 21. constrained from doing do by the need to read, and to re-read with different eyes. which means not just serious appreciation but an overarching view of what authors are saying (about housing policy, tenure reform, reform in general, state-society relations and the middle ground), what they're saying means to the case study, and where i would position myself. further meaning, from what position will i agree, disagree, and establish the concrete directions of the thesis.
a thesis is of course incomparable to a blog. but i do would like to emphasize the shifts in gear with the writing style, the writing discipline and the writing-thinking mind. to argue in a thesis is not to rant as in a blog. to make a point is to cite and not to vaguely refer to that 'someone' or 'something'. the perhaps is replaced by saying, 'to suggest'. to open and articulate arguments that would be factual but at the same time contestable and falsifiable. the key is consistency in theory, arguments, claims and evidence. these constitute heavy works. time to roll up our sleeves and get on with the dirt.