Thinking about weaving
This is a tapestry
Another ambitious study – Hölderlin lamented over this problem even in his own time
The introduction title is “Crossing Borderlines” – this is Dionysian.
This exactly- doesn’t this drive anyone else crazy?
Only a madman would want one Absolute Science.
The Arts- “I have to say that I disagree with your framing of that right from the outset.”
I’m looking for The Answer, the Grail. “The fragmentations can’t be fused together.”
We went from “Grug HUNT or Grug DIE” to… having 25 basic disciplines of knowledge.
It’s funny seeing someone say this- it’s like “duh”
Disciplinary rootedness has several justifications and a respectable history.
They fragmented for a reason. Still, it could be said that they all involve humans knowing and acting. So they’ve all remained one in that sense.
This writer speaks of risking “contamination” – knowing and acting that contaminates other knowing and acting. Interdisciplinarity is a form of knowing and acting that seeks to gather together all the other forms of knowing and acting.
“You want to do the impossible.” Here’s something I wasn’t expecting- not as grandiose, though a step in the direction I’m thinking
You two want to be friends?? I might set up a play-date for you two.
Stitching the mind together!
I might as well be foaming at the mouth when I think about the possibility of creating higher syntheses that don’t exist yet. I know for a fact that interdisciplinarity studies itself needs to be synthesized with “antiversity” elements. That’s how you play god.
The intersection of art and math is not for relativists
grapples with the question of what makes a design have an instantaneously felt sense of “rightness.” A design, by nature, is abstract, yet we know a great design when we see it, and this is not a random value judgment. There are indeed objective criteria.
This sounds like something I’d expect to find in Badiou, I’m sure he writes about it somewhere- grounding aesthetics in mathematics. How much better the world would be if aestheticians were seen as having the same authority as any other “scientist”. That’s tasteless smut, congratulations! Unfortunately, that statement is seen as intrinsically ~subjective~.
Again, you need an ubermensch for this. Only someone who is both an artist and a mathematician, it seems, will be able to understand and thus convey a synthesis between the two to a class of artists or mathematicians.
What art can teach math is something I’d be shocked learn about, probably.
I keep thinking about that movie My Dinner with Andre- interdisciplinarity seems to be a way to witness a great conversation. Unlike that movie, it isn’t designed for the demos though, and I include myself in that since these aren’t “my” disciplines. Aha, the aesthetic appreciation of such a conversation itself. Only for the few. “Ubermensch genres”.
“A Janus-Like Division of Temperaments” one of the chapters is called – yeah! How could these two opposite types learn from each other. I dunno, why do wee proggy piggies visit this site? Neither of these types respect each other, let’s be honest. “You don’t understand me, how could you?” Here’s a way to try to stitch the mind at least.
Intrissting way to look at it
Then MY way to do that is to see them as opposed epistemologies.
Both ‘languages’ refer to worlds outside their respective symbolic spheres—they each provide representations of visible and non-visible phenomena.
This is why we need synthesis, because they all tend to be too self-absorbed to admit they’re fragmentary
Each discipline argues for who has actually revealed the ‘mysteries’ of the world, manifesting the human mind and reality, containing truths, and explaining beauty.
“You’re so self-absorbed that you’re trying to gather them all into one, it’s kind of tyrannical.” If we did create One Mind it’s not like new disciplines would fragment off that eventually. Never-ending inhale and exhale of the knowledges, integration to disintegration and back again.