Great stuff sir! Thanks for bringing it up and in so eloquent way (as always).
Many influential people over the history were polymaths, they certainly understood the balance! Interesting how our contemporaries focus on particular "side" of those polymaths, whichever interests them. Often it's 'Science', as you mention. That way they miss that those great people also were in arts, practicing it or at least greatly inspired by it — they were visionaries.
Another "trend" I see is Science trying to sneak into Poetry and subdue it. Such as some people try to "study" Poetry using scientific methods, applying formulas to literature and art. Would be happy to hear your thoughts on that!
That’s a great point about how people only study single facets of geniuses who were clearly shaped by many disciplines.
Also I do remember once skimming a book by Richard Dawkins where he tried to understand poetry. The title references rainbows but it escapes me rn. He is clearly enamoured with poetry but also baffled by it and why he himself likes it and why so many of the great poets (esp the Romantics) were so anti science at times.
It’s like he’s so close to getting it but he just can’t.
Could it be that the "coldness" or lack of vision for science leads to the void many people subconsciously feel and nature, in her abhorrence of an empty space, beguiles us to fill it with the junk food of "content"? Marketers feel the vacuum and rush to exploit it with junk food in lieu, of say Keats Basho, Buson, or Sherman Alexie? In turn, is Substack the new vendor of a healthy balance for poetry and science. Just hoping....
There’s definitely something to that. But the coldness of science (arguably Scientism) doesn’t have to be that way. Physicists for the most part seem to be a fairly mystical bunch who ‘get it’ to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps the coldness then comes from disciplines that see themselves as scientifically lesser (Biology? Psychology? Evo psych?) and so they feel the need to overcompensate which leads to a lot of these societal second order effects?
I’m just speculating of course. Someone should really do a study on this 😏
I thought later today that in so many ways, science is like money, an awesome tool but a damn cruel master. Slaving away solely to science likely leads to decay in the same way slaving to money over the generations produces the proverb across cultures of "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations", or " rice paddy to rice paddy in 3 generations". It takes some ideals, faith, and spirit to be in it for the true long haul (think 7 generations). Science and AI may tell your intellect "how" but I doubt it will tell your heart "why"....and that is what solid poetry/fiction does. Physicists, being in truth the basis of it all, probably senses by having their ear closest to earth that it takes some poetry to push all those equations, or at least spur one to write them....
Great stuff sir! Thanks for bringing it up and in so eloquent way (as always).
Many influential people over the history were polymaths, they certainly understood the balance! Interesting how our contemporaries focus on particular "side" of those polymaths, whichever interests them. Often it's 'Science', as you mention. That way they miss that those great people also were in arts, practicing it or at least greatly inspired by it — they were visionaries.
Another "trend" I see is Science trying to sneak into Poetry and subdue it. Such as some people try to "study" Poetry using scientific methods, applying formulas to literature and art. Would be happy to hear your thoughts on that!
Cheers
That’s a great point about how people only study single facets of geniuses who were clearly shaped by many disciplines.
Also I do remember once skimming a book by Richard Dawkins where he tried to understand poetry. The title references rainbows but it escapes me rn. He is clearly enamoured with poetry but also baffled by it and why he himself likes it and why so many of the great poets (esp the Romantics) were so anti science at times.
It’s like he’s so close to getting it but he just can’t.
Could it be that the "coldness" or lack of vision for science leads to the void many people subconsciously feel and nature, in her abhorrence of an empty space, beguiles us to fill it with the junk food of "content"? Marketers feel the vacuum and rush to exploit it with junk food in lieu, of say Keats Basho, Buson, or Sherman Alexie? In turn, is Substack the new vendor of a healthy balance for poetry and science. Just hoping....
There’s definitely something to that. But the coldness of science (arguably Scientism) doesn’t have to be that way. Physicists for the most part seem to be a fairly mystical bunch who ‘get it’ to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps the coldness then comes from disciplines that see themselves as scientifically lesser (Biology? Psychology? Evo psych?) and so they feel the need to overcompensate which leads to a lot of these societal second order effects?
I’m just speculating of course. Someone should really do a study on this 😏
I thought later today that in so many ways, science is like money, an awesome tool but a damn cruel master. Slaving away solely to science likely leads to decay in the same way slaving to money over the generations produces the proverb across cultures of "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations", or " rice paddy to rice paddy in 3 generations". It takes some ideals, faith, and spirit to be in it for the true long haul (think 7 generations). Science and AI may tell your intellect "how" but I doubt it will tell your heart "why"....and that is what solid poetry/fiction does. Physicists, being in truth the basis of it all, probably senses by having their ear closest to earth that it takes some poetry to push all those equations, or at least spur one to write them....
PREACH IT
I take allcaps PREACH IT to be one of the very best compliments. So thanks. It’s appreciated.
It was meant as such!
I was hoping. Hahah
Someone has to…