Consilience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
I read Edwin O. Wilson's book on this subject some years ago, and though it was not an easy read, it was an eye opening one for me. I'd often felt that disparate avenues of knowledge and expertise could benefit and inform one another (ie.: auto-mechanics could possibly learn much from Philosophy and vice-versa ; poets could learn from astro-physicists; plumbers could teach Art historians) but, I never realized that this was actually a burgeoning philosophy of learning and gathering knowledge. I thought this phenomenon was just a weird, random way of looking at things that I'd stumbled upon. And, I'd only really moved past the novelty of the idea to an actually methodology when I'd reached mid-Life and found this approach to feed me and edify me far more than it let me down. I came to believe, the elements of the Universe (not just the physical ones, mind you) largely are what they are... it is now only their combinations that are the nearly infinite and abundant..... and which stand to teach us much and move us forward.
There is a natural tendency in the expansion of knowledge over time for that knowledge to branch and specialize. This is not a bad thing, of itself, but can tend to lead to a situation where current specialization over-values itself to the denigration and dismissal of general knowledge. This is the nut of the problem. It leads folks to come up with absurd abstractions to try to open their eyes to the immensely variegated phenomenon of temporal and spacial existence: abstractions like "Let's think outside the box." As though there were a box in the first place. There is no box. The box is an artificial construct built by the natural inclination of Specialization to value itself over Generalization, because Specialization eventually finds the focus of the "Micro" of itself to be over-whelming and ultimately exclusive of the "Macro" of all other potential avenues of exploration and inquiry. The "box" is a self imposed, and ultimately false construct; that is if its validity is purported to be concrete and naturally manifest in and of itself. It may have its usefulness, this cordoning and grouping, such as facilitating the making of incisive inquiry that is not sullied by a background noise of irrelevancies... but, ultimately, it is important to remember that that "box" is no more real or naturally evident than a set of subset brackets.
This is ultimately why I don't try to learn too much about my pursuit, Theatre, by watching Theatre. Not that I completely eschew that activity... I love Theatre, not just as a practitioner, but as an appreciator, as an audience member. But, I go with the Danish Prince's pontification on what the purpose of Theatre is: "To hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to Nature". This is important. If I am to truly to pursue a reflection of value, then what I am charged to reflect is the myriad of aspects of temporal and spacial existence. If I do not... if I only watch Theatre to help me do Theatre.... then I am holding the mirror up to the mirror. And if you've ever been to a barber shop or hair salon and sat between two large mirrors, you know the situation created: an ultimately false infinitude of infinite digression. Fascinating to contemplate, but ultimately an exercise in limiting, not expanding observation.
"To see the World in a grain of sand" is what the Buddhists say... and that is my hope. And, on those rare occasions of an awareness of concilience; the unity in the diversity; the macro in the micro... and vice versa... in those moments, I find immortality in the temporal and boundlessness within spacial dimensions.
Consilience: Here's to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment