Reply to comment

...we looked, last week, at how we'd gone about organizing ourselves the week before. Seems that we were "clumpily diverse" based largely on physical similarities, that we found "spaces inbetween" ourselves on the basis of hair color, eye color, ethnicity, gender...

We also acknowleged a difference between folks who were "actively" seeking to cluster, and those who were "passively" waiting to be included in a cluster. It was striking to me that we hadn't clustered based on habits of mind/ways of thinking about the universe... (for instance) according to whether we found ourselves more engaged in humanities, science or social science...

Our discussion then turned to the many different ways we might distinguish among those different objects of study and ways of studying them; I was most intrigued by the suggestion that the humanities seek out (and so find most worthy of study) that which is most unique (the distinct work of art), whereas science seeks out what is repeatable/replicable...

As our discussion ranged from questions about truth and authority, to matters of correction and progress, we found ourselves exploring the possibility that life arising from randomness might be a "comforting" idea. We ended class with my reading a children's story, My Great-Granddaddy was Monkey,

which I thought the other group might enjoy (take comfort in?) as well.