Reply to comment

Maybe you're drawing too sharp a line between the sciences and the humanities/arts?   And perhaps underestimating, ironically(?), the activity of the humanities/arts?  

"The whole point of constructing metaphors is that there is no point" seems inconsistent with you describe as the "purpose" of verse (and other arts/humanities?):  "to reach out into the abyss of an arbitrary and inherently meaningless existence and articulate something ineffable in such a way as to fortify onself against the "desolation of the world's night.""  Perhaps the "point" of both sciences and humanities/arts is to explore possible meanings in an inherently meaningless universe and, by materializing them in some form, contribute to the ongoing evolution of possible forms of existence?

If so, then, as Ben suggests, one might find a continuing, valuable, and bidirectional interaction between sciences and arts/humanities.  Maybe the "conceptual reception of microscopic activity" is always potentiallly productive for scientific discourse?  And, conversely, the descriptions of "microscopic activity" may often contribute to possible new conceptions of meaning?  Always recognizing that neither has permanence?  And hence that language and other acts of communication among people are always incomplete? 

Maybe what you call "heroic impotence" is actually a feature of the human condition that provides the room and possibility of genuine and continuing self-definition and redefinition? If so, then, according to Emily Dickinson, that "herotic impotence" must be a feature of the brain?

For more along these lines, see

• Two cultures or one?
• Education: between two cultures
• Cezanne and beyond and back again: beyond method/interpretation in art/science
• The brain as a learner/inquirer/creator