Reply to comment

In our discussion on Thursday, the convergence and overlap of the classes we take each semester was a topic that was talked about for some time. I mentioned how the similarities I found between all of my classes and the overlap between authors, ideas, theories, etc. were really exciting. The "no places" in between the strict disciplines set up by departments were the most fun and intriguing to think about.

Then, someone else mentioned how it was too bad no one else had the same four classes at the same time so we could discuss these overlaps. Having such unique schedules (and past schedules) gives everyone a different perspective.

THEN it was brought up that maybe it's a good thing we don't try and keep everyone to the same classes because thinking about the overlaps that no one else knows about is the best part of these exciting similarities.

I now find myself at an impasse--what's exciting--the similarities or the differences? It seems like you need both to create that newness that creates new thought patterns. Or maybe the new thought patterns and guides of different classes to create newness. 

I think I've backed myself into a corner along with the chicken and the egg.