Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

alesnick's picture

search vs. settle? Can both be "science?"

I am intrigued by the idea of embracing limitations -- accepting/welcoming/affirming imcompleteness/blockage/barriers/edges.  It's interestingly counter-intuitive, as I typically think of the term "embrace" as applying to something positive, rather than to its edges or endings.  I can see how the choice not to get rid of something (either in mind or in experience) but instead to accept its limits is actually a way to embrace more of what it is.  For example, I'm thinking of one of my daughters and her persistent discomfort with aspects of schooling.  If I embrace this discomfort, I let it in as something to build on or with . . .

"Making the best sense we can now of what we have to make sense of" sounds like the daily/hourly/minutely work of evolution and growth, right?  It's the way eggs become chickens . . . It's closer to the conditions of organismic life than a search for TRUTH -- for answers that resolve questions in a trans-organismic way . . ?

Of course, PART of OUR organismic life, as humans, is to create abstractions of organismic life (and other things).  So embracing the limitations of formal systems means in a sense accepting that they are among the experiences and tools that we have for creating and making sense of experiences -- no more and no less.  As Adrienne Rich put it, "We must use what we have to invent what we desire."  So "settling" would not mean compromising, giving up on desired states, but settling into what we are MORE -- yoga-wise. Settling into our surroundings so we can see/sense and better use "what we have."

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
9 + 10 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.