This. But you contradict yourself slightly. Your main point:
>>>>There is no dichotomy between science and the creative act.
Well, my distillation thereof at least.
But then you go on to say:
>>>> STEM is important to know in the same way humanities and "creative arts" are important in that they are ways to help you understand the world. Simple as.
Now: 'Ways to help you understand the world' <--- Science/Math is one too. How?
A 'way of understanding the world' is a conditioning, a particular mode of thinking. Usually they require training. An "objective" observer watching a tribal ritual will find the whole ordeal it as meaningless as an "objective" observer who is watching scientists operating a lab. To understand this is scary for a "man of science/math" and it drove me to tears when it hit me from the sky.
As any consellation, the utility of science/math in predictive capabilities gives them a "mere" superiority (please bare with me, I reveal my inner fears here), but they cannot (IMHO) either be claimed more superior to the other because they both stand equally as conditionings. Those greats who discovered the truths of Science had great creative capability, and capacity for communication of profound ideas through elegant vehicles for the appreciation of mankind.
To illustrate: You cannot distil drawing to pure motor skill. This is an over-simplification, "the arts deal in the particular, the individual and the personal while the sciences deal in the general, the universal and the collective". Yet both describe the same phenomenon, one in abstract, the other in concrete, but both mere images compared with the current moment (now), which alone has the airs of Reality.
If I may play my final card: we should perhaps beware of the importance we place on these pursuits, because while they are the current paradigm, we certainly (IMHO) do not tap the entire range of human potential. The question which plays, to me: which came first, me or the world?
>A 'way of understanding the world' is a conditioning, a particular mode of thinking. Usually >they require training. An "objective" observer watching a tribal ritual will find the whole >ordeal it as meaningless as an "objective" observer who is watching scientists operating a lab. >To understand this is scary for a "man of science/math" and it drove me to tears when it hit me >from the sky.
They might find both situations to be equally meaningless, however one gives people the power to understand the natural world; the other does not. The great progresses our world has seen have largely been done by folk engaging in scientific processes - not tribal rituals. Watson & Crick discovered the shape of DNA in a lab, not around a fire.
>>>>There is no dichotomy between science and the creative act.
Well, my distillation thereof at least.
But then you go on to say:
>>>> STEM is important to know in the same way humanities and "creative arts" are important in that they are ways to help you understand the world. Simple as.
Now: 'Ways to help you understand the world' <--- Science/Math is one too. How?
A 'way of understanding the world' is a conditioning, a particular mode of thinking. Usually they require training. An "objective" observer watching a tribal ritual will find the whole ordeal it as meaningless as an "objective" observer who is watching scientists operating a lab. To understand this is scary for a "man of science/math" and it drove me to tears when it hit me from the sky.
As any consellation, the utility of science/math in predictive capabilities gives them a "mere" superiority (please bare with me, I reveal my inner fears here), but they cannot (IMHO) either be claimed more superior to the other because they both stand equally as conditionings. Those greats who discovered the truths of Science had great creative capability, and capacity for communication of profound ideas through elegant vehicles for the appreciation of mankind.
To illustrate: You cannot distil drawing to pure motor skill. This is an over-simplification, "the arts deal in the particular, the individual and the personal while the sciences deal in the general, the universal and the collective". Yet both describe the same phenomenon, one in abstract, the other in concrete, but both mere images compared with the current moment (now), which alone has the airs of Reality.
If I may play my final card: we should perhaps beware of the importance we place on these pursuits, because while they are the current paradigm, we certainly (IMHO) do not tap the entire range of human potential. The question which plays, to me: which came first, me or the world?
It is an interesting one to ponder.
Thank you for suffering my thoughts.