Where to Begin?

It has occurred to me that the broadness of my subject matter makes it unclear as to what my true focus really is. What does it mean to have your focus be multidisciplinary thinking? The truth is it is founded on an idea i got from watching Leonard Bernstein's 6 harvard lectures entitled "The Unanswered Question". For those of you who are not familiar with this reference, "The Unanswered Question" is an orchestral piece written by the American Composer, Charles Ives. In this lecture Bernstein poses the idea that a long standing tradition at Harvard is that of Multidisciplinary studies. He states, "inter-disciplinary values - that the best way to 'know' a thing is in the context of another discipline." Bernstein delivered these lectures when he held the post as Charles Eliot Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard University. Other notable composers as well as poets to hold this post were, Igor Stravinsky, Aaron Copland, W.H. Auden, and EE Cummings. 

At this point it would be easy for me to merely repeat the ideas that Bernstein has set forth in the 6 Norton lectures, however, my intention is not to imitate, but to elaborate. Today(april 07, 2010), we are continually learning more about the nature of the mind, and human consciousness. Just in the last 20-30 years, the power of computers, and the internet has changed modern culture in ways that Bernstein could not have predicted in 1972 when he gave his lectures. I predict as well, that by the time i have come to the end of my life, the advancements of computers, and the scope of human knowledge will be unimaginably transformed. For this reason i believe that the opportune time for a renewal of Bernstein's ideas is at hand. They indeed require expansion, and summation. So i would like to begin with a discussion about the Bernstein lecture's. I will discuss his main contributions and assertions.

to be continued  

Author's Note

http://www.leonardbernstein.com/norton.htm

Reviews

[Mary]

looking forward to reading more

[JENY]

Ok….good..
I will read and comment….

[Samuel Ferris]

they had wisdom, which was the summation of their life experience. I also bet you would be surprised at how much they knew. They may not have known how to make computers, but that is hardly the case that im making. Iv just begone to write this.
What they did know very well was people, and people havent changed so much in 3-4-50,000 years. The ways in which we have changed have been social, which is a product of how the world around us has changed. The main driving force behind these social changes is technology, plain and simple. If you can find an anthropologist that would argue that agriculture didnt change how humans lived let me know. I agree there is more to life than knowledge, thats not my argument, but the fact remains in order to understand who we are and where we are going it is our responsibility not to be ignorant of these changes. The taoist or Buddhist idea of giving up all desire i think is almost as bad as how the christians used to put ash in there food so that they didnt enjoy it. To be human, to be alive is to desire, and to need. To be selfless is to die. While i have reasons to be alive, i will spend it talking and thinking plenty, needing and wanting what i should need and want, and nothing more. The fact is knowledge gives you perspective, to scoff at know things is to scoff at part of which makes us human. Lao Tzu, if he did not know language would not have been able to communicate a thing to anyone. Wisdom requires knowledge, it is the summation of a life time of thoughtfulness. So, i do respectfully disagree, i think to assume Lao Tzu, if he was an actual person, knew nothing is not giving him the credit he deserved.