Conversation

Replying to
In my headcanon, “moderning” captures what I’m after, but it would be confusing to use here. Moderning as a kind of outward-oriented living in the present, rather than inner/spiritual. Not the historical era of 1920s, but the presentist sensibility.
1
8
Trying to be modern is a pretty simple idea. It just means living in the present as opposed to the past, future, or adjacent possible. It means aliveness to change because the present is the fastest changing temporality. Past, future, adjacent possible change much more slowly.
2
8
Metaphor: in a moving train, if you’ve ever peeked through the gap in the vestibule connecting cars, you see the track sleepers running rapidly below your feet. That’s the present. If you look out of the window, ahead or behind, that’s future and past. Sideways=adjacent possible.
1
7
Aliveness to change beyond your immediate person is pretty hard, hence instruments. You can’t just meditate on it like it’s your own breath. If you wanted to actually see the sleepers on the tracks whizzing by under your feet, it’s not trivial.
1
4
Keeping up with twitter feed is aliveness to change Trying to photograph Jupiter by stacking frames of a short movie (my next astrophotography project) is like keeping up with the raw Jupiter-twitter feed.
1
6
I’m not seriously looking for a verb btw, though thanks for the suggestions. Looking for a verb is merely the Macguffin powering this theory of science as modernism as aliveness to change. Somehow “science” got wrapped up in the identity performance of “intelligent” as a career.
1
11
Sure, intelligence makes you particularly good at this in a way that can be parlayed into fame and wealth etc., but the fit with intelligence is almost the least interesting thing about it. Some fairly stupid people have wonderfully scientific sensibilities and ways of seeing.
2
6
Learning is definitely part of it for a lot of people, but probably not for me. I’m a bad learner and it’s not a motivator for me.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @starsandrobots and @vgr
(Feels like a pretty un-bureaucratic way to describe learning which is part of what I love about it!)
1
5
Yeah testing is part of it too, in the sense of testing the boundaries of your own experience, rather than bureaucratic falsification or verification.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
There’s a concept from Freud: reality testing. For Freud it’s the way in which the ego learns to delineate internal/external worlds - this might not map directly to what you’re talking about but it does hint at “playing” with reality in a spontaneous & exploratory manner
1
7
Sure, Galileo tested Aristotelean realities when he turned a telescope skyward, but THAT test was not the point. It was just an effect. The real test was of the boundary of the experience of seeing. With an instrument. “Oh that’s NOT a point of light, it’s a striped ball”
Replying to
Some accounts of early science make it seem almost like Galileo’s heresies were about him choosing to fight church orthodoxy. No that was just a side effect. If you *wanted* to fight the church in medieval Europe you’d do something more direct, like nailing 99 theses to a door.
3
7
Yeah experiments too... another elemental concept that’s somehow gotten bureaucratized into NSF-Approved Hypothesis-Testing Methodology. But yeah.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
Doing experiments! Everyone can do experiments, is fun, you investigate while doing stuff. Then you fail and start again, because that's the purpose of an experiment.
1
7
Grokking in the original Heinlein sense comes pretty close. Insight but into something outside of yourself. Except as the result of steady, patient effort. A gradual dawning of a light via a systematic uncovering of a path rather than a sudden enlightenment.
1
4
‘Study’ is probably the best simple English word if you don’t want to get too weird.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
I agree. As someone who got paid to science. I used to say 'studying' a lot and 'working on' a fair bit. I think this verb would help a lot with some wider problems science has with camping out fields.
3
4
Paulo Coelho’s Alchemist gets at an aspect of the scientific sensibility that is often lost in modern views. That sense of a gradually dawning, cleansing, purifying light as you get closer to the essence of a thing. I especially like the alchemy connotation.
2
11
It’s no accident that early scientists were often also astrologers and occultists. Not only is that acceptable within the scope of the verb I’m circling, it’s necessary. Superstition is inseparable from this kind of questing and not only not a threat to it, but possibly an aid.
1
7
If you see a strong distinction between science and superstition that must be policed to keep the former “pure” and “uncorrupted” you’re paradoxically being superstitious about the essence of science. Overanxious policing of science/superstition boundary is bureaucratism.
2
14
The Hindi/Sanskrit word saadhna is another useful one with no English equivalent. Learning/study as a mindful spiritual quest. It’s often applied to learning the fine arts. The alchemist’s pursuit was saadhna. Sciencing as a developmental journey similar to learning music.
2
20