#polymathy

That's the inlay in the front cover:

It displays my four "special interest clusters", [Math] , [Physics], [cogSci+(all things related to neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, mixtures of these, and beyond...) ] , [art/literature/philosophy] - (some stuff I work on in linguistics are in the overlap between the latter two categories/clusters.)

[Clusters are "blurry categories/groups/sets/collections", or categories whose boundaries are not strict. It's "fuzzy categorization", so to speak. Elements/compounds in category/cluster A may also be included in category/cluster B - the compounds are entangled, per this metaphorical visualization...]

---

(Coming back o my folder...)

I added a section I can quickly release by pulling it upwards:

For that I have cut some 'tunnels' into the grey folder strips.

(Releasing it quickly works quite well.)

---

That's the "dynamical mindmap" this section bears inside:

It's "dynamical" , because I use sticky labels on foil and non-permanent markers. This method works best for puzzling with the the complex inter-/multidisciplinary stuff I work on/with.

I believe they succeed for the most part. Most comments seem to agree, although there are of course the occasional “there’s nothing except eternal Modern” Greeks and the occasional “Whoever says something opposite to Erasmus must  be executed” westerners.  You can check for yourselves though. I believe they make sense. I am adding the video and also the explanatory text, which is very helpful, in the link below. 

Of course I think this checks post-classical. For anything before 4th-5th century BC, I guess Reconstructed might still be closer to the truth but also harder to bring to life accurately... However, the creators of Lucian say you can use it with any era (even Homeric) in the sense that it is the most wholistic approach and that you can never be perfectly accurate anyway.

Themes: Luoyang; Objects

Overview:

           This essay is on polymathy. Goodman says that at the time this essay was written it was a new field of study. He defines the term, initially in an ancient western context, as a new kind of knowledge. This is contrasted with polydidactics which is conventional knowledge, the set texts for a given context. To cover the topic, he is going to study some well-known early scholars of China to see what skills and teachings feature in their writings. Goodman holds up Pei Songzhi up as an example of one doing this, after he rewrote a conventional history in a new way. His study will focus on three areas; cultural history, synergy among skills and the impact upon our historical methods.

           Goodman begins with the Dong guan [Tung-kuan], the court institution of learning for Eastern Han. It was a building within the palace that some very limited few scholars were allowed access to. It became the centre for polymathy as debates started about textual and ritual authorities which allowed for developing new ideas and approaches. The first important scholar linked with this was Pan Gu the historian. Initially the Dong guan was just a centre for historical record keeping but gradually became a centre for other areas too. For example, before Pan Gu was arrested there was evidence he was working on mathematical astrology.

          Next Goodman takes a side step away from his primary topic to look at the impact the Dong guan had on politics. While few male scholars had access, eunuchs and the Emperor’s harem did and this may have led to the struggles between the two factions. This is because the scholars who did have access were those who had deigned to take a low paid job and position within the court – there was no formal role; however, it was deemed worth it because of the rare selection of books that were kept within.  

           When Goodman gets to the reign of Emperor Huan, he says that Daoism and Daoist rites became increasingly used by the Court. The Dong guan as a result became known as a centre for the study of Daoist texts. Goodman is keen to make a distinction between the mainstream Daoism and the Neo-Daoism of various rebel groups that arose around the same time. Suggesting that the Daoism of the scholars was more academic and was probably not practised in their private religion Scholars wished to be appointed to the Dong guan as it allowed them to be paid to further their studies without having to engage in factional strife, and Goodman gives an overview and examples of scholars who were executed for speaking out against the eunuchs, including a long section on Cai Yong who headed up the Dong guan until his death.

          Goodman turns to astrology and court music. However, he points out that both of these were tied to rites and therefore legitimacy and so during the days of a falling dynasty these were perilous things to be studying as implications of disloyalty were never far away. Cai Yong led an attempt to try and rediscover a style of court music. The success (or lack) of the attempt itself is unimportant to Goodman’s study what he is interested in is the presence of a research program which “pushed the polymath envelope.”

           The Dong guan and most of its material was destroyed in the fire in Luoyang set by Dong Zhuo so there was a period where it didn’t exist. Many years later the Imperial Library of Wei filled the gap, while in Wu and Shu some sort of Dong guan was established – Chen Shou was appointed to Shu’s. Western Jin created a formalised role called a Gentleman drafter, a change from the unofficial role in the Han. They were placed under the direction of the Imperial Library.

           Between the burning of Luoyang and the Imperial Library assuming the role originally filled by the Dong guan, polymathy occurred more in local “schools”. Guan Lu, described as an outsider, is used as a case study to examine how this happened. After studying what he believed, Goodman contrasts him with Cai Yong. The later searched for knowledge in historical texts and ceremonial rites whereas Guan Lu used divination.  

           Goodman turns to study a third polymath. This one is Xun Xu. He spends some time describing the Xun clan. Goodman notes that Xun’s writings didn’t talk about Daoist or Confucian ideas, which was different to his direct contemporaries, and also different to the Dong guan school. However, Goodman argues that his polymathy grew out of the Dong guan school, this is because of the way he was informed by ancient devices and crossed bureaucratic lines, just as Cai Yong did. He was in charge of the Imperial library until he fell foul of politics.

          The conclusion contrasts Roman polymaths with Ancient Chinese ones. One of the big differences he picks up on is how in the East the opportunities to make their mark as a polymath was inside the court. What made them worthy of study though, in this field was the way they approached science and rites with attitudes and methods that had no pedigree, developing techniques that later Tang polymaths built upon.

Analysis:

I started to collect my current projects I am working on in a kind of book(let) I want to present here with some photos.

I have some/many puns included in these projects.

... So, let's get entangled in this theoretical nonsense!

--

That's the current cover:

It displays a quote I came up with when I was 15 yo - Initially I wrote it in German directly into a drawing I drew during some boring lessons at school.

"Physics and philosophy my not speak the same language, yet they tell the same story."

[I will elaborate that quote and other ideas in the book I am writing...]

...

Some pages of my project "detours_into_philophysics.loop":

My writing project [german poems] "Fio ergo sum - I become, therefore I am":

My project "cubic Xtraction of the hyperspherical plane":

My project maximalminimalism:

Some other stuff:

Benji's foot print from yesterday: [i can write something at the foil.]

Some stuff about myself:

The back: a drawing I made in 2020. [drawing the many dots was a severely boring task.]

"A #polymath is never a Jack of all trades, but someone who devotes their life to #knowledge & develops a multidimensional understanding of epistemic networks. Not every century [nor] generation, produces #DaVinci or #IbnSina."

I love writing. It gives me such a high to write without censoring, to let the words just grow on the page, me having fun with it, not caring how it sounds, not caring what others think.

I’m writing a delightfully absurd play as an assignment for drama class. This is one of those times when you realise you can’t have possibly chosen anything else but the path you did in life. I’ve often felt disillusioned about my work here in college, wondered what was the point of it all. The Humanities is often so full of its own shit and is so spectacularly useless that it makes one despair. But then something like this happens—you write, you read a good book, and you’re reminded again about why you chose this in the first place. Why you love it. I love writing. I love working with words. I love creating. I feel stable, fixed, when I’m creating stories, putting down my thoughts into words, reading back what I’ve written and knowing that I’ve got something good, something people will connect to, people will love to read, people will laugh with.

In some other post, but now I think it will be this one, I wanted to speak about the allure of polymathy. A polymath someone talented in various different fields. They can play the flute, hold forth on mathematical equations, and dance the salsa all with remarkable talent and ease. I wanted nothing more than to be a polymath. It’s very simple: 1) The more things you do, the more people you meet, and the more experiences you create. 2) The more things you do, the more diverse states of being you experience—there’s the adrenaline rush spiking through your veins as you play basketball; there’s this sense of play, of a complete lack of inhibition as you act in a play; there’s the intellectual excitement of making a killing speech and destroying your opponents. 3) The more things you do well, the more confident you are in yourself, and the more respect you get from others.

Now, I’ve tried. I’ve tried dabbling in whatever field of endeavour I could—music, art, sport, chess. It went disastrously. I’ve always been called a smart child. Everyone I knew always said it. Parents, teachers, peers. I was that kid, the one your parents are always comparing you with (If she can do so well on the test, why can’t you?) I aced tests. I knew how to do them. By the time I came graduated school, I knew confidently I was going to top my batch. And I did.

The problem was, I’d always been told I was smart. I was used to getting things easily, to not have to struggle so much to learn things. Actually, that’s not true. I remember struggling with the maths tables in 4th. I kept messing them up. But I also remember my mom did not let me give up. She sat down with me and made me repeat it until I was word perfect and could do the calculations in my head. My parents always placed a high priority on doing well in school. I simply had to be the best academically. It was an unquestioned assumption that I would be. I pushed myself to live up to that ideal and succeeded much of the time. Even when I messed up sometimes or did not achieve what I’d hoped for, I saw myself as capable of it, and thus made myself capable of it. Even though I struggled many a time, I never lost faith in myself.

Thus I know that academically I’ll always be good. But I’ve never been pushed to be good or develop my skills in any other field. To be honest, I was never really interested in any other field. All I wanted to do was read books. And occasionally write stories. I also liked doing word puzzles and logic puzzles, which I happen to be very good at as well. I see a pattern here. I tend to like doing only the things I’m good at already. I wrote, and then I stopped writing, not because I stopped liking it, but because I thought I sucked at it. Of course, I could have become good at most of these things because I liked them and thus did them so often, which is true, but I also do stop doing things that I like but which I feel I’m not mastering quickly enough. Simply doing something isn’t enough for me. I must be the best at it, or it has no appeal for me.

The trouble with a college like IIT is that it reinforces this way of thinking. There are so many different people doing such awesome stuff. It’s great that they’re doing it, and they should keep doing it. But there is a hierarchy generated that puts them at the top and the rest immediately are categorised as inferior, not a nice feeling for someone who’s always been on the top till then. So everyone feels the pressure to be the best of the best. To be . . . everything. I live with that pressure everyday. Everyday I push myself to do more, to be more productive, to look more beautiful, to be more intellectual, to have more skills, to get the complete college experience. And of course, this is impossible to do. Here’s what a proper IITian is expected to do:

1) Maintain a 9.5 CGPA at least. True IITians are intellectually at the top of the game always.

2) Have a leadership position in Shaastra or Saarang or both. Nothing less than core level will do.

3) Do brilliant internships each vacation, be productive, learn skills.

4) Have a brilliant college life, hitting all the happening spots in the city, having intellectual discussions on life, the universe and everything over cups of chai right outside the campus gates, and smoking with professors / taking road trips with friends every weekend.

5) If you’re a boy, have a girlfriend. If you’re a girl, be pretty and hot.

6) Be involved in every extracurricular there is. Be part of a college sports team. Represent your hostel at competitions. Write for the college newsletter. Write poetry and stories that are published in journals and magazines. Paint cool, artsy stuff for fun and decorate your room with them. Act in college plays. Take part in debates, MUNs, quizzes. Win them all. Read everything from Derrida and Foucault to Eleanor Catton to Richard Feynman to quantum physics.

7) Always be productive. Never waste time doing lame stuff like surfing Facebook too much or lurking on tumblr.

This sounds outrageous. But it’s a very real pressure. Just because no one can be everything doesn’t prevent the yearning after it. You have this fantasy that one day you’ll do everything right, and all sorrow and frustration and loneliness will go away for ever. And there’s a constant deference, as Derrida might say, of this, and thus there’s a constant absence even if there are glimpses of the presence of something like this state. What is the signified of the signifier ‘perfection’? We will never know because we will never achieve it. It could very well be defined as everything you’re not doing, thus operating as permanent difference, as Derrida put it. (I read up Derrida for an exam recently and he’s fresh in my mind. Excuse the pretentiousness. But he does make sense.)