Art and science have traditionally been conceived of as sort of opposites of each other with science being reserved for ostensibly rational logocentric expression while art being seen as the realm of emotional expression, in other words the realm of the masculine versus the realm of the feminine.
Formal education is traditionally based on the Aristotelian division into subjects of knowledge which is fully and completely a social construction although typically discursively naturalized and without basis being virtually universally regarded as an almost unquestionable given.
Most school subjects are about “science” with creativity typically reserved for the “arts”. Why then is this so? Why is both science and education in science typically so uncreative? Why does formal education typically only encourages creativity in “the arts” and not in “the sciences”? The answer is masculinism, namely the structural derogation of the socially constructed realm of the feminine.
On the contrary is creativity strongly discouraged in “the sciences” which is highly peculiar considering that the trajectory of science could become significantly accelerated if formal education were to encourage creativity in science and innovation at all levels of education from kindergarten to doctoral dissertation. We should furthermore very strongly question why we need those ageist hierarchies at all?
Humans peak in measured intelligence at about age 16, yet young children are typically very smart in not yet having forgotten the essential capability for asking fundamental questions, the stereotypically ethnocratic answers of which ex-children known as so called “adults” have become silly enough to ethnocentrically take for granted. Derridean deconstruction is fundamentally about the exculpation of the feminine domain in arbitrary logocentric sciences and is indeed about exposing the unfounded nature of the most central assumptions of carno-phallogocentric masculinist academic discourse. Indeed, being an ex-child typically involves tragically repressing the domain of the feminine which children typically embrace and fully live.
Formal education thus needs to abandon its hierarchic nature in the seven-year old girl typically being more able to ask fundamental questions than the middle-aged male professor. In order so as to accelerate the scientific evolution need we encourage the asking of fundamental questions and creatively train humans of all ages and at all stages of education in advanced resolution of problems.
Patriarchal academia is an ineffective machine that mostly produces discourse and power; yet were academia to focus on unleashing the repressed domain of the feminine could we instead intelligently propel the scientific evolution in order so as to increasingly accelerate it. While healthy competition is certainly very good in producing valuable diversity is most competition in academia unhealthy indeed in being focused on egocentrically comparative phallic measurement.
If the focus instead were to be on advanced resolution of problems, asking fundamental questions as pertaining to central assumptions and subsequently engage in creatively collaborative conceptual, social and technological innovation would we no doubt be able to attain better and much more rapid scientific results. Laboratory research is typically highly random in frequently relying on unscientific abuse of captive non-human persons. Scientific abuse is not only reprehensible but these abuses are part and parcel of the oppressed, suppressed and repressed domain of the feminine to which non-human persons are structurally discursively consigned.
Rabbis say that “as long as a child keeps asking questions need we not worry” and it is even considered a religious duty in Rabbinic Judaism to encourage children to ask questions. It ought indeed be a civic duty to encourage persons of all ages to continue to ask questions for it is virtually impossible to systematically solve advanced problems unless we ask the right questions in subsequently adequately articulating the problem in a manner that will strategically facilitate its expedient resolution indeed.
Rather than exclusively encourage creativity in the arts in therefore luring millions of talented creative persons into lives of economic deprivation and lives of working in menial professions need we appreciate creativity and help propel it in the direction of conceptual, social and technological innovation indeed. Creativity can be expressed in many ways and so educationally encouraging developments in “the arts” rather than in “the sciences” therefore holds back innovation and entrepreneurship alike.
This is not to imply that there is no place for arts but rather that too many creative young people are encouraged by formal education to develop creativity in the wrong fields in producing a vast surplus of artists as well as a significant deficit in innovative entrepreneurship, namely what is known in macro-economic terms as “unemployment”, meaning persons having been socially conditioned to wish to become economic serfs rather than conceptual leaders and daring creators.
We furthermore need more applied sciences within the social sciences, in fact social science must no more essentially limit itself to discursively reproducing the present into the future but need focus on innovating the future by means of large-scale social engineering in all social sciences.
Arts are to be sure important but artists in most traditional human cultures do not expect to be able to make a living from creatively artistic expression. Artists ought rather be taught to become business persons in learning to produce such things that others would find useful and would like to pay for. The typical artist will complain about being collectively misunderstood by society, yet is it not extremely silly and self-defeating in the extreme to produce things that others don’t want to buy and then complain about them not wanting to pay for the very things that they don’t even want to buy?
The arts thus need to be fused with science in artists learning to become successful entrepreneurs in producing such things that will actually be helpful for others.
We need reinvent science as art in recognizing the scientific evolution as a process of intellectually collaborative creation involving intelligent deployment of emotions and we need certainly focus on substantially accelerating that process by bringing in tools from the world of the arts into that very process indeed.
The essence of this process is to undo structural masculinism in exculpating the domain of the feminine from the cognitive terror of patriarchal carno-phallocentrism as expressive of the masculinist repression of the domain of the feminine, including the harmful repression of prepubescent sexuality which patriarchal heteroculture transforms into phallic social/discursive/physical terror.
We need therefore all ditch that oppressive patriarchal construct which is “adulthood” and rather embrace the feminine domain which most humans fully embrace while still young children. The art of science is thus essentially about fundamental questions, rebellious creativity and breaking bounds by innovation and these are properties that education at all level thus needs to strongly focus on encouraging indeed. The current oppressively phallic machine that is academia is thus one gigantic stumbling block for increasingly accelerating the scientific evolution. Phallic thinking permeates academia as in society at large and so we need transform the underlying socially produced conception of the phallus from one of coercive power into one of a flower of creation.
The essential task in accelerating the scientific revolution is hence very absolutely about exculpating the realm of the feminine from discursively hegemonic patriarchal, masculinist and carno-phallogocentric suppression, oppression and repression indeed.
The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project
The Intelligence Entrapment Methods documentation project.