Physics of Writing...Dream-Writing...Chaos to Creativity - Bitly

Dream - Writing

PreView: Books §1.00 & §2.00

Donald Knight Beman Ph.D.

Dream - Writing

NOTE [1] Selected images, discourse and/or formulas relating to the introduction, discussion and explication of the 'Physics of Writing' theory, including images and text relating to the copyrighted/registered Natural Interdisciplinary Dynamic System ['NIDS'] text and graphics, have been withdrawn from this discourse as they will be included in additional property rights and patent application(s). [2] Due to the constant updating, relocation or abandonment of online databases, some referenced links in this text and in Book §11.00 Interdisciplinary Bibliography and References may no longer be active or exist. Therefore, please search the referenced title, subject or author and update the link(s) for your records.

Physics of Writing Dream-Writing Chaos to Creativity 2nd Edition 2016 WordShop Publications Physics of Writing Inc. ISBN: 978-0-9860025-6-4 Copyright 2009-2016 Donald K. Beman All Rights Reserved

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

'SpaceShip Earth'

'Now there is one outstandingly important fact regarding Spaceship Earth, and that is that no instruction book came with it'.

Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1963) R. Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983)

Donald Knight Beman i

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Book §1.00 Introduction to the Physics of Writing Writing. The Final Frontier.

1

Metaphor

2

Selected Examples of Scientific Metaphors

3

ForeWord: Beam Up!

4

Reflections: 'Dead Reckoning'

7

The Challenges and Risks Posed by 'Dead Reckoning'

8

Metaphor, Metaphor, on the Wall Who --- What --- Are The Borg?

9

Physics of Writing (Abstract)

10

Natural Interdisciplinary Dynamical System [NIDS] Forward and Forewarned

11

Decoding The Rhetorical Challenge We Face Resistance is Not Futile : Resistance is Freedom Notes

12

Addendum

14

#

Donald Knight Beman 1

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Book §2.00 What is Interdisciplinarity ForeWord: 'Interdisciplinarity and Complexity'

2

2.00

Interdisci ----- what!

3

2.10

Defining and Explicating Inter-discipli-narity

6

2.20

Identifying and Explicating the 'X'-Disciplinarities

8

2.30

The Physics of Interdisciplinarity

11

2.40

Spinning the Thematic Threads of Interdisciplinarity

15

2.50

Weaving an Interdisciplinary Tapestry

19

.01

Tempering Perspectives on Interdisciplinarity

19

.02

J. T. Klein: Interdisciplinarity - History, Theory, & Practice (1990)

20

.03

J. Moran: Interdisciplinarity (2001)

24

2.60

Discussion

29

2.70

Litmus Test: Theory vs Practice

32

2.80

Dénouement

35

Forward: All. Not One. Not Two. Not Three. Not Many. All.

36

#


Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Book §3.00 What is Normative Language

3.00

ForeWord: Are We Enlightened or Just Informed?

2

What is Normative ['System'] Language

3

.01

P. W. Taylor: Normative Discourse (1961)

3

.02

T. Thornton: Wittgenstein on Language and Thought: The Philosophy of Content (1998)

.03

D. Whiting: "The Normativity of Meaning Defended" in Analysis (2007)

.04

3.30

4

What can a 'Normative System Language' do for us, if anything? J. T. Klein: "Interdisciplinarity and Complexity: An Evolving Relationship."

3.20

4

B. Nicolescu: "A New Vision of the World: Transdisciplinarity." In Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity (2000)

3.10

3

6

Establishing Logical 'Foundational Philosophical Connectives'

7

.01

Genius [for example]

8

.02

Kantian References

9

Physics of Writing Normative ['System'] Language .01

Refer to §10.00 Originating Normative System Language (2009)

Forward: Bits of Information

11

12

#


Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Book §4.00 Interdisciplinary Survey of Creativity ForeWord: Through the Looking Glass

3

4.10

Framing Creativity[ness]

4

4.20

Definitions, Explications and Processes

9

4.30

Survey of Leading Creativity Theories

17

.01

Unified Theory of Creativity

17

.02

Psychoanalytic; Behavioristic; Humanistic

18

.03

Investment Theory

19

.04

Generativity

20

.05

Convergent and Divergent Thinking

20

.06

Structure of Intellect Model (SI)

21

.07

Componential Model

22

.08

Chaos and Complexity

23

.09

Janusian Process

24

.10

Metaphorical Thought

25

.11

Three-Facet Model

26

.12

Bisocial Theory of Creativity

28

4.40

Creativity: Oedipus Victor?

30

4.50

Marshall McLuhan: Medium; Message; Massage?

32

N.B. McLuhan's 'Theories' are examined in greater detail in §7.00 What is Writing 4.60

Logical Foundational Philosophical Connectives ↔ Connectivity

33

.01

45

Intuition Donald Knight Brman 4

Physics of Writing

4.70

4.80

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

.02

Imagination

53

.03

Insight; Instinct; Innate Ideation

67

.04

Innateness

79

Discussion

91

.01

Innateness ↔ Intuition ↔ Innovation → Creativity Dynamic

91

.02

Creativity and a Universal Integer ['UI']

93

Transition: Interconnectivity

96

Forward: Genuine Learning

99

#

Donald Knight Brman 5

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Book §5.00 The Unconscious and Creativity ForeWord: 'Becoming Aware of the New Unconscious'

2

5.00

The Unconscious and Creativity

3

5.10

Defining and Explicating the/a ['state of'] 'unconscious' ['ness']

5

5.20

Building Foundational Philosophical Connectives

10

.01

Plato (c.428 - 347 B.C.E.)

10

.02

Aristotle (c.384 - 322 B.C.E.)

16

.03

Rene Descartes (1546-1650)

24

.04

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): 'The Unconscious' ↔ Conscious Dynamic

38

5.30

Hermann Helmholtz (1821-1994): Mind↔['unconscious']↔Brain Connectives

41

5.40

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939): 'The Unconscious' and Creativity

48

.01

Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming ['CWD']

53

.02

Freud ↔ CWD ↔ Aristotle ↔ Poetics ↔ Creativity

56

.03

Freud ↔ CWD ↔ Kant ↔ Critique of Judgement ↔ Creativity

59

5.50

5.60

Carl Gustave Jung (1875-1960): Psychological Types and the Unconscious

63

.01

General Description of the Types

65

.02

The Collective Unconscious ↔ Creatives ↔ Creativity

72

.03

Comparison: 'Introverted Creative' ↔ 'Extroverted Creative'

78

Arthur Koestler (1905-1983): 'Bisociation and the Act of Creation'

83

Forward: 'HoloDeck of Our Mind'?

99

# Donald Knight Beman 6

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Book §6.00 Freedom ↔ Synergy ↔ Chaos → Creativity

6.10

ForeWord: "Caged Bird''

2

Freedom

4

.01

Bisociation and Freedom: Act I

4

.02

Dialogue

8

.03

Bisociation and Freedom: Act II

9

.04

Dialogue

14

.05

Bisociation and Freedom: Act III

15

.06

Einstein on Freedom and Creativity

19

.07

Freud on Freedom

22

.08

Winnowing Words

25

.09

'Degrees of Freedom'

27

6.20

System(s): Definition and Explication

33

6.30

Synergy

37

.01

Metaphorical Synergy Scenario

40

.02

Synergetics

44

6.40

Chaos

43

6.50

Transition: Freedom ↔ Synergy ↔ Chaos ↔ 'The Unconscious' → Creativity

52

Forward: Synertivity

53

#


Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Book §7.00 What is Writing ForeWord: The Philosopher

2

7.10

Winnowing Words

3

7.20

Dialogue

5

7.30

Reading and Writing about 'What is Writing'

9

.01

T. Eagleton: Literary Theory: An Introduction (1996)

9

.02

Plato: Phaedrus. W. C. Helmbold and W. G. Rabinowitz (1956)

11

.03

Aristotle: On Interpretation. E. M. Edghill (2007)

11

.04

P. Macherey: A Theory of Literary Production (2006)

12

05

D. Haraway: Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (1991)

14

.06

M. Bakhtin: Speech Genres & Other Late Essays (1986)

16

.07

L. Flower & J. R. Hayes: A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing (1981)

19

.08

G. Deleuze: Negotiations (1995)

23

.09

I. J. Gelb: A Study of Writing: The Foundations of Grammatology (1952)

25

.10

Roland Barthes: Writing Degree Zero (1968); Critical Essays (1972); The Pleasure of the Text (1975); Image, Music, Text (1977)

29

.11

J. Derrida: On Grammatology (1997)

37

.12

Arthur Koestler: The Act of Creation (1964)

40

.13

Marshall McLuhan: Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man (2003)

55

Forward: What is Rhetoric?

61 #


Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Book §8.00 Dénouement: The 'Physics' of The Physics of Writing

8.10

ForeWord: 'The Wizard of Oz'

03

Aha!

[FADE IN]

04

[FADE OUT]

06

8.20

Dialogue

07

8.30

Natural Interdisciplinary Dynamical System ['NIDS']

11

.01

Image[ination]

11

.02

Text[ualization]

12

.03

Natural Interdisciplinary Dynamical System ['NIDS'] Explicated

12

8.40

Unconscious[ness] and Physics Revisited

14

.01

E. H. Walker: The Physics of Consciousness ... (2000)

15

.02

N. H. Anderson in A Functional Theory of Cognition (1996)

16

.03

R. J. Baron: The Cerebral Computer ... (1987)

16

.04

J. Kim: Philosophy of Mind (1996)

17

.05

H, A. Simon: "Scientific Approaches to the Question of Consciousness"

17

.06

J. R. Searle: "The Problem of Consciousness in Consciousness" (1994)

19

.07

Contrastive Evidence in Perception

19

.08

Contrastive Evidence in Imagery

20

.09

Contrasting Capabilities of Conscious and Unconscious Processes

20

.10

Revonsuo & Kamppinen Commentary [on .07 - .09 above]

21

.11

D. R. Joseph: The Right Brain and the Unconscious ... (1992)

22

.12

J. F. Kihlstrom: "The Rediscovery of the Unconscious" (2007)

24


Dream - Writing

Physics of Writing

8.50

Chaos to Creativity

Chaos[ness] and Physics Revisited

28

.01

Causal Connective .01

31

.02


32

.03


35

.04


35

.05


35

.06


35

8.60

The Natural and Artefactual NIDS Subsystems

36

8.70

The Natural Interdisciplinary Dynamical System of Creativity and Writing Per Se

40

Forward: 'Resistance is Not Futile : Resistance is Freedom

43

#


Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Book §9.00 Writing Per Se ForeWord: 'Learning Rather Than Teaching...''

2

.01 Review

3

9.10

Hypothesis: Physics of Writing (Revisited)

4

9.20

Example: Selected Applicable Law of Physics

6

9.30

Example: Artefactual Disciplinary Construct: 'Creative Nonfiction'

8

9.40

Applying the Hypothesis: 'Words ≡ Mass'

12

9.50

The Physics of Writing Theory Restated

14

9.60

Two Dimensional Representation of the Four-Dimensional Natural Interdisciplinary Dynamical System [NIDS] Annotated [Two Full-Page NIDS Images: Right and Left Page Display with opposing text]

9.70

15 16-16

End Notes: NIDS Annotations

17

Forward: 'These are the Voyages of the StarShip WordSmith'

18

Book §10.00 Normative [System] Language (2009)

1 - 28

Book §11.00 References and Bibliography

1 - 67

#


Dream - Writing

WordShop Publications Physics of Writing Inc. Copyright 2009-2016 Donald K. Beman All Rights Reserved

Dream - Writing

Book §1.00 Introduction to the Physics of Writing


®

Dream - Writing

®


Book §1.00 Introduction to the Physics of Writing WordShop Publications Physics of Writing Inc. ISBN: 978-0-9860025-6-4 Copyright 2009-2016 Donald K. Beman / All Rights Reserved

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

'SpaceShip Earth'

'Now there is one outstandingly important fact regarding Spaceship Earth, and that is that no instruction book came with it'.

Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1963) R. Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983)

Donald Knight Beman Book §1.00

:

i

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Guiding Principal and Principles

'It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe that it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly'.

Albert Einstein "Autobiographical Notes." (1946). In Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. 3rd Edition. (1970, 17-18). P.A. Schillip (Ed.). IL: Open Court.


:

ii

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

ForeWord

What if ..... creativity and writing behaved as if they were mimetic natural dynamical systems, including their respective attendant natural dynamical systemic processes of the mind? Would it not, therefore, follow that writing would not be governed by artefactual disciplinary constructs, for example English 'composition theory', but would instead be an independent natural interdisciplinary dynamic system, governed by the fundamental natural principles and laws of physics?


:

iii

Dream - Writing

Physics of Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Contents

Book §1.00 Introduction to the Physics of Writing Writing. The Final Frontier.

1

Metaphor

2


3

ForeWord: Beam Up!

4

Reflections: 'Dead Reckoning'

8

The Challenges and Risks Posed by 'Dead Reckoning'

9

Metaphor, Metaphor, on the Wall Who --- What --- Are The Borg?

10

Physics of Writing (Abstract)

11

Natural Interdisciplinary Dynamical System [NIDS] Forward and Forewarned

12

Decoding The Rhetorical Challenge We Face Resistance is Not Futile : Resistance is Freedom Notes

13

Addendum

15

#


:

iv

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Writing. The Final Frontier.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html

Section of the Veil Nebula

These are the Voyages of the

Its Continuing Mission: To seek out and explore strange 'modern methods of instruction' for writing.

To boldly go where few have dared but many have dreamed of: To Wake Up! the powerful Natural Intuitive Creative Potential of 'The Unconscious' and begin

Dream - Writing again, turning Chaos to Creativity. [www.physicsofwriting.com ]


:

1

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Metaphor

'In the cognitive linguistic view, metaphor is defined as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain'. 'A conceptual metaphor consists of two conceptual domains, in which one domain is understood in terms of another'. 'Understanding one domain in terms of another involves a set of fixed correspondences (technically called mappings) between a source and a target domain'. 'To know a conceptual metaphor is to know the set of mappings that applies to a given source-target pairing. It is these mappings that provide much of the meaning of the metaphorical linguistic expressions (or linguistic metaphors) that make a particular conceptual metaphor manifest'. 1

'Metaphor is central to creativity because it involves the ability to detect unity in variety. One could say ordinary experience is built on a metaphorical foundation. Accordingly, creative processes share much in common with ordinary psychological processes. Metaphor is commonly thought of as an embellishment of language. This is the Aristotelian perspective. Contemporary research has shown that metaphor is comprehended across different media of presentation (e.g., pictures, words)'. Moreover, 'nonverbal tasks that highlight perceptual or functional similarity enable' ... 'metaphorical comparisons'. 2

'But the greatest thing, by far, is to be a master of metaphor. It is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of genius since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of similarity of dissimilars. Through resemblance, metaphor makes things clearer'. 3


:

2

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity


'The electromagnetic field behaves as if it were a collection of wheels, pulleys and fluids'. How James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) arrived at his electromagnetic field equations. 4

'In his first paper on atomic theory in 1913' (Niels) Bohr (1885-1962) 'based all of his reasoning on the following visual metaphor': 'The atom behaves as if it were a miniscule solar system'. 5

As a means of introducing his theory of the 'light quantum' in 1905, Albert Einstein coined the following, arguably, quintessential, metaphor: 'Under certain circumstances light behaves as if it were comprised of particles'. 6

As with each of these examples of scientific metaphor, 'as if' signals a 'mapping', or 'causal connective', between the referenced ('source' and 'target') domains e.g.: 'Creativity and writing behave as if they were mimetic natural dynamical systems, including their respective attendant natural dynamical systemic processes of the mind'. 7


:

3

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

ForeWord On the "Beam Up" page of the Physics of Writing website, 8 I wrote: Before we proceed, and in accordance with the United Federation of Planets 'Rules of Engagement', I am required to disclose that I am a convicted Wordsmith, a hardcore Interdisciplinarian and a habitual user of Metaphors. Which you are now in with me. Based on having served 30 years hard-labor in business and management consulting, 5 years as a freelance writer and editor, while also researching and writing a series of successful novels [over 100,000 copies sold, based on royalties received in addition to advances], followed by 10 years engaged in an interdisciplinary study of the 'unconscious', 'creativity' and 'writing', while serving as faculty in the on-ground and online college classroom, I am convinced that you, that we all, 'unconsciously' know how to write. And I believe you can write far better than you may think or may have been told otherwise by well meaning instructors unknowingly promoting what I believe are failed 'modern methods of instruction' Albert Einstein warned can 'strangle' your 'holy curiosity of inquiry'. Which Einstein believed 'aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom'. For without the freedom to read across the disciplines, to explore, learn and dream, our natural creative potential will 'go to wreck and ruin without fail'. These failed 'modern methods of instruction' for writing are promoted by HIVE-MINDED DRONES --- BORG! --- who are programmed to INDOCTRINATE us and ASSIMILATE us into their mind-numbing COMPOSITION COLLECTIVE. And if we dare to question them or resist them, they will TERMINATE us. Instead of engaging us, empowering us and liberating us to learn how to write and to create. Beam Up! my fellow Wordsmiths and boldly go where few have dared but many have dreamed of, to Wake Up! your powerful Natural Intuitive Creative Potential® and begin Dream - Writing ... again, naturally ... turning the Chaos in your Mind into Creativity and Success in the Real World.9


:

4

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

The 30 years of 'hard-labor' in business and my observations of the steady decline in the critical reading, writing and speaking competency of high school and college graduates entering the private sector work force, prompted me to return to school in an effort to find out the cause for this startling and perplexing dynamic. Which, I observed first-hand: initially as an employee, co-worker, then supervisor, employer, business owner and Organization Development consultant. However, what I found most disconcerting was what I learned upon entering the on ground college classroom as instructional faculty: based on my assessment of their [literal] written and verbal work product ≈75% of the entering students, ≈90% of whom were recent high school graduates, did not possess a credible grade-level vocabulary or grade-level reading and writing skills necessary for learning and mastering the curriculum and meeting the stated Learning Outcome Objectives for the writing ['English compositionesque'] courses, I was assigned to 'deliver'. Adding to my dismay, and my determination to enable students to learn how to write -- clearly, coherently and persuasively -- were two additional unexpected 'hurdles'. The first hurdle was the students' lack of grade-appropriate knowledge: simply put, the students were not 'well read' in science, literature, engineering or the arts. Curiously, the course content did not include any substantive required reading in these knowledge domains. When I pro-actively added this content to my courses and required students to demonstrate a reasonable command of the material, I was met with resistance: both in the classroom and the department(s). The second hurdle was the surprising and disappointing discovery that few faculty possessed substantive real-world workplace wordsmithing experience: specifically, speaking metaphorically, they had little or no experience 'singing for their supper',10 but were instead, arguably, lip-synching. Prompted by these revelations, I enrolled in an intensive and extensive interdisciplinary doctoral studies program [Chaos to Creativity : The Physics of Writing (2010)], 11 in an effort to


:

5

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

identify the cause, find a fix, so to speak, and to somehow stem the tide of what I perceived to be a steadily ebbing competency in critical reading, thinking, and writing. I also continued to push the learning competency envelope in the classroom, and at as many institutions that opportunity, time, logistics and personal finances permitted (unknowingly risking continued employment). Sadly, the above-noted scenarios were also manifest in the online college classroom; but with a curious and far more challenging twist. Virtually all of the entering students possessed a deeply embedded life experience- and workplace-driven conversational ['chat'] vocabulary and mimetic ['formal'] writing style, which proved more resistant to (re) learning and improvement than did the 'chat' and 'formal' writing proficiency demonstrated by the high school graduates. As part of my research, I secured a faculty position at a HBCU, intent upon expanding my knowledge, while also testing one hypothesis of my evolving theory for/of creativity and writing: 'African-American students possess a greater natural intuitive potential for writing and creativity, due in part to their learned play with language, than their white suburban counterparts'. Which, I believe is not recognized and nurtured by traditional English Department faculty; but is, instead, suppressed, arguably, by the HIVE MIND of the COMPOSITION COLLECTI VE . Always the metaphorian, I labeled this disconcerting dynamic the 'Creativity BLACK HOLE Phenomenon' (http://bit.ly/1TYFcFF).

The primary, but not exclusive, objective of this discourse is to validate the following hypotheses: [1] we all 'unconsciously' know how to write; [2] we all can write far better than we may think or may have been told otherwise by well meaning, but misinformed and misguided, instructors promoting flawed and failed 'modern methods of instruction' for writing;


:

6

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

[3] creativity and writing behave as if they were mimetic natural dynamical systems, including their respective attendant natural dynamical systemic processes of the mind ('The New Unconscious'); 12 [4] writing is not governed by artefactual disciplinary constructs, for example 'English Composition' (theory), but is in reality an independent Natural Interdisciplinary Dynamical System, 'writing per se', governed by the fundamental natural principles and laws of physics.


:

7

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Reflections My original research was guided by the following premise: A critical and comparative examination of fiction and 'creative nonfiction', to determine if 'creative nonfiction' is a legitimate new writing style, a 'fourth genre' in addition to prose, poetry and drama, as claimed by certain academics and 'creative nonfiction' practitioners, or is it simply a refitting of 'The Emperor's New Suit'. A few years after setting sail and deep into my research, I encountered the following uncharted navigation hazards (Read as: unanswered 'foundational philosophical questions'): [1] what is 'creativity'; [2] what is 'writing'; [3] why is the learning of writing the purview of a sub-discipline in the Humanities, most often 'English', and subjected to the many convoluted, fragmented and competing pedagogies, arguably, all derivative composition theory, 13 instead of existing as what an interdisciplinary analysis of the evidence affirms, specifically, writing is, in reality, an independent natural interdisciplinary dynamical systemic process: 'writing per se'. After changing my heading and plotting yet another new course, I awoke one morning in an unsettling dream of an ominous darkening red sky, calling to mind the sailor's adage: 'Red sky in the morning, sailors take warning. Red sky at night, sailor's delight'. Facing a rising storm of contention, conflict and confusion, and unsure of what course to plot, I turned bow into the wind and wave, to avoid the risk of broaching, and held a steady course ... 'Dead Reckoning' ... guided by the faint refrain echoing in my mind: What if creativity and writing behave as if they were mimetic natural interdisciplinary dynamical systems?


:

8

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

The Challenges and Risks Posed by 'Dead Reckoning' Metaphor, Metaphor, on the Wall ..... One day, the Academicians and Disciplinarians of the all-powerful COMPOSITION COLLECTI VE , asked, "Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Who in this land of writing is fairest of all?" To this question the mirror answered, after giving it serious thought, "COMPOSITION THEORY is fairest of all." The Academicians and Disciplinarians were satisfied, for they knew that their mirror only spoke the truth. One day, when the Academicians and Disciplinarians again asked their mirror, "Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Who in this land of writing is fairest of all?" The mirror, half asleep, answered without thinking, "COMPOSITION THEORY is fair, many say, but in reality Dream--Writing is 106 times more fair and powerful." The Academicians and Disciplinarians took fright and turned yellow and green with envy, then summoned their BORG QUEEN --- 'the one

who is the beginning, the end, the one who is many, not one', 14 and demanded that she immediately, "Take Dream-Writing out into deep space, for we never want to see or hear of it again --- ASSIMILATE IT! --- and as proof it is no longer a threat, bring its lungs and its liver back to us." N.B. A playful, but nonetheless serious, metaphorical parody of 'Little Snow-White'. The Grimm Brothers' Children's and Household Tales (Grimms' Fairy Tales) (http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimmtales.htm). Donald Knight Beman Book §1.00

:

9

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

WHO --- WHAT --- ARE THE BORG?

15

'YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED - RESISTANCE IS FUTILE' BORG are cybernetically enhanced HUMANOID DRONES

organized as an INTERCONNECTED COLLECTIVE , the decisions of which are made by a HIVE MIND ... which is the collective sharing of minds into a SINGLE CONSCIOUSNESS ... serving and driving the goals of its entire population. The BORG employ processes in which NEGATIVE FEEDBACK keeps their system in a particular state, on course towards a particular goal. BORG have become a metaphor for any collective force

of like-minded individuals determined to ASSIMILATE others in order to increase the size and power of their COLLECTIVE 16

... for example, the reigning education establishment' and the indoctrination that has been blindly accepted as genuine teaching instead of being abominated as a vicious counterfeit of it ... 17 and we are warned that RESISTANCE IS FUTILE and if we dare to question them or challenge them, they will TERMINATE us. 18 For those of you who may not be familiar with the BORG , raise your shields, then activate the following link: [http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Borg]. Donald Knight Beman Book §1.00

:

10

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Physics of Writing (abstract)

Creativity and writing behave as if they were mimetic natural dynamical systems, including their respective attendant natural dynamical systemic processes of the mind. Therefore, writing is not governed by artefactual disciplinary constructs, e.g. 'composition theory', but is instead an independent Natural Interdisciplinary Dynamic System ['NIDS'] --- writing per se --- governed by the fundamental natural principles and laws of physics.


:

11

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

 

Dream - Writing

©

             

[SS3] Transient State of Conscious-Unconsciousness CU[ness] ------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------- Natural Intuitive Creative Potential [SS3]

[Dream-Writing]

Originating Creative Ideating Mediums [SS1] Deep [Chaotic] Unconscious Chaos[ness] ----------------------------------------------Originating Expressions Natural Sensory Mediums

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unconscious [SS2]

Unconscious Expressions ↔ Impressions Chaotic and Unconscious Ideating Mediums

[SS4] State of Consciousness ---------------------------------------------------------------------Conscious Expressions ↔ [Originating Impressions] Actualizing Natural Expressive Mediums---------------------------------------------------- State of Consciousness [SS5] Conscious Expressions ↔ [Originating Impressions] Actualizing Artefactual Expressive Mediums    

Two Dimensional Representation of the Four-Dimensional

Natural Interdisciplinary Dynamical System ® of Creativity and Writing Per se V20160913R Book §1.00

:

11.1-11.2

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Forward and Forewarned

Decoding the Rhetorical Challenge We Face

'Why do academicians today all-too-willingly abdicate the learning of writing by example, "Do as I do," to what are, in reality, 'uneducated' or at best 'superficially informed surrogates [BORG ] in the English Department [COLLECTIVE ], instructors who possess little more than 'Bits of information or matters of fact retained by the memory' [when it comes to knowledge domains beyond the insular walls of their departmental encampment (HI VE )] 'with no understanding of the information or the facts remembered' [which] 'is not knowledge, but mere opinion [HIVE MIND ], no better than prejudices fostered by propaganda or other sources of indoctrination' [ASSIMILATION ]. 'The public --- and, perhaps, even the teachers [those who are not BORG ] --- must rebel against the prevailing cult of illiteracy and license' [of the HIVE MIND and COMPOSITION COLLECTIVE ] 'in educational affairs or know that they are choosing the alternative' [ASSIMILATION ], 'which leads away from democracy and liberalism, for these can be sustained and developed only by the proper cultivation of human nature of both leaders and followers in public life' [and not THE BORG ]. 19

Resistance is Not Futile : Resistance is Freedom


:

12

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Notes N.B. Refer to Book §11.00 Interdisciplinary Bibliography and References for additional supporting documentation where/as applicable or called for. 1 Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. (p. 12). NY: Oxford University Press. [https://www.questia.com/read/124124628/metaphor-a-practical-introduction]. 2 Seitz, J. A. (1997). "The Development of Metaphoric Understanding: Implications for a Theory of Creativity." In Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 347-353. Questia: [www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=76991880]. 3 Kittay, E. F. (1989). Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. (Aristotle, Poetics, 1459a, p. 2). Oxford: Clarendon Press. [https://www.questia.com/read/23169260/metaphor-its-cognitive-force-and-linguistic-structure]. 4 Miller, A. I. (2001). "Scientific Progress and Metaphors." In Insights of Genius: Imagery and Creativity in Science and Art. (p. 221). NY: 1st MIT Press Paperback Edition. (2000). 5 Ibid. Note 4. (p. 225). 6 Ibid. Note 4. (p. 246). 7 Beman, D. K. (2013). Physics of Writing Dream-Writing Chaos to Creativity. (pp. 384411). NY: WordShop Publications. Physics of Writing Inc. 8 Beman, D. K. (2015). "https://physicsofwriting.com/Beam_Up_.html." In [https://physicsofwriting.com/]. NY: WordShop Publications. Physics of Writing Inc. 9 Einstein, A. "Autobiographical Notes." (1946). In Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist 3rd Edition. (1970, 17-19). IL: Open Court. Questia: www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=83999982. 10 Hart, L. (writer), Rogers, R. (composer). (1938). "Sing for Your Supper." In The Boys from Syracuse. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laE3dcf_dDw). Retrieved December 2015. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sing_for_Your_Supper).


:

13

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

11 Beman, D. K. (2009). Chaos to Creativity: The Physics of Writing. Doctoral Dissertation. (TXu 1-655-482). NY: Amherst. 12 Uleman, J. S. "Introduction: Becoming Aware of the New Unconscious." In The New Unconscious. (2005). (pp. 3-15). R. R. Hassin, J. S. Uleman, J. A. Bargh (Editors). Oxford Series in Social Cognition and Social Neuroscience. NY: Oxford U. P. Inc. 13 CIFER: Composition: History and Theory. (2015). M. Holt, Project Director. Ohio University Department of English. [http://www.english.ohiou.edu/cifer/cifer_theory/]. 14 Borg (Star Trek). (2015 December 31). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. E.g.: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borg_(Star_Trek)&oldid=697516860; (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Borg_Queen_2372.jpg; (3) http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Borg. 15 Calise, G. (2013). "The Murdering of the Individual." Riverbank of Truth - The Inner Journey. http://riverbankoftruth.com/2013/05/30/the-murdering-of-the-individual-by-greg-calise/. 16 Sandberg, A. (n.d.). "We, Borg: Speculations on Hive Minds as a Posthuman State." In [https://physicsofwriting.com/uploads/CD40.00_Cybernetics_16_-_We__Borg_- _The_Hive_Mind.pdf].

17 Adler, M. J. (n.d.). "Teaching, Learning, and Their Counterfeits." In The Great Ideas Online. Center for the Study of the Great Ideas. M. Weismann, Editor. [http://web.archive.org/web/20080603023807/http:/radicalacademy.com/adlerteaching.htm].

18 Ibid. Notes 15, 16. 19 Ibid. Note 17.


:

14

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Addendum The 'BORG' images and related 'BORG' phrases included in this educational discourse are used guided by the provisions of '17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use', based on the belief that: [1] in spite of a diligent search, I found no 'free' equivalent(s); [2] the images are not used in a manner that would replace their original market role; [3] the images are used minimally, and only a portion of the entire movie-screen sized screenshots are used; [4] the images will, can, significantly increase readers' understanding of the topics and issues presented, and omission would be detrimental to that objective; [5] all images contain an attribution of the source of the material; [6] the images are necessary to this discourse, to illustrate and assist in establishing foundational metaphorical constructs for effective understanding, and learning.


:

15

Dream - Writing


®

Dream - Writing

Book §2.00 What is Interdisciplinarity


Dream - Writing


Book §2.00 What is Interdisciplinarity 2nd Edition 2016 WordShop Publications Physics of Writing Inc. ISBN: 978-0-9860025-6-4 Copyright 2009-2016 Donald K. Beman All Rights Reserved

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Book §2.00 What is Interdisciplinarity ForeWord: 'Interdisciplinarity and Complexity'

2

2.00

Interdisci ----- what!

3

2.10

Defining and Explicating Inter-discipli-narity

6

2.20

Identifying and Explicating the 'X'-Disciplinarities

8

2.30

The Physics of Interdisciplinarity

11

2.40

Spinning the Thematic Threads of Interdisciplinarity

15

2.50

Weaving an Interdisciplinary Tapestry

19

.01

Tempering Perspectives on Interdisciplinarity

19

.02

J. T. Klein: Interdisciplinarity - History, Theory, & Practice (1990)

20

.03

J. Moran: Interdisciplinarity (2001)

24

2.60

Discussion

29

2.70

Litmus Test: Theory vs Practice

32

2.80

Dénouement

35

Forward: All. Not One. Not Two. Not Three. Not Many. All.

36

#

Donald Knight Beman §2.00

:

1

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

ForeWord

The Challenges Posed by Complex Knowledge Domains and Interdisciplinarity

'The complexity of knowledge is suggested by the current rhetoric of description. Once described as a foundation or linear structure, knowledge today is depicted as a network or a web with multiple nodes of connection, and a dynamic system. The metaphor of unity, with its accompanying values of universality and certainty, has been replaced by metaphors of plurality relationality in a complex world. Images of boundary crossing and cross-fertilization are superseding images of disciplinary depth and compartmentalization. Isolated modes of work are being supplanted by affiliations, coalitions, and alliances. And, older values of control, mastery, and expertise are being reformulated as dialogue, interaction, and negotiation. Changes in the spatial and temporal structures of knowledge also call into question traditional images of knowledge as a cognitive map with distinct territories and borders or a tree with different branches. They are too linear. In their place, images of fractals, a kaleidoscope, or a wildly growing rhizome without a central root have been proposed'.

J. T. Klein "Interdisciplinarity and Complexity : An Evolving Relationship" In Emergence: Complexity & Organization (E:CO). (2004).

Donald Knight Beman §2.00 :

2

Physics of Writing

2.00

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

What is Interdisciplinarity "Interdisci ----- what!" 2.01 J. T. Klein, arguably the most cited source on the subject of interdisciplinarity

following the publication of her seminal text on the subject - Interdisciplinarity - History, Theory, & Practice (1990) - credits the establishment of a logical dialectic connective (Blackburn, t98.e688) between 'cybernetics' and 'interdisciplinarity' to Erich Jantsch. Writing in "Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Education and Innovation" in Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (1972), Jantsch calls for a new approach to [solving] 'complex ... situations, using organizing languages and a system of education based on logic, cybernetics, planning, and general systems theory' (Klein, 2004a; Jantsch, 1972, 102). A closer examination of these texts, placing primary emphasis on Klein's work, reveals that Klein has established a logical causal nexus (Blackburn, t98.e514) inter- and intraconnecting cybernetics, general systems theory, interdisciplinarity and complexity [aka chaos theory]. Three of these knowledge domains are critical to our discourse: [1] systems theory, which Jantsch explicitly addresses; [2] chaos theory, which is implicit in Jantsch’s (and also Klein's) claim of complexity; and [3] interdisciplinarity, which both Jantsch and Klein address. The recommendation by Jantsch and Klein for interdisciplinarity in teaching and learning is essentially affirmed by the fact that 'Modern societies are increasingly ruled by the unwanted side effects of their differentiated subsystems [i.e. the subsystems in academe commonly known as 'disciplines']', which generate problems that both professionals and academics now face which are 'neither predictable nor simple'. Klein also argues that complex problems are not solved by


3

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

simply 'applying new information and tools'; instead, they require a 'rigorous interdisciplinary approach to problem solving, which results in the development of interdisciplinary professionals who can solve complex, even chaotic, problems' (Klein, 2004a, 3). In Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities (1996), Klein asserts that 'Criteria for judgment constitute the least understood aspect of interdisciplinarity' / 'in part because the issue has been the least studied and in part because the multiplicity of tasks seems to militate against a single [discipline-specific] standard' (210). Klein's position is both clarified and expressed in more practical terms, by V. B. Mansilla & H. Gardner in Assessing Interdisciplinary Work at the Frontier. An Empirical Exploration of 'symptoms of quality. (2004). When summarizing the opinions of their research subjects with respect to the assessment of their (the 'subjects') interdisciplinary work, Mansilla and Gardner conclude that 'Interdisciplinary understanding does not rest on an accumulated set of established disciplinary rules', no doubt because 'interdisciplinary work [represents] 'an idiosyncratic coordination of disciplinary insights geared to accomplish researchers’ cognitive and practical goals', all of which must be, by express design, interdisciplinary and not disciplinary (15-16). 2.02 J. Moran in Interdisciplinarity (2001) seconds Klein's points of view, when he concludes that the 'real problem' with the assessment of interdisciplinary work by disciplinarians is that it [interdisciplinarity] is a 'radical questioning of the nature of knowledge' and overtly confronts 'problems and issues that cannot be addressed or solved within the existing disciplines' (15). This is also the case for new and innovative ideas and theories [i.e. the Physics of Writing theory], which are often perceived by traditional academic disciplinarians either as a challenge to their established and rigid pedagogical foundation(s), or a threat to the status quo of their protectionist discipline(s) (Beman, 2014, Borg; Lindauer, 1998; Moran, 2001, 86).


4

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Klein both strengthens and supports Moran's characterization of the 'real problem' that exists between inter- and (mono) disciplinarians -- what M. Nissani in "What is Interdisciplinarity" (2005), characterizes as a 'turf war' in academe -- when she expresses the conviction that interdisciplinarity 'Raises the most fundamental question of all: what is the purpose of education (for) interdisciplinarity is far more than just a set of skills ... simple add-ons ... the ultimate goal is to reconstruct what is taught and how it is taught' (16). Klein's version of 'restructuring' involves designing and building new avenues of communication, as compared with laboring to repair old or existing ones (Klein, 2006, 8). However, regardless of which communications option is chosen, 'advocates and practitioners of interdisciplinarity are, in reality, actively engaged in a process of radical change in the way in which knowledge is both acquired and distributed' (also read as: 'communicated and taught') (Haraway, 1991, 181).

#


5

Physics of Writing

2.10

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Defining and Explicating Inter discipli narity Before a reasoned evaluation and assessment of our discourse can be undertaken by

readers --- most of whom we suspect are 'disciplinarians' --- we must survey current [provisional] definitions for interdisciplinary and interdisciplinarity. In so doing, we expressly intend to address, but not necessarily answer, the following questions: [1] what is and is not interdisciplinary; [2] what constitutes interdisciplinarity or 'interdisciplinaritiness'; [3] what does it mean to be interdisciplinary, or a practicing 'interdisciplinarian'? Without a consensus definition, and absent objective (both qualitative and quantitative) standards for assessing interdisciplinary work, how can readers determine what constitutes quality and avoid viewing our interdisciplinary research and discursive efforts with disciplinary suspicion and labeling our work 'dubious' (Mansilla & Gardner, 2004)? To satisfy the requirement for preliminary working definitions, we submit the following accredited lexiconical entries for the referenced terms in question. .01 Discipline (mass noun): the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour, using punishment to correct disobedience; (count noun) a system of rules of conduct / a branch of knowledge, typically one studied in higher education (ODE, t140.e21403). .02 Disciplinary: concerning or enforcing discipline (ODE, t140.e21402). .03 Mono- (combining form): one; alone; single (ODE, t140.e49473). .04 Cross- (combining form): denoting movement or position across something (ODE, t140.e17915). .05 Multi- (combining form): more than one; many (ODE, t140.e50424).


6

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

.06 Inter- (prefix): between; among / mutually; reciprocally (ODE, t140.e38827). .07 Trans- (prefix): across; beyond / on or to the other side of / through / into another state / transform / surpassing; transcending (ODE, t140.e81375). .08 Pluri- (combining form): several (ODE, t140.e59727). .09 Poly- (combining form): many; much (ODE, t140.e60087). .10 Extra- (prefix): outside; beyond (ODE, t140.e26369). .11 Inter-disciplinary: (a) relating to more than one branch of knowledge (ODE, t140.e38881); (b) describes a course of study which draws on more than one academic discipline, to create a structured perspective on topics which are common to both (Wallace, t267.e500); (c) applying the knowledge and skills from different academic disciplines or subjects that are normally regarded as distinct, to the same task or project (OED, Park, t244.e4138); (d) of or pertaining to two or more disciplines or branches of learning; contributing to or benefiting from two or more disciplines: ADD. SERIES 1993: interdisciplinary, a. Hence inter discipli narity noun, the quality, fact, or condition of being interdisciplinary (OED, 1989, e50118985).

#


7

Physics of Writing

2.20

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Identifying and Explicating the 'X'-Disciplinarities. .01 Mono-Disciplinarity. In "Platform for a Shared Discourse of Interdisciplinary

Education" in the Journal of Social Science Education (2006), J. T. Klein succinctly characterizes (mono) disciplinarity as being evidenced by "Traits that produce a distinct worldview or discourse / a body of evidence / laws, formalisms ... paradigms ... concepts and theories ... skills ... language ... argument styles ... epistemologies." All of which, in effect, establish "a system of power / evident in traits that control the nature of work in a particular (mono-disciplinary) domain.” However, K. Shailer, in "Interdisciplinarity in a Disciplinary Universe: A Review of Key Issues," to some extent disagrees: (disciplinarity) "Is in some ways even more problematic to define," perhaps because it both represents "Adherence to and respect for the intellectual structures we call disciplines." Shailer also implies the duality is the result of Michel Foucault’s essay “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison" after which "Disciplinarity ... took on the connotation of a repressive form of border control and academic disciplines were equated to prison houses (2005)." .02 Multi-disciplinarity. The OED defines multidisciplinarity as “Combining or involving several separate academic disciplines (2003). Whereas Klein's take on multidisciplinarity is that it "Juxtaposes disciplines, adding breadth and available knowledge, information, and methods." Yet she is quick to caution that each of the ‘multi’ disciplines still "Speak as separate voices in an additive and encyclopedic mélange,” with their hierarchical mono-disciplinary elements intact (2006, 9).


8

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

.03 Cross-disciplinarity. While few writers have expressed serious interest in this concept, M. Seipel defines crossdisciplinarity as the activity of viewing “one discipline from the perspective of another, such as a physics, in which principles of physics are used to understand the acoustics of music (Seipel, 2005).” .04 Extra-disciplinarity. In "Interdisciplinarity / Extradisciplinarity: On the University and the Active Pursuit of Community" (2003), A. Hearn proposes the concept of 'extradisciplinarity' as the "struggle against privatization and corporate modes of university governance resulted in the formation of several reading groups and courses, teach-ins, conferences, an art show, films, newspaper and journal articles, and the integration of several sympathetic community groups ... one might call such a phenomenon "extra-disciplinary" in ... that most of the learning and research occurred outside ... and across disciplinary structures of the university. .05 Trans- and Pluri-disciplinarity. These two concepts, which are virtually identical versions of interdisciplinarity, have been proposed by the physicist Basarab Nicolescu, author of Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity (2002). Nicolescu defines pluridisciplinarity as (the italics are ours for emphasis and subsequent reference): "That [transdisciplinarity] which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline. Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge (1996)." We hasten to point out that Nicolescu's proposed 'manifesto' of 'universal transdisciplinarity' is deeply rooted in and promoting a radical, socio-political, world-view agenda, which disqualifies it for inclusion in our discourse (Nicolescu, 1994). However, Nicolescu's proposed definition of/for interdisciplinarity --- especially the potential rubric


9

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

embedded in his definition for vetting interdisciplinary work --- warrants our consideration; which we will undertake, synoptically, in the following discussion.

#


10

Physics of Writing

2.30

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

The 'Physics' of Interdisciplinarity First, we must consider Nicolescu’s proposed definition, to wit: One can distinguish three

degrees of interdisciplinarity: [1] a degree of application, e.g., when the methods of nuclear physics are transferred to medicine it leads to the appearance of new treatments for cancer; [2] a degree of epistemology, e.g. transferring methods of formal logic to the area of general law; [3] a degree of the generation of new disciplines (e.g. when methods from mathematics are transferred to physics, mathematical physics is generated, and when they are transferred to meteorological phenomena or stock market processes, they generate chaos theory (2007). Nicolescu’s explicit use of the prescriptive phrase ‘degree of …’ is no doubt drawn from his training as a physicist and the concept of the 'degrees of freedom' in a natural dynamical system. Therefore, we must look to A Dictionary of Physics (2009) for our/a formal definition and initial understanding of the concept of 'degrees of freedom' (the italics are mine for emphasis and reference): The number of independent parameters required to specify the configuration of a system. This concept is applied in the kinetic theory to specify the number of independent ways in which an atom or molecule (matter or mass) can take up energy. There are various sets of parameters that may be chosen, and the details of the consequent theory vary with the choice. E.g.: in a monatomic gas each atom may be allotted three degrees of freedom, corresponding to the three coordinates in space required to specify its position (Daintith, 2009, t83.e722). To maximize the benefit of this discussion, while simultaneously advancing our dialectic, we must establish normative definitions for causal terms and concepts. .01 Normative. Seeking to establish or prescribe usage (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (Matthews, 2007, t36.e2254).


11

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

.02 Natural. Existing in or derived from nature / not made or caused by humankind (ODE, 2005, t140.e51267). .03 System. (common) a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or interconnecting network / a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done / a set of rules used in measurement or classification, e.g. metric system (ODE, t140.e77898); (logic) any attempt to codify the rules whereby valid inferences may be made / preferred term is a logical calculus (connective) of formal language, in which precise meaning is given to the idea of codification (Blackburn, 2009, t98.e2312). .04 Systemic. Belonging to, supplying, or affecting the system or body as a whole (OED, 189.e50245678). .05 Dynamical System. A system governed by dynamics (either classical mechanics or quantum mechanics); the evolution of dynamical systems can be complex, even for systems with only a few degrees of freedom; chaos is an example of the complex behaviour that can occur in a dynamical system (Daintith, 2009, t83.e845). .06 Complexity. The levels of self-organization of a system / in physical systems, complexity is associated with broken symmetry and the ability of a system to have different states between which it can make phase transitions / it is not necessary for a system to have a large number of degrees of freedom in order for complexity to occur (ODE, 2005, t83.e539). .07 Chaos. The unpredictable and seemingly random behaviour occurring in a system that should be governed by deterministic laws / the equations in such systems that describe the way the system changes with time are nonlinear and involve several variables, consequently, they are sensitive to the initial conditions and small differences may cause enormous changes in the future state of the system (Daintith, 2009, t83.e449).


12

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Nicolescu's potentially quantitative definition, as compared with the qualitative definitions referenced herein, is restated below, with our footnotes identifying prospective connectives to other systems and their connectives. One can distinguish three degrees 1, 2 of interdisciplinarity: .08 degree of application, e.g. when the methods of nuclear physics are transferred to medicine 3 it leads to the appearance of new treatments for cancer; .09 degree of epistemology, e.g. transferring methods of formal logic to the area of general law; 4 .10 degree of the generation of new disciplines (e.g. when methods from mathematics are transferred to physics, mathematical physics is generated ,5 and transferred to meteorological phenomena or stock market processes,5 they generate chaos theory 6 (Nicolescu, 2007).

Footnotes:

1: Degree of Freedom (Michels, t83.e722) 2: Degree of Grammaticalness (Matthews, t36.e828) 3, 4, 5: Logical Connective (Blackburn, t98.e493) 6: Chaos Theory (Belsey, 2005, t116.e374)

Nicolescu successfully interjects the concept from physics of the 'degrees of freedom' in a dynamical system into the systemic process/processes of interdisciplinarity. In so doing, Nicolescu in effect opens the door, so to speak, to the philosophical and dialectical justification for 'degrees of freedom', 'degrees of creativity, and 'degrees of creativeness' in the natural systemic processes of creativity and writing. However, while Nicolescu’s definition for interdisciplinarity is more philosophical (it is incomplete as a functional 'working' dialectical


13

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

model), his concept nonetheless provides a dialectic armature (Chilvers, t2.e169) to support a conditional definition based on the logical causal connectives both he and other researchers (identified herein) have established. Our dialectic linking Nicolescu’s proposed 'degrees of interdisciplinarity' to our proposed 'degrees of freedom', 'degrees of creativity' and 'degrees of creativeness' in the natural systemic processes of creativity and writing is not singular: For Nicolescu affirms the logical basis for interdisciplinary [and causal] connectivity, when he asserts that while only physics has met the mathematical criteria of his 'degrees of interdisciplinarity', it does not preclude non-scientific disciplines from claiming their own 'degrees of (‘x’) disciplinarity', which Nicolescu equates "more or less" to his postulates as set forth herein (Nicolescu, 2007).

#


14

Physics of Writing

2.40

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Spinning the Thematic Threads of Interdisciplinarity .01 S. Fuller and J. H. Collier in Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: A

New Beginning for Science and Technology Studies (2004) see interdisciplinarity as both a fact and as an ideology (which has evolved in direct response) to the failure of the disciplines to ‘live up to its own hype’, partly because they have, in effect, ‘isolated themselves from one another and from the … intellectual and social issues of our time (29). They even question the very ‘existence of modern academic disciplines’ as the ‘best means to pursue and to disseminate knowledge’ (55). .02 T. Reese in Mapping Interdisciplinarity (1995) believes interdisciplinarity emerges in direct response to the restrictive covenants of disciplinarity. If the structures of the latter are strong and the boundaries fixed, the strategies to achieve interdisciplinarity require force and are seen as transgressive; if they are weak, most forms of interdisciplinarity are permissively assumed to be natural excursions. .03 M. S. Lindauer in “Interdisciplinarity, the Psychology of Art, and Creativity: an introduction” in Creativity Research Journal (1998) believes that the concept of “interdisciplinarity means that the methods and knowledge of science and the humanities are jointly applied to questions common to both, so that each discipline gains more than it would by working alone (01-10).” .04 For J. Moran in Interdisciplinarity (2001) 'interdisciplinarity interlocks with the concerns of epistemology' / 'the study of knowledge' / 'and tends to be centred around problems and issues that cannot be addressed or solved within the existing disciplines, rather than the quest


15

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

for an all-inclusive synthesis' / 'the value of the term "interdisciplinary" lies in its flexibility and indeterminacy' (15-16). .05 For A. Dalke, P. Grobstein, and E. McCormack in "Theorizing Interdisciplinarity: The Evolution of New Academic and Intellectual Communities" interdisciplinary conversations are becoming the "center of the academy" and intellectual life (2004). .06 S. Mathison and M. Freeman in "The Logic of Interdisciplinary Studies" (1997) are unequivocal in their conviction that ‘interdisciplinarity … seeks to combine disciplines to enhance the learning in one or more of the disciplines (and as a result) transcends the disciplines toward a more interconnected vision of the universe. .07 K. Shailer in "Interdisciplinarity in a Disciplinary Universe: A Review of Key Issues" concludes that ‘the disciplinary/interdisciplinary debate directly challenges nothing less than the way the understanding, production, and dissemination of knowledge as structured within the academy (2005). .08 K. Myrsiades and L. Myrsiades in Un-Disciplining Literature: Literature, Law, and Culture (1999), conclude 'interdisciplinarity (is) where two disciplines have achieved a singularity of focus (and) boundaries are busted and disciplinary paradigms subordinated to the interests of a particular (interdisciplinary) issue'. .09 Peter Gallison in Image and Logic: a Material Culture of Microphysics (1997) asserts that interdisciplinary research requires "trading zones," in which people from different fields are able to achieve at least partial communication (in Gernsbacher & Derry, 1998, 12). .10 Stanley Fish in There's No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It's a Good Thing, Too (1994) paints a curious, arguably, ‘two-faced’ portrait of interdisciplinarity, to wit: 'What is promised by the gospel of interdisciplinarity is a kind of double vision: with one eye you perform


16

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

as a literary critic or a judge or a physicist; with the other you focus on the concerns and values that are shut out by the totalizing impulse of the discursive forms you are employing. By inhabiting a mental space more capacious than that allowed by any particular discipline, you defeat the tendency of disciplinary vocabularies to suppress and remove from memory everything that is inconvenient to their narrow assumptions and purposes' (23-24). .11 Linda Myrsiades in Interdisciplinarity, Law, Language, and Literature (1996) asserts that interdisciplinarity is more than merely sharing categories, methods, or perspectives … it means more than merely using one discipline to pursue inquiry into another … it is less like bridge-building than it is like restructuring knowledge, insofar as the latter implies marauding across disciplinary boundaries in ways that effectively deny their existence and in ways that consequently critique the prevailing tectonics of knowledge … it could merely represent a higher order of recognition that the development of knowledge has moved outside traditional domains or that emerging innovative knowledge resists its constraints (Myrsiades, 204). .12 Ian Dinmore in Interdisciplinarity and Integrative Learning: An Imperative for Adult Education (1997) suggests, “While traditional definitions of interdisciplinarity focus on, amongst other things, the relationships among disciplines, a new approach could turn attention to the process of interweaving and blending knowledge derived in formal and informal environments. Integration also encompasses the assimilation of experiential, essentially practical (adult) learning, with theoretical, conceptual (and abstract) learning (Dinmore, 1997). .13 Alison Hearn in "Interdisciplinarity / Extradisciplinarity: On the University and the Active Pursuit of Community" (2003) proposes: "Interdisciplinarity as a practice and a concept needs to remember and preserve the idea of conflict and debate embedded as a core value' (and it) must become part of the structure of our interpretation of the place and the process.


17

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

.14 The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) interprets interdisciplinarity as the interaction among two or more different disciplines, ranging from the simple communication of ideas to the mutual integration of organising concepts, methodology, procedures, epistemology, terminology, data, and organisation of research and education in a fairly large field (Klein, 1972, 25-26). .15 Alan Liu in “The Power of Formalism: The New Historicism,” English Literary History characterizes interdisciplinarity as "the most seriously under thought critical, pedagogical and institutional concept in the modern academy (1989, 743)." .16 Roberta Frank in "Interdisciplinarity: The First Half Century" in Words: For Robert Burchfield’s Sixty-Fifth Birthday argues that ‘Interdisciplinary’ has something to please everyone. Its base, discipline, is hoary and antiseptic; its prefix, inter, is hairy and friendly. Unlike fields, with their mud, cows, and corn, the Latinate discipline comes encased in stainless steel: it suggests something rigorous, aggressive, hazardous to master; Inter hints knowledge is a warm, mutually developing, consultative thing (91-101).

#


18

Physics of Writing

2.50

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Weaving an Interdisciplinary Tapestry The express objective of the following Klein ↔ Moran 1990↔2001 discussion is to;

[1] clarify what is, admittedly, a fragmented, at times confusing, and continuously evolving systems approach to solving complex problems; [2] further discuss our decision to undertake an interdisciplinary study of creativity and writing; and, hopefully, [3] continue to build a systemic network of connectives, to prove our hypotheses that creativity and writing --- 'creative' writing and 'writing 'per se' --- are natural systemic processes governed by the laws of physics, and not by artefactual disciplinary constructs [ersatz laws] of genre, style or literary oeuvre. .01 Tempering Perspectives on Interdisciplinarity. In "There's No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It's a Good Thing, Too" (1994), Stanley Fish offers what is, arguably, a tongue in cheek, but nonetheless scholarly rejection of Klein’s proposal for (1) a ‘wholesale effacing of the disciplines’ in academe, until they ‘number only one’, and (2) a 'blurring the boundaries between disciplines': 'Thou shalt have no other disciplines before me' (223; Klein, 1989, 432). Continuing his metaphorical dialectic, Fish asserts that Klein's proposed version of interdisciplinarity ‘more a religion than a project’, a claim Fish seeks to justify by referencing Klein's conviction that we simply need to 'change our vocabulary', to become members of ‘a vast interconnected (conspiratorial) community’: “Ye shall see the interdisciplinary truth and it shall make you free (223).” To which Fish adds his own frequently quoted epithet: “Being interdisciplinary is more than hard to do; it is impossible to do (237-38).” However, on a serious scholarly note, Fish closes his discourse with the admission that “from a certain point of view, the traditional disciplines have played themselves out and it is time to fashion a new one (242).”


19

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Ian Dinmore in Interdisciplinarity and Integrative Learning: An Imperative for Adult Education (1997) sees interdisciplinarity from a different perspective than all other proponents discussed herein. Specifically, he envisions what is, in effect, a symbiotic relationship between interdisciplinarity and adult education programming. Dinmore points out that “experiential learning is integrative, and non disciplinary.” Whereas interdisciplinary learning is, in fact, “the way in which much adult learning takes place.” And in spite of the fact that “there is no institution, no classroom, no teacher, and no curriculum,” it is unquestionably still a “valid learning” experience. Dinmore also believes interdisciplinarity is capable of successfully ‘interweaving knowledge derived in formal and informal environments’. Interdisciplinarity, with its capacity and willingness to both embrace and accredit informal, real-world experiential learning, can play an invaluable role in advancing adult education. .02 J. T. Klein in Interdisciplinarity - History, Theory, & Practice (1990) is not only quick to recognize the very real 'Problem of Interdisciplinary Discourse', she is just as quick to limit the scope of her inquiry and focus the attention of her readers on what is, in fact, a summary of her forthcoming discourse. She accomplishes this by itemizing what she perceives to be the required 'range of objectives' for successfully realizing a 'unity and synthesis' of 'ideas', to achieve a 'common epistemology of convergence' (11; Gusdorf, 1963, 127), to wit: [1] to answer complex questions; [2] to address broad issues; [3] to explore disciplinary and professional relations; [4] to solve problems beyond the scope of any one discipline; [5] to achieve a unity of knowledge. Klein then admits, albeit somewhat reluctantly, that interdisciplinarity offers both a 'wide appeal' and also 'wide confusion' (11). Klein invests 34 pages to provide readers with a reasoned explanation of The Evolution of Interdisciplinarity (19-39) and what she perceives is The Interdisciplinary Archipelago (40-54),


20

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

neither of which we will expand on herein. While by no means dismissive of Klein's efforts here, which Moran also engages in, in Interdisciplinarity (Introduction, 1-18; Interdisciplinary English, 19-49; Literature into Culture, 50-81), the 'evolution' of interdisciplinarity, whether as a concept, process or co-opted discipline, is simply not [now] critical to our dialectic. Klein's discussion of "An Interdisciplinary Lexicon" (55-74) sets the stage for the substantive elements of her comprehensive survey of --- and advocating for --- the controversial (then and now still) subject of interdisciplinarity. Which Klein does by alerting readers to the very real threat posed by conflicting disciplinary normative languages, to a productive discussion of interdisciplinarity. As Klein sees it, a disciplinary 'nomenclature' functions as a 'terministic screen', 'filtering, directing, and redirecting' readers attention (away from the objectives of interdisciplinarity), undermining the discussion (55; Burke, 1966, 45-46, 49). Klein cites the term 'cross-disciplinary' as one example of this threat, in that it used to serve numerous and simultaneously conflicting 'purposes' e.g.:[1] to 'view one discipline from the perspective of another'; [2] as a 'rigid axiomatic control' by a single discipline; [3] 'the solution of a problem with no intention of generating a new science or paradigm'; [4] as a 'generic adjective' either for 'discipline-crossing activities' or for any 'activities involving interaction across disciplines' (55). Asserting there is 'no formula for interdisciplinary work', Klein subsequently offers four versions of how interdisciplinarity is 'usually defined' (As of the writing of her 1990 text): [1] by example, to designate what form it assumes; [2] by motivation, to explain why it takes place; [3] by principles of interaction, to demonstrate the process of how disciplines interact; and [4] by terminological hierarchy, to distinguish levels of integration by using specific labels (55).


21

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Klein also points out that there is 'an inevitable paradox when talking about interdisciplinarity', in that the 'vocabulary' and the complete 'logic of classification', in effect predisposes us to think in terms of disciplinarity. She lays the blame for this paradoxical prison, so to speak, on 'geopolitics' in academe, which she adamantly asserts is fostered by 'turf specialists', who are safely encased in their 'bastions of medieval autonomy', actively nurturing 'academic nationalism', while at the same time 'jealously protecting' the precious 'disciplinary jargon' of the 'ingroup' (77). Klein summarizes her characterization of traditional academic disciplinarians, by concluding that while academicians 'talk about the value of interdisciplinary perspectives (in fact) their words are only pious but ritualized obseicances' (79; Read, 1979, 41). In spite of this castigation of disciplinarians and the disciplines in academe, Klein nonetheless recognizes the need to define (mono) disciplinarity in order to develop a definition of/for interdisciplinarity. To this end, she characterizes the word, term, 'discipline' as signifying 'the tools, methods, procedures, exempla, concepts, and theories that account coherently for a set of objects or subjects', which, she perceives, are used to 'organize and concentrate experiences into a particular (albeit mono-disciplinary) world view' (104; Miller, 1982, 6). For Klein this disciplinary 'world view', which involves 'different degrees of receptivity' and 'growth patterns', adds to the 'problem of defining disciplinarity'; because it essentially potentiates the 'continuing rhetorical opposition of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity', which 'obscures' the 'subtle interactions that do take place'; so, too, for the many 'different degrees of analysis and (degrees of) synthesis in each of the ('x') disciplinarities (105). Klein inserts also 'General Systems Theory', or simply 'systems theory' (Blackburn, 2008, t98.e3036) into her dialectic, which she envisions as the solution to the, apparently, never-ending 'dichotomies' and conflicts between and within the disciplines (106). However, Klein recognizes


22

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

that before systems theory can 'gain respect' within the academy, it must address and resolve the prospective 'dilemma' that it is at risk of being assimilated by one or more disciplines; or to paraphrase Klein, at risk of becoming just another 'discipline', another 'intellectual species'. Klein also argues that if it (interdisciplinarity) resists, remains interdisciplinary, so to speak, then "the other species in the intellectual ecosystem are likely to regard it more as a virus that threatens them, than as a food to sustain them (106; Boulding, 1956, 15)." Klein's proposed solution to/for this discipline-fabricated pedagogical paradox is 'synthesis'; for, she argues, "Ultimately, it is synthesis that will distinguish 'disciplinary' and 'multidisciplinary' ... from 'interdisciplinary' (166)." Absent a definition [and explication] of synthesis, we provide following definition: 'Synthesis' (as in Hegelian philosophy): 'The final stage in the process of dialectical reasoning, in which a new idea resolves the conflict between thesis and antithesis' (ODE, t140.e77868). In the closing summary of her methodical survey and analysis of the History, Theory, and Practice of Interdisciplinarity, Klein simultaneously both affirms and contradicts her earlier assertion that there is 'no formula for interdisciplinary work' (55). Specifically [1] the affirmation comes, when Klein submits for reader approval her conclusion that interdisciplinarity is 'a process for achieving an integrative synthesis' for use in solving 'problems created by differences in disciplinary language'. Whereas [2] the contradiction is 'served up', when Klein declares, --- and without caveat --- 'there is no absolute linear progression' in the problem-solving methodology', arguably, because 'there is and cannot be a ‘single model of the interdisciplinary process’ (191). And in spite of the fact that Klein unequivocally declares the 'concept (interdisciplinarity) represents an important attempt to define and establish common ground' for interdisciplinarity as a synthesized systems approach to problem-solving (196).


23

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Considering the foregoing statements by Klein, we must ask, on behalf of our readers, what, precisely, is Klein's position on [1] whether interdisciplinarity is a legitimate method for inquiry, learning, knowledge acquisition, and complex problem solving, and [2] the future efficacy of interdisciplinary studies and the common use of the process of interdisciplinarity to solve complex problems? We submit that the answer lies, so to speak, in the fifth of five proposed 'Interdisciplinary Futures', tasks, which Klein proposes are of the 'utmost importance' for achieving a 'fuller understanding of interdisciplinarity': 'Exploring the connections among creativity, problem solving, and the interdisciplinary process' (195-96). .03 J. Moran in Interdisciplinarity (2001) begins to lay the foundation for his dialectic, by asserting that in order to understand interdisciplinarity, we first must examine the 'existing disciplines', for 'interdisciplinary approaches are always an engagement with the disciplines' (3). Moran credits what he characterizes as the 'shaping (of) knowledge into disciplines', to Aristotle and his Metaphysics. Wherein Aristotle argued for a subject based 'hierarchy', in which he prioritized the subjects as [1] theoretical, the highest form of knowledge, which included, in descending order, theology, mathematics and physics; [2] practical, i.e. ethics and politics; and [3] productive, which he relegated to the bottom of his philosophical ladder, with the fine arts, poetics and engineering serving as the rungs (4; Aristotle, Metaphysics, I.3-13, 293-9; II.85-9). As if to second Aristotle's position, Moran leaps forward two millennia to Kant's Critique of Judgment, in which he 'made a systematic effort to hierarchize the university’s disciplines', mimicking (the) 'innate divisions in knowledge and the natural orderings of the human mind' (9; Kant,1928 [1790], 31). Moran's next course of dialectical bricks is laid, so to speak, with the help of Roland Barthes, who, curiously, Klein totally ignores in her discourse. Moran points out that


24

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

for Barthes, 'interdisciplinarity is always transformative in some way, producing new forms of knowledge in its engagement with discrete disciplines'. He also notes that Barthes cautions 'interdisciplinarity is not the calm of an easy security; it begins / when the solidarity of the old disciplines breaks down' (16; Barthes, 1977, 155). Moran then brings to readers' attention that the 'broadly defined' postmodernist 'notion of the (a) cultural text, provides the basis for 'Barthes to propose a model of interdisciplinarity that does not simply bring different disciplines together' but, arguably, more important, interdisciplinarity 'allows them to converge around a completely new object of study', interdisciplinarity (85-86; Barthes, 1986, 72). Continuing in a ['academic'] postmodern deconstructionist mode, Moran turns to Jacques Derrida and On Grammatology, to continue to develop his discussion of interdisciplinarity. Which, we suggest -- coupled with his importation of Roland Barthes into his discourse -confirms Moran's monodisciplinary grounding in the Humanities; specifically, the discipline of English. Moran notes that Derrida's interest is not limited to 'undermining the disciplinary enterprise of structuralism'; he also overtly 'criticizes similar assumptions of (disciplinary) authority'. Moran asserts that 'one of the main aims' of Derrida, in On Grammatology, is to 'deconstruct the traditional hierarchy', which, he claims, 'subordinates literature to philosophy'; and in spite of 'their common' bond 'with respect to the 'complexities and instabilities of language'. Moran points out that Derrida's efforts are, essentially, an 'attempt to challenge the (then) conventional notion that speech is more truthful than writing' (89-92). Moran further notes that Derrida traces this idea back to Plato, who, Derrida asserts, chastised 'poets for their dubious commitment to truth' and presented the argument that 'writing is the poor, impure relation of speech'; a prejudicial philosophical position that is 'reiterated


25

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

throughout the history of Western philosophy'. This prejudice, Derrida argues, is 'guided solely by 'reason’, which 'tends to be suspicious of writing as an activity that obstructs the purity of thought and spoken language'. To bolster his position Derrida cites Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his belief that writing is a no more than a ‘dangerous supplement’ to 'thought and speech', which, in effect, ‘wrenches language from its condition of origin’ (Derrida, 1976, 141, 243). Moran argues that the 'privileging of speech over writing' provided the spark, impetus, for the establishment of 'linguistics as a scientific discipline', which Moran claims Derrida proposed the 'counterdiscipline of grammatology, a ‘science of writing’ (89-92; Derrida, 1967, 4, 28). Moran also notes that Derrida unequivocally 'rejects' the 'assumption that those working within recognized fields are the ultimate arbiters of intellectual worth'. Instead, Derrida offers ‘philosophy, in its best tradition', as the arbiter. Philosophy, he argues, 'has never allowed itself to be put under house arrest within the limits of its own discipline (Derrida.1995.404). It is this 'potential for openness', or what we see as 'interdisciplinary freedom', that must be 'distinguished from the attempt by academics within philosophy departments', engaged in 'cross-disciplinary rivalries' with 'other faculties, since these individuals ‘confuse philosophy with what they have been taught to reproduce in the tradition and style of a particular institution' and disciplinary department (89-92; Derrida, 1995, 411). Moran switches his disciplinary point of view, when he tenders the suggestion there is a legitimate 'potential for interdisciplinarity' in the discipline of 'psychoanalysis'. Moran asserts this potential exists in the 'ambivalent relationship' of psychoanalysis to 'science'; specifically, 'clinical medicine' and its 'willingness to move away from straightforwardly scientific models' and embrace a more 'speculative and theoretical consideration of the relationship between the


26

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

self, language and culture (95). Moran claims this is so, because 'Freudian psychoanalysis was founded on a desire to challenge the disciplinary exclusions of medicine'. Which Moran claims is an example rigid 'disciplinary development' arising from the practice of 'shoring up its boundaries and rigorously excluding certain kinds of ‘illegitimate’ knowledge (95). To validate this hypothesis, Moran draws on The Four Fundamental Concepts of PsychoAnalysis (1977), by Jacques Lacan, and the psychoanalytical concept of the unconscious. Which Lacan asserts is ‘structured like a language’ (100; Lacan, 1977, 20). Therefore, Lacan concludes, the 'unconscious (mind) is only detectable through linguistic forms ... and (related) private vocabularies (100; Lacan, 1977, 50). Continuing his argument for a connection between the unconscious (mind) and interdisciplinarity, Moran notes that Julie Thompson Klein, in Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities and Interdisciplinarities (1996), believes the 'new understanding of the unconscious clearly offers potential for interdisciplinary study because it moves psychoanalysis away from the workings of the individual psyche and towards larger issues about language, texts, culture and subjectivity (100; Klein, 1996, 158). The role of psychoanalysis and 'the unconscious' in affirming the theory and application of interdisciplinarity is argued by P. Kitcher in Freud's Dream: A Complete Interdisciplinary Science of the Mind (1995). Moran goes on to assert that the 'long-standing division between the humanities and the sciences', which is based on 'the assertion of the importance of empirical proof', is now under aggressive attack (148). In some ways not unlike the attack waged by Sir Francis Bacon against the 'orthodoxy of classical learning', in Novum Organum Scientiarum (New Organ of Learning) [1620]. In which he declared that 'human beings and nature should be studied in themselves,


27

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

without fixed preconceptions'. To accomplish this, Bacon 'proposed a model of inductive reasoning', which required the collection and analysis of data in nature and 'extrapolating common properties from this information' (151). In Discourse on Method (1637), René Descartes endeavors to 'further consolidate the scientific approach, by developing and refining the process of deduction', e.g. cogito ergo sum, which is 'Cartesian doubt’ (151). As a means of summarizing his position on interdisciplinarity, Moran lists what he perceives are (the) 'advantages of interdisciplinary approaches': [1] 'they challenge traditional, outmoded systems of thought, which are kept in place by institutional power structures'; [2] 'they produce new, innovative theories and methodologies which open up the existing disciplines to new perspectives'; [3] 'they enable people to think more creatively about the relationship between their own subject and other ways of doing things, both within and outside academe'. However, Moran is quick to express concern, perhaps even reservation, about interdisciplinarity, when he states: 'there might be a problem with assuming that interdisciplinarity has all the answers' (because) 'there may be human intellectual limits to interdisciplinarity' (especially) 'given that most research ... is undertaken by scholars working on their own ... conversant in the theories, methods and materials of two or more disciplines' (182). In spite of his concerns, based on a subjective disciplinary perspective instead of an objective philosophical concern ('Fall of English', 46-49), Moran is nonetheless supportive of interdisciplinarity: 'Interdisciplinary study represents, above all, a denaturalization of knowledge: it means that people working within established modes of thought have to be permanently aware of the intellectual and institutional constraints within which they are working, and open to different ways of structuring and representing their knowledge of the world' (187). #


28

Physics of Writing

2.60

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Discussion .01 As noted above, Alan Liu characterizes interdisciplinarity as 'the most seriously under

thought critical, pedagogical and institutional concept in the modern academy'. As if to qualify Liu's thought, Julie Thompson Klein adds (with respect to the need for developing interdisciplinary problem solving skills) 'knowledge today is depicted as a network or a web with multiple nodes of connection, and a dynamic system' (and) 'images of boundary crossing and cross-fertilization are superseding images of disciplinary depth and compartmentalization' (1). Whereas Mathison and Freeman are unequivocal in their conviction that ‘interdisciplinarity … seeks to combine disciplines to enhance the learning in one or more of the disciplines (and as a result) transcends the disciplines toward a more interconnected vision of the universe' (13). And Fuller and Collier see interdisciplinarity as both a fact and as an ideology, which has 'evolved in direct response to the failure of the disciplines', which have ‘isolated themselves from one another'. They even question the very ‘existence of modern academic disciplines’ as the ‘best means to pursue and to disseminate knowledge’ (12). And Stanley Fish declares, albeit tongue-in-cheek but nonetheless serious, "Thou shalt have no other disciplines before me' (17).” .02 In spite of the widespread interest in and support both for the concept and practice of interdisciplinarity, as evidenced by our referenced sources, we still do not have a practical consensus definition of/for interdisciplinarity, which precisely sets forth (1) what is and is not interdisciplinary; (2) what is and is not interdisciplinarity; (3) how to assess interdisciplinary work; (4) how to vet interdisciplinarians (Beman, 12-16).


29

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

.03 With the possible exception of J. T. Klein and Basarab Nicolescu, virtually all of the referenced and cited proponents of interdisciplinarity are prisoners, so to speak, of one of the foundational disciplines in academe. This is evidenced by their use of [1] disciplinary nomenclature and their [2] inability to freely engage in interdisciplinary discourse, without simultaneously 'condemning' the disciplines (Moran, 2001, 15, 86; Lindauer, 1998; Fuller & Collier, 2004, 55; Nissani, 2005). Furthermore, based on the accredited lexiconical definitions and proscribed usage of/for the prefixes, or combining forms, of cross-, multi-, trans-, pluri-, poly-, extra- and inter-, the terms interdisciplinary and interdisciplinarity, as used by our referenced authors, have been bastardized; which, essentially, renders the terms both ineffective and meaningless (Klein, 1996, 210; Mansilla & Gardner, 2004). .04 Presuming all of this is so, what, if anything is the solution to this philosophical and pedagogical conundrum? We submit the clue to the answer lies in the fifth of five 'Interdisciplinary Futures' ['challenges'] identified by J. T. Klein, which are of the 'utmost importance' for achieving a 'fuller understanding' and eventual mastery of interdisciplinarity, specifically: 'Exploring the connections between creativity, problem solving, and the interdisciplinary process' (Beman, 22)." In order to succeed, Klein is convinced that 'Ultimately, it is synthesis that will distinguish 'disciplinary' and 'multidisciplinary' from that which is 'interdisciplinary' (21). .05 It is this recommendation by J. T. Klein, which, is essentially a dynamic systems' approach to solving the complex --- and, as shown herein often 'chaotic' --- problem of interdisciplinarity that we are employing in our research and dialectic efforts. Our objective is to establish both a philosophical and scientific rationale for the interconnectivity of the natural systemic processes of [1] interdisciplinarity, [2] creativity, [3] writing and [4] physics. And to


30

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

accomplish this objective, our research dictates that the logical second step in our dialectic must be the construction of a 'Normative System Language' (Beman, §3.00; Garfield, 1990).

#


31

Physics of Writing

2.70

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Litmus Test: Theory vs Practice .01 Our study of the concept and practice of interdisciplinarity, while by no means

comprehensive [that we intended it to be, nor is it required for our discourse], prompts us to ask Why not? in response to (1) the question posed by Myrsiades & Myrsiades, in "Un-Disciplining Literature: Literature, Law, and Culture (1999);" specifically, 'whether the study of interdisciplinarity has truly integrated the material of two or more disciplines into a newly coherent entity ... or has it merely achieved a questionable eclecticism that we might refer to as indiscriminate interdisciplinarity' (1-3); and (2) J. T. Klein's conclusion in Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities (1996) that 'Interdisciplinary research has in practice not been integrative but additive: the relation of the disciplines may be mutual and cumulative but not interactive, for the participating disciplines are left unchanged by their interaction' (56)? .02 The questions we posed earlier are admittedly [and intentionally so] more accusative than inquisitive, which in contemporary academic Aristotelian circles might qualify as being 'rhetorical' in the true sense of the term, for while virtually all of the cited sources advocate interdisciplinarity, as shown above, none of the proponents literally practice interdisciplinarity e.g. something as fundamental as their own work products, which exemplify compliance with and subservience to artefactual, protectionist, disciplinary style and format constraints. .03 In response to this observation, traditional (disciplinary) academicians might, arguably, point out: Such documents are critical writing, not, for example, creative writing. To which we would respond, beginning with the following lexiconical definition of what is, in fact, one of the foundational concepts in our discourse:


32

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Creative. 'Having the quality of creating / specifically of literature and art, thus also of a writer' / 'exhibiting imagination as well as intellect, and thus differentiated from the merely critical, academic' / 'mechanical (writing)' / 'frequently in the U.S. as a course of study' (OED, e50053531). .04 This hypothetical - though nonetheless all-too-real - exchange, logically, invites us to ask the following question: Why must doctoral degree candidates submit to artefactual disciplinary requirements, ersatz laws, of style and genre, which, in fact, dictate their dissertations cannot be 'imaginative' (or) 'exhibiting imagination as well as intellect'; but instead, must be 'merely critical', 'academic', 'mechanical' writing; a dictate that, in reality, and as we will demonstrate, limits their degrees of creativity? .05 Our answer: They, we, should not be shackled by archaic, protectionist, disciplinary artifact. And t o support our position, we offer the example provided by Jacques Derrida, writing in Of Grammatology, which is discussed by J. Moran, in Interdisciplinarity (2001): 'Scholarly writing is traditionally praised for being straightforward and ‘lucid’ (a word that literally means transparent), and for not letting language get in the way of the transfer of knowledge from author to reader' (90). Yet 'Derrida’s own writing, in contrast, is playful and open-ended, full of puns, neologisms, deliberate ambiguities and typographical innovations'. This style, in effect, 'reinforces and enacts (Derrida's) overall argument that thought can never exist in a ‘pure’ form prior to language, and that ‘beyond the philosophical text there is not a blank, virgin, empty margin, but another text, a weave of differences of forces without any present center of reference’ (91; Derrida, 1982, xxiii). .06 Our position is supported and expanded upon by Haraway in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (1991) [our numbering]: [1] 'Writing has a special significance for all colonized groups'; [2] 'writing has been crucial to the Western myth of the distinction between oral and written cultures, primitive and civilized mentalities, and more recently to the Donald Knight Beman §2.00 :

33

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

erosion of that distinction in postmodernist theories'; [3] 'the monotheistic, phallic, authoritative, and singular work'; [4] 'contests for the meanings of writing are a major form of contemporary political struggle'; [5] 'about access to the power to signify'; [6] 'cyborg writing must not be about the Fall, the imagination of a once-upon-a-time wholeness before language, before writing, before Man'; [7] 'cyborg writing is about the power to survive'; [8] 'on the basis of seizing the tools to mark the world that marked them (and 'us') as other'; [9] 'the tools are often stories, retold stories, versions that reverse and displace the hierarchical dualisms'; [10] 'stories have the task of recoding communication and intelligence to subvert command and control' (175).

#


34

Physics of Writing

2.80

Dream - Writing

Chaos to Creativity

Dénouement We, too, 'would rather be a cyborg than a goddess' (Haraway, 181) if it means that we

are free to dream, free to create, free to write, to tell our 'stories' using our words, our voice; and free to do so without the mind-numbing and creativity-killing artefactual disciplinary constraints dictated by the BORG and their 'COMPOSITION THEORY COLLECTIVE MIND ' (Moran, 182-87).

#


35

Physics of Writing

Dream - Writing

Forward All. Not two. Not three. Not four. Not Many. All. Interdisciplinarity


36

Chaos to Creativity

Dream - Writing
