I really am avoiding reading as I focus on the writing. It’s not as if it’s any kind of crime not to have read all the writers and books on any given topic and with such a broad and inter-disciplinary topic as mine, there are literally millions of things to read, fictional narratives as well as would-be factual treatises. I took my lead initially from Pirsig, whose psychiatrist told him to just write something, even as a therapy to escape the numberless frustrations between the life-experienced and the words of received-wisdom already “out there”. Reading lists are never-ending to start with and counter-intuitively they grow the more you read. It was Eco that cemented the idea that even books acquired for one’s library could remain unread on the shelf – his “library of unread books”.
Re-shelving several half-read / un-read books recently, I have accidentally slipped into reading mode just occasionally, but yesterday I stumbled upon a writer and a book in that unread library that I had studiously avoided reading for a some time. In fact I only acquired in in guilty response to some very personally directed criticism that I didn’t feel the need to know Gregory Bateson’s work, given my clear interest in Macy and Cybernetics. He was part of those foundations, I already knew that, but you can’t read everyone and everything.
I was prejudiced against Bateson, from very negative opinions of Quine (Gavegai?) and Dennett about Bateson’s, and his first wife Margaret Mead’s, early anthropological work on “tribal” language evolution and development. And frankly, as I’ve said elsewhere, any systemic study of human organisational processes is anthropology by any other name – it’s where I’d started long ago in my 1988/91 Master’s work. So, Bateson wasn’t for me it seemed.
I’ve absorbed plenty of his “Ecology of Mind” ideas by osmosis from other sources I’ve read as part of the Psybertron project, but still hadn’t read his original collection of “Steps to an Ecology of Mind”. I can pretty surely say his ideas in this area are consistent with plenty of my own. I’m not reading him not because I reject his work, but because – see priorities – it feels like more reinforcement of the track I’m already firmly on.
But what of that earlier prejudice? Clearly Nora Bateson, his daughter (b.1968) with his third wife is very active in this cybernetics / systems / complexity space in the 21st C developing and promoting his thinking. Mary Bateson his daughter (b.1939-d.2021) with Margaret Mead was also a strong supporter, co-authoring later in his life, picking-up his unfinished work after his death and in providing a (1999) foreword to the second edition of his (1971/72) “Steps”.
In his own 1971 foreword he says:
“My first anthropological field work among the Baining [tribe] of New Britain [Bali & Papua New Guinea] was a failure, and I had a period of partial failure in research with dolphins. Neither of these failures has ever been held against me.”
Mary’s 1999 foreword acknowledges the failure of his early anthropological work, though widely read suggests he was misunderstood in the context of his wider work which didn’t yet exist, that he was in some sense both ahead of and behind his time. Hard to be sure now, but relieved to find I didn’t imagine that his failure really had been held against him.
Lots of good stuff in the foreword texts and the chapter titles, so good that I may uses some as titles of my own “Pathologies of Epistemology” and “Metalogues” for example but also so many topics already considered here, William Blake, Versailles and more. Not actually that impressed with his writing, none of the chapters I skimmed hooked me – many transcripts of talks? – however good his ideas, so back on the shelf for if-and-when needed.
If he says anything you think I’ve missed, let me know.
Mapping the trajectory of cohesion vs division – “We vs I” on multiple measures across four main areas – over the past century and a bit. One key message is that rather than seeking to learn lessons from the 1960’s when “we never had it so good” (and it’s been all downhill since), we should be looking at late 1800’s early 1900’s for lessons for how the upswing in cohesion was last generated, especially initiatives by people who were young at that time.
Compelling stuff, and there’s a discussion that follows the talk that I’ve not digested yet (See footnotes). Some key takeaways already from my perspective.
Time Axis – Yes, one reason my researches have been so focussed on the causes of what was happening in the 1920’s – responses to “the world in crisis”. (Aside, maybe fascinating also, to compare Kondratiev cycles to this double wave-length cycle.)
Youth / Bottom-Up – Yes, one reason my focus – as an oldie – is meta, the frameworks, the enablers, the environment of “creative constraints” rather than any actual projects, plans, applications. They’ve gotta come from people that will actually live them.
DEI Backlash – I’ve banged on about both sides of Woke / Anti-Woke (a pox on both their houses, etc), but whilst ridding ourselves of the degenerate aspects of identity politics ideology that became attached to these, we mustn’t forget equality and inclusivity of diversity as one of those fundamental enablers. Babies not to be thrown out with the bathwater.
I shall be interested to pick-up on the dialogue following the talk.
Post Note: Fascinating that “love” becomes the topic at the end following a question from a charity leader from Hartlepool(*). And two of the panel admit that despite its importance and involvement in their activities, the word doesn’t actually appear anywhere formally. I recalled using the word 4 times in my last two posts about wisdom. And it can’t go un-noticed that changing the subject from I/We/I to Love puts the “summer of love” at the peak in those graphs 🙂
(*) – And an interesting discussion around the content of this post with Jonathan, here on Facebook relevant to local issues, the kind discussed in local pubs 🙂 Also references this Borders vs Business post, the point being that we need practical constituencies to cohere around, to identify with. National identities – and their boundaries – come with legal jurisdictions enforcing “our” values, so we need to take them seriously for purely practical reasons, ditto all kinds of intra- and supra-national constituencies. That way we can fairly tax rich entities who would otherwise “offshore” their identities (and responsibilities).
I’m focussed on this one very small – linguistic technicality – point for now, not because it represents the object of my work, or any inherent or general pedantry – indeed vagueness is a virtue – but because not having some basic shared understanding here undermines the value of further dialogue about systems knowledge generally. And indeed Yiannis Laouris also shared more excellent contributions to that wider dialogue, to add to other previous materials already captured from him, Janet, Jessie and Gary – which I am just itching to develop and talk about.
And, let’s not forget from an ISSS perspective, all of this is follow-up to my workshop at DC 2024. It’s all connected and I owe some responses.
My topic is for the moment, as I say, this linguistic technicality. In my last post on this, I reduced the whole of the preceding dialogue to 4 simple statements the last of which was:
… this simple question is the point of the workshop & posts:
“IS WISDOM MORE THAN SCIENCE OR ISN’T IT?“
(And if it is, shouldn’t we be more careful in how we use those two words, Science and Wisdom?)
The objection – to the question – is that I called it simple, but in reality it’s not. The definitions and understandings of science and wisdom, and how well these can be captured in symbolic language anyway, are massively complex questions. The relations & similarities, dependencies & differences between Science and Wisdom are therefore another order more complex still. Sure, tell me about it 🙂 #ItsComplicated
My point, again, is that despite that undoubted complexity and uncertainty on so many levels, it is still a simple question with a simple – even a given – answer.
My answer is clearly “Yes” (Wisdom IS #MoreThanScience). And in fact the more complex those other aspects, the clearer and simpler the question and answer are.
I embarked on an ontological / taxonomic exercise, in symbolic (logical and graphical) language – in some draft visual / dynamic slides, hierarchical, heterarchical, holarchical systems network or set-theory diagramming based on some I’d prepared and used in earlier lives – remember this used to be my day job before I saw the error of our ways 😉 But, do we really want to go there just now? Let’s just stick to the natural language of human interactions for a while longer.
The Question Again
Let’s rephrase my question negatively and see if the point is clearer:
Is there any conceivable world – a whole world over all evolved times and domains – in which we can (ever, usefully or truthfully) say:
Wisdom <is identical with> Science ?
Surely not, “No”? Whatever their complexities of definitions & understandings, overlaps & relations in good & bad examples of linguistic & physical process embodiments, can the answer ever be “Yes”?
=====
And again:
Obviously it’s not simple to agree a comprehensively definitive definition of “science”. Ditto “wisdom”. Both are complex on many dimensions.
But the simple logical question remains simple. Each IS more than / different from the other on at least one dimension?
It’s about broad and narrow, identity and definitions. (The image above.)
Identity is about all defining features that make a thing unique. (In a human political context we can choose – as a matter of social agreement on policy priorities – which aspect(s) / feature(s) to base our chosen identity on.)
Definition is about any number of – one or more – distinguishing features that make a thing distinct from another adjacent thing. Every such feature is part of an exhaustive – pedantic – ontology, but in natural language it’s simply those features we use to distinguish use of one word from another.
Here the words we’re choosing between are “Science” and “AnotherWord”. (NotScience, OtherThanScience, MoreThanScience, Wisdom, intuition, inspiration, … whatever, in the context of knowledge on which we plan to base our decision-making.)
Despite the logically symmetry in the relationship between science and wisdom above – each is more than the other on at least one dimension – I nevertheless prefer #MoreThanScience because it would be unwise not to treat a piece of good science as good knowledge for decision-making purposes, (though we may for rhetorical purposes).
For me “wisdom” is just a word for that which is useful epistemically – as decision-making knowledge – but which is in addition to the available scientific knowledge or “science”.
Made it clear since the turn of the year that I am positively avoiding reading to concentrate on the writing with mental breaks embodied through live performance interludes and walks in the wild(ish) outdoors. I just posted a diary of planned in-person interludes – in the side-bar if you’re on a tablet or PC, in the footer if you’re on your phone – largely to get a grip on how many I’m committing to. If you want to talk in person, you’ll know where to find me.
My writing agenda is as wide as this blog is long-lived, with 2 or perhaps 3 well-defined projects in hand, but one single item has become a stumbling block – a conversation killer – to establishing the language needed to be taken seriously by the intended audience. I’ve tagged that blockage #MoreThanScience in several dialogues, with ISSS members, with Dave Snowden, with Teesside-SitP and with others. Essentially, if we don’t value resources that are not scientific, don’t recognise that there is more to understanding (and acting in) the world than scientific knowledge and processes, then we’re letting the world down badly. Few would actually deny understanding that, but I am always left with so then WHY? label everything we do as science or sciences – systems science, complexity science, social sciences generally? It denies, or at least disadvantages by obscuring, use of non-scientific contributions in the languages of wisdom, love, intuition et al. Another instalment of that conversation in a following post, where I can rephrase my assertion as a negative question that ought to be easier to answer. I think I understand those motivations “why?” and would really love to move the dialogue on to challenging my own motivations and objectives in erecting that #GoodFence
Although I am indeed not actually reading any new material right now, I am nevertheless noticing new materials reminding me of old materials generally and this long-standing stumbling block in particular. Impossible to ignore. These for example:
(I’ve been immersed in “systems thinking” for the whole of this 25 year research project because I was immersed in it my entire career since the late 1970’s – but it was only through contact with Anatoly Levenchuk and Rob Black as INCOSE advocates that I noticed since 2010 the wider formality of “Systems” in day-job contexts, in parallel with(*) my “Psybertron” research, and the Rovelli / Mach / Bogdanov trigger as recently as 2020/21 above made it the explicit / active topic of my research. There are so many global “systems” initiatives in every topic area from general management to wider business, government and civil society that I can’t list them, so apart from my ISSS membership, I effectively treat Ben Taylor as the hub or custodian of the network of systems networks of over 40,000 people.) (* In parallel, but obviously connected and convergent.)
Jean-Pierre DUPUY – The same is true of Jean-Piere Dupuy’s (2009, MIT Edition) “On the Origins of Cognitive Science” – a republication of his (2000) “Mechanisation of the Mind” with a new preface following the death of Heinz von-Foerster. Another highly recommended read. Having lent my copy to the local pub book club, I recovered the 2009 edition to read the new preface – pushing the agenda that continues as my own.
(All systems are dynamic but those involving (evolved / emergent) life are distinct even if not dichotomous #GoodFences, and where that living complexity includes humanity, the human condition (after Arendt) is more to do with love (**) than science. Rehabilitating the initial failure of Cybernetics with the more humanistic Macy-Conferences interpretation originally intended by Wiener, Bateson, Varela, Foerster and more – something I’ve tagged #Psybernetics in recent years– systems thinking where the psychological complexity of humanity and the ecosystems we inhabit, are a given.)
Sara IMARI-WALKER (ASU / Santa Fe) – I obtained her (2024) “Life As No-One Knows It – the Physics of Life’s Emergence”(*). (Been a fan recently of her active research work, as well as Paul Davies, Jessica Flack, Lee Cronin, Kevin Mitchell and more.) On the shelf for a future read, but the blurbs and the initial “What is Life?” opening also reflecting on the possibility, rejected by Dupuy and Arendt above, that the living may be no different to the dead – that “Life does not exist.” – as she puts it.
Onwards and upward.
=====
(*) “No-One Knows” is of course the spur for my underlying agenda – what does it mean to know anything? And, it’s also the Josh Homme title / lyric / chorus of a QOTSA number – seeing the connection? (Also the connection from Hull-CSS to ISSS via Dennis Finlayson at a local gig. Small world.)
=====
Post Note: And an admission, I did this weekend also choose to re-read to completion “Leonard and Hungry Paul” (2019) by Ronan Hession, by independent publishers Bluemoose Books. Very good, gently funny study on life, love, family and friendship. No funerals and one wedding, maybe. (PS – never did find out explicitly why Hungry Paul has that name. Presumably his older sister’s nick-name for him from his time as a needy infant, but never even mentioned, unless I missed it?)
The first of the two gigs was last weekend in Hull. Avalanche Party headlining their promotional tour on the release of their latest album recorded with the resources of the Joshua Tree studios and record company backing on the back of previous Austin TX “SXSW” success. (See more in the footnotes to my previous reference.) The Polar Bear Club is a famed UK venue with a great history in grass-roots music. The relatively low turnout – 40/50 people tops including the two support bands and their hangers-on? – might have something to do with the foggy Sunday night(*) and the surrounding road-construction access and parking difficulties – but the atmosphere could have been better.
Avalanche Party themselves were excellent again, with sympathetic support from the mixing desk and lighting, also now knowing most of their numbers, thanks to regularly playing the new CD recently. Full-on intensity, bass-driven riffs, with dynamic range and rhythm changes, as I’ve said before, puts one in mind of QOTSA with extra keyboards and sax (before I’d heard bassist Joe – originally met in our local bar – was a QOTSA fan too, and of course that Joshua Tree connection).
Support bands were a mixed bag. Second band were Bleach, competent but a little too conventional for me, very much led by their guitarist. But, first up were Wormfood, a bit “art-school”, chaotic but fun and bouncy, not taking themselves too seriously – self-identifying as “pretentious twats”. Really enjoyed them, and could easily get into them.
Hope the rest of Avalanche Party’s tour goes well, London and Belgium / Holland / Germany included, followed by France, Spain, Poland, Czechia and more. With recent serious signs of success and support behind them, it feels like now or never for fame and fortune. “Last roll of the dice” someone said. Good luck guys.
After the Polar Bear in Hull last weekend, this weekend was The Georgian Theatre in Stockton – again really about grass-roots support for original performers, and the evergreen question of what does it take – or even mean – to make it as a musical success these days? Creativity needs to be experienced and appreciated.
Headline were Wave Pictures, a band I didn’t previously know, and with some obvious “fame” behind them, commanding the £20+ ticket price, but I’d actually come along specifically to see the support, The Middle Management.
Although my own musical taste is rooted in blues-guitar-based and singer-songwriter “Americana”, Wave Pictures, like Bleach last weekend, were just a tad too conventional – led by the lead guitar – to be interesting for me, though obviously some quirky wit in the songs themselves which you can only ever get a hint of in one live listening.
The three fellas in Middle Management were previously in a band called The Young Hegelians (did I mention pretentious, but witty) and Simone the new member on keyboards and vocals is also someone we see regularly with her partner in our local bar (seeing the connection?) It was my first opportunity to see them, from previous enquiries they were busy rehearsing and recording. They were very much worth the entry fee. All I knew before were comparisons to Talking Heads and hearing their new single Influencer Influenza. Last time I saw Talking Heads live would have been Hammersmith Odeon (now Apollo) late 70’s, probably their first UK tour, so what’s not to like?
Actually, Middle Management were refreshing, much more original and a long way from any kind of tribute act – the covers bands that seem to fill every local music slot these days. It’s the rhythmic variety and dynamic range that gets you viscerally, but the fun of originality and intelligent wit that shines through. Loved them. When can I see and hear – embody the experience – more?
=====
FootNotes:
(*) Foggy Sunday Night? Being in Hull searching for the M62 home in the small hours of Monday 10th March 2025 – did I mention the road construction / closures? – I can vouch for the local fog on that night / morning. That weird coincidence meant I’ve been taking more than passing interest in the Russian connection in the Solong ramming of the Stena Immaculate that morning.
Perhaps not obvious, but with my intellectual topic being systems thinking – aka Cybernetics (or Psybernetics) being literally “governance” – the less-than / more-than science – of politics of government, local, national and international are integral to my interests. The fact that everything IS connected, doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy or that you’re paranoid 😉
=====
Post Note (3 to 6 May 2025)
Can’t really afford many new musical review posts with the ongoing writing project, but wanted to capture one experience from the bank holiday weekend, especially as I made a disparaging comment above about tribute acts and covers bands.
Historically, I was into The Hamsters for a while (2000 to 2005?), despite having overlooked their previous two decades. Famously covering almost the entire Jimi Hendrix and ZZ-Top catalogues as well as their original material. True to the music without being a tribute act in terms of physical presentation.
Told Ya Once are a local covers band, where bassist Steve Henwood is also in two other covers bands, one an Iron Maiden tribute act called Tyne Maiden the other a more general “showband” as we used to call them. And, as I’ve opined before on my travels, almost entirely manned by “gentlemen of a certain age” playing many of the same popular classics.
Told Ya Once I was seeing for the second time -they don’t seem to play that often – and the first time I was very impressed with the range of (heavy) numbers they covered, and covered so well. A younger lead vocalist who could do all the screaming / shouty heavy metal vocals when needed – the kind I don’t normally care for – but also great presence and delivery of the songs themselves. The guitarist clearly took his work seriously too – two output channels on each guitar separately feeding the pedals / loops / amps and the PA(?) so far as I could tell. Tuning via screw-down nut and bridge fine-tuning. Either way, guitarist, vocalist and bassist also took the sound mix for the audience seriously, roving the floor during sound-checking to get the settings right. Much appreciated.
What I didn’t spot until this second time from the ongoing banter, tuning and adjusting levels, was that the guitarist and vocalist are a father-son combo, which explained the range of older and newer bands being covered – songs they liked together whether they were popular hits or not. Reminded me of my own relationship with our son(s). I’ve always been a live Americana / Rock music fan though never to any performance level myself, they both are or have been. I’ve mentioned before, not only introducing them to acts I liked in my own collection but that second life being introduced to and becoming a fan of acts they were into and not just next generation stuff, but older stuff that had passed me by too. Anyway long story short here’s the two set-lists. And a mention for the drummer – great job on QOTSA’s “No-One knows”:
1 Led Zeppelin – Rock & Roll 2
1 AC/DC – You Shook Me All Night Long 2
(Loosening up those “classic” rock vocals.)
2 redup trouble I de o know the reason
Murder what’s the word.
Iron Maidenesqe stuff
1 Kinks – You Really Got Me 2
Engaging the audience
1 The Who – Substitute 2
X Iron Maidenesqe stuff
2 Myrder – what’s the word
1 Muse – Starlight 2
1 Foo Fighters – Times Like These 2
1 QOTSA – No-One Knows (drummer) 2
2 White Wedding – Billy Idol.
2 Darkness – growing on me
2 Break
2 X – The Cult – She Sells Sanctuary
1 Darkness – I Believe in a Thing Called Love 2 later
An interest of mine at several points previously, that “wiser” people – writers, thinkers – have often chosen later in life to join the Catholic church, having previously been Anglican / protestant or atheistic. Part of my respect for theology alongside secular science, and religion as “that which binds us” ritualistically.
A wide-ranging “Voicecraft” conversation with Dave Snowden – including his own espousal of Catholicism- too many notes to record (yet) – on so many subjects I agree on. A few linguistic choices where I’d disagree with his choices & rejections of specific words, but absolutely agree with the distinctions (#GoodFences) he’s making.
Rituals ….
(Transcript isn’t great, but I may work on it … to make it usefully searchable.)
Still absolutely baffled by his grip on “science” as his preferred term for (all) his work, given his nevertheless using the pejorative term “scientistic” to label the predictive / causal problem.
=====
More later …
=====
Post Note / Aside. Spooky coincidence, but the day before picking up this “Catholic” (name) church reference from Dave, I use the English “catholic” (adjective) in an exchange with him on LinkedIn.
And another Post Note: quoting Dave from another LinkedIn thread:
… they use intuition and then mask it with analytics to justify what they already decided to do.
But I’m wary of anything that contrasts intuition with ‘rationality’; you end up with the whole left/right thing from McGilcrist and others that doesn’t match modern Neuroscience, a point of disagreement I have …
That “post-rationalisation” was one of the original things that led me to my “keeping science honest” agenda. The tendency to make things look “scientific” even when they never really were – way back in my 1988/91 MBA thesis before that became my Psybertron project agenda since 2001.
He’s right to be wary of the terms on the E & I sides – Explicit vs Implicit, Rational / Science vs Intuitive – as well as contrasting them, but as we’ve said before I think he misses the real left-right brain points of Iain McGilchrist’s work. Language-wise it is indeed a minefield, but the real distinctions are important to understand.
I have 4 or 5 on my timeline who are either self-confessed “on the spectrum” or are living with a family member with Autism or Asperger’s. It’s a neurodiverse issue that requires care to varying degrees for the individual. No doubt. I do care.
But, I’ve been using the term Autistic as an adjective (and sometimes the abstract noun Autism) in a technical sense since 2005/6 for a much wider misunderstanding of the place of “rationality” in our socio-cultural-political “systems” context.
Caring about the former I often bite my tongue in needing to refer to the latter, but I’m finding the term more and more appropriate in 2025. (Not least because of the current prominence of Musk, but he’s just one visible consequence of a long-standing, yet largely hidden & misunderstood, iceberg confronting us.)
Deirdre McCloskey, mentioned only once so far in the whole blog, but the source behind one of those earliest references to (Post)-Autistic-Economics, and yet the word isn’t mentioned in her Wikipedia profile – wonder why, there is in fact a whole post-autistic-economics “movement”?
Is there “more than science” that is valuable to understanding & engaging in physical & human, content & processes in a world seen in terms of systems(*2)?
Can we usefully distinguish – draw a #GoodFence(*3) between – that which is science from that which is more than science?
Is “wisdom” a good word – as good an umbrella word as any(*4) – for understanding and referring to all those aspects that are beyond science?
So, … is Wisdom more than Science or isn’t it?(*5)
=====
Notes
(*1) – This post is a summary of where recent email dialogue got to after I shared the proceedings from and proposal for ISSS Workshops. (Incidentally, I think it significant that the only dialogue so far is with the women, Janet and Jesse. The men are silent so far.) FINAL post in this dialogue, with summary concluding more or less the original misunderstood point I was trying to articulate.
(*2) – I make no secret of the fact that literally the whole world, from fundamental quanta to entire transnational governmental issues to the cosmos itself can be, and is best, seen in systems terms. This isn’t a fatuous “theory-of-everything” claim, simply a pragmatic best-world-view claim. And by “Systems” I’m including Cybernetics, Complexity, OR/Community-OR, Systems-Thinking, you name it, and all the specific theories, sciences, methods and processes within and overlapping those broad genres.
(*3) – The distinction I’m making in this “Tyranny of the Explicit” scope is between the explicit, objective, definitive, scientific, conceptually-modelled from the implicit, intuitive, subjective, humanistic, embodied, holistic, directly-experienced non-science? Most of my concerns here are linguistic – maintaining constructive dialogue that integrates broad (inclusive) views. All language is about choosing and using words (symbols) – what we choose to call things – every word has a pointer element making a “this-not-that” distinction for the purposes of such dialogue. I simply use the Robert Frost / GK Chesterton #GoodFences metaphor, to emphasise the plurality & flexibility of such useful & intersecting distinctions as opposed to hard-and-fast dichotomies (camps) to be attacked or defended.
(*4) – Note the question is about being any good, useful, not about being rigorously defined in terms that would meet orthodox scientific standards, that would defeat my point here? And obviously, “social sciences” have lived with such compromises and approximations for many decades. I make few if any (explicit) social-science references in my work, I jump straight from STEM / Science to (maximally complex, human, eco-) Systems Thinking, but I do acknowledge that many of the issues I’m addressing already are and have been addressed in such fields. Note *3 is already one corollary – that war-like dichotomies between (say) science and post-modern “social-construct” views or between science and religious dogmas (say) are not useful even if the distinctions are themselves useful. Another is the idea that “objective approximations” and scientific representations are useful in subjective contexts, but always lose or distort some human aspects. I label the understanding of such dichotomies and paradoxes, whilst choosing to treat them as simply useful distinctions, as PoPoMo (Post-Post-Modernism) or what some now call “Meta-Modernism”.
(*5) – Does explicitly & exclusively attaching the word “science” to our endeavours, implicitly constrain language expectations – even kill useful dialogue – when considering more-or-less-wise, more-than-science, contributions from community members? Whatever all the scientific and philosophical (and moral) threads and histories running through and across this whole topic – this simple question is the point of the workshop & posts:
IS WISDOM MORE THAN SCIENCE OR ISN’T IT?
(And if it is, shouldn’t we be more careful in how we use those two words, Science and Wisdom?)
