Thanks for sharing this, Erin. I love your comment in the previous installment about being impressed with your previous self. I have had this feeling; sometimes I can hardly believe that I could have written that report or created that album, especially since it's been so long that it feels like I'm not the same person. This also reminds me that in 1989, in a course on SE Asian Economy during the MBA program at the University of Michigan, my final paper was on finding economic ways to stop the destruction of rain forests there. My classmates thought I was nuts...clearly one of those liberal arts types who'd somehow infiltrated the B-school. I wish I had that paper now :-)
Thank you, LeAnn. I love that you "went for it" back in '89, as you continued to do in all areas of life, and I'm sure you are continuing still. Courage and vision - qualities we love! And honesty. Especially in the face of "authorities" like profs and universities, etc.
Yes, we worked so hard in all of these areas. Amazing. AND, I think we are still doing it, just in different ways. Smarter, not harder. More ease and flow. And, we know how to relax, play, take it less seriously. Thank Goddess.
Erin, thank you for sharing this. It was really eye-opening. First, I am amazed at how aware/awake you were. The eye-opening part was seeing how basic principles were seen as non-scientific, religious, etc. I thought of the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - how science can't grapple with the realm of quality. For me, your paper really showed up how science on its own is myopic. It felt troubling to see that not being understood - the problem not being seen. At the same time, it helped me make sense of the conflict science has with the subjective. I get why - religious history. But as you say in your paper, we need both.
I like how you highlighted this: "science can't grapple with the realm of QUALITY." I also see the myopia here. It's almost hard to read and be reminded of. I see a clash of values, but I also see a clash of vision, of expansion. Fascinating how a paper 30 years old can really shed light on so much that has continued for decades and is still very pertinent. I think the paper had flaws - definitely; ethics/philosophy in the technical sense was not my strong suit. Yet, I, too, admired my courage to just go for it here, to plant a seed somewhere, anywhere I could. To use my voice.
Thank you for your readership and comments, Ellen!
Thanks for sharing this, Erin. I love your comment in the previous installment about being impressed with your previous self. I have had this feeling; sometimes I can hardly believe that I could have written that report or created that album, especially since it's been so long that it feels like I'm not the same person. This also reminds me that in 1989, in a course on SE Asian Economy during the MBA program at the University of Michigan, my final paper was on finding economic ways to stop the destruction of rain forests there. My classmates thought I was nuts...clearly one of those liberal arts types who'd somehow infiltrated the B-school. I wish I had that paper now :-)
Thank you, LeAnn. I love that you "went for it" back in '89, as you continued to do in all areas of life, and I'm sure you are continuing still. Courage and vision - qualities we love! And honesty. Especially in the face of "authorities" like profs and universities, etc.
Yes, we worked so hard in all of these areas. Amazing. AND, I think we are still doing it, just in different ways. Smarter, not harder. More ease and flow. And, we know how to relax, play, take it less seriously. Thank Goddess.
I appreciate your readership, LeAnn!
Erin, thank you for sharing this. It was really eye-opening. First, I am amazed at how aware/awake you were. The eye-opening part was seeing how basic principles were seen as non-scientific, religious, etc. I thought of the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - how science can't grapple with the realm of quality. For me, your paper really showed up how science on its own is myopic. It felt troubling to see that not being understood - the problem not being seen. At the same time, it helped me make sense of the conflict science has with the subjective. I get why - religious history. But as you say in your paper, we need both.
I like how you highlighted this: "science can't grapple with the realm of QUALITY." I also see the myopia here. It's almost hard to read and be reminded of. I see a clash of values, but I also see a clash of vision, of expansion. Fascinating how a paper 30 years old can really shed light on so much that has continued for decades and is still very pertinent. I think the paper had flaws - definitely; ethics/philosophy in the technical sense was not my strong suit. Yet, I, too, admired my courage to just go for it here, to plant a seed somewhere, anywhere I could. To use my voice.
Thank you for your readership and comments, Ellen!