Dickens or Darwin? They both start with Charles.

Sometimes Jeff writes poetry.  Here is one of his poems.


Did you know my dear that the reverse of tips

is spit?


So grit, grit, grit.


For readers who find the essay below sorely lacking in what I have termed “analytical intelligence,” blame the current intellectual climate. In other words, read the essay below.

And if you think the above is nothing but a circular evasion, well then, vid. above.

Transgressing disciplinary boundaries … [is] a subversive undertaking since it is likely to violate the sanctuaries of accepted ways of perceiving. Among the most fortified boundaries have been those between the natural sciences and the humanities.

— Valerie Greenberg, Transgressive Readings (1990, 1)

The creative disciplines (the arts etc.), peopled by creative artists, invite creative interpreters and creative scholarship in turn. The analytical disciplines (philosophy, mathematics, the sciences etc.), peopled by analytical thinkers, invite analytical interpreters and analytical scholarship in turn. The artists and their interpreters are masters of symbolic thinking which finds its best exercise in the interaction between form and content, or what is sometimes referred to as metaphor, a term used to denote the consonance or synergy in the juxtaposition of apparently unrelated elements.

Philosophers, scientists and their interpreters are masters of logical thinking. They excel at rigorous, analytical precision, always mindful of what would legitimate the progress from one premise to another without compromising the force of an argument as dictated by the strictest principles of reason. We must not confuse then, analytical rigor with a higher level of intellectual achievement, as we so often do. To do so would be a category mistake. We must instead recognize the profound complexity of what we have tried to call human intelligence, which is truly a nebulous amalgam of various, protean elements, two of which I have tried to identify here, namely creative and analytical intelligence.

Finally, considering the aforementioned disciplines thus, it is not surprising that the creative disciplines are so often maligned for their lack of analytical rigor while the analytical disciplines suffer no end of abuse for their purported lack of creativity. Both do indeed seem neglectful on these ends, though they are perhaps done more injustice than they deserve. The former group especially, trudging shamefacedly as it is through a golden age of science, endures constantly the cruelest and most unwarranted derision. We need then a reunification of the disciplines so that none shall lack what its fellow may easily provide. Then can science check the excesses of art, and art spur science on to enlarge its formalism.

– D. Schwartz