> It is interesting to note that the journal Nature has a section for art
> in science / science in art. I wonder how many art journals have that?
>
> The renaissance involved trying to create something new that unified the
> old knowledge with the new scientific/economic/artistic discoveries, and
> then change society accordingly (although this later part only really
> got underway during the enlightenment). I see many similarities with
> today: we need a new renaissance to unify the old knowledge with the new
> discoveries and then find ways of changing our societies accordingly.
>
> The fact that there are people trying to bridge the two cultures and
> create a new synthesis isn't enough, as long as they stand fairly alone
> and unsupported. What made the daring transdisciplinary work of the
> renaissance so important was that it took place in a cultural context
> where it gained support and influence - the actual number of humanists,
> scientists, artists and engineers were fairly low, but they affected
> society profoundly through various channels. Had these channels not
> stood open, their effect would have been marginal and the renaissance
> soon forgotten. We need to find the modern counterparts of these
> channels of reaching into society and for creating a cultural context
> that promotes synthesis.
Remember also that there were many institutions giving their active support to these thinkers like the surging universities and like the Plato Academy of Florence.
Ciao
Waldemar
Towards Eudaimonia!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:23 MDT