We always run reductionist comparisons like “music is just math” in one direction, as if it gives legitimacy to one side of the equation. Increasingly, I think this is a shitty way to do it.
What if math is just music? What if a good equation has an affective component to it?
What if math is just music? What if a good equation has an affective component to it?
I mean, you can get there via Dewey who is really fucking clear on this, but you really shouldn’t need to. What I’m asking is really quite simple: what would our science look like if we considered the possibility that affect lies at its ground?
That is, what if we recognized that the whole of scientific progress hasn’t been forged by logic, but by being moved by a felt connection with the world or some natural phenomena, and science is just a creative response to that feeling?
Now, I’d grant that the contingencies of history have structured the qualitative controls we use to make present the experience of encountering the world in particular ways, but still...
It’s a thing worth thinking about.
It’s a thing worth thinking about.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
