I recently completed my master’s degree and worked to climb the highest heights of intellect in the field of Ecological Economics. We worked through methodology, and epistemology and ontology. I studied second-order cybernetics, the foundations of mathematics, elementary principles of cognition.
If anyone does not understand the hierarchical principle of science, it stems from a belief that we will achieve ever more subtle degrees of understanding- From the heavy to the light, the crude to the refined- that we cannot know everything, but we will slowly know more and more.
And so I took pride in my elaborate architecture of thought. The arguments I was making were so subtle- they could barely be perceived. And for the most part they were not. They did not make a difference. They were not understandable.
And on the other hand, the few who perceived them, thought very ‘highly’ of my work. And there is a power in this, for a sophisticated and redundant architecture makes components increasingly ignorable.
As Heinz von Foerster states:
“The more profound the problem that is ignored,
the greater are the chances for fame
Of course the hardest lesson to learn as an academic is Rumi’s:
“The way of love is not
a subtle argument.
The door there
Birds make great sky-circles
of their freedom.
How do they learn it?
They fall, and falling,
they’re given wings.”
And as second-order cybernetics continues to die and recreate itself, on this academic journey, I find it, in it’s current form as the technique of death re-birth. The coalescence of falling and flight, down and up. Foundations and rules. And what can I say, I find Ecological Economics more beautiful this way- in an oscillation of (non) existence.