Steve Eskow wrote:
>I, for one, can not keep in mind the problem for which
>"interdisciplinearity" is the solution.
>
>The are hundreds of Christian denominations, and there are Christians,
>Jews, and Muslims. And, of course, agnostics and atheists. Why integrate
>them?
>
>There is poetry, essay, novel, and drama: why integrate them into one
>literary genre?
Steve,
I understand your two examples (religion, literature) as examples for a
possible "dark side" to the word interdisciplinarity: transform many into
one.
With your statement "I, for one, can not keep in mind the problem for
which "interdisciplinearity" is the solution." you tell us that you don't
see a "light side".
I saw only the light side and would have missed your dark side before, for
I thought about interdisciplinarity as the opposite: transform one into
many - gain richness through connecting to diverse qualities.
In order not to name opposites with the same word, I suggest to call what
you have described "antidisciplinarity".
One question: What do you mean with "integrate" in your examples? Is a
drop of water falling in a cup of water integrating (lost of
individuality, lost of border)? This is surely not the same as two or more
people integrating into one team. What are the two correct words to
distinguish these two cases of "integration"?
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>