Author: srkohli (Page 2 of 2)

At the very beginning of his speech entitled “Voice and Verse: At the Origins of Contemporary Poetry,” Stefano Colangelo stated “the origins of poetry is scary because poetry rejects all boundaries.” However, Colangelo also added “all boundaries built by academic approaches.” He elaborated on creating metaphors using poetry, however, one question constantly nagged at me. How can we look at poetry as either an academic subject, or artistic expression? As an academic student and art enthusiast, I balk at this distinction, as it is both non-encompassing and limiting in understanding poetry or specifically, voice.

Colangelo does not directly make the distinction of academia and art, but rather focuses on the power of individual voice in poetry. With very little prior poetry background or experience apart from a single class in high school, I’m amazed by the universality of the soft approach which Colangelo mentioned. Although not the first time, this was one of the most significant realizations for me, in learning the origins and progression about a topic in which I had previously never considered relevant to this seminar. The “Origins” seminar has consistently and effectively done this, able to increasingly bring a new perspective on a subject which I previously had not explored. Of course this is the intention of the seminar, the lecturers, and professor, but perhaps this is a transition from order to chaos in order to transform our previously unknowing lack of perspective, to a more chaotic, but informed perspective. This sort of transition exists heavily in college, particularly in classes at a more senior level. While 100 and 200 level courses primarily throw information at you for memorization purposes, the more advanced courses present material that truly leads to chaotic thinking, as you are (more often than not) overwhelmed by the scale and and conceptual magnitude of many ideas and theories. While daunting, this response to chaos feels extremely important as we grapple with understanding foreignness, another topic of Colangelo’s. Origins stem from foreign ideas coming together and evolving to something new, in the same way that we internalize and study new topics and ideas as students. Ultimately, this lecture made me take a step back and appreciate the chaotic nature of learning, recognizing that without it, we can truly never escape any of the boundaries set upon on us by academia.

I entered the seminar room on Tuesday night solely knowing the title of Professor Vittorio Loreto’s lecture, “Novelties, innovation and the adjacent possible.” As an STS major, I was immediately captivated when I first heard it, both confused and intrigued by what Professor Loreto might discuss. Hailing from Università La Sapienza in Roma, giving a talk in Waterville, Maine, in a series entitled “Origins: Order V. Chaos” seems like the perfect storm of strange, interesting, and ultimately “very STS.” Centering the lecture around innovation, Loreto brought together mathematical and philosophical ideas, ultimately making the informed claim that while quantitatively, innovation is certainly increasing, this is only at the hand of larger numbers of people innovating. While this is positive, it also emphasizes the saturation of the “innovation market,” and that innovation itself may become watered down as a result of the sheer involvement.

Looking on history, we can identify key innovations as entirely novel introductions of ideas and “products.” Of course, innovation is defined by being something new, but the amount by which something is new can vary significantly. Origins and innovation are seemingly contradictory, as origins represent the past and innovation represents the future. Yet simultaneously, these two concepts are extremely similar. Origins represent “the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived,” while innovation represents the very “thing” that has been created. How can the bridge between these two ideas be crossed, while using one to inform the other? It is a vicious circle of identifying how innovation and origin are developed, as each idea is a birth on its own, and the chronology doesn’t lend itself to a straightforward linearity.

The interplay between origins and innovation is also not possible without the third segment of Loreto’s lecture, “the adjacent possible.” This term seems to be another “very STS” term, as straying towards the edges of possibility only expands what possibility can be defined by, thus constantly stretching boundaries and exploring into the unknown. This concept resonated with me heavily, as during my thesis writing and even beyond classwork, my goal is to constantly expand my knowledge base and create multi-dimensional intersections of understanding and learning. In STS, and increasingly at Colby, exploring these boundaries is a staple of growth, as we might ask ourselves a question proposed by Professor Loreto, “What are all the different possibilities of things we can do in the next 24 hours?”

Aaron Hanlon began his origins talk on buildings – architecture, layout, categorization, and compartmentalization. From displaying pictures of Miller, to breaking down many of the individual buildings surrounding campus and their functions, Hanlon focused on the physical divide that separates the various majors and disciplines of study at Colby. Though seemingly merely physical spaces in which we learn and study, this divide is one that extends beyond merely creating physical barriers between innovation, but rather creative barriers preventing intersectional growth and progression. Last semester, in the Revolutions seminar, we discussed the value in monuments, and their relevance in establishing value and meaning. Monuments, like the buildings in which we learn and teach, are reflective of our unique approaches, perspective, histories, and even beliefs. If claiming this to be true, it is impossible to look at Mudd (Physics building), Davis (CS/Psych Building), Olin (Bio/Chem Building), and note the inherent limitations we have placed on ourselves through mere physical establishments.

These limitations exist not only in the classes that we are enrolled in throughout the various spaces, but those we are surrounded by and learn with, the teachers we are learning from, the events we are experiencing, and the overarching room for possibility that may (or may not) exist. Having had many of the same classes with a large number of the same students, I have felt limited in the peers with whom I’ve worked collaboratively with over the last several years. While it has been great to develop deeper relationships with a more intimate group, I also feel great hesitation in this as a liberal arts student, and even more specifically as an STS major. As a major so heavily ingrained in intersectionality and unexpected collaboration, STS embraces the intention of liberal arts. However when confined by solely the physical spaces that we learn in, we are effectively countering the value in a liberal arts education, reducing the number of minds, ideas, and innovations that can be produced together. While there is no clear solution to this problem, as placing a science classroom next to a humanities classroom doesn’t solve the issue, it is certainly a point to note as being vital to the liberal arts experience.  

David Bercovici, an esteemed professor and geophysicist, discussed with both our afternoon section and evening seminar the fine details (well, maybe only detailed to us) of the Big Bang, dark matter, Red Stars, habitable climates and our struggle to prevent climate change, alongside a number of relevant topics of “time and space.” Bercovici shared the the evolution of the recognition of science – that many initially searched for religion through comfort and origin stories. As scientific discovery progressed, fact and science served as the new gospel and bible, offering reassurance in the surrounding world and its existence. However, while we continue to scour every last centimeter of the earth, turning over every rock and boulder in our way, we face the same struggle of acceptance that those before us faced. While 7 billion humans inhabit the Earth, many more billions and trillions of organisms co-exist, mostly of course with no care, comprehension, or even awareness of “what the next generation may look like.”

It’s not only important to discover the information and truth that we seek scientifically, but also to ensure that it is relayed and communicated properly and effectively. Climate change is real, yes, and it is widely impactful, yes – but how do we convince anyone to care? Issues of understanding, comprehension, and most importantly, empathy, plague the majority of (at least) the United States, as partisan conflict gets increasingly worse alongside the climate’s state. A discussion of morality is often ignored in the scientific world as we seek answers and understanding. However, this discussion of morality is glossed over, when conservative parties deny and ignore the suggestions, nay, mandatory actions, issued by leading scientific discoverers. Bercovici (at least in this chapter) doesn’t fully address this idea of getting the reader to care on the importance of discovery, an increasingly vital issue we face.

So how do we convince one another of truth? While we now know that the Earth is round, it of course took years and years of explanation and convincing, despite having had the scientific truth for time before society was able to culturally accept this. Blind faith and trust in “what came first” is often reason enough for humanity to accept what is true, however when scientific inaccuracies are widely regarded first, it is massively difficult to alter our beliefs. Today, we live in a culture and society where truth is disregarded and inaccuracies flourish (especially politically), however in order for progress and unity to exist, this is an impossible barrier that must be broken.