The CreATP hypothesis is an interesting one. As important as a theory of digestion is, it is equally important to advance a theory of ingestion, or diet. In fact, we need a theory of diet and exercise to complement the theory of metabolism you propose here. Metabolism is a mechanism in energy production, as you point out, but what kinds of energy are produced by feeding the mechanism different "foods" (ideas, observations, experiences) and how is the mechanism affected by "exercise" like argument, conversation and reflection?
As someone who went to university as a prospective biochemist but ended up graduating in "HPS" (the History and Philsopy of Science") i love the scheme
I have a career in advertising where, to use your language, i bring the science and the engineering to the designers and artisists. And what we do is intensely utilitarian ("sell or else", David Ogilvy) but has an effect on popular culture.
Finally, i have found myself needing to sharpen my design skills and even my artistic skills as my trade become more entangled. I need to this to help make the knotty objects today.
While i like the model and the energy (inc. gyroscope) analogy i see it (also) as a carousel. You can feel the energy at any point and - crucially - you can add energy to it at any point. Arguably, you must add it at several points.
I think Krebs is actually a circular but ultimately linea "factory" where acetyl choline (from sugar, fats etc.) is fed in at one end to spit out ATP (the universal energy chemical) at the other, and then by a circular path the factory resets. i.e. it has in and an out doors.
I think the beauty of your system is that there is no prescribed in or out. Any of the four domains could be (should be) the input or the output. It really is a Circle of Life.
I know the feeling - in fact if you try to operate in two areas, those in one area will say that "you are not one of us, you are one of them", while in the other area they will say "you are not one of us, you are one of them." And so you learn that this is indeed the case and that you are in fact a person from the 'spaces between spaces', and few if any will be able to understand you.
This I think is the right word. In my artistic practice I have been working on entangling all of my work as a way of exploring this idea symbolically by entangling plastic and descriptive expression. Part of the motivation is to demonstrate also the power of art as a means of thinking about complex issues. Also I would say that entanglement opens up a better way to unify knowledge than the old science “reductive” approach of Edward O Wilson (Consilience) which just seems to reduce everything to the matter of genes, which is not much use if one is trying to unify knowledge to achieve a different view or address complex challenges. If one is designing mirco-electronics for computers, then electrons are appropriate, but if one is interested in using computers for solving problems, then programming is more useful.
Yes! When one has within one mind both art and, say engineering, one can see the world in a different way from the artist, or the engineer, and there is no communication problem of the kind that can exist between artists and engineers. The communication problem shifts to one of trying to explain your weird view of the world to others, be they artists, engineers, scientist, ...
Behind the scenes, Knotty Objects was a great opportunity to test the "bottom-up world-reading" approach. In Neri, Kevin, and my hands, the steak, the bitcoin, the brick, and the phone certainly implied sterotypical contexts, but also stood in as doors into entangled universes of meaning and questioning. This was shown in particular in four videos, each starring one of the objects. In two short minutes and a half, the phone led us to ponder issues related to manufacturing; market share and control of the product vs customization; the relationship between China factories and worldwide distribution; good design vs bad design, and much more (https://vimeo.com/134128443). The brick connected masonry (with a small 'm') to biology, moving through a connection between play, assemblage, and thinkering in fields ranging from toy design to electronic circuitry (https://vimeo.com/134128442).
This does not strike me as true. It is known that Satoshi Nakamoto had a decent idea about the potential social impact that Bitcoin would have, and perhaps smartphone manufacturers had dreams of the kind of global influence they could have, but I don't think the ancient invention of the brick requires a "knotty creator".
As defined, all objects are knotty. That is fundamental beauty and truth of our reality. It doesn't require a "knotty creator" to create knotty objects - one may mindlessly produce trash, but it may be a knotty piece of gold to others.
Very well crafted paper, this is great to see this ideas pushed forward, thank you.
As an alternative cardinality we can took the main aspirations behind these archetypes and discover that each lies on two realms : Spiritual (north), Intellectual (east), Physical (south), and Emotional (west).
The North is quintessentially abstract & pure in its search, the South is concrete & materialist; The East advantages its left brain, thinking in numbers (logical, analytic), whether the West prefers its right side and thinks in shapes (intuitional, synthetic).
I first seen the Maeda-Gold concept a few years ago on a Ken Perlin's presentation and really dig the idea. It is both powerful as a cooperative scheme as it can be for an individual creative process, and in a way is akin to a 'creative individuation' where one detaches itself to a defining label put by the natural conditioning of education.
In a way this theoretical frame came close to the Renaissance Man culture, quite similar to the Hacker Scene of our age, where creation is seen as a borderless land, neither to be narrowed by a vernacular nor the seal of approval of a society.
The interesting question is : can it be teached as a natural process for future generation ? (Or does this will solely emerges from adversity ?)
To quote from my experience I was driven to enter the field of Computer Graphics to blend this concepts together : Art / Science, Research / Application, but has yet to see anyone detaching themself from the studies or subculture they came from. Many times in the industry you will see this inevitable clivage between "artist" vs "engineer" and trying to begin to discuss about the eventuality and potential interests of a merging is just not something that compute (yet). It surely possible, and might need an overall change in our education model by questionning what outputs do we value more in people (self-reliance and self-efficacy might be a good start).
Oh I'm still young, I have hope.
PS : we should totally call this the OMG diagram, because frack yeah three letters acronym.
Welcome to the Metaverse. You will learn your way here eventually. You need to start by realizing that a lowly dress designer in the Metaverse understands the armature of the human body and the topological mesh of the human form better than you do. Entanglement might describe a moment, but not an Age.
We need people who can do this - I coined the term Life Systems Architect to cover this. Architects need specialists, and specialists need the Architect. Without the Architect the specialists are lost, fragmented, caught in their reductive view. The Architect brings to the activity that which the specialists cannot, sees the whole, and looks towards costs, utility, as well as aesthetics.
I am glad this was highlighted, and addressed as a counter point. To this point in the development of technology (read: tools) we have made the tasks of the single dicipline expert much more effcient. Consider adobe suite for creatives and matlab for engineers and scientists. While new tools for communication certainly enable the "life systems architect" to do a better job, I see technology first and foremost addressing the needs of concise tasks. Fortunetely, this increased efficiency and automation frees up the humans who would other wise be working in strict silos to consider the entire landscape and focus on creating connections.
These roles seem dated. What about medical science? This does the job of explaining and developing solutions. Art is also more than questioning behaviour and creating awareness. If the theory that art reflects the life of the community is taken as valid, then art also explains, discovers, etc.
^ How do I make a highlighted comment? I wanted to suggest the subtitle be corrected from "An inaugural essay for the Journal of Design of Science (JoDS)" to "An inaugural essay for the Journal of Design and Science (JoDS)" [emphasis mine]