On Conceptualizing Structural Coherence
Academic pursuit has made me quite anxious, in both a positive and negative wave.
I think overall, my Stanford experience can be described succinctly as “dynamic,” and this is not meant to be in a positive sense. In its purest light, the dynamic attribute of Stanford has been its largely sporadic sense of status and constructs of time factor importance. There is that continual feeling of incessant productivity, and the discussions of class and race differences and identity mishaps have become the strongest learning pursuits I can (from a somewhat surfaced point) claim as most effective. I have experienced both disarray and disjointedness, just as much as I have experienced light and color.
But I think today, I have come to realize that my intent to identify as a prospective Symbolic Systems major has been one of question. My draw into mathematics in high school was uncertain, in terms of how strongly I wanted to categorize myself into becoming one with logic-driven abstraction in the realm of what is defined as natural. Now in college, I find that artificial abstraction and forms of thought are the greatest pursuit of man to know. Our nature is in somewhat more of a place of certainty, and those that find nature appealing may view its uncertainties and complex constructs as something vibrant and of most color. But in viewing artificial intelligence and general studies of structural coherence, I find that man is becoming more engaged with imitation in technology as of late, and this is a trend that I also submit myself to. What this has to say about those in the tech industry, and society as a whole in its growing awareness of artificial intelligence, is a large question that this post cannot describe.
I’d say it’s difficult to really capture the differing perspectives that come from SymSys. It has been metamorphic in that each quarter feels like a different journey to explore. Last quarter was the structure of linear algebra and Java, and now I am immersed into the abstract forms of C++ and cognitive neuroscience. Each experience is something different and beautiful in its own right.
And now I suddenly realize why this exploration is so appealing for many. The draw with SymSys comes from something I describe as structural coherence. To me, this is perhaps the connections that come from abstract structures and the inherent structure that exists within themselves. The very structure within structures.
Why does education tend not to focus on the connections from fields? Where is the beauty in discrete understanding?
I think something to evaluate within structural coherence between two bodies of study is the idea that interdisciplinary results are applicable ones. Maybe instead of viewing technology and innovations as elements of two disjoint sets, it’d be more effective to feel the continual beauty of connection.