Meta Disciplinarity

Surface Grammar

Kinds of Talk (Noun)
Ways of Talking (Verb)

Talking on the one hand is a continuous flow
river of discourse running through babbling
like a brook trickle to torrent variations but all
One Talk going on over all our community of
communication.

“Kinds,” of course, differentiates: describes
discrete distinctions in token subject-object
matter (on the other hand), and I would say
incommensurate values even though the terms
themselves don’t discriminate among levels &
it’s as natural as mixing meta force to fuse &
confuse kinds & kin–a form of cerebral
miscegenation that generates assets as well as
liabilities depending on the frame of mind of
players—how aware of their fusions & con-
fusions & depending on whatever agenda aims
& objectives they might be harboring at any
point in time. .

3 kinds of talk right here, for example:

Liberal Education [Frame]

III. meta-disciplinary (the whole & holy)
II. disciplinary (diversity: difference)
I. housekeeping (eco-system, economics)
bottom-line common sense

However we bracket & tag these distinctions
I was going to say makes no never minding
because it’s the distinctions that count.

But that’s foolishness.

There has to be a shared sense of differentiation
& hierarchical organization in order to avoid con-
fusion, and that takes a common terminology:
a domestic convenience— a coming to terms to
gather: communal convention Here & Now if we
want to be cultivating local food-for-thought.

Sort of like:



Can’t really have the top-of-the-pyramid
conversation going on until bottom line issues
are satisfied, secured, nailed: a form of ongoing
homeland security. Our Fundamental Concerns
hegemonize the whole deal which makes good
common Mazlovian sense. The “poor” we have
always with us: insatiable crying out loud for a
fix.

IF we share level-distinctions (terms) we can
track our
housekeeping-to-
disciplinary-to-
meta-disciplinary
conversational ratios

and that tracking right there would be a forth
dimension that might could be called

FRAME DISCOURSE:

Not just talk, but talk About What We’re Talking
About (if not How We’re Talking About IT which
is a course of another color.).

This would be high-level collective recursive con-
sciousness close to infinite regress and ongoing
Self-Assessment: talking about what-it-is we’re
talking about if not How—and possibly How, too.

How is a horse of another color.
How we talk about what we talk
about assuming we can monitor
the WHAT = a consumer value
devoutly to be desired.

meta-disciplinarity
. disciplinarity
house-keeping

Let’s say we might could generate our own terms
in common for our differentiation…would we just
be building another Tower of Babble? or shoring
up the temple templates for local edification?

Could argue either way.

Shared Idiocy on the one hand
(local food for thought);
Conventional Common Sense
on the other hand.



The Liberal Art Challenge
(or you put it in your terms without doing
injustice, insult or injury but merely to re-frame
out of the boxing for play):

How to make a monkey
out of Common Sense?
Out of Received Tradition?
Out of Specialized
Knowledge and Expertise?
Out of Economic Theory &
Deep Ecology Technologic,
Secular Humanism and
Fundamental Dogmatism,
Logical Positivism and
Nu-Age Spiritualism out of
the latest in Medical Advice
and Health, Welfare and
Surgeon General Warnings?

Cave Concerns: culture and
convention and closet issues:
idols of the anthropomorphic
mind .

Imagine you are Jane Goodall.
Put yourself in her sensible shoes
—observing, scientist, her un-
common sense foregrounded:
watching the monkey business
to see what she can see. How
they’ll just vote.

It’s all good for Jane.
No such thing as a bad monkey
failure to communicate fault,
flaw mistake good or evil—not
from her pantheonic ambrosial
point of view.

Now: imagine you are a monkey.
Now: imagine you are a monkey
and a Jane Goodall, too,
if you can.

Meta Disciplinary.