Mae Jemison on teaching arts and sciences together

What I want to do today is spend some time talking about some stuff

ئەوەی ئەمڕۆ بەنیازم ئەنجامی بدەم ئەوەیە

کە باس لە هەندێ شت بکەم کە

that's giving me a little bit of existential angst,

کە کەمێک

نیگەرانی دەرونییان پێ بەخشیوم - وشەی باشترم لەلا نیە

for lack of a better word,

over the past couple of years.

لە چەند ساڵی رابردودا، و

And basically, these three quotes tell what's going on.

بە کورتییەکەی ئەم سێ وتەیە

بارودۆخەکە رون دەکەنەوە.

"When God made the color purple, God was just showing off,"

"کاتێ خودا رەنگی وەنەوشەیی دروست کرد

ویستی خۆی دەربخات." ئالیس وۆکەر

Alice Walker wrote in "The Color Purple."

لە "رەنگی وەنەوشەیی"دا ئەمەی نوسیوە، و

And Zora Neale Hurston wrote in "Dust Tracks On A Road,"

زۆرا نیال هێرستۆن لە

"شوێنی تۆز لەسەر رێگایەک" دا دەڵێت:

"Research is a formalized curiosity.

"لێکۆڵینەوە حەزبەزانینکردنێکی رێکخراوە

گەڕانێکی مەبەستدارە."

It's poking and prying with a purpose."

و دواجار

And then finally, when I think about the near future,

کاتێ بیر لە داهاتویەکی نزیک دەکەمەوە

we have this attitude, "Well, whatever happens, happens."

دەزانیت، ئێمە ئەم هەڵوێستەمان هەیە،

باشە، ئەوەی رو دەدات رو دەدات. راستە؟

Right?

ئەمە بۆ چێسایەر کات گونجاوە،

So that goes along with the Cheshire Cat saying,

کە دەڵێت "ئەگەر زۆر گوێ نەدەیتێ

"If you don't care much where you want to get to,

کە دەتەوێت بگەیتە کوێ

it doesn't much matter which way you go."

زۆر گرنگ نیە کام رێگەیە هەڵبژێریت."

But I think it does matter which way we go and what road we take,

بەڵام بە بڕوای من گرنگە

بەرەو کوێ دەچین و چ رێگەیەک دەگرینە بەر

because when I think about design in the near future,

چونکە کاتێ بیر لە نەخشەسازی دەکەمەوە

لە داهاتویەکی نزیکدا، بە بڕوای من بابەتە

what I think are the most important issues,

هەرە گرنگەکان، ئەوەی بە راستی

what's really crucial and vital,

زۆر بنەڕەتی و گرنگە ئەوەیە کە پێویستە ئێمە

is that we need to revitalize the arts and sciences right now,

هونەر و زانست ببوژێنینەوە

هەر ئێستا لە ساڵی 2002 دا.

in 2002.

-چەپڵە-

(Applause)

ئەگەر ئێمە بڵێین داهاتوی نزیک

If we describe the near future as 10, 20, 15 years from now,

واتە 10 - 20 - 15 ساڵی داهاتو

مانای ئەوەیە ئەوەی ئەمڕۆ ئەنجامی دەدەین

that means that what we do today is going to be critically important,

زۆر گرنگ دەبێت

because in the year 2015, in the year 2020, 2025,

چونکە لە ساڵی 2015 دا

و لە 2020 و 2025 دا جیهان

the world our society is going to be building on,

و کۆمەڵگاکەمان کاری زیاتری لەسەر دەکات،

زانستە بنەڕەتی و بیرۆکە رەهاکان،

the basic knowledge and abstract ideas,

ئەو دۆزینەوانەی کە ئەمڕۆ بەدەستیان دەهێنین،

the discoveries that we came up with today,

هەر وەک ئەم هەمو شتە سەرنجڕاکێشەی کە ئێمە

just as all these wonderful things we're hearing about

لێرە لە بارەیانەوە دەبیستین لە کۆنفرانسی تێد دا

here at the TED conference

کە بە بێ منەتی دەزانین لە جیهاندا

that we take for granted in the world right now,

لە ئێستادا، لە راستیدا زانیاری و

were really knowledge and ideas that came up

بیرۆکە بون کە دەرکەوتون

لە ساڵانی پەنجاکان و شەستەکان و حەفتاکاندا/

in the 50s, the 60s and the 70s.

واتە ئەو خوانەی ئێستا سودی لێ دەبینین،

That's the substrate that we're exploiting today.

Whether it's the internet,

ئینتەرنێت بێت،

genetic engineering, laser scanners,

یاخود ئەندازیاری بۆماوەیی، سکانەری لەیزەری،

guided missiles, fiber optics, high-definition television,

موشەکی ئاراستەکراو، فایبەر ئۆبتیک، چۆنایەتی بەرز

تەلەفزیۆن، هەستکردن، هەستکردنی دور

remote sensing from space and the wonderful remote-sensing photos

لە بۆشایی ئاسمانەوە و ئەو وێنە

هەستکردنە دورانەی کە دەیبینین

that we see in 3D weaving, TV programs like Tracker and Enterprise,

بەشێوەی سێ رەهەندی، بەرنامەی تەلەفزیۆنە وەکو تراکەر

وەکو ئینتەرپرایس، درایڤی چاپکردنی سی دی

CD-rewrite drives, flat-screen, Alvin Ailey's "Suite Otis,"

شاشەی تەنک، سویت ئۆتسەکەی سەماکەری بەناوبانگ ئەلڤین ئەیلێی

یاخود ئەوەی سارا جۆنس کە دەڵێت "شۆڕشەکەی تۆ

or Sarah Jones's "Your Revolution Will Not [Happen] Between These Thighs,"

لە نێوان ئەم شتانەدا نابێت" کە

which, by the way, was banned by the FCC,

بۆ ئاگاداریتان لەلایەن ئێف سی سییەوە رێگری لێ کرا،

or ska --

یاخود سکا، هەمو ئەم شتانە

all of these things, without question, almost without exception,

گومانی تیا نیە، تا رادەیەکی زۆر بەبێ هەڵاوێر،

لە راستیدا هەمویان لەسەر بنەمای بیرۆکە و

are really based on ideas and abstract and creativity

تیۆری و داهێنانی

چەندین ساڵ لەوەوبەر دامەزراون

from years before.

So we have to ask ourselves:

بۆیە دەبێ لە خۆمان بپرسین

What are we contributing to that legacy right now?

ئێمە بەشدارییمان چیە بۆ ئەو میراتە

لە ئێستادا؟ و کاتێ بیر لەمە دەکەمەوە

And when I think about it,

بە راستی نیگەرانم. بۆ ئەوەی تەواو راشکاو بم

I'm really worried.

To be quite frank, I'm concerned.

من نیگەرانم. بە گومانم

I'm skeptical that we're doing very much of anything.

کە ئێمە بڕێکی زۆر هەمو شتێک دەکەین.

We're, in a sense,

ئێمە بە جۆرێک لە جۆرەکان، سەرکەوتو نەبوین لە کرداردا

failing to act in the future.

بۆ داهاتو. ئێمە بە مەبەست

We're purposefully, consciously being laggards.

ئاگایانە لەشقورسین.

ئێمە دوا کەوتوین.

We're lagging behind.

فرانتز فانۆن، کە دەرونناس بو

Frantz Fanon, who was a psychiatrist from Martinique, said,

خەڵکی مارتینیکە دەڵێت "پێویستە هەر نەوەیەک

"Each generation must, out of relative obscurity,

لە ناو نادیارییەکی رێژەیی دا

ئەرکی خۆی بدۆزێتەوە و یان جێبەجێی بکات، یان خیانەتی لێ بکات."

discover its mission

and fulfill or betray it."

ئەرکی ئێمە چیە؟ پێویستە ئێمە

What is our mission? What do we have to do?

چی بکەین؟ بە بڕوای من ئەرکەکەمان

I think our mission is to reconcile, to reintegrate

ئەوەیە هونەر و زانست

پیك بهێنینەوە و ئاشتیان بکەینەوە، چونکە ئێستا

science and the arts,

because right now, there's a schism that exists in popular culture.

جیابونەوەیەک هەیە

لە کلتوری باودا. دەزانیت،

People have this idea that science and the arts are really separate;

خەڵک ئەو بیرۆکەیەیان هەیە کە زانست

و هونەر بە راستی لە یەکتر جیاوازن.

we think of them as separate and different things.

ئێمە بە جیا و

And this idea was probably introduced centuries ago,

جیاوازیان دەزانین، و ئەم بیرۆکەیە

رەنگە چەند سەدەیەک لەمەوبەر خرابێتە رو

but it's really becoming critical now,

بەڵام ئێستا خەریکە زۆر هەستیار دەبێت

چونکە ئێمە رۆژانە بڕیار دەدەین لەسەر

because we're making decisions about our society every day

کۆمەڵگاکەمان کە

that, if we keep thinking that the arts are separate from the sciences,

ئەگەر بەردەوام بین لەسەر ئەو بیرکردنەوەیەی

کە هونەر لە زانست جیاوازە

و وا بزانین کە شتێکی جوانە بڵێین

and we keep thinking it's cute to say,

"هیچ لەمەیان تێ ناگەم

"I don't understand anything about this one,

هیچ لەوی تریان تێ ناگەم""

I don't understand anything about the other one,"

ئەو کاتە کێشەمان توش دەبێت.

then we're going to have problems.

ئێستا دەزانم کەس لێرە لە تێد

Now, I know no one here at TED thinks this.

بەم شێوەیە بیر ناکاتەوە. هەمومان دەزانین

All of us, we already know that they're very connected.

کە ئەم دوانە زۆر پەیوەندیدارن بەڵام من دەمەوێ

But I'm going to let you know that some folks in the outside world,

پێتان بڵێم کە هەندێ کەس

لە جیهانی دەرەوەدا، بڕوا بکەیت یان نا

believe it or not, think it's neat when they say,

وا دەزانن زۆر باشە کە بڵێن

"Scientists and science is not creative.

"دەزانی، زاناکان و زانستەکان

داهێنەر نین. رەنگە زاناکان بلیمەت بن

Maybe scientists are ingenious, but they're not creative."

بەڵام داهێنەر نین.

And then we have this tendency,

پاشان ئێمە ئەم مەیلەمان هەیە، راوێژکاری

the career counselors and various people say things

کارەکان و خەڵکی جیاواز قسەی لەم جۆرە دەکەن

like, "Artists are not analytical.

"هونەرمەندەکان شیکەرەوە نین.

رەنگە بلیمەت بن

They're ingenious, perhaps,

بەڵام شیکەرەوە نین" و

but not analytical."

And when these concepts underlie our teaching

کاتێ ئەم چەمکانە ببنە بنەمای فێرکردنەکەمان

and what we think about the world,

و بنەمای بیرکردنەوەمان لە جیهان

then we have a problem,

ئەوکاتە توشی کێشە دەبین، چونکە ئێمە

because we stymie support for everything.

رێگری لە هاوکاری هەمو شتێک دەکەین.

By accepting this dichotomy,

بە قبوڵکردنی ئەم دو حاڵەتییە

whether it's tongue-in-cheek,

چ لەو کاتەدا کە گاڵتە ئامێزە، ئەو کاتەی

when we attempt to accommodate it in our world,

دەمانەوێ لە جیهانەکەماندا جێی بکەینەوە

and we try to build our foundation for the world,

و هەوڵ دەدەین بناغەکەمان داڕێژین

we're messing up the future,

بۆ جیهان، ئێمە داهاتو تێک دەدەین

because: Who wants to be uncreative?

چونکە، کێ دەیەوێ داهێنەر بێت؟

کێ دەیەوێ نامەنتیقی بێت؟

Who wants to be illogical?

بەهرە لە یەکێک لەم دو بوارەوە سەرچاوە دەگرێت

Talent would run from either of these fields

ئەگەر پێت بڵێن تۆ دەبێت یەکێکیان هەڵبژێریت.

if you said you had to choose either.

Then they'll go to something where they think,

ئەو کاتە بەرەو ئەوە دەچن

کە بیر دەکەنەوە دەڵێن "باشە، من دەتوانم داهێنەر بم

"Well, I can be creative and logical at the same time."

و لە هەمان کاتیشدا مەنتیقی بم."

Now, I grew up in the '60s and I'll admit it --

من لە ساڵانی شەستەکاندا گەورە بوم و ددانی پیا دەنێم

actually, my childhood spanned the '60s,

لە راستیدا سەردەمی مناڵیم بە ساڵانی شەستەکاندا تێپەڕی

and I was a wannabe hippie,

و من هیپییەکی چالاک بوم و هەمیشە

and I always resented the fact that I wasn't old enough to be a hippie.

ئەو راستییە دەیڕەنجاندم کە من لە راستیدا

ئەوەندە تەمەنم نیە بتوانم ببم بە هیپی.

And I know there are people here, the younger generation,

و دەزانم خەڵک هەن لێرە

خەڵکی گەنجتر کە دەیانەوێ ببن بە هیپی

who want to be hippies.

بەڵام خەڵک هەمیشە باسی ساڵانی شەستەکان دەکات

People talk about the '60s all the time.

و باس لەو پاشاگەردانییە دەکەن

And they talk about the anarchy that was there.

کە ئەو کاتە هەبو، بەڵام کاتێ من بیر

But when I think about the '60s,

لە ساڵانی شەستەکان دەکەمەوە، ئەوەی لێم وەرگرت ئەوە بو

what I took away from it was that there was hope for the future.

کە هیوای بە داهاتو هەبو.

We thought everyone could participate.

ئێمە بڕوامان وابو هەمو کەس دەتوانێ بەشدار ببێ

There were wonderful, incredible ideas that were always percolating,

بیرۆکەی نایاب و سەرسوڕهێنەر هەبون

کە بەردەوام دەهاتنە ئاراوە

و زۆر لەو شتانەی نایاب یان باون لەمڕۆدا

and so much of what's cool or hot today

لە راستیدا لەسەر هەندێ لەو چەمکانە بنیاد نراون

is really based on some of those concepts,

چ ئەوە بێت کە خەڵک هەوڵ دەدات

whether it's people trying to use the Prime Directive from Star Trek,

کە فرمانە سەرەکییەکە لە ستار ترێکەوە وەرگرێت

being involved in things,

کە بەشدارە لە شتەکاندا، یاخود دیسان

or, again, that three-dimensional weaving and fax machines

کەرەسە سێ رەهەندییەکانی رستن و فاکس کە

لە خوێندنەوەی هەفتەنامەکانی

that I read about in my weekly readers

بواری تەکنەلۆجیا و ئەندازیارییدا بینیبوم

that the technology and engineering was just getting started.

لەو کاتەدا کە تازە دەردەکەوتن.

But the '60s left me with a problem.

بەڵام ساڵانی شەستەکان کێشەیەکیان بۆ بەجێ هێشتم

You see, I always assumed I would go into space,

دەبینیت، من هەمیشە وام داناوە کە دەچم

بۆ ناو بۆشایی، چونکە من شوێن هەمو ئەم شتانە کەوتوم

because I followed all of this.

بەڵام هەروەها حەزم لە هونەر و زانستیش بووە.

But I also loved the arts and sciences.

دەبینیت، کاتێ من گەورە دەبوم

You see, when I was growing up as a little girl and as a teenager,

وەک کچێکی بچوک و وەک هەرزەکارێک

I loved designing and making doll clothes

حەزم لە نەخشەسازی و دروستکردنی جلوبەرگ بو بۆ سەگەکان

و دەمویست ببم بە نەخشەسازی جلوبەرگ.

and wanting to be a fashion designer.

I took art and ceramics.

هونەر و سیرامیکم خوێند. حەزم لە سەما بو.

I loved dance: Lola Falana, Alvin Ailey, Jerome Robbins.

لۆلا فالانا. ئالڤین ئایاڵێی. جۆرم رۆبنس.

و هەروەها بە حەزێکی زۆرەوە شوێن جێمنی و

And I also avidly followed the Gemini and the Apollo programs.

بەرنامەکانی ئەپۆلۆ دەکەوتم.

I had science projects and tons of astronomy books.

من پرۆژەی زانستی و ژمارەیەکی زۆر کتێبی

گەردونناسیم هەبو. وانەی کالکولەس و فەلسەفەشم خوێندووە.

I took calculus and philosophy.

بیرم لە بێکۆتایی و

I wondered about infinity and the Big Bang theory.

لە تیۆری دەنگە گەورەکە کردۆتەوە.

و کاتێ لە ستانفۆرد بوم

And when I was at Stanford, I found myself, my senior year,

لە دوا قۆناغ دا خۆمم بینییەوە

chemical engineering major,

کە ئەندازیاری کیمیام دەخوێند. نیوەی خەڵك

half the folks thought I was a political science and performing arts major,

وایان دەزانی زانستی سیاسی و

هونەری نمایشی دەخوێنم، چونکە تا رادەیەک راست بو

which was sort of true, because I was Black Student Union President,

چونکە من سەرۆکی یەکێتی خوێندکارە رەشپێستەکان بوم

and I did major in some other things.

و چەند بوارێکی تریشم خوێندبو

And I found myself the last quarter

و لە وەرزی کۆتاییدا خۆمم بینییەوە

juggling chemical engineering separation processes,

بەردەوام سەرقاڵی پرۆسەی جیاکردنەوەی ئەندازیاری کیمیاوییم،

logic classes, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy,

سەرقاڵی وانەی مەنتیقی و دەنگدانەوەی

شەپۆلیی موگناتیسیی ناوەکی و هەروەها سەرقاڵی بەرهەمهێنان و

and also producing and choreographing a dance production.

دانانی شێوازی سەماکردن بوم.

و دەبو من روناکی و

And I had to do the lighting and the design work,

نەخشەسازییەکە ئەنجام بدەم، و هەوڵم دەدا بزانم

and I was trying to figure out:

ئایا دەچم بۆ نیۆیۆرک سیتی

Do I go to New York City to try to become a professional dancer,

بۆ ئەوەی هەوڵ بدەم ببم بە سەماکارێکی پیشەیی

یاخود دەچمە کۆلێجی پزیشکی؟

or to go to medical school?

Now, my mother helped me figure that one out.

دایکم یارمەتی دام

(Laughter)

ئەمە چارەسەر بکەم. -پێکەنین-

But when I went into space, I carried a number of things up with me.

بەڵام کاتێ چومە بۆشاییەوە

کاتێ چومە بۆشاییەوە لەگەڵ خۆمدا

I carried a poster by Alvin Ailey --

کۆمەڵێک شتم برد. پۆستەرێکم برد

you can figure out now, I love the dance company --

کە هی ئەلڤن ئایڵێی بو، کە ئێستا دەتوانن بیبینن

من حەزم لە سەمایە.

an Alvin Ailey poster of Judith Jamison performing the dance "Cry,"

پۆستەرێکی ئەلڤن ئایڵێی لەسەر جودیث جەمسن

dedicated to all black women everywhere;

کە سەمای "گریان" ئەنجام دەدەن، پێشکەشە بە هەمو

a Bundu statue, which was from the women's society in Sierra Leone;

ژنە رەشپێستەکانی جیهان. پەیکەرێکی بوندو

کە لە کۆمەڵگای ژنانەوە

and a certificate for the Chicago Public School students

لە سیرالیۆنەوە هاتبو، و هەروەها بڕوانامنەیەک لە

خوێندکارانی خوێندنگەی گشتی شیکاگۆوە کە کار بکەن بۆ

to work to improve their science and math.

پەرەپێدانی زانست و بیرکارییەکەیان

And folks asked me,

و خەڵک لێی پرسیم

"Why did you take up what you took up?"

"بۆچی ئەم شتانەت برد؟"

من ناچار بوم بڵێم

And I had to say,

"Because it represents human creativity;

"چونکە ئەمە دەرخەری داهێنەرایەتی مرۆڤە،

ئەو داهێنەرایەتییەی کە رێگەی پێداین، کە ئێمە

the creativity that allowed us,

داوامان لێ کراوە تێبگەین و کەشتی ئاسمانی

that we were required to have to conceive and build and launch

دروست بکەین و بینێرینە ئاسمان، ئەمە لە هەمان سەرچاوەوە هاتووە

the space shuttle,

کە ئەو خەیاڵ و شیکردنەوەیەی ویستووە

which springs from the same source as the imagination and analysis

بۆ هەڵکۆڵینی پەیکەری بوندو پێویست بووە،

that it took to carve a Bundu statue,

یان ئەو بلیمەتییەی کە پێویست بووە بۆ نەخشەسازی

or the ingenuity it took to design, choreograph and stage "Cry."

بۆ داڕشتنی سەما، و نمایشکردنی "گریان"

هەر یەکە لەم

Each one of them are different manifestations, incarnations,

دەربڕین و بەرجەستەکردنانەی داهێنان

of creativity -- avatars of human creativity.

دەرخەری داهێنەرایەتی مرۆڤن

و ئەمەیە کە پێویستە ئاشتی بکەینەوە

And that's what we have to reconcile in our minds,

لە مێشکماندا، کە چۆن ئەم شتانە پێکەوە دەگونجێن.

how these things fit together.

The difference between arts and sciences is not analytical versus intuitive.

جیاوازی نێوان هونەر و زانست

بریتی نیە لە جیاوازی نێوان شیکردنەوە و لەخۆوە زانین، راستە؟

Right?

وزە یەکسانە بە بارستایی کەڕەتی دوجای خێرایی

E = mc2 required an intuitive leap,

پێویستی بە بازدانێکی لەخۆوەزانین هەبو، پاشان نۆرەی

and then you had to do the analysis afterwards.

شیکردنەوەکە هاتووە.

لە راستیدا ئەنیشتاین وتوێتی "جوانترین شت

Einstein said, in fact,

"The most beautiful thing we can experience

کە بتوانین ئەزمونی بکەین بریتییە لە نەزانراو.

is the mysterious.

ئەوە سەرچاوەی هەمو راستی و زانستەکان."

It is the source of all true art and science."

سەما داوای دەربڕین و ئامادەیی

Dance requires us to express and want to express

دەربڕینی خۆشییەکانی ژیانمان لێ دەکات، بەڵام دواتر تۆ

the jubilation in life,

دەبێ بزانیت کە بە وردی

but then you have to figure out:

چ جوڵەیەک دەبێت بکەیت

Exactly what movement do I do

to make sure it comes across correctly?

بۆ ئەوەی سەماکەت بە شێوەیەکی راست ئەنجام بدەیت؟

هەروەها جیاوازییەکانی نێوان هونەر و زانست

The difference between arts and sciences

is also not constructive versus deconstructive.

بریتی نیە لە دروستکەر و

هەڵوەشێنەر، راستە؟ زۆر کەس

A lot of people think of the sciences as deconstructive,

زانست بە شتێکی هەڵوەشێنەر دەزانن.

پێویستە تۆ شتەکان لەیەکتر بکەیتەوە.

you have to pull things apart.

And yeah, subatomic physics is deconstructive --

و بەڵێ ، فیزیای ناوەکی

هەڵوەشێنەرە. تۆ بە تەواوی هەوڵ دەدەیت

you literally try to tear atoms apart

گەردیلەکان هەڵوەشێنیت بۆ ئەوەی تێ بگەیت

to understand what's inside of them.

کە چییان تێدایە. بەڵام پەیکەر،

But sculpture, from what I understand from great sculptors,

وەک ئەوەی لە پەیکەرسازە مەزنەکانەوە فێری بوم،

هەڵوەشێنەرە، چونکە تۆ پارچەیەک دەبینیت

is deconstructive,

و ئەو شتانە لادەبەیت کە پێویست ناکات

because you see a piece and you remove what doesn't need to be there.

لەوێدا بن.

Biotechnology is constructive.

بایۆتەکنەلۆجیا دروستکەرە.

رێکخستنی ئۆرکێسترایی دروستکەرە.

Orchestral arranging is constructive.

کەواتە ئێمە لە راستیدا تەکنیکەکانی

So, in fact, we use constructive and deconstructive techniques

دروستکەر و هەڵوەشێنەر لە هەمو شتێکدا بەکار دەهێنین.

in everything.

جیاوازی نێوان زانست و

The difference between science and the arts

هونەر ئەوە نیە کە ئەمانە

is not that they are different sides of the same coin, even,

دو دیوی جیاوازی هەمان دراو بن، تەنانەت

دو بەشی جیاوازی

or even different parts of the same continuum,

هەمان زنجیرە بن، بەڵکو

but rather, they're manifestations of the same thing.

ئەوانە دەربڕینی هەمان شتن.

Different quantum states of an atom?

حاڵەتی جیاوازی کوانتۆمی هەمان گەردیلەن؟

یاخود ئەگەر بمەوێ زیاتر سەدەی بیستویەکی بم

Or maybe if I want to be more 21st century,

دەتوانم بڵێم دەنگدانەوەی جیاوازی

I could say that they're different harmonic resonances of a superstring.

دەنگدانەوەی هەمان ژێن.

But we'll leave that alone.

بەڵام با واز لەمەیان بهێنین. -پێکەنین-

They spring from the same source.

هەردوکیان لەهەمان سەرچاوەوە هەڵدەقوڵێن

The arts and sciences are avatars of human creativity.

هونەر و زانست دەرخەرئ

داهێنەرایەتی مرۆڤن. هەوڵدانی ئێمەن

It's our attempt as humans

وەکو مرۆڤ بۆ تێگەیشتن لە

to build an understanding of the universe, the world around us.

گەردون، لە جیهانی چواردەورمان.

It's our attempt to influence things,

هەوڵدانی ئێمەن بۆ تێگەیشتن لە شتەکان

لەو گەردونەی ناو خۆمان و

the universe internal to ourselves

دەرەوەمان.

and external to us.

The sciences, to me, are manifestations of our attempt to express or share

بە لای منەوە زانست دەرخەری

هەوڵەکانمانە بۆ دەربڕین

یاخود هاوبەشی پێکردنی تێگەیشتنەکانمان

our understanding, our experience,

یاخود ئەزمونەکانمان، بۆ کارکردنە سەر گەردونەکەی

to influence the universe external to ourselves.

دەرەوەی خۆمان.

It doesn't rely on us as individuals.

ئەوە ناکەوێتەوە سەر خۆمان وەکو تاکەکەس.

ئەوە گەردونە، وەک هەموان

It's the universe, as experienced by everyone.

ئەزمونی دەکەن، و هونەر دەرخەری

The arts manifest our desire,

ئارەزو و هەوڵدانەکەمانە بۆ هاوبەشی پێکردن

our attempt to share or influence others

یاخود بۆ کاریگەری خستنە سەر خەڵکانی تر لە رێگەی ئەو ئەزمونانەوە

through experiences that are peculiar to us as individuals.

کە تایبەتە بە ئێمە وەکو تاکەکەس.

بهێڵە با بە شێوەیەکی تر دوبارەی بکەمەوە:

Let me say it again another way:

science provides an understanding of a universal experience,

and arts provide a universal understanding

of a personal experience.

That's what we have to think about,

that they're all part of us, they're all part of a continuum.

It's not just the tools, it's not just the sciences,

the mathematics and the numerical stuff and the statistics,

because we heard, very much on this stage,

people talked about music being mathematical.

Arts don't just use clay,

aren't the only ones that use clay, light and sound and movement.

They use analysis as well.

So people might say,

"Well, I still like that intuitive versus analytical thing,"

because everybody wants to do the right brain, left brain thing.

We've all been accused of being right-brained or left-brained

at some point in time,

depending on who we disagreed with.

(Laughter)

You know, people say "intuitive" --

that's like you're in touch with nature,

in touch with yourself and relationships;

analytical, you put your mind to work.

I'm going to tell you a little secret. You all know this, though.

But sometimes people use this analysis idea,

that things are outside of ourselves,

to say, this is what we're going to elevate

as the true, most important sciences, right?

Then you have artists -- and you all know this is true as well --

artists will say things about scientists

because they say they're too concrete, they're disconnected from the world.

But, we've even had that here on stage,

so don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about.

(Laughter)

We had folks talking about the Flat Earth Society

and flower arrangers,

so there's this whole dichotomy

that we continue to carry along, even when we know better.

And folks say we need to choose either-or.

But it would really be foolish to choose either one,

intuitive versus analytical.

That's a foolish choice.

It's foolish just like trying to choose between being realistic or idealistic.

You need both in life.

Why do people do this?

I'm going to quote a molecular biologist, Sydney Brenner,

who's 70 years old, so he can say this.

He said, "It's always important to distinguish between chastity

and impotence."

Now --

(Laughter)

I want to share with you a little equation, OK?

How does understanding science and the arts fit into our lives

and what's going on

and the things we're talking about here at the design conference?

And this is a little thing I came up with:

understanding

and our resources and our will

cause us to have outcomes.

Our understanding is our science, our arts, our religion;

how we see the universe around us;

our resources, our money, our labor, our minerals --

those things that are out there in the world we have to work with.

But more importantly, there's our will.

This is our vision,

our aspirations of the future, our hopes, our dreams,

our struggles and our fears.

Our successes and our failures influence what we do with all of those.

And to me, design and engineering, craftsmanship and skilled labor,

are all the things that work on this to have our outcome,

which is our human quality of life.

Where do we want the world to be?

And guess what?

Regardless of how we look at this,

whether we look at arts and sciences as separate or different,

they're both being influenced now and they're both having problems.

I did a project called S.E.E.ing the Future:

Science, Engineering and Education.

It was looking at how to shed light

on the most effective use of government funding.

We got a bunch of scientists in all stages of their careers.

They came to Dartmouth College, where I was teaching.

And they talked about, with theologians and financiers:

What are some of the issues of public funding

for science and engineering research?

What's most important about it?

There are some ideas that emerged

that I think have really powerful parallels to the arts.

The first thing they said was that the circumstances

that we find ourselves in today in the sciences and engineering

that made us world leaders

are very different than the '40s, the '50s, and the '60s and the '70s,

when we emerged as world leaders,

because we're no longer in competition with fascism,

with Soviet-style communism.

And by the way, that competition wasn't just military;

it included social competition and political competition as well,

that allowed us to look at space as one of those platforms

to prove that our social system was better.

Another thing they talked about was that the infrastructure

that supports the sciences

is becoming obsolete.

We look at universities and colleges --

small, mid-sized community colleges across the country --

their laboratories are becoming obsolete.

And this is where we train most of our science workers

and our researchers -- and our teachers, by the way.

And there's a media that doesn't support the dissemination of any more than

the most mundane and inane of information.

There's pseudoscience, crop circles, alien autopsy, haunted houses,

or disasters.

And that's what we see.

This isn't really the information you need to operate in everyday life

and figure out how to participate in this democracy

and determine what's going on.

They also said there's a change in the corporate mentality.

Whereas government money had always been there

for basic science and engineering research,

we also counted on some companies to do some basic research.

But what's happened now is companies put more energy

into short-term product development

than they do in basic engineering and science research.

And education is not keeping up.

In K through 12, people are taking out wet labs.

They think if we put a computer in the room,

it's going to take the place of actually mixing the acids

or growing the potatoes.

And government funding is decreasing in spending,

and then they're saying, let's have corporations take over,

and that's not true.

Government funding should at least do things

like recognize cost benefits of basic science and engineering research.

We have to know that we have a responsibility as global citizens

in this world.

We have to look at the education of humans.

We need to build our resources today to make sure that they're trained

so they understand the importance of these things.

And we have to support the vitality of science.

That doesn't mean that everything has to have one thing that's going to go on,

or that we know exactly what's going to be the outcome of it,

but that we support the vitality and the intellectual curiosity

that goes along [with it].

And if you think about those parallels to the arts --

the competition with the Bolshoi Ballet spurred

the Joffrey and the New York City Ballet to become better.

Infrastructure, museums, theaters, movie houses across the country

are disappearing.

We have more television stations with less to watch,

we have more money spent on rewrites

to get old television programs

in the movies.

We have corporate funding now that,

when it goes to support the arts,

it almost requires that the product be part of the picture

that the artist draws.

We have stadiums that are named over and over again by corporations.

In Houston, we're trying to figure out what to do with that Enron Stadium thing.

(Laughter)

Fine arts and education in the schools is disappearing,

And we have a government that seems like it's gutting the NEA

and other programs.

So we have to really stop and think:

What are we trying to do with the sciences and the arts?

There's a need to revitalize them.

We have to pay attention to it.

I just want to tell you quickly what I'm doing --

(Applause)

I want to tell you what I've been doing a little bit since ...

I feel this need to sort of integrate some of the ideas

that I've had and run across over time.

One of the things that I found out is that there's a need to repair

the dichotomy between the mind and body as well.

My mother always told me, you have to be observant,

know what's going on in your mind and your body.

And as a dancer, I had this tremendous faith in my ability to know my body,

just as I knew how to sense colors.

Then I went to medical school,

and I was supposed to just go on what the machine said about bodies.

You know, you would ask patients questions and some people would tell you,

"Don't listen to what the patient said."

We know that patients know and understand their bodies better,

but these days we're trying to divorce them from that idea.

We have to reconcile the patient's knowledge of their body

with physicians' measurements.

We had someone talk about measuring emotions

and getting machines to figure out what to keep us from acting crazy.

No, we shouldn't measure.

We shouldn't use machines to measure road rage

and then do something to keep us from engaging in it.

Maybe we can have machines help us to recognize that we have road rage,

and then we need to know how to control that without the machines.

We even need to be able to recognize that without the machines.

What I'm very concerned about is:

How do we bolster our self-awareness as humans, as biological organisms?

Michael Moschen spoke of having to teach

and learn how to feel with my eyes, to see with my hands.

We have all kinds of possibilities to use our senses by,

and that's what we have to do.

That's what I want to do --

to try to use bioinstrumentation, those kind of things,

to help our senses in what we do.

That's the work I've been doing now,

as a company called BioSentient Corporation.

I figured I'd have to do that ad, because I'm an entrepreneur,

and "entrepreneur" says "somebody who does what they want to do,

because they're not broke enough that they have to get a real job."

(Laughter)

But that's the work I'm doing, BioSentient Corporation,

trying to figure out: How do we integrate these things?

Let me finish by saying that my personal design issue for the future

is really about integrating;

to think about that intuitive and that analytical.

The arts and sciences are not separate.

High school physics lesson before you leave:

high school physics teacher used to hold up a ball.

She would say, "This ball has potential energy.

But nothing will happen to it, it can't do any work,

until I drop it and it changes states."

I like to think of ideas as potential energy.

They're really wonderful,

but nothing will happen until we risk putting them into action.

This conference is filled with wonderful ideas.

We're going to share lots of things with people.

But nothing's going to happen

until we risk putting those ideas into action.

We need to revitalize the arts and sciences today.

We need to take responsibility for the future.

We can't hide behind saying it's just for company profits,

or it's just a business,

or I'm an artist or an academician.

Here's how you judge what you're doing:

I talked about that balance between intuitive, analytical.

Fran Lebowitz, my favorite cynic,

said, "The three questions of greatest concern ..." --

now I'm going to add on to design --

"... are: Is it attractive?"

That's the intuitive.

"Is it amusing?" -- the analytical,

and, "Does it know its place?" -- the balance.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)