interdisciplinarity

[shandley <shandley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I never accepted the division of knolwedge
>accroding to class and the division of labor, and hence the immediate
>problems around me have motivated my studies much more than following the
>needs an trajetories of a "discipline", not to mention the joke called
>"interdisciplinarity" (compound bureaucracy).

I'm curious about this.  What's wrong w/ interdisciplinarity?  This may be
code, and I may not be reading far enough.  Perhaps it's a ridiculous
overemphasis, a redundancy that's always existed in good scholarship which
defies the alienated "division of knowledge"?

----s, energy is eternal delight