Charting a Course on Immune Response

[from LLNL’s Science & Technology Review, by Sheridan Hyland]

Lawrence Livermore scientists Dina Weilhammer (right), Feliza Bourguet (middle), and Nicholas Hum (left) prep samples for analysis to study Rift Valley fever virus behavior and immune response.

Respiratory diseases can balloon from a few cases to epidemics or pandemics, making them a consideration in national security planning and preparation. Understanding how a pathogen behaves in different circumstances and environments is complex and depends upon many factors, including genetics. COVID-19 remains a stark example of how understanding of pathogen behavior can be tenuous. Scientists continue to grapple with answering questions of why some carriers are asymptomatic while others produce symptoms of the disease, why some of the infected suffer the effects of long COVID while others do not, and why some individuals passed away and others survived. COVID-19 is only one example of a pathogen that raises questions among medical researchers: Valley Fever, variations of encephalitis, and other diseases also present additional challenges. 

Lawrence Livermore scientists are taking a comprehensive approach to understanding pathogen behavior and immune system response, building on past research that focused on individual molecules and interactions. Dina Weilhammer, a staff scientist in Livermore’s Biosciences Division, explains, “We’ve made significant inroads in understanding how the immune system recognizes foreign agents such as bacteria and viruses, as well as how the immune system can separate what should be eliminated and what should be protected. Today’s biotechnology tools can overcome earlier limitations. They enable us to interrogate the immune system more holistically than ever before to address questions and uncover unexpected considerations and answers.”

Through its research, the Livermore team—which includes Weilhammer, Nicholas Hum, Aimy Sebastian, Oscar Davalos, Margarita Rangel, Deepa Murugesh, Bria Gorman, Gregory Lum, Nicole Leon, Patrick Hurley, and Ashlee Phillips—is sharpening its understanding of the differences between one immune system that clears infection compared to another that cannot. Using a combination of controlled pathogen exposure; single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq); spatial transcriptomics to collect data; and computational platforms to organize, analyze, and interpret the data, the Laboratory is developing an immune system atlas that could help the medical field better understand and predict disease outcomes in the future.

Livermore’s biologists combine multiple tools and research methods— controlled pathogen exposure, single-cell RNA sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and AI integration of data—to understand how different pathogens that impact the lungs, brain, and blood behave in different environments and how an individual’s immune system responds. As studies progress, the data could be used to predict disease outcomes in individuals and offer therapeutic screening, validation, and treatment options.

Mapping the Methodology

To address their research questions, scientists developing the immune atlas have focused on pathogens that impact the lungs and brain. “We have viral, fungal, and bacterial models of disease that specifically target the lungs,” says Hum, a staff scientist. “At the same time, many diseases do not start in the lungs but can still affect them over time through systemic immune and inflammatory responses. The next natural question is how signals from elsewhere in the body reshape the lung environment and influence lung function.” Data from multiple techniques combine to provide a fuller picture of immune system response.

Using uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP), Livermore biologists can create a visualization of cell clusters in experimental groups. Pictured here, a variety of cells in mice have been identified in a healthy (left) and infected (right) lung, including epithelial cells in the airways; endothelial cells in the blood vessels; fibroblasts that provide structural integrity and tissue remodeling; and immune cells (lymphoid and myeloid), which identify defense and inflammatory response. Myeloid cells demonstrate the largest difference observed between healthy and infected cell tissue.

Experiments in which mice are exposed to a known pathogen under managed conditions (controlled pathogen exposure), enable researchers to study the development of an infection and the immune system response. By controlling the exact strain of the pathogen, the dosage levels, routes of exposure, timing, host factors, and environment, the team can establish potential cause and effect related to the immune system’s immediate response after infection, which cell populations respond first, how the disease progresses, and what leads to recovery or more severe illness. Another tool, scRNA-seq, measures gene expression in individual cells rather than averaging signals across an entire tissue sample, enabling researchers to identify which cells are inflammatory compared to which cells are behaving normally. In traditional bulk RNA sequencing, RNA extracted from thousands or millions of cells is pooled together before sequencing, obscuring differences among rare or functionally distinct cell populations. In contrast, scRNA-seq preserves cell-specific transcriptional information, enabling researchers to resolve how immune and nonimmune cells respond uniquely to infection and injury. To perform the analysis, lung tissue is first dissociated into a suspension of individual cells. Using a microfluidic droplet platform, single cells are encapsulated together with gel beads carrying unique molecular barcodes. Inside each droplet, messenger RNA released from the lysed (ruptured or broken) lung cell is captured and reverse-transcribed into complementary DNA (cDNA). During this process, each transcript receives both a cell-specific barcode and a unique molecular identifier (UMI), allowing researchers to distinguish where RNA molecules originated while also correcting for amplification bias introduced during polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification.

Livermore’s high-performance computing tools enable visualization of pathogens and immune response in tissue cells, as well as patterns of host responses across different disease states. The UMAP plot pictured here shows cell behavior across healthy and diseased conditions (from left to right: viral, bacterial, or fungal infection) in a mouse lung, based on single-cell RNA sequencing data from animal studies. Each dot represents a single cell, colored by its general cell-type identity. Spatial transcriptomic maps can also reveal the cellular neighborhoods that emerge during disease.

After barcoding and amplification, the team breaks the droplets and sequences the pooled cDNA libraries at high depth, generating hundreds of millions to billions of reads per experiment. Using computational pipelines to align the reads to the genome, Livermore’s scientists reconstruct transcriptomes for tens of thousands of individual cells simultaneously. The team uses graph-based clustering and dimensionality-reduction approaches such as uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) to identify distinct cellular populations in infected and noninfected cells and visualize transcriptional relationships across experimental conditions.

A third method the team applies is spatial transcriptomics, which measures gene activity in specific locations in the tissue. Cells do not act in isolation from each other, and in the case of infection, cancer, or tissue repair, location in the tissue is important. For example, a macrophage near a blood vessel could behave differently from one next to a damaged epithelium (densely packed cells that cover external body surfaces such as skin, line internal cavities and organs, and form glands). In infection studies, spatial transcriptomics, a visual representation of the location and clusters of different cell populations, can show where inflammatory cells accumulate, where antiviral or antimicrobial genes are activated, how immune cells organize around lesions and infected areas, how responses differ between damaged tissue and nearby healthy tissue, and how cell neighborhoods change over time. In the lung specifically, spatial transcriptomics can reveal inflammatory cells clustered around infected airways, repair programs in surrounding tissue, and distinguish immune zones in severe compared to mild diseases.

Exploring New Ground

Livermore’s biologists have conducted several individual studies on Valley fever (Coccidioides posadasii), Rift Valley fever virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, bacterial pneumonia (Streptococcus pneumoniae), and COVID-19. “Our work didn’t start with the intent to generate an immune atlas,” says Sebastian, a Livermore staff scientist. “We were working on individual projects and asking specific questions. However, as we started to generate more data, we began to discuss standardizing the process of how and when we collect data and putting it into one big data set.” The immune atlas combines the data gathered from cells’ immune responses to the different diseases and then uses computational software to build visualization tools that map the varying responses across infected and noninfected cells. 

Using scRNA-seq and spatial transcriptomics, the team sought to answer how the immune system responds inside an infected organ and why that response shifts from protective to damaging. “As we pulled together the data from millions of reads, we saw what cells were doing for tens of thousands of reads compared to other cells,” says Hum. “By putting the pictures together, we can tell the difference between a T cell and a normal epithelial cell, for example. And from this stage, once we have the resolution of what the cells are doing and how many there are, we can start comparing all the different time points, trajectories, and infection models.” Through several studies, the Livermore team found that severe disease is often driven not just by the pathogen itself but by specific immune programs that become harmful. The team’s methods helped identify which cells responded first (such as microglia in the brain and resident lung macrophages and stromal cells in the lungs), which cells entered later, where the cells went in the tissue, and whether they were helping or harming the individual.

To analyze this data and compare results across pathogens and different parts of the tissues being studied, Livermore’s team used a variety of computational tools. In each study, they collected data at multiple infection stages, looking for when changes occurred and when recovery signatures began to appear. Since every experiment was slightly different, the team integrated and visualized the data sets such that they could be superimposed over each other and compared. “As we quantify what cells enter and at what point in time, we can study how their profiles change,” says Sebastian. “For example, in a blood system, monocytes enter and differentiate into multiple subtypes. Some of these are highly correlated with better outcomes, while others are not. We want to identify what’s considered a good response compared to a bad response.” The comparisons indicated that the type of cells entering the lung in response to infection can influence the outcome.

Team members Bria Gorman and Aimy Sebastian examine spatial transcriptomic data from a mouse lung.

A series of computational tools have helped parse and present the data, including both R– and Python-based approaches for scRNA-seq, spatial transcriptomics, and multi-omic integration analyses. For scRNA-seq analyses, the team uses Seurat in R and Scanpy in Python, while spatial transcriptomic analyses are performed using Seurat in R and Squidpy in Python. Additional tools such as Scenic, Slingshot, and CellChat are used to identify gene regulatory patterns, examine changes in cell states and differentiation, and explore how cells may communicate with one another. Graph-based clustering methods were applied to define cellular populations, and UMAP is used for dimensionality reduction and visualization of cellular and molecular patterns across experimental conditions.

While still in the early stages of research, the team is already seeing interesting, sometimes unexpected, results. One macrophage population repeatedly shows up in multiple infection models, particularly lethal infections. These macrophages express many extracellular matrix proteins and matrix-remodeling enzymes that are more commonly associated with cell types such as fibroblasts. “We don’t know exactly what they do yet, but we can clearly see a correlation between some lethal infections and macrophages coming in and moving toward this kind of profile,” says Sebastian.

Charting a New Course

As the Laboratory looks toward future research opportunities, a key focus is to understand what patterns and results in mice can translate to humans. Weilhammer says, “Comparing infections in which the test subjects recover from the disease versus succumb to it is useful. In our mouse models of COVID, we saw young animals recover from infections while aged animals did not. However, that’s not the whole story—we’re also interested in how the genetic background of the host can impact the trajectory of the disease.” In the COVID-19 pandemic, even though younger people suffered less severe illness compared to more elderly people, this outcome was not universally the case—many young people also had severe infections, difficult recoveries, and fatalities. “We think it’s highly likely that there’s a strong genetic component behind why some people do well following infection and others do not,” continues Weilhammer. 

In future studies, the team plans to integrate AI and deep learning models more significantly into their data analysis process and to help better predict an individual’s treatment needs and recovery path. “The basic research is difficult to pursue unless someone has all the experimental and computational capabilities that we have at Lawrence Livermore,” says Hum. “We’re still working toward the point where we can identify which illness someone has and how severe it might be from just a cough or other common symptom.”

[Archived PDF of article]

Songs as Another Kind of Parallel University

Meta Intelligence is a heterodox view of education where formal education (courses, diplomas, universities, fields) are incomplete and limited without adding informal education which is part of your life such as movies, songs, conversations and images (paintings, posters, etc). Your “lifeworld” (Edmund Husserl’s apt coinage) fuses all the kinds of education where the word education means thought-provoking and illuminating. Even personal experience counts such as illnesses or bad marriages! Only via this Meta Intelligence will you achieve a glimpsed “holism.” (Meta Intelligence is that meta-field outside fields, borders and boundaries.)

Take songs.

Think back to Jim Morrison’s classic tune, “Riders on the Storm” which begins:

“Riders on the storm
Riders on the storm
Into this house, we’re born
Into this world, we’re thrown
Like a dog without a bone
An actor out on loan
Riders on the storm”

This song (by the Doors), expresses in a simple way Heidegger’s notion of human existence as partly governed by “Geworfenheit” which derives from “werfen,” to throw. “Geworfenheit” means “thrownness.” Jim Morrison and his band the Doors are song–philosophers without (probably) being Heidegger’s acolytes. Max Weber, one of the fathers of modern sociology, uses the word “disenchantment” to describe the modern world, “Entzauberung” in German, where “zauber” means “magicality” and “ent” means “removal of,” and “ung” means “condition of being.” The magic here does not mean something like a card trick but rather sacred mysteries, perhaps like the feeling a medieval European felt on entering a cathedral.

Enchantment in the West survived in our notions of romantic love and was associated with the songs and outlook of the medieval troubadours. Such romantic enchantment which is fading from our culture in favor of sex is still celebrated in the classic Rogers and Hammerstein song, “Some Enchanted Evening” from the forties musical and fifties movie, South Pacific.

The song lyrics give you the philosophy of romantic love as the last stand of enchantment:

“Some enchanted evening, you may see a stranger,
You may see a stranger across a crowded room,
And somehow you know, you know even then,
That somehow you’ll see here again and again.
Some enchanted evening, someone may be laughing,
You may hear her laughing across a crowded room,
And night after night, as strange as it seems,
The sound of her laughter will sing in your dreams.

“Who can explain it, who can tell you why?
Fools give you reasons, wise men never try.

“Some enchanted evening, when you find your true love,
When you hear her call you across a crowded room,
Then fly to her side and make her your own,
Or all through your life you may dream all alone.

“Once you have found her, never let her go,
Once you have found her, never let her go.”

Notice that “chant” is a component of enchantment.

One could say that conventional enchantment has been transferred to the world of science and mathematics where a deep beauty is intuited. Professor Frank Wilczek of MIT (Nobel Prize) wrote several books on this intersection of science and the quest for beauty whereas Sabine Hossenfelder of Germany has argued, per contra, that this will be a “bum steer.”

You should sense that like movies, songs give you a “side window” or back door into thinking and knowledge, which should be center stage and not depreciated.

Education and the Kinds of Wholeness

We have stated several times that we seek more educational holism in particular, the tentative kind made by students themselves after they study these “exercises in holism.” Let’s explore this.

There’s a short story by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (29 January 1860 – 15 July 1904), a Russian playwright and short-story writer, who is considered to be among the greatest writers of short fiction in history. In his classic “A Boring Story,” he tells the reader about his inner yearning for some wholeness in his life:

“In my predilection for science, in my wish to live, in this siting on a strange bed and trying to know myself, in all the thoughts, feelings and conceptions I form about everything, something general is lacking that would unite it all into a single whole.

Each feeling and thought lives separately in me, and in all my opinions about science, the theater, literature, students, and in all the pictures drawn by my imagination, even the most skillful analyst would be unable to find what is known as a general idea or the god of the living man.

And if there isn’t that. there’s nothing.”

(Selected Stories of Anton Chekhov, Anton Chekhov, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (translators), Modern Library, 2000, page 104, “A Boring Story”)

The author wants to unite everything (i.e., “something general is lacking that would unite it all into a single whole,” as he puts it).

This is not what we have in mind because there is no “scheme of things” or “unified field theory” that we impart to students. That is for various kinds of “madrasas” (Arabic: مدرسة) including secular ones.

Rather, we encourage students to “walk around” topics, fields, educations, discussions, books, movies, quizzes and exams, lectures, assignments to develop a more “circum-spective” view of knowledge.

Remember “Husserl’s rhomboid.” Edmund Husserl (Heidegger’s teacher, died in 1938) would bring a matchbox to his classes in Germany and get students in his classroom to see that one cannot view the whole matchbox at once nor can rotating it capture all of it. Parts are visible, the whole matchbox is not.

We apply this principle to education and knowledge acquisition and offer the mental habit for students of “homemade” exercises in making more holistic views.

The narrator in Chekhov’s story, yearning to have a god-like view of reality and knowledge and experience (theatre, science, etc.) as a unified “thing” is not our interest since it too elusive.

William James (died in 1910) says several times in his writings that “one mind can’t swallow the whole of reality.” Therefore we avoid such “totalizing” visions in favor of much more modest attempts at connecting things better.

Education and Holism from Day 1

A freshman enters a college whether in the U.S. or Japan or India or Brazil.

We keep trying to offer the view that holism must “rule” the discovery of a “major” or “field” in education.

This holism means placing on the “mental plate in front of the student” these dimensions of reality, considering that every student is first and always a person.

  1. “This is your life.” Every person (the predecessor to being a student) is born, lives and dies. Your education is part of this larger truth and you the student, being shrewd in the largest sense, wants to “factor in” the larger frameworks of book-learning (i.e., life itself).
  2. Shrewdness cannot be restricted to a ZIP code in a state that will be advantageous income-wise for orthodontists, divorce lawyers or pediatricians. Concern over “ZIP codes” when starting a career is fine and valid. However, it can’t be enough since the student is, as a person, more than a career “Olympic swimmer.”
  3. Micro-shrewdness (i.e., career tactics and smarts) has to be supplemented by “macro-shrewdness” (“this is my life” thinking). You have to carry some “enchantment” from your education with you, or the life you have will be desiccated or insipid. Ultimately, you will “outsmart” yourself.

Max Weber (died in 1920), the great sociologist, says of that modern world that it involves “Entzauberung” (disenchantment, where only technical cost-benefit thinking is seen as valid). This Weber insight tells you that a student/person has to find something enchanting to carry him or her through life, its blows and its helter-skelter “shapelessness.”

This is why we “insist” on holism in education everywhere from Day 1 so that these various levels of shrewdness are contemplated together and overspecialized “rabbit holes” are seen more clearly in their limitedness. The process of overview-creating and overview-pondering in the life of every freshman must be combined with “career-cleverness” by itself.

Education and Wittgenstein “Language Games”

It is instructive for a student to get a grip on the whole question of “language games” à la Wittgenstein, who says that these “games” (i.e., ambiguities) are central to thinking in general and thinking about philosophy in particular.

Let’s make up our own example and step back from the meaning of the preposition “in.”

The comb is in my back pocket has nothing to do with the “in” of “he’s in a good mood” or “he’s in a hurry” or “he’s in a jam or pickle” or “he’s in trouble.” Furthermore, in modern deterministic neuroscience language, a good mood is a footnote to brain and blood chemicals so that means that a good mood is in you via chemicals and not you in it.

Does the word “jam” here mean difficulty or somehow the condiment called jam? You don’t know and can never without more information (i.e., meaningful context).

Imagine we take a time machine and are standing in front of the home of Charles Dickens in London in his time say in the 1840s. They say he’s working on a new novel called Oliver Twist.

Someone says: a novel by Dickens is a kind of “fictional universe.” Shall we say that because Dickens is in his home (at home) in London (though in London is itself confusing since London as a city is not like a pocket to a comb or wallet) his fictional universe is “in” the universe which might be a multiverse according to current cosmological speculations? That’s not what we mean. The fictional universe of Dickens is a shared cultural abstraction involving his stories, characters, people absorbing his tales, his mind and our mind, books and discussions. A fictional universe is as “weird” as the other universe. The preposition “in” does not begin to capture what’s going on which is socio-cultural and not “physicalistic.”

We begin to intuit that everyday language which we use and handle as the most obvious thing in the world in constant use, is completely confusing once you look at it more clearly.

Einstein’s friend at Princeton, Kurt Gödel, looked into language as a logical phenomenon and concluded that it’s entirely puzzling that two people could actually speak and understand one another given the ambiguities and open-endedness of language.

A language-game (German: Sprachspiel) is a philosophical concept developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein, referring to simple examples of language use and the actions into which the language is woven. Wittgenstein argued that a word or even a sentence has meaning only as a result of the “rule” of the “game” being played. Depending on the context, for example, the utterance “Water!” could be an order, the answer to a question, or some other form of communication.

In his work, Philosophical Investigations (1953), Ludwig Wittgenstein regularly referred to the concept of language-games. Wittgenstein rejected the idea that language is somehow separate and corresponding to reality, and he argued that concepts do not need clarity for meaning. Wittgenstein used the term “language-game” to designate forms of language simpler than the entirety of a language itself, “consisting of language and the actions into which it is woven” and connected by family resemblance (German: Familienähnlichkeit).

The concept was intended “to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life,” which gives language its meaning.

Wittgenstein develops this discussion of games into the key notion of a “language-game.”

Gödel saw that language has deep built-in ambiguities which were as puzzling as math and logic ones:

Gödel’s (died in 1978) incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system capable of modeling basic arithmetic. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics.

Take any simple sentence: say, “men now count.”

Without a human context of meaning, how would you ever decide if this means count in the sense of numeracy (one apple, two apples, etc.) or something entirely from another domain (i.e. males got the vote in a certain country and now “count” in that sense).

When you say, “count me in” or count me out,” how does that make any sense without idiomatic language exposure?

If you look at all the meanings of “count” in the dictionary and how many set phrases or idioms involve the word “count,” you will immediately get the sense that without a human “life-world” (to use a Husserl phrase), you could never be sure of any message or sentence at all involving such a fecund word.

One task of real education is to put these difficulties on the student’s plate and not avoid them.

Linguistics as such is not what’s at issue but rather a “meta-intelligent” sense of language, written or spoken as highly mysterious with or without the research into vocal cords, language genes (FOXP2, say) or auditory science and the study of palates or glottal stops and fricatives, grammars and syntax.

Seeing this promotes deep education (i.e., where understanding touches holism in an enchanting way).

The Captive Mind Book and Intellectual Danger

The Captive Mind, by Polish poet Czesław Miłosz, is a classic work in the domain of “mental freedom” and resistance to propaganda and every kind of brainwashing. Every nation state is to some extent a “lie factory” and a “deception machine.” A person has to “fend off” this manipulative or ideological power grab.

This very handbook of mini-essays, “Meta Intelligence,” is itself partly a defense of the non-captive mind, in the tradition of the Miłosz book. On the other hand, there’s a danger here “on the other side” since there’s a “free floating intellectual” temptation to take a sneering attitude towards all belief systems and to look down on the average person. There are dangers on all sides of this “non-captivity” of the mind. By embracing globalized and cosmopolitan education and by looking for knowledge connections in lectures, fields, universities, we look for a mental stance which is non-captive but not dismissive of believers. The French have a saying for this sense of intellectual superiority, “de haut en bas,” talking from “high to low,” from top to bottom.

Our purpose is to promote educational understanding, re-enchantment and “homemade” exercises in holism and not to promote superiority attitudes. Herman Melville’s Ishmael, the only survivor in Moby-Dick is tolerant and cosmopolitan and not exclusionary or monomaniacal like Ahab or Starbuck. Ishmael’s receptivity to things is a good model for such improved education, whether by life, whaling ships, academe.

The Captive Mind (Polish: Zniewolony umysł) is a 1953 work of nonfiction by Polish writer, poet, academic and Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz.

It was first published in English translation by Secker and Warburg in 1953. The work was written soon after the author’s defection from Stalinist Poland in 1951. While writing The Captive Mind, Miłosz drew upon his experiences as an illegal author during the Nazi Occupation and of being a member of the ruling class of the postwar People’s Republic of Poland. The book attempts to explain the allure of Stalinism to intellectuals, the thought processes of those who believe in it, and the existence of both dissent and collaboration within the post-war Soviet Bloc. Miłosz describes the book as having been written “under great inner conflict.”

Czesław Miłosz was a Polish-American poet, prose writer, translator, and diplomat. Regarded as one of the great poets of the twentieth century, he won the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature.

Born: June 30, 1911, Šeteniai, Lithuania
Died: August 14, 2004, Kraków, Poland
Awards: Nobel Prize in Literature

Sartre Gives Us a Clue About a Kind of Holism

In his book chapter, “Existentialist Psychoanalysis,” Sartre (1905-1980), the French thinker, offers us a “flashlight” of understanding when he writes:

“The principle of this psychoanalysis is that man is a totality and not a collection. Consequently he expresses himself as a whole in even his most insignificant and his most superficial behavior. In other words, there is not a taste, a mannerism, or a human act which is not revealing.

“The goal of psychoanalysis is to decipher the empirical behavior patterns of man. The essential task is an hermeneutic; that is a deciphering…”

(Existentialism and Human Emotions, Citadel Press, 1985, page 68)

In other words, if you think of a person as an unofficial novelist (i.e., storyteller) of his or her own life, with a philosophical commentary that accompanies the novel, you have not a laundry list of attributes, but a meaning interpreter on a short physiological leash of food, rest, headaches, skin rashes, sprained ankles and all the other bodily reminders of the biomedical pressures that accompany the person-as-novelist situation.

Connectivity and the Need for Meta Intelligence

Arguments without end and our attitude to them:

A reader of this book might ask:

How far does this quest for more holism go?  Are there limits on this type of inquiry?

This is a very good question.  In order to answer this, we quote something from the famous French historian, Michelet, who died in 1874:

“Woe be to him who tries to isolate one department of knowledge from the rest….all science [i.e., knowledge] is one:  language, literature and history, physics, mathematics and philosophy; subjects which seem the most remote from one another are in reality connected, or rather all form a single system.”

(quoted in To the Finland Station, Edmund Wilson, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1940, page 8)

Our attitude to such radical system building is non-committal. Rather we say, you the student should pursue flexible forms of increased connection and holism while you acquire knowledge and extend it and not worry about some once-and-for-all system underneath or beyond everything. We propose exercises in holism and all exercises are replaceable with new ones or better ones and there’s no “final layer” or hidden “mind of God” to use Stephen Hawking language. The existence of some underlying or final system is something like an “argument without end” (to use Pieter Geyl language).

This argument is captured by the classic “fight” between Hegel (the person that Marx and Kierkegaard rebelled against and who died in 1831) and Adorno in the twentieth century.

Hegel says: The whole is the true. Adorno (who died in 1969) says: The whole is the false.

We skip all such fights.

Thinking about University Knowledge Again:

One cannot major in every field. One cannot make everything a university offers your specialty or concentration.

“Sartor Resartus:”  The great British critic Thomas Carlyle (who died in 1881), close friend of Ralph Waldo Emerson, wrote a famous satire called “Sartor Resartus or The Tailor Retailored” where he lampoons a certain Professor Devil’s-crud who teaches at Don’t-Know-Where University and is Professor of Everything.

Obviously, we are not proposing the creation of professors-of-everything and propose nothing more than the heightened ability to “zoom out” of academic fields, topics, lectures, topics, campuses.

A person who has similar intuitions is Alfred North Whitehead of Harvard (died 1947) who says in his essays on education that the real purpose of university education is to enable the learner to generalize better using that person’s field as a help or aid.  The purpose of a university cannot be fields and monographs within fields alone.