Joanna -------
Thanks. While I was going on about divisions between Searle's way of thinking and mine, I remembered when this division first struck me in the intro to philosophy class and something I read outside class.
The book was C.P.Snow's The Two Cultures. I was reading an essay by Sokal on the Sokal affair and he listed Snow in the references. Then I remember, oh yeah I read that. Here's the wiki for people interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures
I was very much struck by Snow's book because I had either just started or just finished the Inductive Logic class. I can't remember the sequence of how I got there, but that class introduced me to mathematical ideas in a new way that was far more accessible to my ways of thinking. I made a funny sort of vow to myself to start learning more math outside of school. The last thing I wanted was a bad grade. For some reason I convinced myself that math, especially geometry bridged this divide since it was used in art, understood in art, and managed a revolution in art with the introduction of perspective. I was studying perspective in art courses about this time.
In any event this divide was actually carried out with my son's education, since he was a chemistry major. He had almost no humanities requirements. Chemistry at UCB is its own college, so it writes its own requirements, adapted from the Letters and Science division. He had to take a very modest version of L%S. He ran smack into the UCB English department at the height of its postmodern phase (1990). It was a disaster. He squeaked by with a B in the rhetoric series. I used to try to pry out what was going on in his English classes. He just made faces like he had eaten a bug. I think he recovered from his dislike of the humanities by taking classes in the Classics department.
CG