Street magician

This 'equalitarian circle' sounds like a good idea, but it does not overlap greatly with my motivations, which have more in common with your proposal of a science-art institute. Some explanation of what interests me is in order.

While I semi-actively promote women in science, my efforts thus far have usually been scientific. I would begin a scientific discussion, offer career advice if they are receptive, encouragement if they need it. Sometimes I arrange meetings between fellow women scientists, because I always imagine that they can become mutual sources of inspiration, of the kind that I can never provide. I don't know to what extent my manipulations have helped anybody. My sleights of hands seem to temporarily amaze, but often leave no lasting impression, as would a mediocre street magician. One reason is my position as a senior graduate student only entails so much power. Another is my reluctance to confront the issue directly, because I do not have anything intelligent to say about women in science, and do not know if such intelligence exists. I do not think of women in science as an intellectual endeavor, or perhaps I care not so much for the rhetoric that surrounds it, which at best sounds like imprecise sociology. I sense it is a movement driven by emotional rhetoric, but lacking an intellectual soul. I feel that way about most movements that rely on a morality of pity. Rigor of thought is not only absent but also not recognized as valuable. I do not accept simplistic arguments about inequality. Rather, I think some forms of inequality are fundamentally necessary for society as a whole to pursue any great line of thought. I imagine that a refined inequality can one day mean a harmonious, respectful living arrangement between people with different abilities. Having said that, the systematic biases against women in science have no grounds that I respect. 

The creative vision which I am interested in is the combined reinvention of science and the humanities, and their integration into the philosophical bedrock of society. Science leaves most people cold. To many students, it is a difficult subject, and it leaves a bad taste in their mouths that remain throughout their lives. The humanities live in the shadow of science, whose predictiveness have swayed the flows of money. It is irrelevant that most scientific enterprise is an ineffectual probing of the dark that is both mindless and blind. The scientists delight in their small discoveries, and have convinced each other that small is not small. Science leaves religious people cold. Everybody is searching for an all-encompassing worldview that inspires so much awe as to become sacred and bind people together in common celebration, that is so rich that the intricate details are never fully mastered, but deserves revisiting every Sunday. Our task is to reinvent the sacred and recreate God, by marrying science and the humanities.