Replying to LO27643 --
Dear Organlearners,
Andrew Cambell < ACampnona@aol.com > writes:
>On page one
>
>Personal Knowledge Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy
>by Michael Polanyi
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226672883/learningorg
>
>(Objectivity)
>
>Polanyi speaks of the Ptolemaic system being
>overthrown by Mr Copernicus... and he goes on
>immediately by way of metaphoring filmic motion,
>a 'main feature film' as it happens;-) to seek a truer
>meaning (perspective and space) for the meaning of
>mankind within the encompassing whole. He seeks
>objectivity;-) and he introduces that which dear old
>Bertrand Russell called '-the constraint among all our
>human constraints', viz. Time. He (Polanyi) now
>reduces us in Time to next to nothing ;-) and then in
>matters;-) of mass he reduces us to nothing again.
>NO I lie, next to nothing again. And he says, while
>still metaphorically on the (his) first page that, never
>can it be objectively thus. Why?
Greetings dear Andrew,
I wanted to stop my contributions for the festive season ahead. But your
question is too important to lay aside for a week or two.
I think you have misinterpreted MP (Micael Polanyi). But let me hasten to
add that his book Personal Knowledge is very complex so that frequent
misunderstandings have to be expected.
MP does not seek objectivity. He criticises the prevailing falacy of the
20th century that objectivity is assured only by experience (derived from
measurements and internalised by the five sense organs). He argues with
several delightful examples that the higher mental faculties are also
necessary to achieve greater objectivity. Perhaps he could have explicitly
articulated that ALL THE MENTAL FACULTIES are requisite for greater
objectivity. This was the viewpoint of both WJ Goethe and Jan Smuts, two
great exponents of increasing wholeness.
He tries to explain that when objectivity is based on only what can be
measured, it leads to absurdities. For example, in his movie metaphor he
explains (perhaps too little for some of us) that documented human history
which spans 6 000 years will then have to compared to scientific
information concerning the age of the universe. Let us say that it is 6
billion years (6 000 000 000). The ratio of the two histories would be
1::1 000 000. Making a movie of all creation since the begining and giving
humankind a 1::1 000 000 portion of it would not even amount to one second
of the movie occupied by humankind.
Here is another example which does not involve a movie. Let us plot all
historical events of creation upon scale exactly one kilometer (1 000
meters or 1 000 000 millimeters) long. Then the documented history of
humankind will occupy the very last 1 millimeter.
I feel very much the same as MP whenever I see the mania to objectivate
any major quality (like excellence or compassion) of organisations in
terms of measurements. Its like weighing a flea to establsih its
difference with an elephant.
Copernicus did not overthrow with his heliocentric theory the Ptolemaic
(geocentric) theory of astronomy. In fact, he died embittered because
nobody seemed to accept his arguments that the heliocentric theory gave
simpler accounts of planatery motion than the geocentric theory. Some
sixty years later Kepler followed in his foot steps and suffered the same
reactions, despite having formulated his three laws of planetary motions.
Galileo afterwards also had the same experiences. Only some 150 years
after Copernicus when Isaac Newton followed the same footsteps, combining
Kepler's laws in his law of gravitation, the intelectual world was finally
prepared to overthrow the Ptolemaic system.
>Now, my problem is that I only have the first
>page to this book... that it begins thus and I
>have then looking over my shoulder a notion.
>It's a simple notion. That all time is NOW TIME
>and that everything other than NOW TIME is
>really no time but a 'tag' (verbiage) of time...so
>that Polanyi's notions of 'time' are absurd and that
>with NOW TIME which I take to be a biological
>(unabstarct in the first person) phenomenon puts
>man back at the centre of the (his) universe
>(multiversa?), wheelingly Whitmanesque or otherwise.
Fortunately, I have now a copy of Personal Knowledge sent to me by dear
Fred Nichols after our differences on what tacit knowledge is. (The copy
in our university library was destroyed.). MP writes surprisingly little
on time in the book (he mentions time only at five places). On p80 he
mentions that our primary awareness of time comes through language. But he
also says something even more important -- that primary function of
language is to depict change. Reading his seven cursory remarks on change
itself brings me under the impression that he thinks only the present can
change. The past cannot change any more while any future first have to
become the present before it can change.
Consequently I think that you and MP think along the same lines rather
than diametrically opposed.
>It is, I think, then, that it is we who rise in the
>east and fall in the west, and because so we
>might spin that, our reality, into that orbit, again
>just as one day we might be spun right out of
>that orbit, again... indeed. And. Are such thoughts
>as 'personal knowledge' like what I seam;-) to
>have had even possible ;-) ?
Yes, definitely. For example, imagination cannot function without Personal
Knowledge. So if you can imagine, then you must have Personal Knowledge to
do so.
Personal Knowledge is that which is acquired through authentic learning.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.