Replying to LO25780
Dear At, Dear LO-learners:
Thank you very much for your post, At. It made a lot of things more clear
and I think we are making progresses. I don't know where we are
progressing to, but we are progressing ;-)
First let me clarify that in my previous post I made no assumptions about
if you had read or not Polanyi some years ago. I only made the assumption
that you had not read (or re-read) it in the last year or so. I also made
the assumption that the way I understand "tacit knowing" is different from
what you expressed in previous mails on the subject. I think that your
last post mail help to clarify where the difference is.
I also agree with your hypothesis; maybe when you red the books you
understood them with a meaning that was different from the one I gave
them. I believe we can come back to this dialogue after you have the
possibility to re-read the books that you will receive as a Christmas gift
;-)
But even before that maybe we can clarify the point were the two visions
became apart.
At 17:45 13-12-2000 +0200, AM de Lange wrote:
>(...) Furthermore, I can now discern sufficiently
>clear four levels in my own knowledge so as to talk about it. I will use
>several words to describe each level rather trying to define each with one
>word.
>
>(1) experential, sensual, boundary, bodiliy level
>(2) intuitive, implicit, mute, feeling, individual level
>(3) dictive, explicit, formal, artistic, collective level
>(4) wise, sensible, common, humane level.
First I have some doubts about the words you have joined in the same
category. This is probably not the main point except for two small
details: you have equated artistic with formal. For me artistic (as
generally aesthetics, and also ethics) is MORE COMPLEX than formal. The
other is that you have refrained from using the word "tacit" but it is
clear from the rest of your mail that for you "tacit" is equivalent to
"intuitive", to "implicit" and to "mute". (By the way I also agree with
you that if in previous mails you had used "mute knowledge" (with the
sense of "stomkennis") instead of "tacit" I would never try to discuss
that ;-)
But for me "tacit" is much more equivalent to "wise, aesthetics, ethics".
Can you now see why I think an emergence is need from formal to tacit?
Another comment: as you know, Piaget studied the development of
intelligence and concluded that the last stage of development was the
"formal" one. But a lot of his successors could not accept that, beginning
with my late friend Leo Apostel. Apostel sustained in a course on
"genetical epistemology" that he gave in Lisbon some 20 years ago that
Piaget was wrong and a new superior level should be included, that he was
provisionally calling "dialogic" (to avoid the word "dialectic") and more
or less equated with "auto-poesis". He also claimed that Universities were
full of teachers that were ONLY at the "formal" level but will never
attain the "dialogic" level. So they are unable to fully understand
knowledge and unable to help students to learn.
So, when I suggested that you should read (or re-read Polanyi) I was not
being presumptuous. From previous discussions I know how much you care
about helping students to evolve and thought that a new dimension superior
to the formal level should interest you. Call it the "wise level" if you
want. I call it "tacit", as Polanyi did.
Best wishes (and please don't enter in any "creative collapse" now; I
would feel responsible...)
Artur
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@mail.eunet.pt>
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.