Replying to LO29432 --
Dear Organlearners,
Philip Keogh <Philip.Keogh@leedsth.nhs.uk> writes
>At wrote... (In reply to Jason)
>
>"Your remark made me think of Michael Polanyi, famous for
>his "tacit knowing". On the topic of the subconscious he was
>as quiet as a bed lamp in the three books of him which I have.
>I wonder why he avoided the subconscious?"
>
>I'm re-reading Polanyi again and find that he does make use
>of the subconscious - and quite a bit. Are we talking about the
>same Polanyi?
>
>I'm going to have another look now... you've spiked my curiosity.
Greetings dear Philip,
I am wrtiting of Michael Polanyi and not the joint Nobel Prize (1986)
winner John C Polanyi in chemistry.
The three books which i have, by the generosity of Fred Nichols after our
univeristy's library scrapped their books of Polanyi as out of date, are
"Personal Knowledge", "The Tacit Dimension" and "Science, Faith and
Society". The first two have indexes and in none of them do the words
subconscions, unconscious, preconscious and fringe of consciousness occur.
I actually found on internet an electronic copy of his paper
"The Structure of Consciousness"
< http://www.mwsc.edu/orgs/polanyi/mp-structure.htm >
In it he clearly writes "It is a mistake to identify subsidiary awareness
with subconscious or preconscious awareness, or with the fringe of
consciousness described by William James." In other words, the closest he
came to anything else than consciousness was to write of "subsidiary
awareness".
Polanyi often refered to psychological experiments in his writings, but
seldom to psychological theories. Not that he was not aware of them
because he would not have been able to find reports on such experiments
without encountering theories trying to explain them.
I also have to admit that Polanyi was not a pshychologist, but a physcial
chemist who had become a philosopher. It is interesting that many
psychologists consider Polanyi's concept of "tacit knowing" as a
fundamental error. Whenever reading "The Tacit Dimension" i get the idea
that Polanyi wrote this book deeply under the impression of its importance
to posterity. Now, thinking of it, i get the idea that he knew his stance
would ultimately be against psychoanalysts like Freud, Rogers, Jung and
James.
As a physical chemist Polanyi certainly knew the importance of
observations/experiments to falsify theories and not to proof them. In
"Science, Faith and Society" he defends their authority against traditions
and conventions.
Physical chemistry has more different models to present its information
han any other discipline of chemistry or subject which i know of. This is
one of reasons why physical chemistry is a horror to students. So i also
find it curious that Polanyi also never mentioned Mental Models.
With care and best wishes,
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.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.