(Our bold, color, brackets, links, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Our bold and color highlights follow a code:
We started this review almost three weeks ago (September 23, 2004), and have been doing about a 10% duty cycle on it since then.
We had enormous expectations when we started this review. Sadly we are disappointed. Polanyi's brilliance stutters digitally. For us he appears either on or off. His middles are mostly excluded. His reason is rational. His measure is quantitative. His metre is geometrical and quantitative. He is mostly a classical man.
We use italic SOM as an acronym for Polanyi's Study of Man. We intend no correlation with our use of SOM as a mnemonic for Subject-Object Metaphysics.
Our review of Polanyi's SOM ends (actually, crashes) in utter disappointment, though there are a few bright moments along the way.
We can distill a comparison of Doug's quantumist approach vis-à-vis Polanyi's mostly classical one by saying, "Our human duty is not to abide static knowledge, rather to be actively, dynamically, quantumly recursing and emerscing it." Polanyi claims we must abide knowledge to ascend another rung. Our worry is, "What if rungs upon which we stand are crumbling?"
Too, for additional comparison, we offer classical and quantum analogues of Ernst Haeckel's superb expression of evolution as, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylology."
Many authors appear confused regarding usage of two similar terms which we wish to clarify here:
- phylology - a study of taxonomic evolutionary tree structures, e.g., biological kingdom's tree of life, linguistics' evolving taxonomic tree of etymology, etc.
- phylogeny - actual occurrences of nonsynonymous di(omni)vergence in any phylology; creatio ex nihilo aperio.
What Doug loves about both words is their inherent quantumness. To study phylologically one must believe in evolution. To believe in evolution one must admit quantum~uncertainty, and "di(omni)vergent" occurrence of surprising, wholly unexpected and unprecedented "nonsynonymous divergence:" quantum~n¤vælty. That requires a wholly stochastic (where stochastics are subjective Poisson-Bracketings statistical applications of PPLings to quantum waves) approach to an evolving quantum~reality. See Doug's 4May2011 graphical QELR rendition of chance. Also see Doug's HotMeme re: "Unknown's massive pull." Consider too ontogeny as a choice, chance, change ontology. What is essence of unknown's pull? Holographic quantization of quantum~flux. See free will as quantization too.
To grasp quantum~reality's absolute flux based both synonymous and n¤nsynonymous~recapitulation (compare Doug's extensive and relevant study of both symmætry and n¤nsymmætry in our August, 2006 TQS News.) of all quanta in quantum~reality, one must use QTMs and abort continued usage of CTMs.
To move from CTMs toward QTMs much is involved. To give you a memetic examplar of our intent here please fathom 'log' infixes in both 'phylology,' and 'phylogeny.' Linguistically they do not share subword alignment. Guess what? That is what "nonsynonymous di(omni)vergence means. Explicitly 'lology' and 'logeny' omniffer. To study logically is 'logy.' That means, classically, to use dialectical-rational thought and reason in one's study efforts. In Quantonics we teach that dialectic is bogus.
To classically reason and describe-define using 'genera' of thought about evolutionary phyla is 'geny.' Trouble is when we prefix 'lo' to 'geny' we get 'logeny.' That carries a classical dialectical semantic of 'logic' intrinsically, implicitly. Again, in our view, dialectic is bogus.
So we need to somehow alter, via Quantonics' coinage remediation, both phylology and phylogeny. What remediates 'logic' in Quantonics? Coquecigrues!
But should we remediate both terms using that huge and unfamiliar infix? Like this? Phylocoquecigruesy? Phycoquecigrueseny? You could plausibly laugh at that. What if we just use standard QELR automated editing on both terms? Like this? Phyl¤l¤gy amd phyl¤gæny? Do you like that better? N¤ coining, just remediation.
Doug - 10Feb2008.
The Study of Man shows Polanyi's thelogos well. He uses the ~1150 times out of ~20,000 total words. That produces a thelogos measure of about 5.7 percent. As we conjectured so many years ago, Polanyi's result tends to support a notion that philosophers may use the much less often than do 'scientists.'
In his Preface Polanyi explains..., Though written and presented afterward, "Th[is] whole series [of lectures] can accordingly be read as an introduction to Personal Know/edge." PK is a much more comprehensive text which Polanyi published prior to giving these lectures which are intended to further clarify his work in PK.
On page 11, "Man's capacity to think is his most outstanding attribute. Whoever speaks of man will therefore have to speak at some stage of human knowledge. This is a troublesome prospect. For the task seems to be without end: as soon as we had completed one such study, our subject matter would have been extended by this very achievement. We should have now to study the study that we had just completed, since it, too, would be a work of man. And so we should have to go on reflecting ever again on our last reflections, in an endless and futile endeavour to comprise completely the works of man."
Astute students of Quantonics will salute Polanyi's apparent intuitive quantum reflection1 calling for quantum philosophy, i.e., love of sophism, as a rhetorical and recursive, self-referential, even fractal means of studying humankind and its epistemology. Polanyi interprets his own reflection classically, as a serial and mechanical endeavor, and perhaps wrongly, as "endless and futile."
On page 12, Polanyi plows directly into substantial issues of human knowledge. He says, "He finds himself asserting it [his own and humankind's knowledge] to be true, and this asserting and believing is an action which makes an addition to the world on which his knowledge bears." Henri Bergson might call this serial feuilletonesque addition "framesque synthetic cinematography." Bohm and Pribram might call it, nonclassically, "quantum holographings."
Polanyi appears to be telling and showing us that classical knowledge is radically mechanical, and that we can objectively-mechanically add new knowledge to that knowledge which 'exists' as stable classical information, side-by-side: rote memory, data bases, texts, diagrams and pictures, etc.
At this stage of our review Polanyi's words appear wholly classical and begging differential analysis, integral synthesis, design, manufacture and clonic reproduction.
Exceptionally he tells us there are two kinds of human knowledge: explicit and tacit.
Polanyi appears to say that humans are incapable of other than classical thing-king and its mechanical accoutrements. His tacit thingking allows us to not have to keep reiterating over our explicit knowledge foundations.
Then he asks a key-enabling question, "...can we be satisfied with this." To us, if it is just repackaged CTMs our answer has to be "N¤!"
On page 13, Polanyi hints that heterogeneity of humans who are shaping humankind's bases of knowledge "impairs its objectivity." We agree. Heterogeneity implies subjectivity as Philip R. Wallace stated so well (paraphrased), "Interpretation involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity." Heterogeneity of participants guarantees heterogeneity of interpretations. Absolute animacy does too. That is quantum reality.
Indeed, Polanyi appears to go quantum here, "...tacit knowing2 is in fact the dominant principle of all knowledge, and that its rejection would, therefore, automatically involve the rejection of any knowledge whatever."
Of course both Quantonics and quantum reality reject any memes of explicit knowledge as ESQ. We would say to Polanyi, if we could, that his tacit knowledge is close kin of our quantum k~now~ings. In other words, tacit knowledge is quantum animate and extraordinarily less viscous than explicit knowledge (of which quantum reality demands change too, but less rapidly than tacit k~now~ings; we reject any classical notion that knowledge can be or is state-ic).
Polanyi goes on to compare human knowledge to animal knowledge which he says is limited by animals' barriers of "absence of speech."
On page 14, he summarizes, "The essential logical difference between the two kinds of knowledge lies in the fact that we can critically reflect on something explicitly stated, in a way in which we cannot reflect on our tacit awareness of an experience."
We ask, "What is critical reflection?" From a classical view, critical reflection is limited to a current paradigm, a common culture, an enforced academic disciplinary matrix of right thing-king. From a Quantonics, more quantum perspective, critical reflectionings are n¤t only heterogeneous, they are absolutely protean, animate~evolving, they are included-middle (n¤n classically 'logical'), they are everywhere associative, they are hermeneutic, omnifferential, qualitative, subjective, etc. They are what Bergson describes to us as both intuitive and durational. They are intrinsically and implicitly tacitly aware! In Quantonics we call it "quantum straddling." It issi heter¤comtextual heter¤~l¤cality amd ~n¤nl¤cality superp¤siti¤nal quantum c¤herency.
One good example here is some human narcoleptics who can share~straddle their waking and dreaming modalities. Too, as an example, we believe some autists experience massively parallel quantum coherencies. Then like Mollie Fancher, some can only do it unit-experience-serially.
On page 15, Polanyi astutely points out that humans nor rats can depend upon static, rote knowledge or what he calls "explicit knowledge." We concur! When we do that, we must be assuming that reality holds still or at least that reality is conveniently stoppable. He says, "But there is also a new risk involved in traveling by a map: namely that the map may be mistaken. And this is where critical reflection comes in. The peculiar risk that we take in relying on any explicitly formulated knowledge is matched by a peculiar opportunity offered by explicit knowledge for reflecting on it critically."
We must ask, "How can any map be mistaken?" You may agree that it could be putatively wrong. You may agree that it was right, but somehow it has become wrong. If you believe reality is stable and unchanging then for a map to become wrong is 'absurd,' isn't it? That is what SOM says.
On page 16, Polanyi apparently assumes maps must be putatively wrong and that can be verified and corrected.
Here, Polanyi apparently tells us that pragmatic articulation validates a map, knowledge, work product, etc. Validation makes it right. We ask "When?" "Where?" Will it be right tomorrow, next year? Will it be right in another culture, another civilization? Polanyi broaches classical determinism.
Polanyi's version of articulation demands ideal classical state-icity. It demands stoppability. It demands "historical evidence." Then he tells us there is no other way. Human mind to Polanyi is a unit processor which can only 'articulate' one classical notion at a time. He says we have to give knowledge 'state' since, "There is no other way of improving inarticulate knowledge. I can see a thing only in one way at a time, and if I am doubtful of what I see, all I can do is to look again and perhaps see things differently then. Inarticulate intelligence can only grope its way by plunging from one view of things into another." Our view is that mind is a quantum stage which can learn nowistic and futuristic quantum~articulation, intra direct experience (IDE), at reality's edgings of nowings. In fact, we are already doing it. We are capable of IDE, but most of us have been 'carefully taught' to believe that we 'cannot' do it. We call IDE "k~now~ings." We are always doing IDE on our quantum stages.
Our readings here on page 17 commence our worry that Polanyi is just another SOMitic classicist.
Not to worry, however, on page 18 he alters his lingual tenor and appears to, instead, say that we should worry about, "this exalted valuation of strictly formalized thought [as] self-contradictory."
Brilliantly and quotably he says, "Even if we admitted that an exact knowledge of the universe is our supreme mental possession it would still follow that man's most distinguished act of thought consists in producing such knowledge; the human mind is at its greatest when it brings hitherto unchartered domains under its control. Such operations renew the existing articulate framework. Hence they cannot be performed within this framework but have to rely (to this extent) on the kind of plunging reorientation which we share with the animals. Fundamental novelty can be discovered only by the same tacit powers which rats use in learning a maze." We see Polanyi's use of producing here as a quantum tell. To us he is admitting, perhaps at least only moving a little closer to, a quantum memeo of mind as quantum stages' "plunging reorientations." Would that he said, "plunging reorientationings."
On page 20, Polanyi, as do we, indicts, "Modern science disclaims any intention of understanding the hidden nature of things; its philosophy condemns any such endeavour as vague, misleading and altogether unscientific." We agree Polanyi's indictment! Polanyi captures essence of 'modern science's' greatest failing and its persistent deign to feign.
Heraclitus was right! Nature loves to hide. But 'modern science' wants naught to do with what s-he has hidden, nor any fact that s-he has hidden he-r most esoteric flux. With ad oculos vivification 'modern science's' own ludicrousness, its own unscientific absurdity emerges.
Again, notice his use of present participle in "understanding." It is nowistic, though not yet plural.
On page 21, Polanyi says, "But I refuse to heed this warning. I agree that the process of understanding leads beyondindeed far beyondwhat a strict empiricism regards as the domain of legitimate knowledge; but I reject such an empiricism."
Here we see that Polanyi views understanding as process, and we would say better, "quantum processings." Even, "...animate, EIMA, ensemble quantum processings."
His indictment exudes even more harshness, modern science, "consistently applied, it would discredit any knowledge whatever and it can be upheld only by allowing it to remain inconsistent. It is permitted this inconsistency because its ruthless mutilation of human experience lends it such a high reputation for scientific severity, that its prestige overrides the defectiveness of its own foundations."
His indictment of modern science's strict empiricism, to us, is valid. It finds its bases in pastistic, explicitly historical evidence: "explicit knowledge." Strict empiricism is mechanical. It is cause-effective. It is stoppably quantitative. It is invalid and from any nonmechanical quantum perspective wrong. We agree: modern science is defective! It is a fundamental church of objective reason. It is genuinely anti-science, and it is its own religion with all those fears and insecurities religion displays from lack of foundation. It is a religion afraid of religion. Afraid of itself. It has at least two enemies: itself and Good. See Doug's brief treatise, in light of an issue of whether Quantonics is 'rational,' on a more quantum version of empiricism. Doug - 8Jan2009.
Polanyi goes on to show us how language and its words do not contain "processes of understanding." Only humans can use their quantum stage minds to accomplish that animate and tacit interpretation process. He warns us that language communication is always uncertain since speakers (writers) and listeners (readers) do not and cannot share lingual contexts ideally. We agree. Quantum uncertainty is tacit and Planck rate pragmatic. Further, our quantum stages are quantum both local and nonlocal processings whose memeoryings are EIMA quantum processings. Speaking and listening are quantum evolutionary affective processings none of which can be or is classically 'identical' to any other. Each sentient is an individual quantum n¤nmechanical hermeneut! Our lingual emissions are evolving even as we are speaking and our lingual interpretations are evolving even as we are listening. We can say similar wordings about all our sensings and emittings, those of which we are aware and those of which we are apparently unaware.
We have to ask, "What is a classical state-ment?" And, "Why do classicists use state-ments to 'unambigously communicate?'" If quantum reality is n¤t state-ic why would we want to use state-ments to describe it?
Polanyi says and we agree that our semantics are tacit. We more than agree by adding that they are quantum too. But are classicists' interpretations of state-ments tacit? Our answer is "Mu." Personally, we just transmogrify classical state-icity into quantum animicity while allowing quantum stindyanicity.
Even more exciting is Polanyi's page 23, "The exercise of such an art [e.g., practicing medicine and biology] is a tacit feat of intelligence which cannot ever be fully specified in terms of explicit rules." He shows us here that mechanical AI will never succeed. He allows us to infer dialectic as a massively failing explicit set of CTMs.
Polanyi says, on page 24, that there is more to humankind's intelligence than just informative articulation of state-ic, state-ment-al knowledge, even when viewed tacitly. He says, "This exemplifies the great speculative advantage achieved by storing up knowledge in a handy, condensed form. Maps, graphs, books, formulae, etc., offer wonderful opportunities for reorganizing our knowledge from ever new points of view."
When we add his plunging reorientationings and our own, as individuals, speculation and hermeneutics, novel stuff emerges, and that is what is spectacular about humankind's intelligence. We believe human intelligence is natural memeology which has been classically and only tentatively entrapped as an unnatural ideology: to us natural intelligence is memes over ideas. Memes are animate and sorso-evolving. Ideas are explicitly, intentionally, and dialectically state-ment-al, state-ic, and stuck.
That is essentially what we do in Quantonics. We take other speculators' works and carefully interpret them based upon our own life experiences. Gradually we learn to tap, additionally, into reserve energy of reality's own consciousnessings. After years of effort we are in It and It is in us and we speak and write and learn as a quasi quantum holism, a quanton(our_quantum_reality_complement,us). It is an epiphanous awakening, a compenetration of Nature's Heraclitean~hidden and quantum~protean avatars!
On page 25, Polanyi agrees with us again by saying that humankind's explicit knowledge is, "...merely a tool-box, a supremely effective instrument for deploying our inarticulate faculties." This is what Pirsig meant when he talked about SQ latching. Polanyi agrees too that our quantum stagings predominate via their tacit understandings and k~now~ings.
You may be able to share our delight in Polanyi's, "we exercise our tacit powers in search of...better..." Our italics on better.
On page 26, Polanyi shows a classical weakness which we mention. He seems to believe that explicit knowledge can be true. We sense he intends classically certain. If so, we disagree. We deny any knowledge as absolute. By absolute we mean a classical deluded notion that knowledge can state all truths and always state the truth.
Quantum k~now~ings are always uncertain. Their quantum absoluteness says reality, due quantum semper fluxio, always changes and changes all. That is our basis for our statement that "Truth is an agent of its own change."
Crossing pages 26-27 boundaries, Polanyi summarizes lusciously, "All human knowledge is now seen to be shaped and sustained by the inarticulate mental faculties which we share with the animals.
"This view entails a decisive change in our ideal of knowledge. The participation of the knower in shaping his knowledge, which had hitherto been tolerated only as a flawa shortcoming to be eliminated from perfect knowledgeis now recognized as the true guide and master of our cognitive powers. We acknowledge now that our powers of knowing operate widely without causing us to utter any explicit statements; and that [page boundary]
"even when they do issue in an utterance, this is used merely as an instrument for enlarging the range of the tacit powers that originated it. The ideal of a knowledge embodied in strictly impersonal statements now appears self-contradictory, meaningless, a fit subject for ridicule. We must learn to accept as our ideal a knowledge that is manifestly personal." Polanyi almost asserts that it is our individual duty to ridicule classical notions of modern science as religiously fundamental and thus wrong. We agree wholeheartedly and remorselessly. Modern science and its mechanical tools and toy boxes are an intellectual em-bare-ass-ment.
To grasp more fully Polanyi's ponderings here, he asks us to read his Personal Knowledge.
At bottom of page 28 Polanyi says of psychologists re: tacit knowing as tacit understanding and tacit personal comprehending, they are "...probably unwilling to recognize that knowledge was shaped by the knower's personal action." We anticipate a novel discipline: quantum psychology. We claim William James as its inaugural practitioner.
On page 29 he continues, "But this does not hold for us. Having realized that personal participation predominates both in the area of tacit and explicit knowledge, we are ready to transpose the findings of Gestalt-psychology into a theory of knowledge: a theory based primarily on the analysis of comprehension."
At page 30's top he offers his own theory of knowledge thus, "...one can see a whole only by seeing its parts, but it changes altogether the manner in which we are aware of the particulars. We become aware of them now in terms of the whole on which we have fixed our attention. I shall call this a subsidiary awareness of the particulars, by contrast to a focal awareness which would fix attention on the particulars in themselves, and not as parts of a whole. I shall also speak correspondingly of a subsidiary knowledge of such items, as distinct from a focal knowledge of the same items."
What is troublesome here? He uses 'di stinct.' His theory is particulate which for us implies objectivity. It begs Bergson's classical delusions of stability and objective independence. Polanyi has disposed of stability via his meme of individual personal tacit k~now~ings. It is troubling that he appears yet to retain classical objectivity. We'll see...
He somewhat agrees with Wittgenstein's "meaning is use," which Polanyi says as, e.g., words "are never objects of our attention in themselves, but pointers towards the things they mean." Pirsig says that when words and symbols "become objects of attention in themselves," they become ESQ. We agree. This is a driving, enabling key (dek) to why we ask our students to imagine our memeotics and their quantons as absolutely animate and EIMA.
Polanyi has a special way of saying what we want to hear, "...we must realize then also that our own body has a special place in the universe: we never attend to our body as an object in itself. Our body is always in use as the basic instrument of our intellectual and practical control over our surroundings. Hence in all our waking hours we are subsidiarily aware of our body within our focal knowledge of our surroundings." We infer here that Polanyi compares either subsidiary or focal to both subsidiary and focal, with preference for latter. We hear almost a quanton(quanton(subsidiary,focal),body), assuming his awareness issi quanton(subsidiary_awareness,focal_awareness). We infer his saying we are n¤t a dichon(awareness, body) which most of us recognize as a classical view.
This is as close an approach to a Polanyi quantum included~middle as we have seen thus far.
Polanyi's use of "rational knowing" on page 32 takes us right back into SOMland. "Rational knowing" from a quantum perspective is an oxymoron. How do we gain 'know-ledge.' Learning, right? Now classically 'learn' is a state. To classically 'learn' is to know rote, state-ic know-ledge. Quantumly learning is process, indeed, evolutionary process, unending process. We cannot quantumly 'stop' learning! Then we must admit that we should call classical 'know-ledge' quantum k~now~ings, yes? If you agree, then how can 'know-ledge' have classical 'state?' If k~now~ing is quantum processings, how can we specify 'know-ledge' and 'rules,' 'laws,' 'principles,' 'axioms,' 'corollaries,' etc.? But isn't that what classical 'science' does: Specify generality as classical state? How can generality be specific? Does science turn generality into specificity? Yes! 'Science' puts generality into SOM's Box by making it specific as, "rules is tules for fules." (If you prefer, "rools is 'scientific' tools for fools.") See our general. Modern science believes and practices specificity as 'general.'
But he qualifies, "Only a totally isolated and completely meaningless thing could be brought fully into the focus of our attention..." This begs quantum uncertainty borne of quantum unstoppability. Only ideal classical objects are putatively stable and independent. We also sense kin of quanton(subject,object) and quanton(momentum,position). Too, we recall Dirac's comments re: causality applying only to that which is presumed-left undisturbed. Polanyi's intuitions are potent. Polanyi is showing us that his reality is more qualitative than quantitative, more quantum than classical. To comprehend reality we must ponder its quantum animate EIMA qualities while subordinating its classical inanimate EEMD quantities.
We have to disagree, strongly with Polanyi here. He says "We know a face without being able to tell, except quite vaguely, by what particulars we recognize it. And this is also how the mind of man is known. A man's mind can be known only comprehensively, by dwelling within the unspecifiable particulars of its external manifestations."
Our quantum view is quite omnifferent and omniffering Polanyi's. We recognize a face not only by particulars! We recognize a face via our powerful quantum interpretation of its qualities and those qualities' quantum complements. It is that vast and all at once (Bohm, Pribram, Talbot zero latency holographic recognition) quantum ensemble of quantons(face_complements,face_qualities) interrelationship(ing)s by which we recognize any face! (Indeed, in Quantonics, we believe recognition is qualitative interrelationshipings vis-à-vis its classical counterpart as quantitative propertyesque taxonomy. Former is simple qubital flux, latter, unbelievably complex digital stux. See our recent comments under fuzzon.)
Polanyi's approach here is legacy-classical. His grammar too, notably. His "comprehension" sounds more like a Glass Bead Game, to us.
His italic clause above is just abominable! We agree with his "dwelling within," but his "external manifestations," and "particularity" reek of classicism and objectivity. We would have used "cowithin." If we take his "unspecifiable particulars" as quantons (a stretch given his 'particulars') vis-à-vis dichons we might morph his semantic in favor of quantum thinking. His use of "external" begs classicism via dichon(external, internal), an obtuse and platypusean EOOO. Ponder also dichon(without, within). We simply do not k~now what he was fathoming when he wrote that italic clause, though. To us, language weaknesses, of which he was fully aware, hurt his abilities to express his own fathoming. If he was talking about quantum coobsfection, he did n¤t have that remediated phrase to use.
Quantum mind is (quantum stages are) n¤t an 'identity!' Quantum mind has n¤ (can have n¤) classical 'sameness.' Quantum mind is animate, c¤herent, EIMA quantum likelihood omnistributionings of animate, c¤herent, EIMA quantum likelihood omnistributionings (QLOs). It is hologramings of hologramings (i.e., animate holographic recursion). Quantum mind is an animate, EIMA, fractal ihslandscape of energy~well attractors which we call fuzzons. N¤ two are amd n¤ two can be classically 'same.' Further, n¤ two are capable of 'ideally exact' comprehension of one another, amd any 'thing,' for that matter. All quantum c¤mprehension issi coobsfectively "Bell Inequal" and umcertain.
Paul Pietsch in his Shufflebrain answers our query with exceptional, extraordinary sensibilities: "Indeterminacy is the principal feature of intelligence."
Doug - 10Apr2005.
Page 35, "The recognition of this hidden presence is in fact half the battle: it means that you have hit on a real problem and are asking the right questions." Modern science does not do this. Indeed, it declares this meme "notional hogwash."
But nature begs us to dénouer he-r, even though s-he hides demurely, s-he wants us to "plungingly reorient" he-r cloaks. But modern science is timid, afraid, and calls he-r "objective" instead of "seductive." And everyone knows we "don't pull on wo-be-man's cloak." But he-r notyetgowns are posher than Victoria's best, he-r demeanor ultimate coquette, he-r desire to co-here unabated. Hiding, and so we see nature xxx-rated. Doug - 29Sep2004.
"We see there...how the [quantum]ist is about to cut away the stone..."objectified and analytically chastened by 'modern science'to offer nature he-r desire, he-r dénouement. "Pull, please pull." "Plunge, reorient, please, fecundulate, make y-our waves" s-he wails. (Our brackets. Again, we suggest He-r-a-clitus.)
On page 36, Polanyi deeply immerses himself in classical analytic ooze. He says, "A passionate search for the correct solution of a task leaves no arbitrary choice open to the seeker. He will have to guess, but he must make the utmost effort to guess right." This is unadulterated classicism. It assumes ideal "right" 'exists.'
And "...free from subjective predilections..." Any real effort we make, any action we take, depends upon our subjective predilections more than it does upon our objective predilections (modern psychology doesn't understand that, although its parent William James certainly did). Quantum reality is subjective, qualitative, affective, heterogeneous, animate, included~middle, everywhere~associative, etc. Subjective! Any objectivity is only classical apparition!
And "...discovery reveals a hidden reality..." This is pure, classical, analytic discovery: Platonic discovery. Analytic 'exposure' of reality manufactures non real objects! We must not use analytic 'tools,' "Rules is Tules for Fules," to dénouer nature. Such is pseudo dénouement, mechanical dénouement.
And "...recognized equally by others..." What this tragedy-of-commons sense really tells us is that we are wrong when we use classical analytics to solve any task's problems. We simply cannot 'analyze' a user's and client's behavior viz. Meg Ryan restaurant "high maintenance" and orgasm scene in When Harry Met Sally users' behaviors are not homogeneously quantitative, rather they are ensembles of heterogeneous qualities all commingling and animating one another in a quantum coherent (w)holism. No two clients-users are identical ("...recognized equally by others..."), one size 'scientific' ideally 'mathematical' solution does not fit all. That is why a quantum approach using qualitative ensembles is better. When we 'do' assume, classically, one size 'scientific' ideally 'mathematical' solution fits all, Columbias and Challengers explode and burn up and disintegrate on descent...
And "...I have said before that I accept this situation and will not argue it here in detail...." Polanyi apparently admits, much like Kuhn, that he is a SOMwit par excellence!
Reader, Quantonics is about whatings to beings doings whenings you simply refuse to "accept this situation..."
On page 37, Polanyi goes on to try to drag nature's purely subjective passion into his classical analytic Rools-Tools-Fools-Box. Ugh! This is pukeable SOMwit bilge!
He says, "But this is merely a change of emphasis; for all understanding appreciates the intelligibility of that which it understands, and hence the internal harmonies of a complex work of art evoke our profound admiration, simply by being understood." But this kind of understanding requires that reality be stoppable and conveniently held still: an anti~quantum reality!
Polyani, to our way of thinking, claims that he just invented his own seamless included-middle twixt intellectual objectivity and passionate value. How does he explain?
On page 38, he says, "A continuous transition from observation to valuation can actually be carried out within science itself, and indeed within the exact sciences, simply by moving from physics to applied mathematics and then further to pure mathematics. Even physics, though based on observation, relies heavily on a sense of intellectual beauty." He says mathematical interpretation of scientific models is valuation! Yes, it is 'scientific and quantitative' valuation, however, it is n¤t 'quantum and qualitative' Valuation! And end of Millennium II mathematics is purely, radically mechanical! It is objective! It requires independence. It requires stability via number as stoppable and hold-stillable scalar magnitude. It requires scalarbation! It requires pi to be constant! Students of Quantonics may understand that English language's closest dual of Greek pi is spin. Not exactly a 'constant' notion is it?, similar to Greek for pragma which means action and heresy as choice. And e, square-root of 2, and Feigenbaum's constant, and Fibonacci's ratio, and... Millennium II math has no explanation for i as a sophism! Indeed, it calls such a memeo, "absurd."
Classical (n¤n quantum) mathematics finds its bases in assumed tautologies (Aristotle, Peano, et al.). Science and physics find their bases in undefined and classically undefinable primitives (m, l, t, etc.). All those 'disciplines' use induction and deduction as their analytical 'tools.' Integration and differentiation simply will n¤t work on n¤nobjective, subjective, affective, qualitative, animate, included-middle, everywhere-associative ensemble n¤n-real-line-extensive-point-modelable variables.
Stable, independent '1' simply does n¤t 'exist' in reality! If you claim it does, then show us a single physical example! N¤ two '1s' can be identical in reality! Mathematics just lost induction and identity! Now is that beautiful? N¤! It's almost an apex of intellectually constructed quantitative ugliness!
What does Polanyi have to say about our push back? "Pure mathematics presents us with a vast intellectual structure, built up [classically manufactured] altogether for the sake of enjoying it as a dwelling place of our understanding. It has no other purpose; whoever does not love and admire mathematics for its [page boundary] own internal splendours, knows nothing whatever about it." But mathematical reality depends upon ESQ in 'carefully stated' axioms, postulates, corollaries, etc. Take them away and mathematics simply falls apart! Classicists like Polanyi can fathom n¤ means of emerging a quantum, animate, qualitative, subjective, sophist, recursive, natural mathæmatihcs. Our brackets.
Our response is that, apparent to us, Polanyi knows little about reality, but our remarks are, like his, only opinion. Our opinions, we believe, are demonstrably better, however, if one believes reality is quantum and n¤t classical.
See our One Is Onliest Number, pi, A Quantum Pendulum, and our Quantum Hamiltonian.
Study Bergson's Creative Evolution and his Time and Free Will.
Page 40 is a blank page in The Study of Man.
Referring back to Lecture One, Polanyi explains, on page 41, "I said that the acknowledgment of understanding as a valid form of knowledge will allow us to study all human experience by essentially the same method. I actually sketched out a path which would lead smoothly from the exact sciences to the study of man, and even further, to a confrontation with man, engaged in responsible decisions under a firmament of universal obligations.
"Same" and "method" both harbor invalid classical notions of identity and state-ic procedural analyticity.
What is humankinds' scope of "responsible decisions?" Does responsibility's focus rest in specificity of individual tacitness? Does responsibility rest in specific anti genericity of social explicitness? More quantumly, does responsibility rest in unspecifiability of quantum genericity? We are back to issues of our 2003-2004 Feuilleton Chautauqua. Both MoQ and quantum reality tell and show us that individual is above society: individual is more highly evolved, evolving, and more readily adaptable than society. Quantum individuals do n¤t, as do classical societies, turn genericity into specificity!
What are "universal obligations?" Society wants individuals to believe that individuals are under a firmament of [societal] universal obligations. However scope of individual responsibility and obligations do n¤t commence with society! Rather they proemially emerge within each individual, and that ensemble of individuals, which needs no societal authority at an individual level, is what genuinely fecundulates a quantum coherent society. Individuals' prime responsibility is to first respect all other individuals to be individuals and do that without too adversely affecting any other individuals. Latter, we believe, may be accomplished secondly via cooperation among those affected. Third, and only as a last resort, we must defend ourselves and our individual rights from all comers, especially society. Quantum individuals intuit society as their greatest potential threat! Our ultimate bases of judgment for respect, cooperation, and defense are Good and better.
"This is a stimulating programme; but whatever its merits, it is clearly too vast to be carried out here convincingly. I must limit myself therefore to an illustration of its more salient features. These will become apparent in the form of certain problems which we meet when trying to pursue this programme. We shall see in particular a cluster of difficulties arising around the conception of responsibility."
In our view, responsibility is an ensemble of quantum individuals, each respecting, cooperating and defending. It is responsible to know that any individual, group or society which practices any form of hegemony over any individual, group, or society must be denied that hegemony. Quantum societies drive away all forms of hegemony. (Students of Quantonics may observe that classical societies, via analytic determinism and dialectic, drive out heresy-choice and individual freedoms.) All quantum individuals recognize hegemonists as organizers and manufacturers of societal organizations whose purposes include control and denial of individual freedoms.
On page 42 Polanyi claims that strict responsibility recognizes universal validity of one size fits all. That, folks, is Polanyi's basis for societal hegemony! He calls them, "moral and civic responsibilities...which form an institutional framework."
Then, amazingly, Polanyi appears to agree with us. Get this: "But can we accredit an understanding shaped by our moral and civic responsibilities? We know how such responsibilities shade into political obligations, and how these in their turn form part of the established institutional framework, or else are merely the expression of political partisanship. Are we to subscribe then to a theory of knowledge which allows the shaping of knowledge to depend on such ephemeral and parochial impulses? Surely, a judgment determined by the outcome of a struggle for power and profit cannot be accepted as authentic; at some point the acceptance of moral responsibility for the shaping of our knowledge [page 41 to 42 boundary] of man will inevitably turn into an acceptance or bias, prejudice and corruption. Personal knowledge, as established by a responsible decision of the knower, degenerates here into a mere caricature of itself.
"I think this shows that our conception of personal knowledge had not yet been sufficiently consolidated. We must lay down the foundations once more, in such terms that we can develop from them a conception of human responsibility not liable to be misconstrued as subservience to politics or business." Bravo Polanyi!
Polanyi recognizes that validation of any meme of individual responsibility, as potentially above societal responsibility must, "vindicate human responsibility against the compulsions exercised by man's social setting." He has hit upon crux, brilliantly. That is what we are trying to do: vindicate humans' rights as quantum individual responsibilities, and have society recognize those rights as eminent and which must be protected in order for a free society to survive in an evolutionarily stable way. To us it is simply apparent: society as 'state' is antithetical any memes of individuals as free. He tells us rationale is impersonal! This is quite similar Hesse's interesting observation about reason and freedom: classically, taken together, they are a paradox. But isn't mathematics purely rational, ideally rational? Yet Polanyi sees maths as reality's included-middle of understanding! Do rational maths impersonally deprive freedom? If they establish rules in order to 'exist,' we must respond, "Yes!"
On page 44 Polanyi offers his Personal Knowledge version of meaning, "It says that no meaningful knowledge can be acquired, except by an act of comprehension which consists in merging our awareness of a set of particulars into our focal awareness of their joint significance."
If that is a classical method, our view is that it simply will 'not' and does 'not' work. If we reinterpret his words quantumly like this, "Use of dialectic analyticity prevents and disables any capability of fathoming quantum reality. Use of quantum rhetorical, animate, absolutely fluxing, EIMA, sorso-fractal, heterogeneous ensemble thinking modalities enables quantum coherent comprehension." we can emerse n¤vel quantum lightings. To fathom quantum reality we must give up a long list of classical notions.
On page 45 Polanyi makes a statement that most ideal, naïve classicists wouldn't make, "Here we have things composed of particulars that are unspecifiable because they are unknown." He admits that unknown exists. See our Millennium III Modal of Reality. Students should attempt to balance classical notions of known and conservation vis-à-vis quantum memes of known, knowable, unknowable, unknown and implicit absence of any classical conservation. Also learn to fathom classical known and posentropy, thence quantum memes of known~knowable~unknown~unknowable vis-à-vis quantum entropa and cohera. Here is a helpful diagram.
Almost if he were Pirsig's tutor, Polanyi writes, "Dismemberment of a comprehensive entity produces incomprehension of it and in this sense the entity is logically unspecifiable in terms of its particulars." [We find significant analogy twixt "dismemberment" and classical analyticity. Mae-wan Ho did too via "Cuisinart and centrifuge as 'scientific' violence." A great analogy here is how classicists dismember reality as atomic and 'discover,' that from a classical perspective, due analyticity, classically macroscopic quantum uncertainty is unspecifiable. Similar unspecifiability arises when classicists attempt to analytically noodle "Bell Inequalities."] To us, this is what Pirsig means when he says SQ without DQ is ESQ: SQ without DQ is unreal. Again, we ask you to fathom how this is a close metaphor of quantum uncertainty. If any 'thing' in reality can be animate~EIMA represented really as quanton(DQ,SQ), when we focus on SQ, we can make DQ appear to go away. Quantum physicists say something similar using quanton(wave,particle): when we focus on particle its wave complement appears to go away. Again using quanton(momentum,position), when we focus on momentum, position appears to go away and vice versa. Those of you who have read our Critique of EPR are familiar with this phenomena as root of EPR's lack of Personal Understanding, using analytic specifiability, due their own naïve local realism, i.e., lack of quantum Personal Knowledge, of quantum theory and quantum reality. Polanyi is saying for us, and we agree, that quantum complementary (quantonic) reality, "is logically unspecifiable in terms of its particulars." We may n¤t use objective hold-still EEMD 'particular' properties to describe quantons! Quantum reality is n¤t classically logical! Rather it appears analogous our peaqlo~fuzzonics, Quantonics' most recent quantum modaling ihslandscape. Then how can Polanyi say that mathematics provide an included-middle for understanding? [Using another analogy, he does something similar to what Einstein did in his Theory of Relativity: use mathematical, er um, invariant geometric interval as a kind of state-ic included-middle for understanding. Just as Polanyi uses mathematics to retain scientific objective rigor, Einstein could only find one way to retain scientific objective rigor via an invalid notion of invariant geometric interval.]
On page 46, Polanyi enters genuine MoQ, quantum, quantonic memeology. He writes, "I shall proceed approximately as follows. First, I shall show that the two levels of personal knowledge, that of a comprehensive entity and that of its particulars (in terms of which the entity is unspecifiable), represent two distinct levels of reality; and second, that there obtains between two such levels a peculiar logical relationship, derived from the distinction between subsidiary and focal awareness. Once I have established this relationship for the example of two comparatively low levels of reality, I shall proceed to erect on top of these a consecutively rising set of levels, right up to that of responsible human personhood. Within this framework it will appear possible for man to exercise a responsible choice, even though he admittedly remains rooted in lower forms of existence in which there is no room for such choices. These acts of choice will be characterized by comparing them to acts of discovery. They will be seen to exert personal initiative to the utmost by the act of submitting to the demands of their own self-set ideals. To acknowledge the reality of their freedom will appear then as equivalent to an acknowledgment of these ideals as valid. This will consolidate responsible choice in the status ascribed to it by the conception of Personal Knowledge."
So far, this is, except for our bold color-coded concerns, analogous MoQ as quanton(DQ,SQ) and Quantonics as quanton(nonactuality,actuality) and quantum science as quanton(isoflux,flux). But then at top of page 47 Polanyi says that both of his levels are SQ! Ugh! Both of his levels, and "every type of machine and its parts and particulars," lie in "the inanimate" he says. Dougle-Ughle!
On pages 47-49 Polanyi decimates mechanics, specifically what he calls "the Laplacean Mind."
Again we are amazed, at page bottom 48 to page top 49 where he writes, "The mathematical monster which was thought capable of reading off the future of all [page boundary] human endeavours from the atomic configuration of a primordially incandescent universe, appears actually restricted to a range of predictions that are of negligible interest to man." We agree. But this feels as though we are going nowhereings...
On page 50, Polanyi offers a ZMMesque Pirsigean mechanical epiphany which we interpret thus:
Polanyi's page 50 footnote says, "* Contrary to a widespread view the Laplacean predicament is not avoided if classical mechanics is replaced by quantum-mechanics. (See Personal Knowledge, London, 1958, p. 140 n.)" Again, we agree. Quantum reality, as Henri Louis Bergson, William James, David Bohm, Karl Pribram, Robert M. Pirsig, Michael Talbot, Mae-wan Ho, et al., have shown is nonmechanical, radically nonmechanical.
Aside - 16Dec2006 on Laplacean Predicament:
LaPlace believed that God is an ideal dialectical determinist.
Attending that thought LaPlace believed that humans have no means to achieve God's ideal determinism and thus, due their practically unlimited ignorance, are limited to using probabilities.
This is interesting since LaPlace's probabilities are classical and thus radically mechanical.
We are unsure, but infer too that LaPlace's probabilities could be both plus and minus. We'll have to research this to be sure.
In 2006, we can offer a reduced uncertainty in our view that quantum stochastics are all positive (in any sense of quantum~flux as absolute), subjective, and radically qualitative (mixturings of probabilityings (a posteriorai), plausibilityings (a iamai), and likelihoodings (a priorai).
Doug - 16Dec2006.
On page 53, Polanyi admits, following Descartes and La Mettrie that animals and humans bear some strong resemblances to machines. Can we generalize, operationally, biologicals as machines? But some physiologists exempt some biological processes from mechanical interpretations. On that basis, "Must we then totally reject the professed basic assumptions of all scientific physiology? I think we must." For us this is simply profound. Let's find out why he says this.
On page 54, he writes, "No physical or chemical analysis of the body can ascertain by itself any of these operational principles, since the conceptions of purpose and of successfully functioning organs cannot be expressed in terms of physics or chemistry." There. Analysis, dialectical-mechanical analysis does n¤t work in physial reality! Biologicals are genuinely quantum, genuinely n¤nmechanical: animate, unstoppable, included-middle, everywhere-associative, self-referent, recursive, quantum fractal, mutable, adaptive, emergent, etc. Mechanisms, machines are n¤ne of those quantum memes!
Polanyi appears to us to be precognizing a n¤nmechanical description of nature, "A complete physico-chemical topography of an organism would in fact be quite meaningless." From here, he spends considerable time and effort justifying this position using Laplacean Mind as an exemplar. Let's skip all that. You can read it yourself. His arguments are potent and well affected.
At page bottom 56 and page top 57 Polanyi writes, "...all animals, from worms upwards, can learn new habits adapted to the necessities and opportunities of new situations. This faculty, the faculty of learning, has been extensively studied by experimental psychologists, particularly in animals, and I shall now compare the logical structure of science when operating on this [page boundary] level with that of science operating on the level of physiology."
Then immediately he writes, "Consider the study of learning." Consider a rat in a maze, "At some moment we shall say that the rat's behaviour begins to show that it has grasped the topography of the maze, because its behaviour has become similar to that which we feel that, equipped with the rat's sense organs and barred from using linguistic clues, we ourselves would show if we had just begun to know our way about the maze."
To understand said rat's behavior, "we have to dwell within the unspecifiable manifestations of the rat's intelligence which we are trying to detect and to understand." We hereby coin a novel acronym, DWUM: Dwelling coWithining Unspecifiable Manifestationings, Elmer Fuddian quantumese for quantum reality. Quantum cowithintuition.
Polanyi describes a human vicarious quantum animate, included~middle, everywhere associativity of observer and observed (apparently not perceiving observed as a coobserver). This is what we mean by quantum coherence, entanglement, cowithinitness, included~middle, commingling peaqlos, and superposition. This is what Bergson meant by "intellectual sympathy," and infusing intuition. It is what Bergson meant by "think being directly." It is what William James meant by compenetration. It is what Pirsig meant when he said "Lila has Quality and Quality has Lila." It is what Eugen Herrigel meant when he said, "We are in It and It is in us." It is what William James Sidis meant in his book title [Both] The Animate and the Inanimate. It is what Fritjof Capra means by interpenetration. It is what we mean when we ask our students to imagine classical stateisms as quantum animacies. Browser search for <intellectual sympathy> at Bergson's An Introduction to Metaphysics. See Pirsig's Lila. Web search <Quality has Lila>. See Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery.
It is what our quantum stages are intrinsically capable of doing, but we have been trained SOMitically for over 2500 years NOT to do it! We have to learn this, that "we have to [be] dwell[ings] [co]within unspecifiable [quantum] manifestation[ing]s." Our brackets. Quantum animacy is one of those "unspecifiable manifestationings." Another: included~middle. Another: everywhere~associativity. And so on... Why are quantum manifestationings unspecifiable? They are quantum heterogeneous, animate, EIMA ensembles of pastings', nowings', and futurings' quantum cohera and entropa. They are quantons AKA interrelationshipings! They are fuzzonic. They are n¤t objective particulars. They are qualitative Value ensembles. They are n¤t quantitative property scalar magnitudes. See Quantonics Ensemble Quantum Interrelationshipings.
We cann¤t dwell there without believing in and practicing quantum thinking modes. Polanyi analogously expresses, "We owe therefore our entire knowledge of the appetitive and perceptive life of animals to our powers of indwelling."
He continues quite wonderfully, animals' sentience and their exercise of it "is also subject to error. This implies the emergence of a new feature: for by imputing to an animal the capacity to err, we presume that it is controlled by a rational centre. The appearance of such a centre clearly opens up a new level of existence, lying above the machine-like automatism or 'regulative' processes that constitute life on the lower, physiological, level. Indeed, this centre of hazardous believing and acting already prefigures the centre of true intellectual commitment in man."
In saying that, Polanyi uncloaks another classicism, though. Classicism believes that below "some level" reality is a machine. In Quantonics we believe that reality is n¤n mechanically aware across all scales of reality. We believe that reality measures he-rself. We believe reality's awareness scales from subatomic to atomic to mesoatomic to superatomic. We believe, for example, that photons measure and make primitive choices about their whatings happenings nextings. That is a key enabler of what we call "biological emergence." Understanding what we just said is a key enabler for any efforts to emersce realistic quantum AI appliances.
Polanyi believes that natural inanimate objects exist. We see that he yet harbors much classicism. Yet, toward better, he intuits many shades and hues of what we call a quantum included~middle. But he still thingks EOOO dichon(animate, inanimate). A great epiphany is to think BAWAM quanton(animate,inanimate).
On page 60, Polanyi, we believe mistakenly, gives credit to society for humankinds' thought and thinking (we have to agree, however, that social thought is thingking: based upon what Polanyi calls explicit knowledge, knowledge which is ~pure SQ individual tacit knowing is close kin of Pirsig's thinking at many leading edgings of nowings with mental~toes dipping into many potential futurings). Social thingking is a classical putative and normative hierarchy. In our view it is simply wrong and has been wrong for nearly three millennia. Pirsig innovatively, presciently and brilliantly inverted it. We adhere his approach. We documented it and quantum~philosophically and ~scientifically further emerged it in our 2003-2004 Feuilleton Chautauqua. Weigh and fathom how Polanyi's tacit above explicit justifies Pirsig's brilliant inversion.
On page 61, again we believe mistakenly, Polanyi accepts science's current standards of value. Our entire web site is about what is wrong with science's current 'standards of value.' Prior standards and historical standards, are, more likely than not, wrong. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that. Kuhn showed us how it is so. He showed us how current scientific standards are schizophrenic, insane by any current public standard for prudent, 'consistent behavior.'
Polanyi implies that truth is stable. Bergson and Pirsig showed us how n¤ truth is stable, rather truth is an agent of its own change, quantum absolute change. Our Bases of Judgment table shows us how low in a hierarchy of Value our modern quantum mentors place truth. It is nearer bottom than top! That table's hierarchy listed bottom (1) to top (14) looks like this:
We see that truth is trapped twixt a crippled-invalid classical notion of proof and a prequantum memeo of provability.. Simply, absolute truth is a bogus classical notion. Polanyi waves it about as a semaphore of ultimate Parmenidean, Platonic, Aristotelian sentience. But he is waving about classical dialectic, isn't he? Essentials, fundamentals of classical dialectic loiter in lowest seven levels of our judgment hierarchy. Dialectic resides appropriately in judgment's cellar. It corresponds social judgment: ESQ, what Polanyi calls explicit knowledge. Quantum 'logic,' what we have chosen to refer quantonically as "coquecigrues," which is quantum rhetorical sophism (a classical 'monster' of nonlogic), emerges in probability and for now culminates in emergent good.. Our respect for him waxes and wanes. Here, it is waning massively. Like us, he is human too, and Polanyi, as we have shown ever so well, is eyebrow high in dialectical thing-king. In his entire TSoM he uses probab[ly] only one time on page 28. Similarly, in his entire TSoM he uses likel[y] only one time on page 29. In his entire TSoM he never uses chance. He uses accident[al] once. He uses emergence (in a sense of a rat's novel maze decoding 'feature') one time on page 58, emerge twice on page 73 and one time on page 74. Latter three occurrences of emerge in a historiographical context of "classical harmonious accretive continuity." This is a weak assessment of Polanyi's mind's absence from our top five hierarchical ~quantum judgment rungs, but it may be about as good as we can accomplish without reading his Personal Knowledge.
On page 63, Polanyi classically denigrates perpetual motion. This is a most ignorant and arrogant aspect of classical science. Nature is most quintessentially in perpetual motion; he~r quantons are perpetual motion! See perpetual motion.
Polanyi demonstrates both his arrogance and stupidity in his, "laws of nature preclude any possibility for putting the principles of such a machine into operation." There are no "laws of nature." There are only humans' 'laws' attempting to describe and define a stoppable, unreal nature. Human scientists believe nature is absurd. You surely cannot be 'scientific' unless you believe nature is absurd! Why do scientists call nature absurd? Nature seldom agrees with humans' 'laws' about he-r. See our electron, photon, proton. See APS' Executive Board outlaws PMM. In our responsible response to Polanyi on responsibility we say, emphatically, "It is irresponsible to say that classical science and its dialectical accoutrement are 'responsible.'" Doug - 9Oct2004.
On page 66, Polanyi makes a huge dialectical error! Pirsig pointed this one out in spades. Polanyi says, "We acknowledge the sanity of another man's mind by paying respect to him." Based upon Polanyi's prior remarks we infer his Personal Knowledge of insanity as a dichon(insane, sane). If we agree with someone they are sane. Else they must be insane. Pure dialectical dichotomy. It assumes OGT in OGC. It assumes universal and rote stoppable and stable quantitative scientific know ledge: a height of classical dialectical bogosity! See Pirsig's comments on sanity and insanity in ZMM Insane and Lila Insane.
Pirsig asked a key enabling question (slightly paraphrased), are "psychiatrists allowed to practice psychiatry if they [are] insane? It is required that they literally not know what they [are] talking about." See Lila, pp. 327-337 of 410 total. We are keenly aware that 'normal science' nearly always views extraordinary science (which is outside 'normal science's' mythos) "insane." Have you ever pondered why Einstein's Relativity was not fathomed as extraordinary enough to be "insane?" In quantum retrospect Einstein's relativity is classically OK, but quantumly very, very, very incomplete: essentially wrong!
Here he goes again, on pages 67-8, "The human mind exists only within an articulate framework provided for it by society; society both fosters thought and is in its turn [page boundary] largely controlled by thought. Hence the responsibility for every major mental decision is in part a social responsibility, and thus both affects and is in turn affected, by the existing structure of power and profit." Polanyi sees society above individual human intellect. This is just plain bilge. Individual human thinking evolves in a context of society but not wholly due society. Individual intellect routinely leaves societies' mythoses and emerses extraordinary acontextual innovations. We can perceive that is so by societies' responses of "insanity," "absurd," "nonsense," "deconstructionist," etc. If society fosters individual thought could-would it perceive some thought as "insane?" Polanyi (apparently, to us) is trapped in a reality hierarchy which looks something like this:
Pirsig and quantum philosophy show us that hierarchy is wr¤ng~worse. A better one looks like this:
Pirsig's view says society invented (emerged) intellect but it does n¤t invent thought. Society only invented capability for thought which we call "intellect," not thought itself. We agree. Society is too viscous and extremely too 'state rules' explicit to do any real thinkings at reality's edgings of nowings. Society does n¤t foster thought (only intellect fosters thought) and society does n¤t and cann¤t think. Only individuals think, and every one of them thinks both similarly and dissimilarly, never socially ideally common sensically identically. Social idealism and social scientific idealism likes to believe they can and do thingk identically, but they do n¤t and are, due their quantum intrinsic nature, incapable of doing so. (In Quantonics, quantum s¤ciety issi an anihmatæ, EIMA, peaqlo ænsehmble ¤f ¤mnihfferæntly amd ¤mnihværsahlly thinkqing ihndihvihdual ihntællects.)
But then on page 69, Polanyi says humankind are capable of pure thought. Let's see whether he places pure thought above his "social thought fostering." When Polanyi says "us," and "we," we wonder whether he sees them as ideal societal composites like 'patriot' and 'the people' or quantum ensembles of individuals. We tend to believe he favors former. Doug - 9-10Oct2004.
On to lecture three...
In his opening paragraphs of Lecture Three, on page 71, Polanyi names names of individuals. But does he see each of them as individual intellect doing tacit thinking? Perhaps as he said in Lecture Two he views them as fostered clones of socially ideal explicit thingking? Pirsig might and probably would ask, "Which is more highly evolved and evolving?" Of course we have his answer and adhere and abet its adeptness above Polanyi's. In our opinion, Polanyi goes on to show us that he simply doesn't understand, "The true nature of a thing..." In quantum reality, lower levels of 'things' simply are n¤t particulate! See our quantum essence.
On page 72 Polanyi glorifies classical social politics. Like war, politics is a classical social pattern of value. Worse, classical social politics lead to war and hate and self destruction. War is a policy of classical social politics. In quantonics we say that classical social values are worse than (below, and subservient to) quantum individual values given their tendencies toward and teaching of and 'understanding' of monolithic, one-size-fits-all, explicit, and state-ic 'general' objective classical individual thingking.
Polanyi writes, "Since the end of the nineteenth century there has been a continuous philosophic movement on foot claiming that the humanities, and history in particular, must be studied by other methods than those of the natural sciences." What is wrong with "...the natural sciences?" They are n¤t natural! They are physical! They are substantive, metrical, geometrical, objective and quantitative. They are classically social, positive, common sense, Demos will, and thus unnatural. They are incomplete classical human epistemological social models of reality. 'The Academy,' quasi tells it all...
But nature isn't classical. It is at least quantum and probably much more than that. What does that mean? It means that nature is subjective, n¤n material, qualitative flux. Nature is qualitative energy which may n¤t be studied objectively, specifically, quantitatively, physically. Nature is physial. Mostly "unspecifiable."
Polanyi ends page 72 like this, "The position at which I have arrived in the previous two lectures denies any discontinuity between the study of nature and the study of man." Trouble is, Polanyi's "study of nature" is classical, physical, objective, quantitative very 'non' quantum. Anti quantum. Unphysial. Classical studies do n¤t understand nature n¤r do they understand humankind! That, in a way, is Quantonics' bottom line. Outcome? Classical society is an abomination! We see it fully fledged at Millennium III's commencement.
On page 73, Polanyi appears to concur anti-Kuhnian gradual accretion of scientific knowledge.
He does admit to a problem with his view: ever increasing complexity. Science's edict of using classically 'simple' ideals to model reality apparently do n¤t scale.
On page 74, he says, "...the physicist dwells with pleasure in the patterns of inanimate nature..." This is just and plainly more classical bat scat: coprolitic classical legacy. Trouble is...nature is n¤t inanimate! Nature is n¤t stoppable. Polanyi's physicists' pleasure is only a classical illusion! Scalarbation!
He continues in his justification of classical mechanics and methods for 'controlling' nature for several pages...particularly patent physical putrescence... Rational, classical social intellect. Polanyi worships it as humanity's means of understanding. Please allow us to echo Ernst Haeckel's biological dictum here, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylology." Let's use that as a lingual template for our own, "Quantum reality recapitulates flux." And now we have a decent means of comparison to, "Classical reality recapitulates stux." Outcome? Classical society and 'academic' sciences are stuck! They debase nature as 'rational' and 'logical.' Similarly, they classically debase social patterns of value. They wield classical dialectic to cut off their natural life blood of evolutionary survivability.
At bottom of page 79 and top of page 80 Polanyi remakes our point for us. He writes, "...contrary to [page boundary] usually accepted opinion, every branch of natural science makes value judgments of some kind. Each appreciates the particular comprehensive entities which form its own subject-matter, and the corresponding standards of excellence form an ascending series continuously progressing towards a moral valuation of human actions." Classicists' "standards of excellence" are dialectical, rational and applied form and applied "form an ascending series continuously progressing towards a" classical social-scientific tower of Babelian classical social and intellectual patterns of value.
He goes on, "The physicist sets standards of perfection to the patterns of inanimate matter..." Just like we said, "Stuck!" That same hard science "standard of perfection" has been set by classical ignoramuses for most-all "soft sciences."
More admission appears on page 82 with Polanyi's, "The politically grounded orthodoxies imposed on these branches of science in the Soviet Union seem to demonstrate that political influence can only corrupt science." A deeper problem, Polanyi misses. Science and politics are proemially and innately corrupted by dialectic! They share classical society's dialectical 'di' s ease. Dialectic corrupts all classical thingking! Why? Quantum reality is n¤t dialectical.
Dialectic isn't, as classicists claim, a means to free thought. Rather, and this is Pirsig's great epiphany, dialectic is a detention center of reason, a church of reason, perhaps more vehemently as Lenin implied an "opiate of the mind." Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle did it to us: they gave us dialectic, they gave us absolute, immutable either-or 'truth.' Their dialectic is simply, from a quantum perspective, pure bilge, intellectual Greco-garbage! They have harmed humankind immensely! Polanyi loves it, worships it.
On page 84, Polanyi reignites our interest which he had almost extinguished in his early pages of lecture three with his, "In my view, the pursuit of science is motivated throughout by a passion to understand; and, in a more general sense, the craving to understand actuates the whole mental life of man. This craving is satisfied most fully when it grasps an idea which promises yet to reveal large, still unfathomable, implications." One such 'idea' Pirsig offered and few yet grasp, "Dialectic is a wall," which blinds our abilities to see and dénouer nature. Polanyi continues, "Anything so deep-seated will appear profoundly real and will excite a passionate interest. This applies in several different ways to all human thought..." But when Polanyi says 'real' he means socially positive and that means dialectical! What we have to quantumly share amongst ourselves is a novel epiphany that nature is n¤n dialectical. When we assume nature is dialectical we disable our social and scientific abilities to understand he-r.
On page 85, Polanyi exhibits his profound quantum ignorance with, "To sum up. Every pebble is unique, but profoundly unique objects are rare." In quantum reality all is unique and endlessly emerging! In quantum reality n¤ two quantons are ¤r can be identical to one another! Quantum reality is a profoundly unique emergence of ensemble, animate, EIMA, omniffering uniquenesses. Due quantum reality's sorso fractal recursion we see patterns of similarity, but we never see patterns of classically 'ideal' identity and classically 'ideal' cyclic repetition. All quantum cycles are chaotic, ephemeral. All quantons find their bases in perpetual flux. Classically ideal state, inanimacy, and immutability and thus socially positive, dialectical thought and state-ic understanding are wholly absent in quantum reality.
On page 90, Polanyi finally thrusts his dialectical knife and flicks out our wick of flagging flame with this classical HyperBoole, "Man's responsibility to standards of truth and rightness establishes him as a rational person, capable of doing mathematics, administering justice, writing poetry, and performing other purely mental actions." Ugh! We shall n¤t waste any more of our efforts on Polanyi.
Classically social, institutional universal-academia has failed! It is crumbling afore our eyes. Polanyi as a scholastic dialectical dilettante shows us why.
Thank you for reading,
Doug - 12Oct2004.
Note 1 - In Quantonics, we k~n¤w that wæ aræ quantum bæings. Our QTMs use quantum bionons to think.
QTMs implicitly access quantum memes from quantum reality itself. Static thingking like that Polanyi appears to be assuming implicitly denies any existence let alone any possibility of access to quantum reality's memes. Static thingking and its logical, axiomatic, and principled walls prevent and disable such access. We call this a "Key SOM Disabler." David Bohm calls it a "mechanical restriction."
Another approach is to attempt to bæ quantum~livings at nowings, and nurture n¤vel memeotic skills which permit a very dynamic and rapid, almost qubital, "recursing over" of as many presumptions and their animate EIMA memes as possible while repeating this recursive quantum process iteratively, countless ways with each n¤vel thought.
It seems like too much work, but we have found that our quantum stages are incredibly powerful and they naturally compenetrate and quantum~complement reality's memes. They were created with this capability, but classicists have carefully trained us to turn it off, to climb into their intellectual detention centers of state-ic and objective thingking.
For us, this happens effortlessly now. Instead of hard work, it is a fountain of quantum memes which flow sometimes too heavily and we have to intentionally stop and do something more mundane. We started working on this, intensely, in ~1996-7, after correspondence with Robert M. Pirsig showed us that "he and It wrote ZMM and Lila."
So, quantum~recursive "reflecting" can be accomplished as a n¤vel habit in place of classical rote dependence on ESQ first principles. Just for your edification our ideal strawman of SOM is ESQ.
See judge and Bases of Judgment.
Note 2 -
Readers please notice Polanyi's extensive use of present participle language (we found these occurrences of singular present participle: accepting, according, accrediting, acknowledging, acquiring, acting, adjusting, administering, admiring, admitting, affecting, allowing, amassing, applying, apportioning, apprenticing, approaching, arching, ascending, asking, asserting, attending, bearing, believing, belonging, breathing, calling, causing, choosing, claiming, classifying, committing, competing, comprehending, comprising, confronting, contrasting, corresponding, craving, criticizing, crossing, deciding, declaring, dedicating, defining, degrading, demonstrating, denaturing, deploying, derogating, descending, deserving, designating, displaying, diverting, doing, drifting, dwelling, educating, embracing, encountering, engaging, enjoying, enlarging, enquiring, entering, envisaging, establishing, evaluating, examining, existing, extending, extrapolating, facing, feeding, fixing, flattering, flowing, focusing, following, forming, founding, fumbling, functioning, going, governing, grading, grasping, groping, growing, guiding, harassing, having, hesitating, holding, identifying, ignoring, improving, including, increasing, indwelling, interesting, issuing, judging, keeping, knowing, lacking, learning, liberating, living, looking, making, meaning, meeting, misleading, moving, neglecting, observing, offering, opening, operating, outlining, outstanding, owing, paying, penetrating, performing, playing, plunging, pointing, pondering, possessing, pouring, preceding, producing, progressing, promising, pursuing, putting, reading, reasoning, recapitulating, receiving, recognizing, referring, reflecting, reformulating, refraining, rehearsing, rejecting, relating, relying, rendering, reorganizing, representing, resuming, rising, running, talking, satisfying, saying, seeing, seeking, serving, shaping, sharing, shifting, showing, snapping, solving, staking, starting, storing, straining, striking, striving, stultifying, submitting, suffering, suggesting, surveying, taking, telling, towering, traveling, trusting, trying, understanding, unifying, uniting, unreflecting, unwavering, unwilling, upholding, using, uttering, vegetating, waking, watching, and wondering; this appears quite profound for late 50s and less than 100 rather small pages of total text; we found only a few quantumesque plurals of present participles, e.g., beings, cravings, feelings, findings, shortcomings, stirrings, surroundings, writings, etc.).
By way of comparison, Pirsig, in ZMM, a text at least four times as long as Polanyi's used present participle plurals at only about 80% Polanyi's rate.
As we have said about Bergson, James, Pirsig, Geertz, Kuhn, etc., Polanyi owns some quantum memeos. His language is certainly more quantum than any other reviews we have done so far. For us present participle grammar is quantum process grammar and that is a huge tell and a huge magnet for our (and hopefully your) wanting to fathom Polanyi's ideas more deeply. He offers novel memeotics for us to investigate and expand.
Note 3 -
Note 4 -
Note 5 -
Note 6 -