George,

On Polanyi:

"Because participation at the highest level required for an understanding of men's works and ways is virtually the same as what is required of a person in the performance or appreciation of these works and ways, it becomes necessary for an inquirer to understand what goes on in the actual performance of these works. His participation is therefore not with a part of his being—with the various clues he dwells in personally in making his integrations—but, as we shall soon see, with the whole of his person in an actual performance. He must, as Polanyi said, be 'carried away' by a poem, a painting, or a religion" ...

Let us now turn to Polanyi's understanding of religion and the nature of our acceptance of it. Religion, for Polanyi, is also a work of the imagination. It is a sprawling work, since it incorporates myths, rites, and ceremonies, such as we have been discussing, and also doctrines and worship. As a transnatural integration, it is, for Polanyi, an integration of incompatibles. Moreover, it is detached from our ordinary life by a "frame"—as are works of art. In rites, as we have seen, it is myth that gives them an import. It is not only what is said in the myth that detaches it from the practical affairs of our lives, but, according to Polanyi, it is even more the rites and ceremonies, recreating its expressed actions which detaches the myth from our ordinary lives."

- Michael Polanyi: A Critical Exposition by Harry Prosch; State University of New York Press, 1986

Because Poplanyi is very hard to read to understand for many a reader. I think Prosch helped with "Personal Knowledge", The University of Chicago Press ( Chicago: 1958), so his ideas became more comprehensible.

[My HK books are in Brisbane. Hope, I have them next week: 110 boxes!]

Cheers.

Sells,

Surely, you have something to say on the notion of rites being a transnational integration detached from normal: i.e., is a [unquestionable] sermon: To paraphase Prosch's insightful work on Polanyi.

I am not take hit-and-run digs. I have referenced many great thinkers in science, civilization studies, cultural-anthopology and science across several posts; yet, you stay silent. This is a Forum, you know.

Greetings and kind wishes.

George

If an ideal is a truth that is outside the universe of our experience then surely it both unknowable and inconsequential. Relativism may be anathema to the Church but it must be embraced in order to live in the world as we know it. We would certainly be justified in 'imposing' an absolute and universal Truth on anyone since by definition it is a Truth to them whether they know it or not and this is why I have deep misgivings about the enterprise of 'seeking The Truth'.

The fact that understanding takes place within history and depends on continuities through and across history ensures that there are commonalities in understanding that deliver near-universal truths (at least within the universe of the totality of human experience). We can, for example, read the Bible and recognise the characters as human with emotions, motivations and thought processes that are familiar. We can understand reasonably confidently the author's intended meanings and draw conclusions, with varying degrees of confidence, about the circumstances in which many texts were written.

Gadamer does not reduce understanding to total subjectivity. An antecedent understanding grounded in history is fundamental to hermeneutics as the 'unconcealment' of new (or perhaps revised) truth. Truth is extended/developed iteratively both individually and in the form of tradition (at least this is true for a 'living' tradition). It is therefore, perhaps, something of a misrepresentation of hermeneutical philosophy to characterise it as inherently relativist. Relativism poses no particular problem to me but Gadamer did defend his hermeneutics against the 'charge' of relativism.

What would you take to be the alternative to relativism, you do not strike as a moral absolutist. Sells seems somewhere between a moral absolutist and consequentialist. I suppose I am an absolute relativist. You might say that is an antilogy but I prefer to think of it as an oxymoron

Oliver,
thanks for the feedback, it made me reread the part about “religious doubt” in Polanyi’s ‘Personal Knowledge’. There is nothing I can disagree here with you. Remember, I only “raised my brows” when you referred to religious indwelling as “uncritically accepting authority, rather than examine the facts“. Besides, “there is a weakness in Polanyi’s work on religion which reflects his limited experience of religious practices and theological traditions. Nevertheless, his insight that religious knowledge is rooted in the practices of religious worship is one from which theology has much to learn.“ (see http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/TAD%20WEB%20ARCHIVE/TAD32-2/TAD32-2-fnl-pg25-37-pdf.pdf, which also deals with Harry Prosch’s reading of Polanyi).

So it is certainly true that Polanyi’s views, as illuminating as they are, are not those of an insider (indweller?).

waterboy,
thank you for further widening my perspective, though I fail to see where it conflicts with my belief in the existence of Something “that is outside the universe“ of our SENSUOUS (direct or indirect through instruments) experience. I strongly believe in the existence of a material world that is outside my mental world, and I also believe (though not as strongly) in the existence of a (Platonic) world of mathematics that is outside my mental world. There are very few solipsists but there are many mathematicians who do not believe in the existence of a world of mathematics, except for what is in our mind, nevertheless they can coexist and cooperate with mathematicians who do believe in it.

I agree with Feuerbach that “man created God to his image” but only as a complement to “God created man to His image”. Something like creating mathematics is complementary to discovering mathematics; “doing mathematics” is actually both of these at the same time. In this sense I can see your perspective as complementary to a more classical “transcendental theology“.

Oliver, waterboy,
I have to apologise for not being able to continue in this for me most illuminating discussion: in a couple of hours my daughter, whom I have not seen for over two years, is arriving from Australia, so she must have all my attention.