Zoom Logo

Gus Breytspraak's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Raine Revere
The questions are only visible to those that were here when they were posted, so those who joined later will not see them.
reposting the questions
1. Does Polanyi push together HOW we know something too tightly together with WHAT we know?- How do we understand “determines”?2. Is he confusing “the map and the territory” when he talks about discoveries in science & problems being more real than cobblestones?3. Does Polanyi flood our ontology with too many entities? And is there a difference in kind of reality (universals, strategies, scientific theories) — not just a difference in depth (minds being “more real” than cobblestones).4. When Polanyi discusses emergence in terms of life and evolution, he says a further principle “ideogenesis” is required- Is this too much of a concession to the vitalists?- Is it too much of a concession to essentialists?- Do we need it to understand “telic fields”?
Aristotle and Aquinas join what is known and knowing.Intellecting by a mind and what is intelligible are one and the same thing:Therese Coryhttps://www.stitcher.com/s?eid=69669152&refid=asa
Jon Fennell
Aquinas: "For although it be necessary for the truth of a cognition that the cognition answer to the thing known, still it is not necessary that the mode of the thing known be the same as the mode of its cognition."
thanks must go
Dale Cannon
It was good to see you all today and to participate together in another good discussion. I have to move on to other things just now.
Thanks for a very intriguing discussion. I must go. Ellen Bernal
sietske dijkstra
thank you all, I have to go now.
Jon Fennell
I need to depart as well. For those who are interested, I engaged Polanyi on his emergence (as well as Paksi and Walt Gulick to a degree) in Appraisal, V. 11, #2. In a later issue Paksi and I engaged further.
Raine Revere
This feels related to the question of Novelty. And perhaps Chance (Tychism).