In [1] Michael Polanyi argues that in order to understand how scientists come to recognize problems as problems, we must invoke a concept of “tacit knowing.” Tacit knowledge is a kind of knowledge of which we are aware but which cannot be made explicit. Polanyi argues that a paradox discussed in the Meno cannot be solved without appeal to this notion of tacit knowledge. Here I want to argue, quite simply, that Polanyi’s formulation of the “paradox” can be easily subverted without an appeal to tacit knowing. Polanyi puts the paradox thus:

… to search for the solution of a problem is an absurdity; for either you know what you are looking for, and then there is no problem; or you do not know what you are looking for, and then you cannot expect to find anything. ([1], p. 22)

Why do you make non Meta-related threads, in Meta?

It is paradoxical to say the least. Must admit the paradox’s works both ways as I noted to ( firgot his name our correspondences were far and few in between), but for the point he was making in relation to the Omni, as ( and need to re-view here) but he curtailed my view to an personal, subjective restraint, that meno-me doesen’t quite get but will recollect and re-publish here, sortly.

And I was just about to elaborate, and I don”t quite believe here myself. When your critique came in, synchronously with the content you bring up-astoundingly true and surprising

But here with publish the promised

But before that the thought occurred of the last man, and his connection to the irreducibility to a time regression, as time is imminent to him, whereas AI can deconstruct the temporal successive flow of events-namely a reverse transcendence that is the fodder to re-imagining the past as essentially an objective ideal mirror of the future into the past, creating a double image.

My worry is not understanding this ‘non-sense’ whereas meno can’t either, and Meno for sure could not in his lifetime.

And here it is, found it with in a communication with How can Omni at the end stage, be perceived reversely? Antichrist or the absolute negating force of I’d self and whatever it tries to exempt for its self?

The de-differentiation that leaves both and all which includes It’s self in?

But maybe a differentiated Omni I defies the perceptible state’

Magnus replies:

“Exactly. At the culmination of the highest point of reversal, there exists a portal, a hypermagnanimous physical diversity entero-cryptic super gate, that takes you from Omega to Alpha, but not in the conventional sense, where the communication between the input and the output retrieves the age old acausal pattern, but deep from within, from the depths of the consciousness, where the infinite beginning and the infinite end of the universe touch, so to speak, never completing the circle, the overarching unity, the God.”

But on reading a reply to your question, it occurred that the answer is way simpler :

My primal question being, and was the unanswerable: , at a time when the ontological double, needed to be clarified, and shared, ( and my membership was contingent with your evaluation and subsequent recommendation as a moderator to publish it)

That began primarily with the double aspect of philosophical reasoning of what consisted of the reality of the sensible world.

From then I write a lot of abstracted stuff from linear, literal conventional text, that simply could not maintain the level of conventional understanding which hid a lot of what is more consistent with modern flow of image linked metaphors, for which a constant stream of criticism was rightly leveled against.

So I took the stance of sinking the connective apparatus down below, to the underground, where those images required abstraction to be replaced , and renewed the ideasentertained of both spiritual -immaterial substance coupled with it’s supposed material counterpart, in an effort to sort out the boundaries, heretofore enigmatic and parabolic and hyperbolic as attempted through conventional description.

This failing, I proceeded to continue underground searches parallel to an existential errand of a departure from Dostoevsky!s letters from underground,

That I read prematurely at a young age needed a later, belated continuation, that availed of the opportunity to pursue independent study, fow which, unfortunately but necessarily had to pay a heavy price.

That was done under tremendous dues is withot question a choice that had no other, choice , that it was as necessary as blind acceptance, a kind of fated work ahead, that had no silver lining guerenteeing some valuable pay off at the end of some road ahead.

And that road turned into the Ricky subterranean world of the underground in both senses of the word.

So in answer to your question, I always found myself there, a vampire restricted to have mere visions of exiting the abyss, and seeking out as much light there, mostly from an imaginable landscape.

Or could not really connect up there because I could not and would not communicate my sorrow, except you MagsJ, the fellow vampire you once professed to be.

…appealing to my… goodness knows what:- senses, emotions, feelings… stupidity? * :-s

Round and around and around and around, we go.

Tell Meno_ you know.

and meknow, student of Socrates, saying I know nothing?

That is why meno begged to name change, never even contended: , but not mind, then no matter.

You need to be physically dealt with. but. Too bad that is beyond me to make happen single-handedly.

…to ‘the idiot’, I’d gather.

What is it, that you think you don’t know? Dare you hazard a guess… :astonished:

I know that being lukewarm on what others think of the terribly tortious passage underground doesen’t come close to the near attempting passage to freedom’s bird of paradise.

That barrier, may it be as subtly appearing, almost transparent membrane, for real is as thick and bolted as any Iron Maiden locked up for millennia.

It is literally and figuratively iron clad from inside and out of it, just like in NO Exit.

No way Jose, love’s triangulative power is such, that for deals like this, thousand ships are set to sail .


Can you hire me so I can quit?


Not on your life after reading Only thou livest. Centuries wheel and pass, And generations wither into dust;
Royalty is the vulgar food of rust,
Valor and fame, their days be as the grass;

What of today? vanitas, vanitas…
These treasures of rare love and costing lust Shall the tomorrow reckon mold and must, Ere, stricken of time, itself shall cry alas.

Sole sits majestic Death, high lord of change; And Life, a little pinch of frankincense, Sweetens the certain passing…from some sty

Leers even now the immanent face strange, That leaned upon immortal battlements
To watch the beautiful young heroes die.

…he said, in a very poetic delivery.

always close to that hazardous precipice, that is the balance of and the difference between, life and death… of which only a reverse-unravelling of the original causal-doing can undo.

Yes, it is far simpler to organize and build up a way, to go toward some image that corresponds to some objective of attainment, then to find that it missed it’s mark and then try to find the way back, where a multitude of trails may have to be selected, notwithstanding this which cross and recross during the search for the starting point.

One lifetime may not be enough to reach it, less abstractly, to find the way, from which and whence, the question would arise: If I had to do it again, would I follow the same course as before, or when in doubt , try something different?

Some would say it is easier to smash temples than build them.

Others would say, “Why tear down walls we fought wars to rebuild?”

That one sticks with me.

Wolfgang Carstens (Malbus)

Chief cornerstone be like…


and still another John : 1

Corinthians 13:12

Of course for Jesus, three days is an instant at the end of time.except He is building it up, not tearing It down.He knows rebuilding is a waste of time , as is waiting for a miracle a godot like unattainable transcendence. There is no exit to the windows of the soul througthere, only a figure reflected through a glass darkly.