ON MEETING MICHAEL POLANYI

I first met Michael Ploanyi in the winter of 1966, while I was briefly studying at Oxford University, not far from where Michael was living out his final years. My dissertation advisor, Wm. (“Bill”) Poteat, had brought Michael to Duke the previous fall for a special seminar and introduced his graduate students to him. Just after I arrived at Oxford, I received a brief letter from Michael inviting me to join him for dinner at a well-known restaurant. He had read one of my journal articles, in which I sought to explain certain aspects of his thought, and wanted to discuss the issues with me.

Needless to say, I was very honored by his invitation and enjoyed meeting him in such a personal way. Michael began by explaining that he had greatly enjoyed reading my article and thought I had captured the central points of his theories on “tacit knowing” very well. He gave me a couple of his own papers that elaborated on specific aspects of his theories. Naturally, I was very honored to meet Michael and grateful that he liked my presentation of his philosophy. I never saw Michael again, as he died shortly after I left Oxford. Of course, I have cherished our meeting and his kind remarks about my work. 

Over the years since that meeting, I have continued to explore and apply Polanyi’s ideas across various topics and themes in my efforts to trace some of the implications of his thought for philosophy, religion, and, in particular, the logic of cognition. I shall never forget our dinner together and deeply cherish his kind words about my own work. I regard Polanyi’s insights and their elaborations as an excellent fulcrum for serious thought about both epistemology and religious studies. Unfortunately, Michael’s work has not had a significant impact on the direction of contemporary philosophy and theology. I have sought to expound on his main theories and insights in my book, The Tacit Mode.

FUNDAGELICALISM

This was the term my friend and fellow professor at the College of Saint Rose, Bruce Johnston, used to describe his latest Christian belief system. He started at an almost cult-like fundamentalist school in Manitoba, Canada, then switched to a “regular” fundamentalist school in Southern California, and finally attended a small college in the same area, from which he earned a BA. From there, he moved to SUNY Albany, where he taught part-time at the College of St. Rose while earning a Ph.D. from SUNY Albany.

When I arrived, he was head of the Philosophy and Religion Department at St. Rose. Needless to say, in addition to being extremely bright and hardworking, Bruce was an extremely creative character. He was a wiz at the computer, had a great sense of humor that expressed itself in loud peals of laughter and giggles, and could explain complex philosophical issues clearly and interestingly to his undergraduates. He invented the term “fundagelicalism” not only to trace his own unique pilgrimage but also to unpack the history and key concepts of extremely conservative Protestant Christian theology. 

In his spare time, Bruce spent hours playing the piano in a practice room in the Music Department building. He also occasionally peeked into the gym to watch me and others shoot hoops during lunch hour. He actually enjoyed watching NBA games on TV more than we did. Needless to say, “Brucer,” as I preferred to call him, was an incredibly diverse and creative individual. Unfortunately, Bruce died a few years after retiring, and we never got to get together to say our “Goodbyes.” 

Perhaps Bruce’s most creative and profound contribution to the college was the “Seniors Only” religion course he invented to fulfill their final religion requirement. It was called “JUNKFOOD THEOLOGY.” He and the students read and discussed popular religious films and books on their own terms, seeking to relate them to their present lives. Almost the entire senior class enrolled in this course during their last semester because of Bruce’s and the course’s unique character. Bruce was a great colleague and friend. I miss him.