I am reminded, Michael, of the teaching traditions of the middle and far
east in what you say here. The primacy of the Teacher/Disciple
relationship is very different than our western approaches. I think the
impact is related to this "tacit knowledge" issue.
In the eastern spiritual and healing traditions, one learns by being
_with_ a Teacher, not "from" a Teacher. The task of the Teacher is to
awaken the consciousness existing within the student/disciple which
_leads_ to knowledge. Socrates, of course, also comes to mind as a
"western" example. To meditate is not to follow instructions, but to
explore and learn from moment to moment experience. To "hear" the pulse
and diagnose a condition from it is not to apply a "protocol", but to
allow one's perception to be open to what is occuring at a "tacit"
level--tacit in the sense that those of us unable to perceive the
information there consider it "inexpressible." Perhaps it is not the
"knowledge" which is passed on at all, but the experience of discovering
it....
Maybe that is the reason that the eastern artistic, healing and spiritual
traditions (not that they would be separated in such a crude fashion as I
have here) seem to have a long period of seemingly trivial activities
which often preceed the "learning" or "study" phase. It is the "tuning" of
the instrument--the consciousness--which must preceed the practice on it.
And, of course, "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."
In our "age of explicitness", such learning must seem quite inefficient,
wasteful, and secretive....
-- Tobin Quereau quereau@austin.cc.tx.us