Putting Human Action Back Into Knowledge: Esther Lightcap Meek’s Longing to Know
An excellent book for those not satisfied with modernist epistemology.
In Longing to Know (2003), Esther Lightcap Meek, a philosophy professor, presents a vision of knowledge that challenges traditional modernist epistemology, emphasizing the dynamic, integrative, and personal nature of knowing. Inspired by Michael Polanyi, she critiques the objective ideal of knowledge and argues for an understanding of knowledge as a human act of engagement with the world, shaped by experience, personal effort, and an evolving process of integration. Her exploration employs metaphors such as the relationship with an auto mechanic and the experience of perceiving images in a Magic Eye puzzle to illustrate the active and transformative nature of knowing. This is a must read book if you want to understand the entrepreneurial function in economics. It will also giver you insight, on why Hayek’s knowledge problem is such a devastating critique to central planning.
Knowledge as an Ordinary, Everyday Act
Meek begins by rejecting the notion that knowing is restricted to academic or specialized contexts, arguing instead that all life is knowing (p.40). She uses the example of knowing an auto mechanic to illustrate that knowledge is not confined to abstract theorizing but extends to practical, everyday interactions. This analogy serves to ground her epistemology in ordinary human experience, reinforcing her broader claim that knowledge is not an elite pursuit but a fundamental aspect of human existence.
The Magic Eye and the Structure of Knowing
A key metaphor in Meek’s argument is the Magic Eye puzzle, which requires a shift in perception to see a hidden image (p.46-47). This process involves three stages: first, looking at the image; second, struggling to see beyond it; and third, perceiving the hidden three-dimensional figure. She uses this analogy to describe the way knowledge emerges: we begin with disparate particulars, struggle to integrate them, and eventually perceive a coherent whole. The process of knowing, then, is not a passive reception of facts but an active reconfiguration of experience into meaning.
Meek introduces the concept of subsidiary and focal awareness (p.48). Subsidiary awareness refers to the background particulars that we rely on to grasp the whole, while focal awareness refers to the coherent pattern that emerges. The shift from subsidiaries to focal awareness is an act of integration—bringing together clues into a meaningful whole. Importantly, she notes that attempting to fixate on subsidiaries disrupts the act of knowing itself (p.50). For instance, if a pianist begins consciously thinking about each finger movement during a performance, their playing will falter. This asymmetrical relationship between subsidiary and focal awareness underscores the tacit dimension of knowledge: we rely on certain elements without consciously attending to them in order to grasp meaning.
Knowledge as Personal and Transformative
Meek critiques the modernist epistemological model, which seeks to separate truth from personal involvement. She argues that all knowledge claims are upheld by human effort and cannot be divorced from the knower (p.56). Instead of seeing subjectivity as a flaw, she embraces it as an inherent part of knowing. Truth is always “somebody’s truth” (p.58), shaped by individual experience and commitment. Rather than leading to relativism, this perspective acknowledges the lived, situated nature of knowledge while still affirming the reality of truth.
Statements of truth, according to Meek, are not static propositions but acts of engagement with the world. She likens them to a hammer lying on a table (p.58)—useless until wielded by a human hand. Similarly, truth does not exist in isolation but emerges in the active relationship between a person and the world. Knowing, then, is not merely stating facts but involves a personal, participatory act of laying oneself out in pursuit of understanding.
The Temporal and Expanding Nature of Knowing
Meek highlights that knowing is not instantaneous but unfolds over time (p.66). The act of coming to know spans moments of initial unawareness, struggle, discovery, and continued expansion beyond a single insight. This dynamic perspective contrasts with traditional views that portray knowledge as static and timeless. Instead, Meek argues that knowledge continually extends outward (p.69), much like a growing network of connections that deepens and expands with engagement.
The Limits of Logical Inference
Meek challenges the assumption that knowledge operates through strict logical deduction. Using the Magic Eye example, she points out that one cannot articulate all the particulars relied upon before actually seeing the hidden image (p.76). The act of knowing involves an integrative leap rather than a step-by-step inference. Logical reasoning, while valuable, is insufficient to capture the richness of knowing, which depends on tacit awareness, personal commitment, and engagement with the world.
Conclusion
Meek’s Longing to Know presents an epistemology that is deeply personal, participatory, and integrative. She moves away from detached objectivity, emphasizing that knowing is an active process of making sense of experience through subsidiary-focal integration. Her critique of modernist epistemology and embrace of subjectivity do not lead to relativism but rather affirm the situated and evolving nature of knowledge. By illustrating knowledge through everyday examples and metaphors, Meek provides a compelling alternative to traditional epistemological frameworks, positioning knowing as an act of human engagement that continuously unfolds over time.