Polanyi supports institutional autonomy against political control, and advocates free markets rather than central planning. Value neutrality is replaced with dedicated communities, and explicit rules are taken to require interpretative practices. Knowing is situated, but viewed as a source of progress. Attention is drawn to the role played by authority, but the universal values to which he believes a freesociety ought to be dedicated are identified as transcendent.

My personal relation with Polanyi, discussions with him in Oxford, contribution to the International Academy of the Philosophy of Science, the relevance of his innovative thought for Christian worship and theology, Magda and Michael in Oxford, the role of his literary executor.

Although Polanyi regards technological knowledge as inferior to scientific knowledge, he uses the idea of machine-like operational principles as an analogy for both his epistemology and his ontology. Since his epistemology is based on personal knowledge, this suggest the need for a personal ontology. Polanyi tries to avoid such a conclusion by invoking impersonal evolutionary factors.

Lesslie Newbigin and his interpreter, George Hunsberger, see Polanyi’s epistemology giving a basis for the objectivity of the Christian message in a pluralistic world. But Polanyi’s view of science and of theology is differentiated leaving open the choice of religious faith.

This review essay, concerning three collections of Shils’ essays published in 1997, focuses on Shils’ assertion of the importance of charisma or the sacred in the ties that bind a secular society together and enable it to function as it does, asks why Shils did not accept Polanyi’s views about intellectuals, and refers to aspects of the sacred attributed to universities and to our academic traditions.

These brief reflections extend the discussion of Louis H. Swartz review essay “Reflections on Shils, Sacred and Civil Ties, and Universities.” I note the influence Shils and Polanyi had upon one another and comment on issues related to Shils’s thought which Swartz raises in connection with material in three recent, posthumously published volumes of Shils’s writings.

This brief essay reflects on my encounters with Polany, June and Rhine and tries to link some elements of their thought.