Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Phenomenology

Expand Messages
  • yeoman
    Folks, et al, The encyclopedia defines phenomenology as: “a 20th-century philosophical movement, the primary objective of which is the direct investigation
    Message 1 of 27 , Apr 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Folks, et al,



      The encyclopedia defines phenomenology as:



      “a 20th-century philosophical movement, the primary
      objective of which is the direct investigation and
      description of phenomena as consciously experienced, without
      theories about their causal explanation and as free as
      possible from unexamined preconceptions and
      presuppositions.”



      The difficulty I have with phenomenology as expressed by
      previous philosophers has been the use of terminology which
      is confusing, such as “transcendental ego” and the invention
      of elements such as “consciousness” and “mind” which are
      thought of as being separate from the brain itself.



      The Encyclopedia Britannic goes on with:



      “What a philosopher must examine is the relationship between
      consciousness and Being; and in doing so, he must realize
      that from the standpoint of epistemology, Being is
      accessible to him only as a correlate of conscious acts. He
      must thus pay careful attention to what occurs in these
      acts. This can be done only by a science that tries to
      understand the very essence of consciousness; and this is
      the task that Phenomenology has set for itself.”



      If this is what phenomenology wishes to have as a task, then
      it follows that the science is that of neuropsychology.
      Although we have not yet obtained all the answers and there
      is much further to study, there is sufficient knowledge of
      the brain to formulate an overall view of essences and
      perception.



      For example, it is known that god experiences result from
      electrical transients within the Temporal Lobe. Also that
      these transients can be generated by such things as lack of
      oxygen, a lack of food, meditation, or moments of
      exceptional personal stress.



      Much of this can be seen in the way historically people have
      been led to a god experience. Moses climbs a mountain [lack
      of oxygen] in order to commune with God. Native Indians had
      an initiation ceremony by which a youth would go into the
      forest [lack of food and meditation] until he experienced a
      vision that would last him the rest of his life. Many of
      the nuns in the middle ages went through a period of
      starvation.



      Temporal Lobe transients can also be triggered by sound and
      music. Both of these are fundamental to the events in
      evangelistic services, such as that of the Southern
      Baptists. Even for mainline religious groups such as
      Catholic services, the stress upon ritual and music,
      prepares the worshiper for an appreciation of god.



      All this occurs within the brain. The difference between
      humans and animals is that the former is able to work their
      brains to a specific purpose. However, most have been
      reluctant to accept this explanation, since it seems to
      imply that we are reacting mechanically. There is always a
      desire to look upon experience as somehow mystical.



      Just as neuropsychology can give explanation for the god
      experience, so too can it give the basis for how we perceive
      the world around us, and how we interpret our surroundings.
      It is not necessary to invent a separate consciousness or
      mind.



      Comments??



      eduard
    • Lorna Landry
      Hi Eduard. My comments below: yeoman wrote: Folks, et al, The encyclopedia defines phenomenology as: “a 20th-century philosophical
      Message 2 of 27 , Apr 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Eduard. My comments below:

        yeoman <yeoman@...> wrote:
        Folks, et al,



        The encyclopedia defines phenomenology as:



        �a 20th-century philosophical movement, the primary
        objective of which is the direct investigation and
        description of phenomena as consciously experienced, without
        theories about their causal explanation and as free as
        possible from unexamined preconceptions and
        presuppositions.�



        The difficulty I have with phenomenology as expressed by
        previous philosophers has been the use of terminology which
        is confusing, such as �transcendental ego� and the invention
        of elements such as �consciousness� and �mind� which are
        thought of as being separate from the brain itself.

        LL*******Because consciousness (the event) and the brain (the thing) are separate objects of phenomenological study. My brain is not the one experiencing; it's me, an existing individual.******



        The Encyclopedia Britannic goes on with:



        �What a philosopher must examine is the relationship between
        consciousness and Being; and in doing so, he must realize
        that from the standpoint of epistemology, Being is
        accessible to him only as a correlate of conscious acts. He
        must thus pay careful attention to what occurs in these
        acts. This can be done only by a science that tries to
        understand the very essence of consciousness; and this is
        the task that Phenomenology has set for itself.�



        If this is what phenomenology wishes to have as a task, then
        it follows that the science is that of neuropsychology.

        LL******Only if you equate consciousness (the event) with the brain (the thing).*******


        Although we have not yet obtained all the answers and there
        is much further to study, there is sufficient knowledge of
        the brain to formulate an overall view of essences and
        perception.

        *******But phenomenology's main concern is not perception (knowledge), but that which makes all knowledge possible (consciousness).*******



        For example, it is known that god experiences result from
        electrical transients within the Temporal Lobe.

        LL*******And what brings on the 'electrical transients'?********

        Also that
        these transients can be generated by such things as lack of
        oxygen, a lack of food, meditation, or moments of
        exceptional personal stress.

        LL******What about the person who has a 'god experience' without meeting any of the above criteria? I cannot in good faith reduce a life-changing experience (that I personally have never experienced) to a mere lack of food or oxygen.*******

        Lorna



        Much of this can be seen in the way historically people have
        been led to a god experience. Moses climbs a mountain [lack
        of oxygen] in order to commune with God. Native Indians had
        an initiation ceremony by which a youth would go into the
        forest [lack of food and meditation] until he experienced a
        vision that would last him the rest of his life. Many of
        the nuns in the middle ages went through a period of
        starvation.



        Temporal Lobe transients can also be triggered by sound and
        music. Both of these are fundamental to the events in
        evangelistic services, such as that of the Southern
        Baptists. Even for mainline religious groups such as
        Catholic services, the stress upon ritual and music,
        prepares the worshiper for an appreciation of god.



        All this occurs within the brain. The difference between
        humans and animals is that the former is able to work their
        brains to a specific purpose. However, most have been
        reluctant to accept this explanation, since it seems to
        imply that we are reacting mechanically. There is always a
        desire to look upon experience as somehow mystical.



        Just as neuropsychology can give explanation for the god
        experience, so too can it give the basis for how we perceive
        the world around us, and how we interpret our surroundings.
        It is not necessary to invent a separate consciousness or
        mind.



        Comments??



        eduard







        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





        ---------------------------------
        Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • yeoman
        Lorna, LL*******Because consciousness (the event) and the brain (the thing) are separate objects of phenomenological study. My brain is not the one
        Message 3 of 27 , Apr 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Lorna,



          LL*******Because consciousness (the event) and the brain
          (the thing) are separate objects of phenomenological study.
          My brain is not the one experiencing; it's me, an existing
          individual.******



          ---> My view is that consciousness is a state of being
          conscious. That is to be aware of ones surroundings and the
          self. Awareness is a function of the brain.



          It is your brain which experiences. The individual is
          simply the skin, bones and muscle which allows the brain to
          move around. The individual is the vehicle for the brain
          that is contained within.



          If you feel that it is the existing individual who does the
          experiencing, then what component [other than the brain]
          registers this experiencing??



          *******But phenomenology's main concern is not perception
          (knowledge), but that which makes all knowledge possible
          (consciousness).*******



          ---> Precisely. It is the brain functions which make
          knowledge possible.



          LL******What about the person who has a 'god experience'
          without meeting any of the above criteria? I cannot in good
          faith reduce a life-changing experience (that I personally
          have never experienced) to a mere lack of food or
          oxygen.*******



          ---> I would suggest that those who have "god experience"
          do meet the criteria. The criteria is simply those things
          that will initiate a transient. It is not a case of saying
          that some lack of oxygen will be the singular key to this
          transient, nor that there will always be a subsequent god
          experience. But if you listen to stories of those who have
          had a god experience, you will find that some kind of stress
          of the senses is involved. Even in the Bible encounters
          with God or the Devil are associated with stressful even; in
          many cases either climbing a mountain or spending a long
          period of time in the desert without adequate sustenance.



          eduard
        • eduard at home
          I would like to get into a discussion on phenomenology. According to Encyclopedia Britannica this philosophy is: Phenomenology a 20th-century philosophical
          Message 4 of 27 , Jan 14, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            I would like to get into a discussion on phenomenology. According to Encyclopedia Britannica this philosophy is:

            Phenomenology



            a 20th-century philosophical movement, the primary objective of which is the direct investigation and description of phenomena as consciously [the perception of what passes in a man's own mind.�] experienced, without theories about their causal explanation and as free as possible from unexamined preconceptions and presuppositions.

            So I am wondering ... what does this all really mean?? What's a good example??

            eduard



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • vexlab
            Thanks for the nice question. I will explain it the way i understand it: Phenomenology makes observations on subtle aspects of human experience. These are
            Message 5 of 27 , Jan 14, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks for the nice question. I will explain it the way i understand
              it:

              Phenomenology makes observations on subtle aspects of human
              experience. These are aspects which everyone could notice and admit,
              had they paid attention to them. But since these aspects are subtle,
              they remain unnoticed. Phenomenlogy aims to make us notice - to bring
              to awareness - these aspects. The investigator phenomenologist has to
              identify them and discribe them in words.

              For example, you see a die. What are the subtle aspects of this
              experience? Here are some:
              You 'see' more than it 'shows:' The perceptual input that comes to
              you reveals the visible part of the surface of the die, but your
              consciousness nevertheless 'sees' a 3D object, rather than just a
              surface.

              Further, implicit in the experience is the expectation of what you
              would see if you were to move slightly to the left or right. That is,
              you have implicit expectation of what the presently invisible part of
              the die would look like.

              Also, if you were to roll the die on the floor, you would have the
              implicit anticipation that the sound of its rolling would fade away
              as the die rolls farther away, rather than the opposite.

              Of course, it not new to physics that the sound would fade away as
              the object making the sound moves farther away from us. The
              interesting, however, from a phenomenological perspective, is that
              even a man who has never studied physics still intuitively knows that
              the sound would fade away. He has learned this in experience. He has
              an intuitive, implicit anticipation of this. We all have these
              implicit anticipations, and they affect our overall impression of the
              objects, even if we don't reflect on them.

              I think Husserl aimed, first of all, to reflect all such intuitive
              knowledge, implicit in the ordinary perception of objects. In this
              way he would show how the ordinary individual, by reflection on his
              subjective experience, arrives at descriptions that science has
              already described in its own way.

              Science describes (and explains) phenomena abstractly, in terms of
              mathematical equations and specific terminlogy which only the
              specialist scientist can understand. Every individual, however, still
              has some intuitive understanding of the natural phenomena, and has
              developed it from experience. Husserl perhaps wanted to reconnect the
              abstract scientific explanations with the ordinary intuitive
              knowledge of everyone. Because the starting point of any scientific
              inquiry is the realm of ordinary intuitive realm of everyone.

              He thought this whole thing was necessary because of what he
              perceived as 'The crisis of the european sciences': the sciences
              producing great technical advancement but not giving enough to
              explicate the existential questions of all people.

              Thanks,
              V.L.
            • C. S. Wyatt
              ... The works of Husserl form a slowly declining series: as the fruitful analyses diminish, the metaphysical generalities increase. The Logical Investigations,
              Message 6 of 27 , Jan 14, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote:
                > I would like to get into a discussion on phenomenology. According
                to Encyclopedia Britannica this philosophy is:
                >
                > Phenomenology
                >




                The works of Husserl form a slowly declining series: as the fruitful
                analyses diminish, the metaphysical generalities increase. The Logical
                Investigations, with its fine studies of Meaning, Intentionality, and
                Knowledge, is undoubtedly one of the greatest of philosophical
                masterpieces; in the later works there is much, but not so much, to
                admire. But the influence of Husserl's thought increased as its
                philosophical importance declined: hence the strange drop from
                Phenomenology to Existentialism.

                - Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy & Philosophers; entry by
                J. N. Findlay, pp. 144-5
                Phenomenology

                There is a thin, blurred line separating phenomenology and
                existentialism. Edmund Husserl was the leading thinker in the
                Phenomenological Movement, influencing most future existentialists
                either directly or indirectly. Husserl's phenomenology was a
                descriptive analysis of subjective processes. He described it as the
                intuitive study of essences.

                According to Husserl, the goal of philosophy was to describe the data
                of consciousness without bias or prejudice, ignoring all metaphysical
                and scientific theories in order to accurately describe and analyze
                the data gathered by human senses and the mind. The students of
                Husserl summarized phenomenology as the study of "the things themselves."

                The pursuit of essences was to be accomplished in phenomenology via
                three techniques: phenomenological reduction, eidetic reduction, and
                cognition analysis.

                Phenomenological reduction, according to Husserl's teachings, is the
                exclusion from consideration of everything which is transcendent and
                anything else derived via scientific or logical inference. A
                phenomenologist would consider only what was immediately presented to
                consciousness. This is familiar to students of Jean-Paul Sartre, who
                suggested what you know of a person or item is all that you can
                evaluate. An object, even a person, is only what one sees and
                experiences of that object. The rest, Husserl suggested, was
                "bracketed out" from judgment. Husserl referred to this suspension of
                judgment as epoché.

                As an example, via this theory, a color seen by one individual is
                known only to and by that one person. Measuring it scientifically,
                comparing to other colors, et cetera, do not truly change that what
                the individual sees is the only thing consciousness comprehends. The
                color experienced is the "pure phenomena", the scientific data are
                held in suspension, or epoché. Only the phenomenological knowledge is
                certain, and then only to the individual.

                Husserl, like other saints, fell a victim to his own ecstasy: he was
                unable to come out of this transcendental suspension. The harmless
                "bracketing" of commonsense realities became the metaphysical thesis
                that they can have none but an "intentional" existence in and for
                consciousness. Husserl does not see that we cannot suspend a belief if
                the belief suspended is meaningless.

                - Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy; Findlay, p. 145

                Hope this starts to highlight what is special about phenomenology and
                existentialism: they are only concerned with what the individual
                experiences, not scientific explanations of experience. Everything is
                for and of the individual. Groups exist only so far as the individual
                allows them to exist and exert influence.

                We are only what we experience directly, according to Husserl. What we
                accept, via bias and prejudice, is always filtered in ways science
                cannot explain. Also, most "old philosophies" are to be distrusted, as
                they assumed there were "universals" while the phenoemonogist rejects
                the notion of universal experiences.

                Everyone lives a different life. Universals are not possible; only
                similarities are. Husserl thought only "action" mattered -- being
                involved and active in life. You might call this "taking a stand" or
                "fighting" for your self and your existence.

                Sadly, his student Martin Heidegger removed him from his teaching
                post. Husserl fell victim to the ultimate "group" thought -- the Nazi
                movement. Heidegger was foolish enough to think the could "correct"
                the Nazi movement from whithin the party. (Heidegger ended up in
                trouble, too, and then isolated from people on both sides of the war.)

                - CSW
              • Mary Jo Malo
                Here s a group of on-line papers about this fascinating subject. Mary Jo ... Logical ... and
                Message 7 of 27 , Jan 14, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Here's a group of on-line papers about this fascinating subject.

                  <http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online3.html#phenomenology>

                  Mary Jo

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@t...>
                  wrote:
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home <yeoman@v...>
                  wrote:
                  > > I would like to get into a discussion on phenomenology. According
                  > to Encyclopedia Britannica this philosophy is:
                  > >
                  > > Phenomenology
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The works of Husserl form a slowly declining series: as the fruitful
                  > analyses diminish, the metaphysical generalities increase. The
                  Logical
                  > Investigations, with its fine studies of Meaning, Intentionality,
                  and
                  > Knowledge, is undoubtedly one of the greatest of philosophical
                  > masterpieces; in the later works there is much, but not so much, to
                  > admire. But the influence of Husserl's thought increased as its
                  > philosophical importance declined: hence the strange drop from
                  > Phenomenology to Existentialism.
                  >
                  > - Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy & Philosophers; entry
                  by
                  > J. N. Findlay, pp. 144-5
                  > Phenomenology
                  >
                  > There is a thin, blurred line separating phenomenology and
                  > existentialism. Edmund Husserl was the leading thinker in the
                  > Phenomenological Movement, influencing most future existentialists
                  > either directly or indirectly. Husserl's phenomenology was a
                  > descriptive analysis of subjective processes. He described it as the
                  > intuitive study of essences.
                  >
                  > According to Husserl, the goal of philosophy was to describe the
                  data
                  > of consciousness without bias or prejudice, ignoring all
                  metaphysical
                  > and scientific theories in order to accurately describe and analyze
                  > the data gathered by human senses and the mind. The students of
                  > Husserl summarized phenomenology as the study of "the things
                  themselves."
                  >
                  > The pursuit of essences was to be accomplished in phenomenology via
                  > three techniques: phenomenological reduction, eidetic reduction, and
                  > cognition analysis.
                  >
                  > Phenomenological reduction, according to Husserl's teachings, is the
                  > exclusion from consideration of everything which is transcendent and
                  > anything else derived via scientific or logical inference. A
                  > phenomenologist would consider only what was immediately presented
                  to
                  > consciousness. This is familiar to students of Jean-Paul Sartre, who
                  > suggested what you know of a person or item is all that you can
                  > evaluate. An object, even a person, is only what one sees and
                  > experiences of that object. The rest, Husserl suggested, was
                  > "bracketed out" from judgment. Husserl referred to this suspension
                  of
                  > judgment as epoché.
                  >
                  > As an example, via this theory, a color seen by one individual is
                  > known only to and by that one person. Measuring it scientifically,
                  > comparing to other colors, et cetera, do not truly change that what
                  > the individual sees is the only thing consciousness comprehends. The
                  > color experienced is the "pure phenomena", the scientific data are
                  > held in suspension, or epoché. Only the phenomenological knowledge
                  is
                  > certain, and then only to the individual.
                  >
                  > Husserl, like other saints, fell a victim to his own ecstasy: he was
                  > unable to come out of this transcendental suspension. The harmless
                  > "bracketing" of commonsense realities became the metaphysical thesis
                  > that they can have none but an "intentional" existence in and for
                  > consciousness. Husserl does not see that we cannot suspend a belief
                  if
                  > the belief suspended is meaningless.
                  >
                  > - Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy; Findlay, p. 145
                  >
                  > Hope this starts to highlight what is special about phenomenology
                  and
                  > existentialism: they are only concerned with what the individual
                  > experiences, not scientific explanations of experience. Everything
                  is
                  > for and of the individual. Groups exist only so far as the
                  individual
                  > allows them to exist and exert influence.
                  >
                  > We are only what we experience directly, according to Husserl. What
                  we
                  > accept, via bias and prejudice, is always filtered in ways science
                  > cannot explain. Also, most "old philosophies" are to be distrusted,
                  as
                  > they assumed there were "universals" while the phenoemonogist
                  rejects
                  > the notion of universal experiences.
                  >
                  > Everyone lives a different life. Universals are not possible; only
                  > similarities are. Husserl thought only "action" mattered -- being
                  > involved and active in life. You might call this "taking a stand" or
                  > "fighting" for your self and your existence.
                  >
                  > Sadly, his student Martin Heidegger removed him from his teaching
                  > post. Husserl fell victim to the ultimate "group" thought -- the
                  Nazi
                  > movement. Heidegger was foolish enough to think the could "correct"
                  > the Nazi movement from whithin the party. (Heidegger ended up in
                  > trouble, too, and then isolated from people on both sides of the
                  war.)
                  >
                  > - CSW
                • Mary Jo Malo
                  What s a good example?? - eduard The Blue Rose Project is cathartic and asks one to drop all preconceived ideas about phenomena. Furthermore, it suggests the
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jan 14, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "What's a good example??" - eduard

                    The Blue Rose Project is cathartic and asks one to drop all
                    preconceived ideas about phenomena. Furthermore, it suggests the
                    underlying structure and relationship between each human who is
                    observing the same thing. To read the work one can't be doxastic. It
                    is neither scientific nor metaphysical. Despite your opinion of it,
                    eduard, it has been received more favorably in other groups.

                    Mary Jo
                  • eduard at home
                    ... From: Mary Jo Malo To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:04 PM Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology What s a good
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jan 14, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Mary Jo Malo
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:04 PM
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology


                      "What's a good example??" - eduard

                      The Blue Rose Project is cathartic and asks one to drop all
                      preconceived ideas about phenomena. Furthermore, it suggests the
                      underlying structure and relationship between each human who is
                      observing the same thing. To read the work one can't be doxastic. It
                      is neither scientific nor metaphysical. Despite your opinion of it,
                      eduard, it has been received more favorably in other groups.

                      Mary Jo




                      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • eduard at home
                      Folks, Sorry ... I hit the button too soon again. I have read everyone s reply and, just as I expected, you have given me a lot of information, yet I am no
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jan 14, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Folks,

                        Sorry ... I hit the button too soon again.

                        I have read everyone's reply and, just as I expected, you have given me a lot of information, yet I am no further ahead.

                        So lets try this again.

                        In each of the replies there seems to be this need to qualify phenomenology as not being something else. Especially, not being "scientific nor metaphysical". I think this only confuses the issue.

                        It would seem that Vexlab gets closest to modern language, so I will start with that.

                        The difficulty that I have with Vexlab's explanation is that he seems argue both sides and I am not sure which side is phenomenology.

                        Lets say I roll a die, and I observe it when stopped. I can see the side with one dot, but I know from experience that there are five other sides. And subjectively, I know that the die has a certain weight, in comparison with other objects that I may have handled.

                        All of this is in my mind when I look at the stopped die. So what are the things that phenomenology wishes to eliminate?? Does it say that, from the perspective of the individual, the valid observation is of the one dot side, or all 3D aspects of the object?? And if something is eliminated, why is this important??

                        eduard


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: vexlab
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:11 PM
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology


                        Thanks for the nice question. I will explain it the way i understand
                        it:

                        Phenomenology makes observations on subtle aspects of human
                        experience. These are aspects which everyone could notice and admit,
                        had they paid attention to them. But since these aspects are subtle,
                        they remain unnoticed. Phenomenlogy aims to make us notice - to bring
                        to awareness - these aspects. The investigator phenomenologist has to
                        identify them and discribe them in words.

                        For example, you see a die. What are the subtle aspects of this
                        experience? Here are some:
                        You 'see' more than it 'shows:' The perceptual input that comes to
                        you reveals the visible part of the surface of the die, but your
                        consciousness nevertheless 'sees' a 3D object, rather than just a
                        surface.

                        Further, implicit in the experience is the expectation of what you
                        would see if you were to move slightly to the left or right. That is,
                        you have implicit expectation of what the presently invisible part of
                        the die would look like.

                        Also, if you were to roll the die on the floor, you would have the
                        implicit anticipation that the sound of its rolling would fade away
                        as the die rolls farther away, rather than the opposite.

                        Of course, it not new to physics that the sound would fade away as
                        the object making the sound moves farther away from us. The
                        interesting, however, from a phenomenological perspective, is that
                        even a man who has never studied physics still intuitively knows that
                        the sound would fade away. He has learned this in experience. He has
                        an intuitive, implicit anticipation of this. We all have these
                        implicit anticipations, and they affect our overall impression of the
                        objects, even if we don't reflect on them.

                        I think Husserl aimed, first of all, to reflect all such intuitive
                        knowledge, implicit in the ordinary perception of objects. In this
                        way he would show how the ordinary individual, by reflection on his
                        subjective experience, arrives at descriptions that science has
                        already described in its own way.

                        Science describes (and explains) phenomena abstractly, in terms of
                        mathematical equations and specific terminlogy which only the
                        specialist scientist can understand. Every individual, however, still
                        has some intuitive understanding of the natural phenomena, and has
                        developed it from experience. Husserl perhaps wanted to reconnect the
                        abstract scientific explanations with the ordinary intuitive
                        knowledge of everyone. Because the starting point of any scientific
                        inquiry is the realm of ordinary intuitive realm of everyone.

                        He thought this whole thing was necessary because of what he
                        perceived as 'The crisis of the european sciences': the sciences
                        producing great technical advancement but not giving enough to
                        explicate the existential questions of all people.

                        Thanks,
                        V.L.



                        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Mary Jo Malo
                        eduard, Good questions. I think this is a case that does require reductionist thinking. It s just simpler than we re trying to make it. We don t have to
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jan 15, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          eduard,

                          Good questions. I think this is a case that does require reductionist
                          thinking. It's just simpler than we're trying to make it. We don't
                          have to eliminate anything about our perceiving the dice. However,
                          when it comes to overly complicated philosophies about the nature of
                          consciousness, we probably need to go through some eliminative
                          processes.

                          The questions raised in phenomenology are fundamental to our
                          existence. How do we know what's real? Are you seeing what I'm
                          seeing? Without language how could we know anything? Using terms like
                          qualia, inventing hypothetical zombies (Chalmers, Turing, Deutsch))
                          and additional vocabulary such as "heterophenomenology" (Dennett)
                          only move us horizontally in our attempts to explain consciousness
                          (neural or metaphysical -whatever your cup of tea). Secular Buddhism
                          has been promoting phenomenology for centuries and seems satisfied
                          with its conclusions.

                          It seems to me that our brains have evolved a nifty system of
                          perception that includes the use of language. I think we're still
                          perfecting how we perceive and communicate. The answers may be so
                          simple we dismiss them. As we've said before, mental disease aside,
                          there are certain things we can agree upon as common perceptions.
                          There are objects we have named. There are feelings about these
                          objects. We discuss these.

                          Consciousness is neural, but what does that really mean? You can't
                          have consciousness without DNA, and you can't have DNA without
                          consciousness. This life is where it happens. If we accept simple
                          humanity, its common perceptions, improve language and improve
                          scientific approaches, we'll keep moving on as a species.
                          Individually, I don't know how we transfer what we learn other than
                          memetics. The Darwinians say genetics aren't Lamarckian, but over
                          time the meme certainly affects the gene. We consciously change our
                          environment in which our genes must learn to survive. This is the
                          power of consciousness. It had better learn to comprehend itself.

                          Being is Only. Only's communicate. You are. I am. What's the problem?
                          What's real?

                          Mary Jo


                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote:
                          > Folks,
                          >
                          > Sorry ... I hit the button too soon again.
                          >
                          > I have read everyone's reply and, just as I expected, you have
                          given me a lot of information, yet I am no further ahead.
                          >
                          > So lets try this again.
                          >
                          > In each of the replies there seems to be this need to qualify
                          phenomenology as not being something else. Especially, not
                          being "scientific nor metaphysical". I think this only confuses the
                          issue.
                          >
                          > It would seem that Vexlab gets closest to modern language, so I
                          will start with that.
                          >
                          > The difficulty that I have with Vexlab's explanation is that he
                          seems argue both sides and I am not sure which side is phenomenology.
                          >
                          > Lets say I roll a die, and I observe it when stopped. I can see
                          the side with one dot, but I know from experience that there are five
                          other sides. And subjectively, I know that the die has a certain
                          weight, in comparison with other objects that I may have handled.
                          >
                          > All of this is in my mind when I look at the stopped die. So what
                          are the things that phenomenology wishes to eliminate?? Does it say
                          that, from the perspective of the individual, the valid observation
                          is of the one dot side, or all 3D aspects of the object?? And if
                          something is eliminated, why is this important??
                          >
                          > eduard
                          >
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: vexlab
                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:11 PM
                          > Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology
                          >
                          >
                          > Thanks for the nice question. I will explain it the way i
                          understand
                          > it:
                          >
                          > Phenomenology makes observations on subtle aspects of human
                          > experience. These are aspects which everyone could notice and
                          admit,
                          > had they paid attention to them. But since these aspects are
                          subtle,
                          > they remain unnoticed. Phenomenlogy aims to make us notice - to
                          bring
                          > to awareness - these aspects. The investigator phenomenologist
                          has to
                          > identify them and discribe them in words.
                          >
                          > For example, you see a die. What are the subtle aspects of this
                          > experience? Here are some:
                          > You 'see' more than it 'shows:' The perceptual input that comes
                          to
                          > you reveals the visible part of the surface of the die, but your
                          > consciousness nevertheless 'sees' a 3D object, rather than just a
                          > surface.
                          >
                          > Further, implicit in the experience is the expectation of what
                          you
                          > would see if you were to move slightly to the left or right. That
                          is,
                          > you have implicit expectation of what the presently invisible
                          part of
                          > the die would look like.
                          >
                          > Also, if you were to roll the die on the floor, you would have
                          the
                          > implicit anticipation that the sound of its rolling would fade
                          away
                          > as the die rolls farther away, rather than the opposite.
                          >
                          > Of course, it not new to physics that the sound would fade away
                          as
                          > the object making the sound moves farther away from us. The
                          > interesting, however, from a phenomenological perspective, is
                          that
                          > even a man who has never studied physics still intuitively knows
                          that
                          > the sound would fade away. He has learned this in experience. He
                          has
                          > an intuitive, implicit anticipation of this. We all have these
                          > implicit anticipations, and they affect our overall impression of
                          the
                          > objects, even if we don't reflect on them.
                          >
                          > I think Husserl aimed, first of all, to reflect all such
                          intuitive
                          > knowledge, implicit in the ordinary perception of objects. In
                          this
                          > way he would show how the ordinary individual, by reflection on
                          his
                          > subjective experience, arrives at descriptions that science has
                          > already described in its own way.
                          >
                          > Science describes (and explains) phenomena abstractly, in terms
                          of
                          > mathematical equations and specific terminlogy which only the
                          > specialist scientist can understand. Every individual, however,
                          still
                          > has some intuitive understanding of the natural phenomena, and
                          has
                          > developed it from experience. Husserl perhaps wanted to reconnect
                          the
                          > abstract scientific explanations with the ordinary intuitive
                          > knowledge of everyone. Because the starting point of any
                          scientific
                          > inquiry is the realm of ordinary intuitive realm of everyone.
                          >
                          > He thought this whole thing was necessary because of what he
                          > perceived as 'The crisis of the european sciences': the sciences
                          > producing great technical advancement but not giving enough to
                          > explicate the existential questions of all people.
                          >
                          > Thanks,
                          > V.L.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                          > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                          >
                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • eduard at home
                          Mary Jo, With respect to, how do we know what s real , it would seem to me that this is already [at least today] well known. We never know what is real,
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jan 15, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Mary Jo,

                            With respect to, "how do we know what's real", it would seem to me that this is already [at least today] well known. We never know what is real, since all we can do is to make an interpretation from our senses and our past experience. We cant know a 3D die, since the only thing we have to work from, is two dimensional picture that is projected onto our retina. And even then, it is transposed to the brain in the form of pixels. The best that we can do is to try to get as many views of the die as possible so that our guess* is more refined.

                            Dead philosophers, such as Husserl, may not have been as aware of this process in the brain. Just as the ancient Greeks thought that we see by means of rays that exit from our eyes and examine an object in a way similar to touch. Some of the Greek thinking is still in our language ... such "he is undressing me with his eyes".

                            Anyway, I am still not sure of what phenomenology is all about. What is included in this philosophy?? Are we saying that awareness includes the subjective?? Or are we saying that the subjective [experience, training, etc.] are removed and we are only considering those essences which are available to the brain?? If it is the latter, then it would seem that phenomenology is not much different than current thinking that is known to any highschool student. Perhaps we have advanced such that an innovative concepts of Husserl's time are now just common knowledge.

                            eduard
                            trying not to freeze his neurons today ...
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Mary Jo Malo
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:05 AM
                            Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology


                            eduard,

                            Good questions. I think this is a case that does require reductionist
                            thinking. It's just simpler than we're trying to make it. We don't
                            have to eliminate anything about our perceiving the dice. However,
                            when it comes to overly complicated philosophies about the nature of
                            consciousness, we probably need to go through some eliminative
                            processes.

                            The questions raised in phenomenology are fundamental to our
                            existence. How do we know what's real? Are you seeing what I'm
                            seeing? Without language how could we know anything? Using terms like
                            qualia, inventing hypothetical zombies (Chalmers, Turing, Deutsch))
                            and additional vocabulary such as "heterophenomenology" (Dennett)
                            only move us horizontally in our attempts to explain consciousness
                            (neural or metaphysical -whatever your cup of tea). Secular Buddhism
                            has been promoting phenomenology for centuries and seems satisfied
                            with its conclusions.

                            It seems to me that our brains have evolved a nifty system of
                            perception that includes the use of language. I think we're still
                            perfecting how we perceive and communicate. The answers may be so
                            simple we dismiss them. As we've said before, mental disease aside,
                            there are certain things we can agree upon as common perceptions.
                            There are objects we have named. There are feelings about these
                            objects. We discuss these.

                            Consciousness is neural, but what does that really mean? You can't
                            have consciousness without DNA, and you can't have DNA without
                            consciousness. This life is where it happens. If we accept simple
                            humanity, its common perceptions, improve language and improve
                            scientific approaches, we'll keep moving on as a species.
                            Individually, I don't know how we transfer what we learn other than
                            memetics. The Darwinians say genetics aren't Lamarckian, but over
                            time the meme certainly affects the gene. We consciously change our
                            environment in which our genes must learn to survive. This is the
                            power of consciousness. It had better learn to comprehend itself.

                            Being is Only. Only's communicate. You are. I am. What's the problem?
                            What's real?

                            Mary Jo


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Mary Jo Malo
                            eduard, You re probably right in saying that phenomenology is passe, possibly useless. Maybe it s more relevant to ask what it is that we need to know? What
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jan 15, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              eduard,

                              You're probably right in saying that phenomenology is passe, possibly
                              useless. Maybe it's more relevant to ask what it is that we need to
                              know? What should we know? - not the description of the objects, but
                              how utilitarian they are. How do they help us to communicate more
                              effectively? Perhaps we need both the utilitarian and the beautiful.
                              The cosmos seems a thing of joy and terror. People reflect this
                              truth. Questions about knowing take us into epistemology. The only
                              thing I have to say about epistemology is that common ground or the
                              objects we perceive give us an "epistemic horizon". We see, we know,
                              we communicate.

                              Mary Jo

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote:
                              > Mary Jo,
                              >
                              > With respect to, "how do we know what's real", it would seem to me
                              that this is already [at least today] well known. We never know what
                              is real, since all we can do is to make an interpretation from our
                              senses and our past experience. We cant know a 3D die, since the
                              only thing we have to work from, is two dimensional picture that is
                              projected onto our retina. And even then, it is transposed to the
                              brain in the form of pixels. The best that we can do is to try to
                              get as many views of the die as possible so that our guess* is more
                              refined.
                              >
                              > Dead philosophers, such as Husserl, may not have been as aware of
                              this process in the brain. Just as the ancient Greeks thought that
                              we see by means of rays that exit from our eyes and examine an object
                              in a way similar to touch. Some of the Greek thinking is still in
                              our language ... such "he is undressing me with his eyes".
                              >
                              > Anyway, I am still not sure of what phenomenology is all about.
                              What is included in this philosophy?? Are we saying that awareness
                              includes the subjective?? Or are we saying that the subjective
                              [experience, training, etc.] are removed and we are only considering
                              those essences which are available to the brain?? If it is the
                              latter, then it would seem that phenomenology is not much different
                              than current thinking that is known to any highschool student.
                              Perhaps we have advanced such that an innovative concepts of
                              Husserl's time are now just common knowledge.
                              >
                              > eduard
                              > trying not to freeze his neurons today ...
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              > From: Mary Jo Malo
                              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:05 AM
                              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology
                              >
                              >
                              > eduard,
                              >
                              > Good questions. I think this is a case that does require
                              reductionist
                              > thinking. It's just simpler than we're trying to make it. We
                              don't
                              > have to eliminate anything about our perceiving the dice.
                              However,
                              > when it comes to overly complicated philosophies about the nature
                              of
                              > consciousness, we probably need to go through some eliminative
                              > processes.
                              >
                              > The questions raised in phenomenology are fundamental to our
                              > existence. How do we know what's real? Are you seeing what I'm
                              > seeing? Without language how could we know anything? Using terms
                              like
                              > qualia, inventing hypothetical zombies (Chalmers, Turing,
                              Deutsch))
                              > and additional vocabulary such as "heterophenomenology"
                              (Dennett)
                              > only move us horizontally in our attempts to explain
                              consciousness
                              > (neural or metaphysical -whatever your cup of tea). Secular
                              Buddhism
                              > has been promoting phenomenology for centuries and seems
                              satisfied
                              > with its conclusions.
                              >
                              > It seems to me that our brains have evolved a nifty system of
                              > perception that includes the use of language. I think we're still
                              > perfecting how we perceive and communicate. The answers may be so
                              > simple we dismiss them. As we've said before, mental disease
                              aside,
                              > there are certain things we can agree upon as common perceptions.
                              > There are objects we have named. There are feelings about these
                              > objects. We discuss these.
                              >
                              > Consciousness is neural, but what does that really mean? You
                              can't
                              > have consciousness without DNA, and you can't have DNA without
                              > consciousness. This life is where it happens. If we accept simple
                              > humanity, its common perceptions, improve language and improve
                              > scientific approaches, we'll keep moving on as a species.
                              > Individually, I don't know how we transfer what we learn other
                              than
                              > memetics. The Darwinians say genetics aren't Lamarckian, but over
                              > time the meme certainly affects the gene. We consciously change
                              our
                              > environment in which our genes must learn to survive. This is the
                              > power of consciousness. It had better learn to comprehend itself.
                              >
                              > Being is Only. Only's communicate. You are. I am. What's the
                              problem?
                              > What's real?
                              >
                              > Mary Jo
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • eduard at home
                              Mary Jo, I didn t say that phenomenology is passé or useless. Particularly since I still don t know what it is. I was only suggesting that if it is
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jan 15, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mary Jo,

                                I didn't say that phenomenology is passé or useless. Particularly since I still don't know what it is. I was only suggesting that if it is something to do with the way the brain "sees" things, then this has become common knowledge in this era of the 21st century.

                                eduard
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Mary Jo Malo
                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:40 AM
                                Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology


                                eduard,

                                You're probably right in saying that phenomenology is passe, possibly
                                useless. Maybe it's more relevant to ask what it is that we need to
                                know? What should we know? - not the description of the objects, but
                                how utilitarian they are. How do they help us to communicate more
                                effectively? Perhaps we need both the utilitarian and the beautiful.
                                The cosmos seems a thing of joy and terror. People reflect this
                                truth. Questions about knowing take us into epistemology. The only
                                thing I have to say about epistemology is that common ground or the
                                objects we perceive give us an "epistemic horizon". We see, we know,
                                we communicate.

                                Mary Jo

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Lorna Landry
                                Eduard, I think the only thing phenomenology eliminates (the technical term is bracket ) is the existence of the die. Phenomenology asks not whether or not
                                Message 15 of 27 , Jan 15, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Eduard,

                                  I think the only thing phenomenology eliminates (the technical term is 'bracket') is the existence of the die. Phenomenology asks not whether or not the die exists, but how it presents itself to us - our experience of it.



                                  eduard at home <yeoman@...> wrote: Folks,


                                  All of this is in my mind when I look at the stopped die. So what are the things that phenomenology wishes to eliminate?? Does it say that, from the perspective of the individual, the valid observation is of the one dot side, or all 3D aspects of the object?? And if something is eliminated, why is this important??

                                  eduard


                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: vexlab
                                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:11 PM
                                  Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology


                                  Thanks for the nice question. I will explain it the way i understand
                                  it:

                                  Phenomenology makes observations on subtle aspects of human
                                  experience. These are aspects which everyone could notice and admit,
                                  had they paid attention to them. But since these aspects are subtle,
                                  they remain unnoticed. Phenomenlogy aims to make us notice - to bring
                                  to awareness - these aspects. The investigator phenomenologist has to
                                  identify them and discribe them in words.

                                  For example, you see a die. What are the subtle aspects of this
                                  experience? Here are some:
                                  You 'see' more than it 'shows:' The perceptual input that comes to
                                  you reveals the visible part of the surface of the die, but your
                                  consciousness nevertheless 'sees' a 3D object, rather than just a
                                  surface.

                                  Further, implicit in the experience is the expectation of what you
                                  would see if you were to move slightly to the left or right. That is,
                                  you have implicit expectation of what the presently invisible part of
                                  the die would look like.

                                  Also, if you were to roll the die on the floor, you would have the
                                  implicit anticipation that the sound of its rolling would fade away
                                  as the die rolls farther away, rather than the opposite.

                                  Of course, it not new to physics that the sound would fade away as
                                  the object making the sound moves farther away from us. The
                                  interesting, however, from a phenomenological perspective, is that
                                  even a man who has never studied physics still intuitively knows that
                                  the sound would fade away. He has learned this in experience. He has
                                  an intuitive, implicit anticipation of this. We all have these
                                  implicit anticipations, and they affect our overall impression of the
                                  objects, even if we don't reflect on them.

                                  I think Husserl aimed, first of all, to reflect all such intuitive
                                  knowledge, implicit in the ordinary perception of objects. In this
                                  way he would show how the ordinary individual, by reflection on his
                                  subjective experience, arrives at descriptions that science has
                                  already described in its own way.

                                  Science describes (and explains) phenomena abstractly, in terms of
                                  mathematical equations and specific terminlogy which only the
                                  specialist scientist can understand. Every individual, however, still
                                  has some intuitive understanding of the natural phenomena, and has
                                  developed it from experience. Husserl perhaps wanted to reconnect the
                                  abstract scientific explanations with the ordinary intuitive
                                  knowledge of everyone. Because the starting point of any scientific
                                  inquiry is the realm of ordinary intuitive realm of everyone.

                                  He thought this whole thing was necessary because of what he
                                  perceived as 'The crisis of the european sciences': the sciences
                                  producing great technical advancement but not giving enough to
                                  explicate the existential questions of all people.

                                  Thanks,
                                  V.L.



                                  Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                  (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                                  To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                                  Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                  (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                                  To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • vexlab
                                  Eduard, thanks you for your response. I think Husserl did not mean to contest the truth of the existing scientific theories, but wanted to situate them in the
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Jan 15, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Eduard, thanks you for your response.
                                    I think Husserl did not mean to contest the truth of the existing
                                    scientific theories, but wanted to situate them in the context of the
                                    existential concerns of ordinary people. The problem for him was
                                    perhaps that, although the sciences were supposed to enlighten people
                                    and bring true vision, they somehow failed to fullfill that role,
                                    because people sought direction in irrational teachings like religion
                                    and mysticism. The sciences brought technical progress, but less
                                    regarding other things that are just as essential in ones life. And
                                    the sciences were not OPEN t discover those other essential things.
                                    Maybe he thought that the reason for this was that the sciences did
                                    not have the adequate starting point that would lead them to discover
                                    the kind of knowledge people really needed. And he sought the
                                    adequate starting point through his phenomenological method. The
                                    method seeks to reveal how the ordinary individual intuitively knows
                                    things like the wholeness of the die (things we intuitively know from
                                    experience). He wanted to reflect on all such kind of intuitions and
                                    then express the starting point for the sciences in terms of those
                                    intuitions.
                                    I think he wouldn't then wish to reformulate existing scientific
                                    theories, but perhaps complement them with something that would
                                    assist in finding a direction for future inquiry that is more in line
                                    with the needs of people.
                                  • vexlab
                                    As for a particular existential dilemma where we seek to define the real, and for which the phenomenolgical apprach may help, i suggest the following: A person
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Jan 15, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      As for a particular existential dilemma where we seek to define the
                                      real, and for which the phenomenolgical apprach may help, i suggest
                                      the following:

                                      A person with a psychological disorder perceives a distorted picture
                                      of reality. He may tend to be to suspicious of how others perceive
                                      him, have a distorted self-image, tend to exhagerate etc. We know,
                                      however, that there is no perfectly healthy individual. Everyone has
                                      slight features of the various personal disorders. Everyone is
                                      conditioned to perceive nuances differently. How is he aided then in
                                      his aim for correct assessment? So far we have learned to assess our
                                      situations intuitively, on the base of our previous experience in
                                      life. Husserl perhaps aimed, by reflection on those intuitive ways
                                      that we have already, to clarify the dirrection of any future inquiry
                                      for self knowledge.

                                      Thanks,
                                      V.L.
                                    • eduard at home
                                      Vexlab,
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Jan 15, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Vexlab,

                                        <<< The method seeks to reveal how the ordinary individual intuitively knows
                                        things like the wholeness of the die (things we intuitively know from
                                        experience). He wanted to reflect on all such kind of intuitions and
                                        then express the starting point for the sciences in terms of those
                                        intuitions. >>>

                                        ---> But isnt that already known?? What is special about it?? Everyone has their own subjective judgement of things and this is coloured by their experience.

                                        The definition by Encyclopedia Britannica is:

                                        "a 20th-century philosophical movement, the primary objective of which is the direct investigation and description of phenomena as consciously [the perception of what passes in a man's own mind."] experienced, without theories about their causal explanation and as free as possible from unexamined preconceptions and presuppositions."

                                        I am not further ahead in understanding what this means ...

                                        eduard
                                        ... whose neurons are confused ... but happy ...


                                        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                                        To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • eduard at home
                                        Vexlab, I don t think that anything is really intuitive, in the sense that our decisions are always based upon something. I realise that many people will say
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Jan 15, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Vexlab,

                                          I don't think that anything is really intuitive, in the sense that our decisions are always based upon something. I realise that many people will say that there is such a thing. But my feeling is that this arises because someone happens to make a lucky choice. When the congratulations are made, he/she usually says something like, "I don't know what made me do it ... I just had a gut feeling".

                                          But I suspect that this sort of conclusion [that intuition is real] is due to filtering out all those intuitive choices which were not successful. I mean ... it is hardly likely that would hold up to example, some guy who intuitively thought he could fly off a 12 story building.

                                          eduard
                                          ... who knows he cant fly, but his neurons are happy anyway
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: vexlab
                                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:44 PM
                                          Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology


                                          As for a particular existential dilemma where we seek to define the
                                          real, and for which the phenomenolgical apprach may help, i suggest
                                          the following:

                                          A person with a psychological disorder perceives a distorted picture
                                          of reality. He may tend to be to suspicious of how others perceive
                                          him, have a distorted self-image, tend to exhagerate etc. We know,
                                          however, that there is no perfectly healthy individual. Everyone has
                                          slight features of the various personal disorders. Everyone is
                                          conditioned to perceive nuances differently. How is he aided then in
                                          his aim for correct assessment? So far we have learned to assess our
                                          situations intuitively, on the base of our previous experience in
                                          life. Husserl perhaps aimed, by reflection on those intuitive ways
                                          that we have already, to clarify the dirrection of any future inquiry
                                          for self knowledge.

                                          Thanks,
                                          V.L.



                                          Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                          (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                                          To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                          existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Mary Jo Malo
                                          Lorna, That s concise and understandable. I wonder if how objects exist is just as important as why they exist? Science answers the how, and I suppose
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Jan 16, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Lorna,

                                            That's concise and understandable. I wonder if "how" objects exist is
                                            just as important as "why" they exist? Science answers the how, and I
                                            suppose philosophy might explain why.

                                            Jo


                                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Lorna Landry <lornalandry@y...>
                                            wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Eduard,
                                            >
                                            > I think the only thing phenomenology eliminates (the technical term
                                            is 'bracket') is the existence of the die. Phenomenology asks not
                                            whether or not the die exists, but how it presents itself to us - our
                                            experience of it.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote: Folks,
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > All of this is in my mind when I look at the stopped die. So what
                                            are the things that phenomenology wishes to eliminate?? Does it say
                                            that, from the perspective of the individual, the valid observation
                                            is of the one dot side, or all 3D aspects of the object?? And if
                                            something is eliminated, why is this important??
                                            >
                                            > eduard
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ----- Original Message -----
                                            > From: vexlab
                                            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:11 PM
                                            > Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Thanks for the nice question. I will explain it the way i
                                            understand
                                            > it:
                                            >
                                            > Phenomenology makes observations on subtle aspects of human
                                            > experience. These are aspects which everyone could notice and
                                            admit,
                                            > had they paid attention to them. But since these aspects are
                                            subtle,
                                            > they remain unnoticed. Phenomenlogy aims to make us notice - to
                                            bring
                                            > to awareness - these aspects. The investigator phenomenologist has
                                            to
                                            > identify them and discribe them in words.
                                            >
                                            > For example, you see a die. What are the subtle aspects of this
                                            > experience? Here are some:
                                            > You 'see' more than it 'shows:' The perceptual input that comes to
                                            > you reveals the visible part of the surface of the die, but your
                                            > consciousness nevertheless 'sees' a 3D object, rather than just a
                                            > surface.
                                            >
                                            > Further, implicit in the experience is the expectation of what you
                                            > would see if you were to move slightly to the left or right. That
                                            is,
                                            > you have implicit expectation of what the presently invisible part
                                            of
                                            > the die would look like.
                                            >
                                            > Also, if you were to roll the die on the floor, you would have the
                                            > implicit anticipation that the sound of its rolling would fade away
                                            > as the die rolls farther away, rather than the opposite.
                                            >
                                            > Of course, it not new to physics that the sound would fade away as
                                            > the object making the sound moves farther away from us. The
                                            > interesting, however, from a phenomenological perspective, is that
                                            > even a man who has never studied physics still intuitively knows
                                            that
                                            > the sound would fade away. He has learned this in experience. He
                                            has
                                            > an intuitive, implicit anticipation of this. We all have these
                                            > implicit anticipations, and they affect our overall impression of
                                            the
                                            > objects, even if we don't reflect on them.
                                            >
                                            > I think Husserl aimed, first of all, to reflect all such intuitive
                                            > knowledge, implicit in the ordinary perception of objects. In this
                                            > way he would show how the ordinary individual, by reflection on his
                                            > subjective experience, arrives at descriptions that science has
                                            > already described in its own way.
                                            >
                                            > Science describes (and explains) phenomena abstractly, in terms of
                                            > mathematical equations and specific terminlogy which only the
                                            > specialist scientist can understand. Every individual, however,
                                            still
                                            > has some intuitive understanding of the natural phenomena, and has
                                            > developed it from experience. Husserl perhaps wanted to reconnect
                                            the
                                            > abstract scientific explanations with the ordinary intuitive
                                            > knowledge of everyone. Because the starting point of any scientific
                                            > inquiry is the realm of ordinary intuitive realm of everyone.
                                            >
                                            > He thought this whole thing was necessary because of what he
                                            > perceived as 'The crisis of the european sciences': the sciences
                                            > producing great technical advancement but not giving enough to
                                            > explicate the existential questions of all people.
                                            >
                                            > Thanks,
                                            > V.L.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                            > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                                            >
                                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                                            >
                                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                            > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                            >
                                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                            > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                                            >
                                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                                            >
                                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                            > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                            >
                                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ---------------------------------
                                            > Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Lorna Landry
                                            I think they are both important Mary jo, but one (the how) has an answer and the other (the why) seems impossible to answer (at least in any objective,
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Jan 16, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I think they are both important Mary jo, but one (the how) has an answer and the other (the why) seems impossible to answer (at least in any objective, scientific way). We can always analyse the mode of being of any given object, but when I ask why does it exist, I am left with a big I DON'T KNOW.

                                              Lorna

                                              Mary Jo Malo <alcyon11@...> wrote: Lorna,

                                              That's concise and understandable. I wonder if "how" objects exist is
                                              just as important as "why" they exist? Science answers the how, and I
                                              suppose philosophy might explain why.

                                              Jo


                                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Lorna Landry
                                              wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Eduard,
                                              >
                                              > I think the only thing phenomenology eliminates (the technical term
                                              is 'bracket') is the existence of the die. Phenomenology asks not
                                              whether or not the die exists, but how it presents itself to us - our
                                              experience of it.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > eduard at home wrote: Folks,
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > All of this is in my mind when I look at the stopped die. So what
                                              are the things that phenomenology wishes to eliminate?? Does it say
                                              that, from the perspective of the individual, the valid observation
                                              is of the one dot side, or all 3D aspects of the object?? And if
                                              something is eliminated, why is this important??
                                              >
                                              > eduard
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ----- Original Message -----
                                              > From: vexlab
                                              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:11 PM
                                              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Thanks for the nice question. I will explain it the way i
                                              understand
                                              > it:
                                              >
                                              > Phenomenology makes observations on subtle aspects of human
                                              > experience. These are aspects which everyone could notice and
                                              admit,
                                              > had they paid attention to them. But since these aspects are
                                              subtle,
                                              > they remain unnoticed. Phenomenlogy aims to make us notice - to
                                              bring
                                              > to awareness - these aspects. The investigator phenomenologist has
                                              to
                                              > identify them and discribe them in words.
                                              >
                                              > For example, you see a die. What are the subtle aspects of this
                                              > experience? Here are some:
                                              > You 'see' more than it 'shows:' The perceptual input that comes to
                                              > you reveals the visible part of the surface of the die, but your
                                              > consciousness nevertheless 'sees' a 3D object, rather than just a
                                              > surface.
                                              >
                                              > Further, implicit in the experience is the expectation of what you
                                              > would see if you were to move slightly to the left or right. That
                                              is,
                                              > you have implicit expectation of what the presently invisible part
                                              of
                                              > the die would look like.
                                              >
                                              > Also, if you were to roll the die on the floor, you would have the
                                              > implicit anticipation that the sound of its rolling would fade away
                                              > as the die rolls farther away, rather than the opposite.
                                              >
                                              > Of course, it not new to physics that the sound would fade away as
                                              > the object making the sound moves farther away from us. The
                                              > interesting, however, from a phenomenological perspective, is that
                                              > even a man who has never studied physics still intuitively knows
                                              that
                                              > the sound would fade away. He has learned this in experience. He
                                              has
                                              > an intuitive, implicit anticipation of this. We all have these
                                              > implicit anticipations, and they affect our overall impression of
                                              the
                                              > objects, even if we don't reflect on them.
                                              >
                                              > I think Husserl aimed, first of all, to reflect all such intuitive
                                              > knowledge, implicit in the ordinary perception of objects. In this
                                              > way he would show how the ordinary individual, by reflection on his
                                              > subjective experience, arrives at descriptions that science has
                                              > already described in its own way.
                                              >
                                              > Science describes (and explains) phenomena abstractly, in terms of
                                              > mathematical equations and specific terminlogy which only the
                                              > specialist scientist can understand. Every individual, however,
                                              still
                                              > has some intuitive understanding of the natural phenomena, and has
                                              > developed it from experience. Husserl perhaps wanted to reconnect
                                              the
                                              > abstract scientific explanations with the ordinary intuitive
                                              > knowledge of everyone. Because the starting point of any scientific
                                              > inquiry is the realm of ordinary intuitive realm of everyone.
                                              >
                                              > He thought this whole thing was necessary because of what he
                                              > perceived as 'The crisis of the european sciences': the sciences
                                              > producing great technical advancement but not giving enough to
                                              > explicate the existential questions of all people.
                                              >
                                              > Thanks,
                                              > V.L.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                              > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                                              >
                                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                              > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                              >
                                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                              > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                                              >
                                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                              > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                              >
                                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ---------------------------------
                                              > Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                                              Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                              (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)


                                              Yahoo! Groups Links

                                              To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                              existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Mary Jo Malo
                                              I KNOW, me neither. I have some ideas about the why, but since I can t prove them, they just remain my ideas. I suppose we re all stuck all alone with our
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Jan 16, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I KNOW, me neither. I have some ideas about the why, but since I can't "prove" them, they just remain my ideas. I suppose we're all stuck all alone with our individual realities. Nonetheless, I agree that they are both important.

                                                Jo

                                                Lorna Landry <lornalandry@...> wrote:

                                                I think they are both important Mary jo, but one (the how) has an answer and the other (the why) seems impossible to answer (at least in any objective, scientific way). We can always analyse the mode of being of any given object, but when I ask why does it exist, I am left with a big I DON'T KNOW.

                                                Lorna

                                                Mary Jo Malo <alcyon11@...> wrote: Lorna,

                                                That's concise and understandable. I wonder if "how" objects exist is
                                                just as important as "why" they exist? Science answers the how, and I
                                                suppose philosophy might explain why.

                                                Jo


                                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Lorna Landry
                                                wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Eduard,
                                                >
                                                > I think the only thing phenomenology eliminates (the technical term
                                                is 'bracket') is the existence of the die. Phenomenology asks not
                                                whether or not the die exists, but how it presents itself to us - our
                                                experience of it.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > eduard at home wrote: Folks,
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > All of this is in my mind when I look at the stopped die. So what
                                                are the things that phenomenology wishes to eliminate?? Does it say
                                                that, from the perspective of the individual, the valid observation
                                                is of the one dot side, or all 3D aspects of the object?? And if
                                                something is eliminated, why is this important??
                                                >
                                                > eduard
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                                > From: vexlab
                                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:11 PM
                                                > Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Thanks for the nice question. I will explain it the way i
                                                understand
                                                > it:
                                                >
                                                > Phenomenology makes observations on subtle aspects of human
                                                > experience. These are aspects which everyone could notice and
                                                admit,
                                                > had they paid attention to them. But since these aspects are
                                                subtle,
                                                > they remain unnoticed. Phenomenlogy aims to make us notice - to
                                                bring
                                                > to awareness - these aspects. The investigator phenomenologist has
                                                to
                                                > identify them and discribe them in words.
                                                >
                                                > For example, you see a die. What are the subtle aspects of this
                                                > experience? Here are some:
                                                > You 'see' more than it 'shows:' The perceptual input that comes to
                                                > you reveals the visible part of the surface of the die, but your
                                                > consciousness nevertheless 'sees' a 3D object, rather than just a
                                                > surface.
                                                >
                                                > Further, implicit in the experience is the expectation of what you
                                                > would see if you were to move slightly to the left or right. That
                                                is,
                                                > you have implicit expectation of what the presently invisible part
                                                of
                                                > the die would look like.
                                                >
                                                > Also, if you were to roll the die on the floor, you would have the
                                                > implicit anticipation that the sound of its rolling would fade away
                                                > as the die rolls farther away, rather than the opposite.
                                                >
                                                > Of course, it not new to physics that the sound would fade away as
                                                > the object making the sound moves farther away from us. The
                                                > interesting, however, from a phenomenological perspective, is that
                                                > even a man who has never studied physics still intuitively knows
                                                that
                                                > the sound would fade away. He has learned this in experience. He
                                                has
                                                > an intuitive, implicit anticipation of this. We all have these
                                                > implicit anticipations, and they affect our overall impression of
                                                the
                                                > objects, even if we don't reflect on them.
                                                >
                                                > I think Husserl aimed, first of all, to reflect all such intuitive
                                                > knowledge, implicit in the ordinary perception of objects. In this
                                                > way he would show how the ordinary individual, by reflection on his
                                                > subjective experience, arrives at descriptions that science has
                                                > already described in its own way.
                                                >
                                                > Science describes (and explains) phenomena abstractly, in terms of
                                                > mathematical equations and specific terminlogy which only the
                                                > specialist scientist can understand. Every individual, however,
                                                still
                                                > has some intuitive understanding of the natural phenomena, and has
                                                > developed it from experience. Husserl perhaps wanted to reconnect
                                                the
                                                > abstract scientific explanations with the ordinary intuitive
                                                > knowledge of everyone. Because the starting point of any scientific
                                                > inquiry is the realm of ordinary intuitive realm of everyone.
                                                >
                                                > He thought this whole thing was necessary because of what he
                                                > perceived as 'The crisis of the european sciences': the sciences
                                                > producing great technical advancement but not giving enough to
                                                > explicate the existential questions of all people.
                                                >
                                                > Thanks,
                                                > V.L.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                                > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                                                >
                                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                                                >
                                                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                >
                                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                                > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                                                >
                                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                                                >
                                                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                >
                                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > ---------------------------------
                                                > Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                                                Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                                (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)


                                                Yahoo! Groups Links

                                                To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                                                ---------------------------------
                                                Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                                Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                                (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)


                                                Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                                                ---------------------------------
                                                Yahoo! Groups Links

                                                To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                                ---------------------------------
                                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                                Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • vexlab
                                                Eduard wrote I don t think that anything is really intuitive, in the sense that our decisions are always based upon something.[...] But I suspect that this
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Jan 17, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Eduard wrote >> I don't think that anything is really intuitive, in
                                                  the sense that our decisions are always based upon something.[...]
                                                  But I suspect that this sort of conclusion [that intuition is real]
                                                  is due to filtering out all those intuitive choices which were not
                                                  successful. <<

                                                  You wrote 'intuitive choices' ...i.e. we sense what are our options
                                                  in a situation, before we chose one, is this what you mean? I think
                                                  Husserl's clue is precisely that, in each situation, we 'intuitively'
                                                  know what are the options, or, more broadly speaking, what is
                                                  *possible. For example, you see the surface of the die,
                                                  but 'intuitively' know that it is a 3D figure, you intuitively know
                                                  what you will see of the die if you were to move slightly to the left
                                                  or to the right. The 'package,' - as you called it - of things
                                                  involved in your experience of the die includes this intuitive
                                                  knowing of what is possible, of what may happen.

                                                  And before you make a rational choice of anything, you already
                                                  intuitively know what are the possible options, and are choosing
                                                  among these. So, I think Husserl's conception of 'intuition' implies
                                                  precisely 'intuitive knowing of what is *possible'. He suggests that
                                                  any phenomenon is presented in our consciousness as a package of
                                                  intutive knowing of what is possible.

                                                  Now, from a scientific point of view, the die is a 3D physical object
                                                  with 6 sides etc., and any person has a package of implicit knowing
                                                  of these properties of the die simply because they have come to learn
                                                  them in their life experience.

                                                  Husserl prefers to take the point of view of the individual, i.e. the
                                                  point of view from which any object is a package of implicit knowing.
                                                  He thinks this point of view is the most genuine of all possible
                                                  points of view, it is the primary one, because even those who have
                                                  never studied science but have ever handled dice, still have a
                                                  package of implicit knowing about the die. This is how they
                                                  primarily 'know' a die. To know a die means primarily to have
                                                  implicit knowing about the look, the weight, the feel to the touch
                                                  etc. of the die. A child learns the scientic description of the die
                                                  long after he has come to know a die in that primary way and has
                                                  developed a package of implicit knowing.

                                                  But we can ask again, why - in the study of phenomena - shall we take
                                                  the point of view of the individual? Isn't the scientific description
                                                  of the die more *accurate?

                                                  I think, first of all, Husserl did not mean to contest the scientific
                                                  point of view in its validity. And he admited that the scientific way
                                                  of describing phenomena gives admirable results in the *natural
                                                  sciences. The success of science regarding technical progress in
                                                  indubitable. But science cannot explain other essential things like
                                                  the meaning of live and that is why people feel need for religiuos
                                                  and mystical teachings. Science is suited for technical progress but
                                                  it is not suited to provide satisfactory insight regarding the deep
                                                  existential questions like the meaning of life.

                                                  He believes we should nevertheless seek our truth, seek the meaning
                                                  of existence, seek the answers of the difficult questions to which
                                                  science is not suited to give an answer. And his suggestion is that
                                                  answers to these difficult questions can only be sought from the
                                                  point of view of the individual. Because from that point of view only
                                                  all meaning is what it is.

                                                  Thanks,
                                                  V.L.
                                                • eduard at home
                                                  V.L., Lets see if I can make a bit clearer explanation. What I was questioning was the term intuition . According to the dictionary intuition means, The act
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Jan 17, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    V.L.,

                                                    Lets see if I can make a bit clearer explanation.

                                                    What I was questioning was the term "intuition". According to the dictionary intuition means, "The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition".

                                                    This act of intuition is brought forth as a particular means of awareness. My point was that the success or reliability of this, as a valid process for thinking, is really a matter of ignoring all those cases where intuition has not been successful. For example, lets say that someone manages to find a particular book in the library. He may announce that it was found by intuition, and we put that down to a success. But what he doesn't announce that he has perhaps entered that library a thousand times and not found anything. Also that the book has become "particular" because it is found. If he had found some completely different book, yet of interest, that would define it as "particular". What I am getting at is that "intuition" isn't what we think it is.

                                                    I would suggest that "intuition" is random process; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

                                                    In any case, all thought ... even intuition ... involves the brain. Whether one wishes to say this is rational or irrational, it is still our neurons that are working.

                                                    On another issue, lets take a look at your statement of, "Isn't the scientific description of the die more *accurate?". What is the meaning of this?? Science is only method. A description of the die is simply a description, and should not be qualified with respect to science. The best that one might say is that science provides knowledge that we cant obtain through the normal use of our senses. If the die were on the moon, we would need a good telescope to see it.

                                                    I am getting to the point of thinking that if phenomenology is linked to Existentialism, then the thing that is being studied is not the manner in which we "know" something, but rather the "packet" of information which resides in our brains as a result of an observational encounter with an object.

                                                    eduard





                                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                                    From: vexlab
                                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 10:08 PM
                                                    Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology


                                                    Eduard wrote >> I don't think that anything is really intuitive, in
                                                    the sense that our decisions are always based upon something.[...]
                                                    But I suspect that this sort of conclusion [that intuition is real]
                                                    is due to filtering out all those intuitive choices which were not
                                                    successful. <<

                                                    You wrote 'intuitive choices' ...i.e. we sense what are our options
                                                    in a situation, before we chose one, is this what you mean? I think
                                                    Husserl's clue is precisely that, in each situation, we 'intuitively'
                                                    know what are the options, or, more broadly speaking, what is
                                                    *possible. For example, you see the surface of the die,
                                                    but 'intuitively' know that it is a 3D figure, you intuitively know
                                                    what you will see of the die if you were to move slightly to the left
                                                    or to the right. The 'package,' - as you called it - of things
                                                    involved in your experience of the die includes this intuitive
                                                    knowing of what is possible, of what may happen.

                                                    And before you make a rational choice of anything, you already
                                                    intuitively know what are the possible options, and are choosing
                                                    among these. So, I think Husserl's conception of 'intuition' implies
                                                    precisely 'intuitive knowing of what is *possible'. He suggests that
                                                    any phenomenon is presented in our consciousness as a package of
                                                    intutive knowing of what is possible.

                                                    Now, from a scientific point of view, the die is a 3D physical object
                                                    with 6 sides etc., and any person has a package of implicit knowing
                                                    of these properties of the die simply because they have come to learn
                                                    them in their life experience.

                                                    Husserl prefers to take the point of view of the individual, i.e. the
                                                    point of view from which any object is a package of implicit knowing.
                                                    He thinks this point of view is the most genuine of all possible
                                                    points of view, it is the primary one, because even those who have
                                                    never studied science but have ever handled dice, still have a
                                                    package of implicit knowing about the die. This is how they
                                                    primarily 'know' a die. To know a die means primarily to have
                                                    implicit knowing about the look, the weight, the feel to the touch
                                                    etc. of the die. A child learns the scientic description of the die
                                                    long after he has come to know a die in that primary way and has
                                                    developed a package of implicit knowing.

                                                    But we can ask again, why - in the study of phenomena - shall we take
                                                    the point of view of the individual? Isn't the scientific description
                                                    of the die more *accurate?

                                                    I think, first of all, Husserl did not mean to contest the scientific
                                                    point of view in its validity. And he admited that the scientific way
                                                    of describing phenomena gives admirable results in the *natural
                                                    sciences. The success of science regarding technical progress in
                                                    indubitable. But science cannot explain other essential things like
                                                    the meaning of live and that is why people feel need for religiuos
                                                    and mystical teachings. Science is suited for technical progress but
                                                    it is not suited to provide satisfactory insight regarding the deep
                                                    existential questions like the meaning of life.

                                                    He believes we should nevertheless seek our truth, seek the meaning
                                                    of existence, seek the answers of the difficult questions to which
                                                    science is not suited to give an answer. And his suggestion is that
                                                    answers to these difficult questions can only be sought from the
                                                    point of view of the individual. Because from that point of view only
                                                    all meaning is what it is.

                                                    Thanks,
                                                    V.L.


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • vexlab
                                                    Eduard, thank you for your comments. I suppose that the account of a person who claims to have found a book by intuition seems unjustified in the context of
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Jan 18, 2004
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Eduard, thank you for your comments. I suppose that the account of a
                                                      person who claims to have found a book by intuition seems unjustified
                                                      in the context of our heigh apprechiation of 'being aware' and making
                                                      conscious decisions.

                                                      I would suggest to you a very nice paper by Hubert Dreyfus, a well
                                                      known phenomenologist, that very understandably and eloquently
                                                      introduces the phenomenlogical conception of 'intuitive knowing'. If
                                                      you have the time to read it, we could discuss it afterwards.

                                                      http://www.focusing.org/apm_papers/dreyfus2.html

                                                      Thanks,
                                                      V.L.
                                                    • eduard at home
                                                      V.L., Thankyou. I will read it later. I guess by now you can see where I am going with this. I am trying to put phenomenology into words that I can
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Jan 18, 2004
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        V.L.,

                                                        Thankyou. I will read it later.

                                                        I guess by now you can see where I am going with this. I am trying to put phenomenology into words that I can understand. The dead philosophers had to invent words to express their sense of the process. But today we have new words that may be more appropriate. That is not to suggest that these philosophers were wrong, but only that we have incorporated new concepts into our thinking. Perhaps this is another "packet". When I use the term "see", my sense of it is down to the neuron level.

                                                        Anyway, thanks for continuing this discussion.

                                                        eduard
                                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                                        From: vexlab
                                                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                        Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:07 AM
                                                        Subject: [existlist] Re: Phenomenology


                                                        Eduard, thank you for your comments. I suppose that the account of a
                                                        person who claims to have found a book by intuition seems unjustified
                                                        in the context of our heigh apprechiation of 'being aware' and making
                                                        conscious decisions.

                                                        I would suggest to you a very nice paper by Hubert Dreyfus, a well
                                                        known phenomenologist, that very understandably and eloquently
                                                        introduces the phenomenlogical conception of 'intuitive knowing'. If
                                                        you have the time to read it, we could discuss it afterwards.

                                                        http://www.focusing.org/apm_papers/dreyfus2.html

                                                        Thanks,
                                                        V.L.




                                                        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                                        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)


                                                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                                                        To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                                                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      • Mary Jo
                                                        Wheeling and dealing reality can very interesting, if you also throw in the fact that there are at least 6+ billion observers. For me at least this is close as
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Nov 20, 2004
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Wheeling and dealing reality can very interesting, if you also throw
                                                          in the fact that there are at least 6+ billion observers. For me at
                                                          least this is close as we've gotten so far in terms of defining
                                                          reality. And, the Blue Rose Project could just as easily been written
                                                          by Jacob Bronowski. Mary

                                                          <http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-02/features/featuniverse/>
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.