Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00102)

> In a message dated 4/3/00 12:50:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> schuller@prodigy.net writes:

> As I see it now, Krishnamurti in his many expositions applied a very pure,
> though somehow 'naive,' phenomenological method in describing the human
> condition, the constitution of the emperical ego and the transformative
> effect of pre-supposition-less awareness. Though he was not trained in
> methodological phenomenology and probably never read anything in that area,
> there are some researchers agreeing that what he did was executing the
> phenomenological reduction and the transcedental reduction just by the power
> of his sincerity, authenticity and observational acumen.

Aryel wrote [with my remarks]:

> Anyone who identifies K unqualifiedly with phenomenlogy (P) has either not
> understood at all his work, or has reasons for wanting to thus misrepresent
> him.

[Before presenting a third alternative of characterizing those who see and
investigate similarities between K(rishnamurti) and P(henomenology), it has to
be pointed out that these
'investigators' (Agarwal, Gunturu, myself [as a beginner]) do not identify "K
unqualifiedly with
phenomenlogy." On the contrary. Gunturu makes a carefull comparisson, and points
out the subtle similarities and differences between the two, in order to
contribute to a better understanding of K. Agarwal uses K's and Sartre's
thought to better understand fragmentation and consciousness. As for myself, I'm
still studying P and I am most interested in the difference between reflection,
as the non-rational capacity of consciousness to bend back upon itself, and
thought, as the thinking mode of consciousness to understand itself through
language, and the different influence both have on the structure of
consciousness. I use both P and K as pointers in my investigation. I'm quite
confident that all these investigators have a sufficient understanding of K's
work and have no reasons whatsoever to "misrepresent him." Therefore I'd like to
propose to characterize the persons with these interests as investigators of
consciousness, using both K and P to ultimately intuit the facts themselves.]

> P was initially developed by Edmund Husserl with the specific intention
> that it be A TOOL to be used in SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.  That is, P is A METHOD
> of research.

[This is not entirely correct. P can be better characterized, not as a tool or
method, but as a transformed attitude in the realm of philosophical
research--not scientific research--in order to generate essential insights.
Because Husserl also reflected on and tried to describe the process of
generating
insight, and found some recurring moments or themes (which can be compared with
K), he was able to give helpful advise to those who wanted to do
phenomenological research by themselves and not only read the results of this
fruitful attitude. Husserl's ideal was to transform philosophy into a rigourous
science
of essences (as opposed to facts, which is the realm of positive science) by
penetrating deeper into the essence of its own art, which finds its paralel in
K's own learning about learning.

At the same time we have to realize that K
himself did not see such a great chasm between scientific research and what he
himself was doing: "We are going to explore together very slowly, patiently,
hesitantly, to find out. It is like good scientists looking through a microscope
and seeing exactly the same thing. Because if you are a scientist in the
laboratory using a microscope, you must show what you see to another scientist,
so both of you see exactly what is." ]

To be continued.


====================
Alpheus' homepage:
www.alpheus.org
Background on Cyril Scott:
www.alpheus.org/tame.htm
====================


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.