Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00027)

In a message dated 5/9/00 6:07:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
schuller@prodigy.net writes:

<< Aryel wrote:

> 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.

Govert responded: 
 [This is not entirely correct. P[henomenology] 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.  >>

Dear Govert,

I find it fascinating that you say here that P is not "a tool or method."  
Yet you began your long e-mail with these words:

"As I see it now, Krishnamurti in his many expositions applied a very pure 
though somehow 'naive' PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD in describing the human 
condition."

So, which is it?  Being a little rusty on my phenomenology, I checked the 
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (entry Husserl, Edmund), & I find there this 
little gem:  In his INITIAL researches into P (which you will note, is what I 
specifically referred to), P proposed (in the Logische Untersuchungen, or 
Logical Investigations, for those of you whose German is rusty), that 
phenomenological descriptions require a "transcendental-phenomenological 
reduction."  And, as the article tells us, such a reduction, which is a sine 
qua non of P, "is a METHODOLOGICAL DEVICE, required before one can begin to 
do phenomenology."
So I am at a loss.  You seem to know something that these chaps at the 
Encyclopedia don't know.  You must have some esoteric knowledge of what P 
"really" is, which the experts don't know about.  Please, don't be shy.  
We're all waiting -- with baited breath, no less -- to discover what P is, if 
not a method of research.

You tell us here that P is, instead, "a transformed attitude in the realm of 
philosophical research -- not scientific research -- in order to generate 
essential insights."  So you are telling us that P research has -- like ALL 
analytical approaches -- this form:  "If you do X, you'll get W," where "W" 
stands for "wonderfulness."  That wonderfulness can be called by some 
"nirvana," by others "satori," by others "salvation."  Phenomenologists 
choose to call it (in this version of P) "essential insights."
The FACT that it has this form, tells us right away that P is an ANALYTICAL 
tool, a method, which follows that algorithm based on two-valued logic.
What K is talking about, if I understand him correctly, does not involve ANY 
algorithm.  If he is, then I part company with him.  But someone must show me 
that he is, and I don't think that's going to happen.
The analytical mind is what needs to be transcended, if humanity is ever to 
be free from the trammels of confusion, mutual torment, conflict, that has 
been the rule for as far as our collective memory goes.  K (like HPB's 
teachers) was speaking of the dire, urgent need to bring about a mutation of 
the physical brain.  That is, the synapses of the human brain have been 
working for SO LONG along paths dictated by two-valued logic and the 
concomitant analytical approach, that it takes a truly "superhuman effort" to 
create new synaptic paths.  That is what initiation, transformation, is meant 
to bring about.  The effort is "superhuman," however, only from an analytical 
perspective, which, again, is "all" we have known, so far.  A new way of 
employing the human brain must come about, if we are to survive as a species, 
if we are to be able to live harmoniously within ourselves, with each other, 
with all that is.
I'm afraid, my friend, that such a radical mutation CANNOT come about by 
using the very approach that has been getting us into trouble at every 
conceivable level for much too long.  Yes, the phenomenological approach does 
"sound like" the real thing.  But so does any other approach deviced by the 
analytical mind.  You find veritable gems, for instance, in Buddhism, where a 
"P-like" methodology can be found, in several schools, each with different 
approaches.  (You might find of interest an excellent phenomenological book, 
David Edward Shaner, The Bodymind Experience in Japanese Buddhism.  A 
Phenomenological Perspective of Kukai and Dogen.)  It can also be found in 
the Christian mass, if it is followed in theosophical states of awareness, 
from beginning to end (I hope you have done this; it can be quite 
extraordinary).  Some claim to find it, alas, in pentecostal ravings, in 
which they speak in tongues & commune with the holy ghost.
Unfortunately, ALL OF THE ABOVE each follow an algorithm, a formula.  "If you 
do X, you'll get W.  That's for sure."  THEY ALL WORK.  Why?  Because that is 
the nature of a two-valued logical argument!  Once you accept the premises of 
a particular universe of discourse, you're history.  ALL such universes of 
discourse have been devised by profoundly clever people, so they all work -- 
for as long as you buy into the whole system.
But buying into the whole system implies segregating oneself from others who 
do not thus "buy it."  It also segregates us from ourselves, because one can 
NEVER be a PERFECT X (Buddhist, Xtian, phenomenologist).  So there will 
ALWAYS be inner conflict within oneself, between WHAT IS, and WHAT SHOULD BE. 
 This conflict is the INEVITABLE fruit of any and all systems & methods, 
regardless of where they come from.
Please, keep in mind that the analytical mind is a wonderful tool.  It has 
served us marvelously & made it possible for us to survive as a species, & to 
live in comfort at present.  It is properly used in its own area, namely, for 
purely mechanical, physical situations.  It has served us so well there, in 
fact, that it seems like a darned shame one cannot use it as effectively when 
it comes to things that "matter" to us (ethics, religious experience, 
aesthetics, researches into what is).  In those areas, it is 100% out of its 
depth -- and is MOST DANGEROUS.  Whenever it has done so, it has led to all 
the wars, oppressions, repressions, and awfulnesses we as a species have 
committed.  Still does, as we speak.  This is VERY SERIOUS business, my 
friend.  This is not just picking "one philosophy" over another, some new 
analytical game.  A great deal is at stake here.
So:  If we as a species are EVER to be free of this nightmare, it can only 
happen by being free of our conditioning -- and of its constant companion 
(when misapplied), the analytical mind.  There does not seem to be any other 
way out of this, my friend.
Lest I be misunderstood, let me explain further:  One does not engage in this 
"in order to" be free of conditioning, in order to bring about some utopia.  
If one does so, one is following yet another algorithm, another formula.  
This is extremely subtle for most of us, because we are so caught up in the 
analytical way, which is ALL that we have known -- before K came into the 
picture.  No one in history had ever pointed this out, in just this way.  
Even the Buddha, Nagarjuna & Shankaracharya (who, to my knowledge, came 
closest to saying precisely this), were all working within their particular 
universes of discourse (predetermined by Asian culture).
So, what do you think?
All my love,
Aryel

-- 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.