Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00029)

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

<< 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. >>

Dear Govert,

Comparing H with K is an activity of the analytical mind.  As such, it'll 
lead relentlessly, inevitably, towards shallowness & danger.

Aryel

Govert said:
 
<<  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." ] >>
 
Dear Govert,

Quoting K is a thankless task, perhaps a fruitless one, when it comes down to 
brass tacks.  Call it a forlorn hope.  The only thing that'll help 
understanding him better is to ENGAGE in choiceless awareness, & that 
involves no words, no concepts, no analysis, no quotes.  Yes, one could say 
with him that "the word is not the thing."  But such quoting can lead to the 
creation of yet one more analytical system, if one is not EXTREMELY careful.
Yes, he was "scientific" in his approach.  But he was clearly speaking here 
of the ATTITUDE of a "good scientist" (not many of those around, 
unfortunately).  That is, one needs to make the grand inner exploration 
"together," as K pointed out so very often, because it is extremely 
important.  One must carry out the investigation "slowly, patiently, 
hesitantly."  This is not someone advocating a method, scientific or 
otherwise.
So this quote (& any other quote of K's you might use) underlines precisely 
what I've been pointing out in these messages:  There is an impassable chasm 
between phenomenology & K, just as there is an impassable chasm between ANY 
system or method & K.

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.