Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00092)

----- Original Message -----
From: <ASANAT@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 8:11 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Krishnamurti and phenomenology

ARYEL: 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:  [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.  >>


ARYEL: 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.

Sorry to confuse you, Aryel. The question seems to revolve around the idea that
both K and P have both methodological as well as non-methodological elements,
the importance of which are differently evaluated. In a previous e-mail I made
the statement that both science, K and phenomenology have in common three
elements:

1) a transformed attitude or an altered state of consciousness in order to
establish a field of investigation within which certain observable phenomena may
become accessible. Certain elements of this transformed attitude might become
phenomena for investigation by themselves after an appropiate higher level of
altered state has been attained in order to investigate the previous altered
state. This might sound technical, but both science, K and phenomenology reflect
upon themselves to better understand what it is doing and will have the effect
of purifying the different transformed attitudes from extraneous elements like
smuggled-in, unverified, metaphysical concepts. But before all of this higher
investigation can happen one has to be well introduced into the first field by
way of being exposed to its specific problems and solutions, which will take a
certain amount of time.

2) The method of investigation proper, which I think for all three comes down to
letting essences show forth for description by eliminating all contingent or
non-essential features from the phenomenon under investigation. For example
science eliminated form, substance and other features from the phenomenon
gravitation to find that mass is one of its essential elements. K eliminates
jealousy, possesiveness, imagination, thought etc. from the phenomenon love to
come to an essential insight about that phenomenon. And P developed its own
eliminative devices, one of which is the 'epoche,' i.e. the elimination of the
belief in the existence of the world in order to disengage from it and better
investigate our relationship to it. And another device is the 'variation in
imagination' by which a phenomenon might be changed in thought experiments to
find out what are the contingent and necessary elements. One of its major finds
being the intentionality of consciousnes, meaning that consciousness is always
consciousness OF something and its correlate that consciousness has many ways to
be conscious of something, of which modes like perceiving, hearing, imagining,
remembering are the more obvious examples, with each having their own essential
features by which they can be distinguished. In this way P can, as a philosophy
of knowledge, investigate the scientific mode of consciousness, which is closed
to itself, though one could implement, as has been done, a sociology or
psychology of the scientific endeavour, but that would still be within the field
of scientific endeavour. And P could also investigate the Krishnamurtian mode of
investigation by looking very carefully at what kind of discourse K is
presenting by eliminating the questions of its truth and its goal of total
transformation. This would also mean to break through the mesmeric quality of
K's discourse, even making that quality an object of
hermeneutic-phenomenological investigation. P also investigated its own mode of
consciousness and methodology, which actually was Husserl's major focus in the
latter part of his life.

3) The creative element in K, P and science. I covered this more or less in my
response to Katinka of 6-6-00. Time also prevents me to get deeper into this for
I'm going on vacation.

Govert





-- 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.