Seán:Thanks for referring me back to the Translator’s introduction.What happens if we substitute “contacting” for “Fusion”?
I like your “psycho-physical.” “Psycho-organism” not so much.
But I have a problem with both in that they do not privilege the human organism.
You know my objections to person/environment. I would restate my objections differently today. Are they third person descriptors?
Dan,
How about "phenomeno-physical"?
And it is Stein and Heidegger who (maybe) went in different directions. You are always of us.Seán
Phil
On Jul 20, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Philip Brownell wrote:
Sylvia
Dan,
How about "phenomeno-physical"?
Seán
See below...
Seán:
Where exactly?
Dan
Dan,
Seán
Steinians:
Good stuff, Seán.
Dan
Folks,
Seán
=
Sylvia
I didn’t say it was ONLY physical. I regret my brevity.
It seems that you are implying that I did and then paraphrasing some of what I actually said.
Actually, concerning “phenomena,” I am most drawn to thinking that the concept is outside considerations of the physical and non-physical. Phenomena are. They show themselves as themselves.
We “dismember” them according to the manner of our inquiries into them. If we look for the physical/non-physical dimensions, we might find it.
I do not think that phenomenology is only about finding interrelationships among several dimensions. This is one of Husserl’s projects.
Phenomenology is also an interpretative stance. It is a way of understanding being-in-the-world, that is, how that which is in-the-world discloses itself.
One of the wonderful things about the history of phenomenology is that the field has gone through many different developments. Not only has its original source in Husserl offered different points from which it could develop (he was hardly consistent), but the field ramified over time and over place. Different intellectual cultures developed it differently. And it continues to develop.Even in the United States now there is the East and West Coast schools of phenomenology!
So I won’t make any statements that begin “Phenomenology is....”.
Dan
I also have questions about the partitions themselves.
Of course I would. I need to read a whole lot more. :)
I am interested in what you are saying about other possible dimensions, but I don't know of these are phenomenal.
Phil
If it ain’t experienced or experienceable, it ain’t phenomenal.
Any event is not phenomenal to my way of understanding how we use it here. We could call something “phenomenal” as a colloquial way of saying it would be amazing IF we could be able to experience (“Black holes are phenomenal”), but that is not the “phenomenal” of phenomenology. :)
Dan
An event of "any kind" is phenomenal? Really? What about a synapse in the amygdala? That is an event. What about the rains in Haiti. They are an event for the people in Haiti, but right now in Bermuda its dry and we need more rain. Perhaps there is a butterfly connection, but I don't think it rises to the level of a phenomenal event (for me).
I am interested in what you are saying about other possible dimensions, but I don't know of these are phenomenal.
Phil
On Jul 21, 2010, at 7:22 PM, croc...@aol.com wrote:
> "Phenomenal" is not only physical. Any revelation and any event of any kind is phenomenal. We as bodied persons are constantly engaged in revealing-events (revealing and receiving revelations), in n dimensions. The physical is only one kind of dimension. Phenomenology is about discovering the interrelationships among revelations in the several dimensins in which they (and we) occur. I believe that empathy is one such event.
>
> Sylvia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Bloom <d...@djbloom.com>
> To: edith-stein...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Jul 20, 2010 10:53 am
> Subject: Re: Approaching "Empathy"
>
>
> Phenomenal is physical.
> Or to put it differently, to parse the phenomenal into material and non-material aspects is problematic.
> I’d prefer to avoid this.
Phil:
If it ain’t experienced or experienceable, it ain’t phenomenal.
Any event is not phenomenal to my way of understanding how we use it here. We could call something “phenomenal” as a colloquial way of saying it would be amazing IF we could be able to experience (“Black holes are phenomenal”), but that is not the “phenomenal” of phenomenology. :)
Dan
On Jul 21, 2010, at 9:53 PM, Philip Brownell wrote: