Hi Tina. May I ask, did you ever develop any sort of systematic/formal way of 'practising' Husserlian phenomenology, maybe akin to a Zen meditation or whatever — you know, 'Now I'm gonna do this in silence for an hour'? Or was it more a matter of letting his ideas sit there as a sort of reflective background in your mind (like a referencing anchor) as you went about your daily activities? Thanks, and good luck on the new story!
No, I'm definitely not systematic or formal about it (or about anything else come to think of it). I think phenomenological questions must just be sitting in the back of my mind, waiting for insights to strike. I don't think of Husserl specifically, and honestly I would be happy to never read him again! So I don't really think about his methods, I just take what I learned from him and try to come up with my own ideas by any method (or really no method). Sometimes, though, when I'm really stuck on a problem, I'll bring it up with my husband. With him I can talk philosophy in that telepathic way of old married couples and the whole discussion lasts only a few minutes, and very often I'll get answers or paths to explore that I never would have come up with myself. I'll spend the next few days thinking things over whereas he will go back to his martini and stargazing and will immediately forget the whole conversation ever took place because he's done with philosophy for good. I'm becoming more and more convinced that insights come to those who don't care, those who aren't looking for them. His experience and knowledge combined with his total apathy about it all has turned out to be a great resource for me to tap into.
Thanks Tina. Yes, it's a very fine line between your 'not caring' and on the other hand allowing the mind to fall back into its old habits of conceptualising/verbalising/remembering/imaging etc. — and none of that stuff takes us beyond representations, no matter how sophisticated. My own view is that it can be possible to 'open a window' into insight if we can (so to speak) 'fall asleep' whilst remaining aware. Some would argue that both states are so-called 'consciousness', though I only view consciousness as representations (whether of thought, feeling/sensation, memory, imagery, scent, audition, taste). But another 'window' can be *thoughtlessly* reaching out for a door handle, watching a bird fly, scratching one's nose; the thing there being intensely aware without any thought process or representation going on. But I also like and respect the Via Negativa way, the kind of 'reversing into Reality' way. Horses for courses, I suppose?
I'm afraid I'm far too cognitive (for lack of a better word) to get into the kind of meditative state you describe. I just have to wait for it to come to me and catch me by surprise, if it comes at all.
I used to think I didn't care for philosophical fiction, until I realized that's basically what most good science fiction and fantasy is. I still don't care for it if it's too on the nose. But stories like The Matrix are basically a version of Plato's Cave, and it seems compelling for the same reasons. And of course, anything that explores the mind is usually going to be compelling for me. (Especially if it's in space.)
So true about science fiction and fantasy. Actually, I think of a lot of the classics as philosophical as well, even though they aren't usually labeled that way. Jane Austen, for instance, explores philosophical themes involving what makes for a happy marriage when moderation is not the same for all personalities and situations. Very Aristotelian.
Freud makes this mistake. He sees philosophy as unscientific. But philosophy starts with logic. It might even be defined as the study of logic. Logic is grounded in math, a science. Logic is a science.
Hi Tina. May I ask, did you ever develop any sort of systematic/formal way of 'practising' Husserlian phenomenology, maybe akin to a Zen meditation or whatever — you know, 'Now I'm gonna do this in silence for an hour'? Or was it more a matter of letting his ideas sit there as a sort of reflective background in your mind (like a referencing anchor) as you went about your daily activities? Thanks, and good luck on the new story!
Hi Hariod! Thanks!
No, I'm definitely not systematic or formal about it (or about anything else come to think of it). I think phenomenological questions must just be sitting in the back of my mind, waiting for insights to strike. I don't think of Husserl specifically, and honestly I would be happy to never read him again! So I don't really think about his methods, I just take what I learned from him and try to come up with my own ideas by any method (or really no method). Sometimes, though, when I'm really stuck on a problem, I'll bring it up with my husband. With him I can talk philosophy in that telepathic way of old married couples and the whole discussion lasts only a few minutes, and very often I'll get answers or paths to explore that I never would have come up with myself. I'll spend the next few days thinking things over whereas he will go back to his martini and stargazing and will immediately forget the whole conversation ever took place because he's done with philosophy for good. I'm becoming more and more convinced that insights come to those who don't care, those who aren't looking for them. His experience and knowledge combined with his total apathy about it all has turned out to be a great resource for me to tap into.
Thanks Tina. Yes, it's a very fine line between your 'not caring' and on the other hand allowing the mind to fall back into its old habits of conceptualising/verbalising/remembering/imaging etc. — and none of that stuff takes us beyond representations, no matter how sophisticated. My own view is that it can be possible to 'open a window' into insight if we can (so to speak) 'fall asleep' whilst remaining aware. Some would argue that both states are so-called 'consciousness', though I only view consciousness as representations (whether of thought, feeling/sensation, memory, imagery, scent, audition, taste). But another 'window' can be *thoughtlessly* reaching out for a door handle, watching a bird fly, scratching one's nose; the thing there being intensely aware without any thought process or representation going on. But I also like and respect the Via Negativa way, the kind of 'reversing into Reality' way. Horses for courses, I suppose?
I'm afraid I'm far too cognitive (for lack of a better word) to get into the kind of meditative state you describe. I just have to wait for it to come to me and catch me by surprise, if it comes at all.
Another interesting interview!
I used to think I didn't care for philosophical fiction, until I realized that's basically what most good science fiction and fantasy is. I still don't care for it if it's too on the nose. But stories like The Matrix are basically a version of Plato's Cave, and it seems compelling for the same reasons. And of course, anything that explores the mind is usually going to be compelling for me. (Especially if it's in space.)
So true about science fiction and fantasy. Actually, I think of a lot of the classics as philosophical as well, even though they aren't usually labeled that way. Jane Austen, for instance, explores philosophical themes involving what makes for a happy marriage when moderation is not the same for all personalities and situations. Very Aristotelian.
"our all-pervasive ‘science-y’ culture is powerfully persuasive" It started with Freud. He thought philosophers were nuts : )
Freud was right. We are nuts. :)
Freud makes this mistake. He sees philosophy as unscientific. But philosophy starts with logic. It might even be defined as the study of logic. Logic is grounded in math, a science. Logic is a science.
There's a lot to think about here!!!
I try to keep everyone on their toes. :)