 |
 |
>Simple phenomenolgy is exactly what Heidegger is doing in >an attempt to get at what you call consciousness, but he >would not, and does not, like to use the term consciousness >--its hard to tell what we mean by it. Simple >phenomenology is Heidegger's analytic method, and it does >come first. >> I may not always refer to what H actually said because - quite frankly - I've not read very much. My observations were more a response to the dialogue here. If he is indeed >> trying to establish, at bottom, what expressions like >consciousness (being) amount to. >> then I may be encouraged to investigate further. Because if he is <<<just asking in a simple, >everyday, almost pre-philosophical way, what does it mean >for me and other entities to exist? Its really almost a >boyish question. >>> then his position seems to be similar to mine. I believe that simple questions are often more sophisticated than the complex ones that generally attract people and are regarded as 'academically valuable'. For example: now, everything is constantly moving. Physics tells us this in its own domain, and meditation traditions and personal experience tells us the same with regard to the mind - meditation doesn't 'stop' thought, that is impossible; it moves like the blood circulation, even when we sleep. So, if everything is movement, what is stillness? How does the mind, which is movement, intersect with it? In fact can it 'see' it if not only is there stillness and movement but gradations of both which require you to be attuned to whatever frequency you are investigating. If you're not, then you won't recognise or understand it, and whatever reports you are presented with, you will conclude they are no more than an interesting idea which you are in a position to evaluate because intellect rules supreme. In which you are mistaken. Etc. I can quite easily engage with more conventional and 'academic' forms of discourse, but when it comes to questions about 'being' etc. my view is that the fundamental and supposedly naive questions are actually the most important and have never been properly addressed. Not, at least, in the Western tradition. As i said before, I might have said to H as he was dying "Now then H (may I call you H?), what is the relationship between your years of philosophy and this immediate predicament you are currently experiencing which is indeed a matter of 'being' and 'nothingness'. Do you agree that all your ideas did not prepare you for or anticipate WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, and that they were, therefore, somewhat lacking?" Etc. Call me naive if you wish (but maybe not post it here ;-) ) - but as far as I'm concerned, if you consider phenomenologically ultimate questions, then you can't take any prisoners. It's time to think about fundamental existential issues. Otherwise, you engage in a pursuit that is fundamentally 'armchair philosophy' or as you put it, 'castles in the sky'. (And I think he would ask the same thing >of consciousness: what does it mean for me to be >conscious?) But he is astounded by 2000 years of philosophy >that seems to think it has answered the question, when in >fact, it has simply forgotten all about it. Me too. Except it doesn't so much astound me as make me think hmm, so what was the point of all that work? It doesn't *surprise* me, because as far as I'm concerned it is the *nature* of the mind to construct castles in the air - sometimes, at least. <<He wants to >remake philosophy as phenomenology.>> Well that's sensible.