From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Mon Mar 05 2001 - 00:18:26 MST
At 10:31 PM 4/03/01 -0800, Mitch wrote:
>I mean Husserl, specifically the idea of a self
>whose state of consciousness is a structure
>constituted by relations like "givenness" and
>"projection" and so on.
>As for Kant and Hegel, I simply don't understand
>them enough to have formed an opinion on their
>relevance, although I think Kant's inventory of
>elementary forms of judgment might be important.
>Understanding Husserl (just a little bit) has
>been work enough!
Fair enough. But Husserl was rejigging Hegel, who was rejigging Kant.
Frankly, I find his key methodological idea of an epoche (a conscious
reductive act of choice in which one `brackets off' part of reality and
*intuits* its transcendental *essence*, free of contextual contamination)
to be a gruesome mistake. I can't see how quantum voodoo makes it any more
plausible. Given quantal entanglement, it seems even harder to disentangle
one part of the pleroma from everything else (although, ho ho, decoherence
does a good job of snipping things apart in a, well, decoherent way).
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT