Skip to main content

Welcome

The web site collecting data for and making notes about noematics ended with this entry, abbreviated for purposes here.

'First and fundamental. Interests--what characterizes and drives people--center around questions, or quests.'

'For my part my question/quest goes something like this.

'Can I increase my general and specific knowledge in the areas of science and epistemology, phenomenology's relation to absolutely accurate understandings of selected things, including the person-as-subject, and writing's role in all of these?

'These interests/quests take me into an inner world and personal or private study, often observations, of the realities of self and others as expressed in words meant to be heard or read. Thus the central aspect of my studies is expression; however, my expression, my words, are for "no audience." They are not other-directed. I invite no one to view my personal evolutions unless for some reason they show an interest, or I carry on temporary and relatively singular relationships for specific purposes--like this one here, just now! [I am writing to be read by you.]

'Life is more than such serious stuff . . . but having said that, the reason for pursuing what I do is greater and greater understanding of the depths of human and spiritual potential. My world is not place specific, unless place provides the impetus for subjects to be looked at oh-so-carefully. This explains why I can reside, as I have, in my own and other cultures without getting too close to or too deep into them.

'Living in different places affords me a buffet of delicacies I can taste and experience, to delight in and entertain myself with. . . .'

'. . . I am not confident, or presumptuous enough, to attempt definitive articulations about stuff and other people, although it is tempting at times. For fear of getting it miserably wrong, I refrain, or restrain, and internalize. After some fermentation, I can employ the insights I gain, and I hope greater understandings, in getting along in the world and its different localities. The world and each of its corners are other--foreign, alien, to be coped with. The premise is that this is so whether one is born-bred in a given place or not. Landing here [or there] and the fact of being equalizes us.

'The conclusion to all this is . . . People are different and they get about different stuff.

'And that different stuff on the one hand makes for a rich stew--life is beautifully messy. On the other hand stuff divides us one from the other fundamentally, sometimes tragically.'

Having thus said and therefore surpassed the initial steps in getting my head and heart around noematics, I would add: These are the reasons for the importance of understanding and appreciating as much stuff as possible. More of the stew will nourish and strengthen us to manage and work the fields that divide.

And I will now correct myself: Enterprises such as education and research and conversations about stuff are still worth doing because salvation lies in the we. To the benefit of one is not the only objective, so Noematics 101 assumes.

The first things that students I have had want to know is who I am and what am I about--before we embark on the journey which is always, or should be, mutually enlightening, sometimes in different ways. Noematics 101 thus begins, and the colloquium, if that is the proper metaphor, is open to frequent participants, occasional visitors, and established authorities.

The next contribution will be what is most often and logically next--what this course (journey) is all about, some preliminary notes about what noematics is, and what are its central concerns.

Welcome.

Comments

Post a Comment

Contributions to the subjects of this journey welcome.

Popular posts from this blog

Exercise one: The data do show

A. For each writing, what is the phenomenon described? Can it be rendered in a word or phrase? This is to say that each is about something--a noema, an X, an it . B. Is each writing "a direct description of our experience [of that something] as it is"? This is to say, or claim, that each is a phenomenological description comprised of both the it and how one experiences that it . C. Each writing as an  it in itself is an object of intentional gaze, or could be; each is a phenomenon which can itself be described, both noema and noesis. Which, 1 or 2 below, is more clearly a writing/text/work as phenomenological description? . . . Just to get things started. SAMPLE #1 {BEGIN WRITING} The last poem Years and years and years past I would write a gift, and thought it shared the love at Christmas. Now and now and now at last through the years I sift, and think to share our love at Christ's mass. Then and then and then repast I would mine eyes uplif...
Post a Comment
Read more

Aside

"Lauren Silbert uses brain scans to try to zero in on what happens when two people click." (http://www.radiolab.org/2011/apr/18/soul-mates-and-brain-doubles/) Ms. Silbert read a story and had her brain activity mapped (scanned). Then she told the story to others and their brain activities were mapped. One listener's brain activity matched that of the storyteller, exactly. Thesis? The matching points represent the same experiences of the words-images that comprise the story. And if they match entirely, both storyteller and listener have had the same experience that the words create (evoke?). Is this the fundamental phenomenology of writing--the intentionality--to create in your experience that which I intend and had when I wrote what I did?
Post a Comment
Read more

All is interpretation

What appears to you is what is. There is nothing outside of you which tells you, or me, that IT, what ever "it" is, IS. The only way I can know is through me and my senses. My stream of experiences are mine, no one else's. These experiences do not prove the existence of the exterior world or anything in it. I construct that sense-world by attributing my sensations to an unknown universe. The world then is my projected picture of it, symbolic and approximate. We justify, on the whole, the external world by accepting our private evidence that something exists beyond ourselves. So, I contend, we go about our business thinking that I see, feel, hear--sense--what you think you see, etc., or can. Thus the bases for science and other things. I  becomes w e. And we proceed beyond me and under the illusion that my concrete reality is the same as yours, a "consensual realty." We carry on our oh-so-practical lives on what are defenseless and uncertain foundations. Thus all...
Post a Comment
Read more