Skip to main content

A wealth of hearts

Very quickly we have a range of things to address. Selection is the key. For now just two things.

1. If writing is doing phenomenology, what is that process in terms of what phenomenologists say they do? Here is a characterization for reference and later examination.

Husserlian phenomenology (vs. other brands) is

* a descriptive enterprise, not one that proceeds by way of theory construction;
* clarifying not explaining, to understand what it is to be a thing of this or that sort;
* an eidetic and not a factual inquiry, not concerned to describe all the properties of some particular thing but to uncover what belongs to it essentially as a thing of that kind.
* an object given "in person," or that it apprehends its object against a co-given background or "horizon";
* reactive inquiry, not concerned directly with entities, as are the natural sciences, but with our experience of entities;
* committed to the view that descriptive clarification of the essential conditions for being X cannot be achieved by abstracting from our experience of X but only by attending to how X is given in that experience;
* how "the things themselves," show themselves.
2. 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.


The question that "The last poem" addresses is what it is like to discover the heart of love. The phenomenon described is thus, the very heart of love.

This object-poem questions back first with whose description it is.

Answer: That of a speaker, a Christian, a voyager, a gift-giver, a lover, one who is selfish . . .  a writer, a seeker, now one who is aging, a learner, a discoverer. Finally it is my description having vicariously experienced the journey, I reader.

A wealth of hearts in less than 100 words.

Is the subject important to describe what it is like?

It takes its place among many others that recount the same or similar journeys, and therefore share the results in a "love poem."

The form, a poem, traditionally combines thought with feeling. "The last poem" takes what the heart of love is experientially, and perhaps the last feeling is resignation in the face of the truth/reality of the divine.

Comments welcome. "Thud" as phenomenological description in a moment.

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