Skip to main content

What and how*

The written and the writing, noema and noesis. Not either/or but both. And then some, for each has its what and its how. The experience of the written is wedded to how it is written. The act of writing has its duality too--"I am writing and I experience I am writing in this way."

The written is the evidence of having had a duality consciousness of, which makes the doing, the act of writing, phenomenology. The artifact is then what? Not phenomenology but a report of same, or a portrait or snapshot. Here is a new object of consciousness ready-at-hand to constitute approximately the act of doing a like-thing again through an act, an -ing act, that of reading. Reading is then beyond and different from the consciousness of the perpetrator and the perpetrator's, and never a one-for-one correspondence of his or her image-in-mind with that subsequently experienced by an other.
The change of emphasis from the written product to writing as a process manifests another important change--one from logical to phenomenological consciousness. Phenomenologically speaking, writing is both 'immanent' in the writer and 'transcendent' outside the writer. It is thinking of general concepts that actually occurred and writing about these things using every judgment, memory, expectation, inference, conviction, opinion, doubt, and emotion to write about these things. It is hearing and imagining sounds, seeing and imagining objects, sensing and imagining warmth and cold and writing about these things. The change from product to process came about because phenomenological consciousness enables us to 'know' differently. As a result, the change continues to move us away from the traditional rhetoric paradigm all wrapped in 'what's' to a process approach paradigm all packaged with 'how's.'
But what has been written is an experience prepared for you-reader, and this is then a most intimate if partial writer's biography possible. Does anything else matter? date and place of birth, etc.? Whatever the form or content, the written is the what and the how of a consciousness shared.

Or can we look at this phenomenon or these phenomena another way? which would be typical, would it not, of phenomenological thinking.
__________
*Carroll, J. (1980). Phenomenology and the Writing Process. [online] Eric.ed.gov. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED188166 [Accessed 20 May 2015].ED188166&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED188166

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