The Lebenswelt (Life-world)

[LV07TSK]

thinking to mySelf shit I guess now I gotta say reasoning with my Self LoL....anyway, just thinking out loud here (giggle, giggle)....I wonder if people who debate this idea of Self (Heidegger's Dasein) ever dive into Neuroscience? Some good ol' fMRI's, PET scans, and, ugh, the brain probe???? How come "philosophers" of Mind, never talk about the brain, or neurons, or neurochemicals? They're scared to admit the utterly material reality of our existence....cry babies!!!

[zencat]

Once again I feel compelled to point out that the Buddha not only realized this stuff conceptually, but actually discovered how to experience it as Absolute Truth. It kills me sometimes how culture-centric these discussions are. Western Philosophy. Barely out of diapers.

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

This is agreeable to very many of us, when speaking of Buddha. Ater all, 0ThouArtThat0 has introduced and made videos about his meditation practice... ect.

[otonanoC]

This is a fascinating counter-perspective!! This is more a thesis building around the observation that individuality is an illusion, and that really there is only one, unitary "I" of existence (we might use Brahman here).

Generally, however, I believe that Schopenhauer is more relevant to the discussion, especially in regards to Pyrrho's example of lust. Schop writes that human logic is hijacked (by The Will) in order to "rationalize" lust.

[busheybushdawg]

So which perspective (the life world or science) is closer to the truth of the way things really are? Are they just opposite poles of an even greater truth? Does even make any sense to speak of the way the world "really is" independent of our particular perspective or does science (although it is evolving in the kuhnian sense) somehow transcend our individual experiential limitations and perspectives?

[paradirob]

While meditating on a pond this morning, I noticed a red lady-bug with black dots on its back. It was flailing about on the surface with all six legs. The problem then presented itself to me. There were bubbles on the surface and pipes running along the bottom of the pond. Could the insect align itself with any arrow (pipe) of intentionality? No. It paddled itself around in circles. Husserl has furniture in consciousness and uses the transcendental ego (I), to discern their essence. Sartre...

[paradirob]

explodes the outside of the can of worms and consciousness is like a worm in Being. Think of the full plenum of being as an apple and the worm as making a worm hole through it. Intentionality is retained and consciousness is always consciousness of something. It's sort of a glow worm because consciousness is Nothing. Then MP uses the metaphor of this nothingness as having a footprint in the material world. Whitehead and MP are used by Damasio to describe a consciousness/body isomorphic process.

[notonewhit]

As far as "unconscious experience" goes, that's a huge can of worms that depends on what one means by "unconscious" and "experience". If experience requires the dimension of worldy time then 'material things' can not have experience nor possess consciousness. This does not mean that I can't trace the provinance of a thing by the marks it may carry. (Have you seen the Red Violin)

[0ThouArtThat0]

Yeah, it is a can of worms. I am still trying to find a way to connect Heidegger and Whitehead. Though profoundly different, I see something important in both that is crying out for synthesis.

[pyrrho314]

all our models are descriptive, in that sense they do not even attempt at metaphysics, they are descriptions of our experience. Then, we turn the descriptive into the predictive, and in this case try to assign metaphysical truth to the transformation. This has never yet worked out well for mankind. Because this metaphysics then conflicts with future descriptions, we describe things which are taken as impossible, by conflicting with metaphysics... which was nothing but a predictive transform.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I have trouble with the word "description," because it implies that our way of thinking about or talking about the world has no influence upon how we then enter into that world, how we live, etc. When we "describe" experience, we are always already transforming experience. I don't see this as if we have no access to the external world. I don't think there is an "external" world. We are in the world and of the world (notice the dotted line), and so objective description is never possible.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Metaphysical attempts to "describe the objective/external world" are all doomed to failure. We agree about that. But once we've deconstructed the false subject/object divide, metaphysics becomes the study of how thought transforms our being-in-the-world (ie, how our ideas help shape our experience).

[pyrrho314]

pure imagination is also part of the world... it's not outside the world. I think you would agree, but you still draw it outside the world... that's what we tried... but that little imagination circle is obviously WITHIN the circle representing the "I", yes?

only half way through, perhaps you say this.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Yeah, it all takes place within the world. But it is tricky, because the "I," in becoming aware of its own existence, also becomes aware of THE world as A world for the first time. In other words, the world is no longer taken for granted, but becomes one of an infinite number of possible worlds that "I" could have been in. So in this sense, the "I" does transcend the world. But only in this sense.

[notonewhit]

How do you reconcile your freshly studied Husserl with what you know of Heidegger? They represent opposite phenomenological understandings. For the latter posits no pure transcendental ego.

Also: you assert that the matter has an interior that relates to outer qua world. This would seem to make matter itself Dasein: a being for whom its own being is a question for it.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I agree with Merleau-Ponty (see preface to PoP) that Husserl's repeated attempts to perform the transcendental reduction are what made Heidegger's "being-in-the-world" possible. One can never fully remove oneself from the world, but one becomes increasingly aware of the worldliness of the world by attempting to bracket more and more

I do not think matter is itself Dasein. Being able to question one's own existence is peculiar to human consciousness. But there is non-conscious experience.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Matter evolves, which is to say it organizes itself into evermore complex arrangements (atoms, molecules, cells, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, humans, ...). At each stage, its experiential depth increases. Only the human (though perhaps dolphins and chimps can also 'wonder') seems to become conscious of experience in such a way that existence itself becomes mysterious.

[0ThouArtThat0]

"Far from being, as has been thought, a procedure of idealistic philosophy, phenomenological reduction belongs to existential philosophy: Heidegger's 'being-in-the-world' appears only against the background of the phenomenological reduction." (PofP, p. xiv)

[notonewhit]

Yes, they all share the notion of Lifeworld. It does not reconcile Husserl's notion of the ideal transcendental ego with Dasein. But you are on to something with M-P, who is closer to Heidegger in that he implicates the situated bodily subject. I think M-P addresses Husserl's abstract view when writes: "[A]s I have this before myself I am not an absolute nothing, I am a determined nothing: not this glass, nor this table, nor this room; my emptiness is not indefinite {vs Hus}[Vis & Invis32].

[wholethinker]

"Being able to question one's own existence is peculiar to human consciousness."

Did you mean that for the consciousness below human there is no question yet, above human - already not a question?

[MuddyTonic]

Cool drawing, you look like a bee!!

[gerontodon]

"Thanks for listening" - no problem, thanks for talking!

[mistaspot1]

German's got the coolest words as far as explaining philosophical concepts goes.

[dianeticstu]

"....moral of the story is... I can make it look like I have a bugs head"

lol, nice vid though

you read Ken Wilber though right? I believe The Marriage of Sense and Soul covers all this stuff

[Mathfails]

Those special effects cost 350,000 dollars. But I think they were well spent Matthew.

[Mathfails]

Ohh and i must be honest, you wouldn't want to give me that kind of technology...

[0ThouArtThat0]

haha, worth every penny.