Re: Husserl

Piotr Szybek (Piotr.Szybek who-is-at pedagog.lu.se)
Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:25:25 +0100

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Phil Agre wrote
(subject: Husserl) a letter which has some connection with the
letter by Piotr Szybek "Husserl - on Solaris and elsewhere".
The letter of Phil Agre contains several statements, concerning
phenomenology which I find I have to react to. As to the relationship
p-logy/ /CHAT (AT) - well, itsnot a very urgent matter. First of all,
I want to assure all of you that I dont want to make p-logists of
you.

Well, zu den Sachen:
Phil Agre writes:
1. >In any case, it seems like it would be hard to draw Husserl
> into the CHAT camp, inasmuch as he was strictly Cartesian (or perhaps
> more directly Kantian)
how is one if one is "strictly Cartesian"? I would like Phil Agre to defin=
e
this concept before using it to construct delimitations (or else to stop
using it: is it that sure that Ren=E9 Descartes was a "Cartesian"?)
In fact, although I should not teach x-subscribers phenomenology
I would like to draw their attention to the critique of Descartes'
position in Husserl's _Krisis der europ=E4ischen Wissenschaften_ (Crisis
of the european sciences), mainly =A718 and 19. Whether this is a
critique of "cartesianism" (whatever _that_ is) I dont know.
As to kantianism, there is the same problem: what is it (and why
is it _bad_ for CHAT people)?
>in his insistence that society and history are
> distal phenomena, not constitutive of the objects of experience.
Well, this is something that intrigues me: Do CHAT/ /AT people
consider the human body as distal in respect of the constitution of
the objects of experience? This would really put them in _opposition_
to phenomenology. I wonder, by the way, what CHAT/ /AT people
would make of Bakhtin, who (to me) seems to focus primarily on the
human body, in a way very much reminiscent of Husserl.

2. > Heidegger's
> turn away from Husserl's bracketing of activity,
I dont know what Phil Agre means by "bracketing": I am guessing,
though, that it _might_ be "not devoting enough attention to it".
It _is_ true that Husserl's _chief_ preoccupation were not culture and
activity, but fundamental epistemological and ontological questions.
I have substantial difficulties in recognizing how this would invalidate
the usefulness of his work for a researcher working with educational
problems, for instance. [By the way, "Heidegger's turn away" was grounded
in the results achieved by Husserl while "bracketing"]
As to a possibility of using Husserl while being a CHAT-man or
woman - its only you CHAT-people who know it; but if you choose to
discuss the problem then, please, do discuss Husserl and not some sort
of phantom created by
3. > ... the extensive secondary literature on Husserl.
I implore the list subscribers not to read any of it.
Husserl is not easy reading (I am practicing anglosaxon manners here),
but it's maybe better to read him and have problems with understanding,
than read "the extensive secondary literature on Husserl", and think
one understands. (On second thoughts I would even prefer not reading
at all and being honestly ignorant.)
This was the case with me: I recognize the prejudices that Phil
Agre is listing here (concerning "bracketing", e.g.) as having been mine,
three years ago. It is "the extensive secondary literature on Husserl"
that is to blame. In a way, the hard-ware store metaphor can help:
Try and learn using a tool from a manual, with your hands bound.
(There are some reasons for not knowing not needing and not
wanting to know of and to use Husserl. I do respect them all. This is
one thing. Another thing is the state of "-istic (or -ical) correctness",
reached by excluding everything outsideof intra-disciplinary
discourse.It's not a desirable state for a discipline, leads to deteriorat=
ion of
the same, as a practice. Eva Ekeblad wrote a paper titled "A lifetime
of verbal discipline", presented at a NAER meeting. I also can quote a rec=
ent
voice from this list: the letter of Katherine Goff from june 24, where sh=
e writes
(among other things) about "encouraging new, diverse voices(...)"
and wonders "If the intention of this group is to evolve as a
close-knit community of people who continually draw on past shared
experience..."

4. > Dilthey,
> who is a much more interesting figure for CHAT anyway.
This makes me truly interested. Which aspects of his hermeneutics
does Phil Agre consider relevant for CHAT (AT) - and how do you, Phil,
envisage using this hermeneutics in a CHAT - relevant context ?
(and does it apply to AT too, Yrj=F6 Engestr=F6m?)

and, just as a closing accent...
5. > Husserl (or analogous figures such as Brentano and Frege)
This is like saying: "Vygotsky (or analogous figures like Lev
Tolstoy and BF Skinner)".

I only hope that I did not give anybody the impression that I think
phenomenology is better than CHAT/ /AT. Please, continue being
CHAT/ /ATters. You are beautiful that way.

Yours, with best greetings

Piotr Szybek, Lund University, Sweden

Piotr Szybek
University of Lund
Department of Education
PO Box 199, S-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN
tel +46462224732, fax +46462224538
E-mail piotr.szybek who-is-at pedagog.lu.se