Husserl, est-il un chat?

Piotr Szybek (Piotr.Szybek who-is-at pedagog.lu.se)
Wed, 26 Jun 1996 20:56:04 +0100

Phil's reply (June 26th) to my letter "Re: Husserl" (same day)
infused me with warm feelings towards Phil: he thinks the Crisis of
the european sciences etc. is a "great book" and he has read Husserl
(probably more than I did). I have to correct certain
misunderstandings: Secondary litterature on phenomenology is not
invaluable per se; it is invaluable as a _substitute_ of reading
phenomenologists, and notably Husserl. On the other hand, it can be
valuable for persons like Phil who have read Husserl. My experience
was that I had first to watch how a concept is emerging in Husserl
and then could go e.g. to Mc Cormick & Elliston or to Elisabeth
Str=F6ker's book on the life-world and then back to Husserl. There are
probably many such turns of the spiral to go.

Now to Phil's challenge, to tell of my " dissents from the conventional
interpretation of other aspects of it" (Crisis...). My problem is that
(1) I am primarily interested in specific questions of education etc. and
methodology is for me something ensuring that I am doing a good job.
Trying to understand Husserl is one thing, but I dont know how to place
exegetical discussions on Husserl in this context.
(2) I subscribe to the list in order to watch how *this milieu* is using c=
ertain
ideas, theories, how it is constructing an agenda etc. Jeez, ghosh etc.(-:=

I'm really not_that_ interested in hearing my own voice (only a little) (-=
: .
On the other hand, I'm itching a bit - here, Phil, have your way. (-:
(do I spell the emoticon right? it is supposed to be "Piotr smiling
generously, long drink in hand"). Concerning my "interpretations of Husser=
l
that differ from the entire secondary literature and that help us relate i=
t better to
CHAT". (What is the emoticon for "a pensive look"?) I never managed to re=
ad
the entire secondary etc. But the turn that Heidegger effected, according =
to Phil
(if I understand you right) toward culture and activity. Is itnot already =
dealt with
in Ideen, Buch 3 (Phenomenological foundations of the sciencse)?
(Here, Phil, you have an opportunity to make me splash that drink on
my shirt. (-: I expect you to correct me)
Finally (and finally seriously): I want once more toexpress my view =
that the
question of "relating to CHAT" can only be dealt with by people _using_ CH=
AT (AT).
I am really more interested in discussing with CHAT followers how they
(or maybe: we, meaning they and me) look on "grounding knowledge (situatin=
g it)
in bodily experiences". This is something obsessing me. As Mike
mentioned, it has to do with "headaches" - and by this I mean
something expressed in a scene in Bulgakov's novel "Master and
Margarita":

Pilate asks a detainee:
"Why do you talk of truth, you hobo? What do you know of it? Well -
what is truth?" and gets the answer "The truth is that you right now
have a headache".

Truth is then, that somebody's (an-other human's - or maybe not only
human's?) pain is there, for me. The clincher would be that
_somebody's_ headache
becomes _my_ headache,

Hmmm....?

Warm greetings, especially to Phil

Piotr Szybek, Lund

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