language is an outgrowth of experience so if i was going to give you language what would i do i give you experiences
for - adjacency - language - phenomenology - language is fundamentally an experience
language is an outgrowth of experience so if i was going to give you language what would i do i give you experiences
for - adjacency - language - phenomenology - language is fundamentally an experience
nyam ne-pa
for - description of phenomenology of nyam ne-pa - from Medium article - Heart Sutra and the nyams of Dzogchen - Aleander Vezhnevets - 2022, Sept 7
description of phenomenology of nyam ne-pa - openness - stillness - inter-relatedness - clarity - expanse - spaciousness - no sense of boundaries between senses of internal and external experiences - body feels transparent and weightless
We must not use the word system, then, to refer to an object. A system is an abstraction. It is not a special kind of thing, but a special way of looking at a thing.
critique on classic physics and its deductive methods and focus on isolated phenomena. Bertalanffy considered such methods as unsuitable for biology
for: Michel Bilbot, transcendental, transcendental - Kant, awakening, non-dual, nondual, nonduality, non-duality, emptiness, epoche, Maurice Merle-Ponty, perspective shift, perspective shift - transcendental
summary
adjacency
for: philosophy - of wonder, Howard L. Parsons, phenomenology - wonder, wonder - theory of
title: A Philosophy of Wonder
In the remainder of this paper, I will focus on the first move, by describing and comparing four different ways of looking at the world: two versions of materialism and two versions of phenomenology. It is my hope that these world views may serve to set a stage for further discussion between Husserlian philosophers and interested scientists.
for: worldviews - materialist and phenomenological
paraphrase
it is easier to try to describe the move between matter-based science and experience-based phenomenology, on the one hand, and between phenomenology and contemplative spirituality on the other.
for: comparison -
meme
In summary, phenomenology leads to finding the relationship between objectivity andsubjectivity, which is present in each instant of human experience. Transcendence is not reducedto the simple fact of knowing the stories or physical objects; on the contrary, it tries to understandthese stories from the perspective of values, norms and practices in general
for: phenomenology - explanation
comment
explanation
comment
Due to its nature, phenomenology focuses on experiences and emphasizes the sense thatsurrounds the everyday, the meaning of the human being, that is to say, the experience of whatwe are. Phenomenology is sensitive to the problems around the world of life.The world of life represents the reality of daily life, which is investigated under a non-naive eye. This world without categories or explanations, coming from science, is the life's pre-scientific dimension, characterized by being extremely rich, a world of experiences andexperience. In this world, objective sciences are examined as cultural facts. It is the sum of bordersand horizons in which worldly facts are born and established, and which have to be regeneratedby experience. This study corresponds to the worldly phenomenology.
for: key insight - phenomenology as life's pre-scientific dimension
key insight
Phenomenology aims to carryout an exhaustive investigation and reach the root, that is to say, the field where the experience ismaterialized, the "thing itself", as things are for the consciousness
for: adjacency - emptiness - phenomenology
adjacency between
The phenomenological approach projects a radical criticism of scientific naturalism,which assumes that the object of science is to find laws that govern reality, where the person isconceived as another object of nature.
for: scientific naturalism - critique, scientific naturalism - phenomenology, consciousness - objectification of, SELF-consciousness
comment
in the Middle Ages, and still in the usual meanings of words in English, transcendent and transcendental are almost synonymous. It means beyond, beyond what? Beyond appearances. Beyond experience. Something that explains experience, but it's not directly experienced. But Kant distinguished between the two meanings. 00:08:30 He said, as soon as we posit with the unconditioned, outside of all possible experience, the ideas become transcendent. So this is the usual meaning of transcendent. Kant uses transcendental in a completely different sense. It's not what is beyond appearances. But what is below appearances. And becomes the condition of possibility 00:08:58 of these appearances. It's from where appearances appear. That is the new sense of transcendental by Kant.
definition: transcendental
perspective shift: transcendental
Husserl discovered Buddhism about, at about 1924. So he was given the book. A translation of the Sutta Pitaka in German. And the author of the translation asked him to give a command, a preface. 00:13:52 And in his preface, Husserl wrote the following sentence. Buddhism looks purely inward, in vision and deed. It is not transcendent but transcendental.
From the very beginning, his work has been guided by what Edmund Husserl called the mothers of knowledge. Namely, the dynamics of lived embodied experience,
the concern of phenomenology "to explicate its ownfoundation .. requires th¢ self-reflexiveness which characterizes a self·referential theory.
That is to say, he must live in a universewhere the sequences of events are such that his unconventional communicational habits will bein some sense appropriate.
The analysis of pathological psychological conditions such as schizophrenia may benefit from framing them within Husserl's Lebenswelt concept of lifeworld.
prevails
In the original German, 'prevails' is rendered "herrscht." Herrscht shares a common root with the ordinary German word Herr (Mister, or, more evocatively, Master). 'Lordship' (as, in the chapter of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, on 'Lordship and Bondage' is rendered Herrschaft.)
My own reading of Capital tends to center upon the question of domination in capitalist societies, and throughout chapter 1 (in particular, in The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof) Marx is especially attuned to the distinguishing how the forms of domination that are prevalent in capitalist societies are distinct from the relations of "personal dependence" that characterize pre-capitalist modes of production.
It seems prudent, therefore, to take note of the way that the seemingly innocuous notion of 'prevalence' is, for Marx, in his original formulation, already evocative of the language of mastery, domination, perhaps even something like 'hegemony'.
Furthermore, the capitalist mode of production prevails--it predominates. Yet, as Louis Althusser observes in his discussion of the concept of the 'mode of production' in On the Reproduction of Capitalism, every concrete social formation can be classified according to the mode of production that is dominant (that prevails--herrscht). In order to dominate, something must implicitly be dominated, or subordinate. "In every social formation," Althusser writes, "there exists more than one mode of production: at least two and often many more." Althusser cites Lenin, who in his analysis of the late 19th c. Russian social formation, observes that four modes of production can be distinguished (Louis Althusser, On the Reproduction of Capitalism, Verso 2014, p. 19.)
In our analysis of social formations, the concrete specificity of each can be articulated by carefully examining the multiplicity of modes of production that coincide within it, and examine the way in which capitalism tends to dominate a multiplicity of subordinate modes of production that, on the one hand, survive from past modes of production but which may also, on the other, be emerging in the present (i.e. communism). Thus even if capitalism tends towards the formation of a contiguous world-system dominated by its particular imperatives, this does not mean that this process is homogenous or unfolds in the same way in each instance.
For some commentators, capitalism is defined by the prevalence of wage labor and the specific dynamics that obtain therefrom. Yet this has often led to confusion over, whether, in analyzing the North American social formation prior to 1865, in which slavery coexists with wage-labor, the mode of production based on slave-labor is pre-capitalist. Yet as we find here in ch. 1, what determines the commodity as a commodity is not that it is the product of wage labor, rather that it is produced for exchange. As Marx writes on p. 131, "He who satisfies his own need with the product of his own labor admittedly creates use-values, but not commodities. Insofar as the slave-system in North America produced commodities (cotton, tobacco, etc.) for exchange on the world market, the fact that these commodities were produced under direct conditions of domination does not have any bearing on whether or not we identify this system of production as 'capitalist'. Wage-labor is therefore not likely the determinative factor; the determinative factor is the production of commodities for exchange. It is only insofar as commodities confront one another as exchange-values that the various modes of useful labor appear as expressions of a homogenous common substance, labor in the abstract
It is in this sense that we can observe one of the ways that the capitalist mode of production prevails over other modes of production, as it subordinates these modes of production to production for exchange, and thus the law of value, regardless of whether wage-labor represents the dominant form of this relation. Moreover, it provides a clue to how we can examine, for example, the persistence of unwaged work within the family, which has important consequences for Social Reproduction Theory.
Nonetheless, we can say that insofar as commodities confront each other on the market in a scene of exchange that they implicitly contain some 'third thing' which enables us to compare them as bearers of a magnitude of value. This 'third thing', as Marx's demonstration shows, is 'socially necessary labour time', which anticipates the way that wage-labor will become a dominant feature of capitalist society.
My perception is informed by my ability (or lack of ability) to move.
Understanding what participants perceive in what they lack and how but most importantly why they perceive that could give insights into identifying problems
I see and understand an object in terms of what I can do with it.
most important line in phen with regards to IxD