[Marxism] Is this an accuratequote of Heidegger?

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

*       From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <andromeda246@xxxxxxxxx>

-clip-


Specifically, someone who naively takes an objectivist stance as
self-evident, overlooks the power and immediacy of direct experience. In the
immediacy of experience, the external world is not isolated from or
counterposed to the human subject, but rather human existence is "fused
with" or part of the world. Thus what we are, we are in reality always
within the world (being-in-the-world), however much the pursuit of an idea
may transport us to an awareness which dislodges us from the world.

^^^^^
CB: As "direct" experience is of the individual, it starts to become clear
that the fundamental error of Phenomenology is a typical bourgeois
Robinsonade.  The centering in "individual experience" fails to recognize
that the original human experience is marked by its sociality, shaping by
custom and tradition, and movement away from individuality.


Again , below, the objectivity of the

"experiential encounter and human contact springing from our original,
humanly-natural lifeworld, "

Is inherently and originally social, not like Robinson Crusoe. It is not the
direct individual experience of the world unmediated society. The "primary
subjectivity of human agents" is saturated with sociality as the key process
in the founding of the human species.


^^^^^

Phenomenology as corrective thus appeals for a return to an experiential
encounter and human contact springing from our original, humanly-natural
lifeworld, uncluttered by intellectual rationalisations, and aims to show
how, in scientific experience with its objective pretensions, the original,
primary subjectivity of human agents nevertheless again asserts itself.
Ultimately, the grandiose aim of phenomenology is the reunification of
scientific specialisms fragmented and lost in objectifications, around the
original integrality or authenticity of human experience - a bit like
defragmenting your hard disk perhaps.

-clip-

As regards (3), this is a sort of anti-intellectualism, a revolt against
meanings which are regarded as not really belonging to the subject in his
pristine authenticity. At best, it soberly cuts through garbage and
confusions. At worst, it justifies a way of sensing "because this is the way
I sense it", prompting a retreat into subjectivism or even solipsism.

^^^^^^
CB: Truly. "the  (human) subject in his pristine authenticity" is originally
and integrally social , cultural, historical, relative to prior species.

^^^^^^

As regards (4), the problem is really one of why what makes sense to me
should make any sense to anybody else, or all people. If it does make sense
to all, this is taken to be proof of the power and validity of the
phenomenological inquiry. But if it doesn't, then there is ultimately no
consistent or non-arbitrary way of resolving why that is.

Phenomenology is often disparaged, but it has important practical (though
maybe unacknowledged) uses, for example in art and music, the study of
anthropogenesis, in psychotherapy, survey development and in advertising,
media and marketing - any branch of inquiry where the focus is on how
phenomena appear subjectively to people, how they come by their perceptions
and how these are transformed. But what is mostly missing from phenomenology
is a more profound inquiry into real contradictions behind ideated dualisms,
and the mediation of those contradictions; also, a more profound inquiry
into the implications of the distinction between the conscious and the
subconscious.

^^^^^
CB: This might be worthwhile as a way to see how to change people's minds to
organize to change the world.  But it must be stripped of its methodological
focus on "the" individual.

^^^^^

In American pragmatism, phenomenology is regarded as "interesting and
creative" thinking, but essentially useless or only aesthetically
significant, since in pragmatic thought, meaning is constituted by direct
practical significance. Yet when pragmatists attempt to theorise human
experience, they often cannot go beyond inventing a phenomenology of their
own (e.g. "axis of evil"), because pragmatism is ultimately incapable of
critically reflecting on itself - a "way of knowing" available to
non-pragmatists is likely to be either an empty set ("it makes no sense to
me" or "that is just the way you look at it" or "one should not take this at

face value") or else assimilated to pragmatism, i.e. considered only for its
practical significance.

^^^^^

CB: The main flaws of Pragmatism and Positivism are also this methodological
basis in "the" individual, the error of the Robinsonade. This is also the
main problem with Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, Libertarianism,
Christianity, lots of bourgeois ideologies. I guess we could say _all_
bourgeois ideologies.  I think Carrol says its "pristine" form is in Milton.


Charles



Jurriaan

If there's a God or any kind of justice under the sky
If there's a point, if there's a reason to live or die
If there's an answer to the questions we feel bound to ask
Show yourself - destroy our fears - release your mask
Oh yes we'll keep on trying
Hey tread that fine line
Yeah we'll keep on smiling yeah
And whatever will be - will be
We'll just keep on trying
We'll just keep on trying
Till the end of time




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism