|Topic:||Re:Re:NLP and phenomenology|
|Posted by:||J Rose|
I like this phenomenology talk, but let's get something straight: In your post you say that the
Cartisian Split is not a problem for phenomenologist. This was not the case for Husserl, who you recommended as a good starting point. In his final work, "Crises..." he is very explict as to the degree to which Decartes is a major problem even for phenomenolgist.
But I think I understand your intention, which might be to simply suggest that the method used by phenomenologists does not start from the same
set of assumptions which most other attempts do.
This is true in some respects, but I must say that a certain sloppiness tends to creap into our thinking when we begin to equate FA to Husserl's epoche. In fact the results of Husserl's epoche are quite devistating to the concept of FA as it is explicated in "whispering".
The concept of FA rests on a set of presuppositions about an 'outside world'. These presuppositons are suspended by the epoche. If one is able to sustain this suspention imaginativly, one will begin to experience some very troubling/liberating insights in relation to
the metaphysics embedded in the concept of FA. Owen Barfield is one of the best places to start if you want to read an example of what happens after one can sustain the methodology of phenomenology- unfortuntately, Husserl wasn't all that able to sustain his method long enough to escape the habitual thought patterns of Cartisian
thinking- but he did enough, I should think.
Also an excellent book which not only establishes the consequences of scraping our old habits of thought but also demonstrates a participative epistemology/methodology to natural scientific research is "The Wholeness of Nature" by Henri Bortoft. If this book had been written in 1975 Gregory Bateson would have been with us for about 7 more years because he would have been one of the few, at that time, cabable of making the experiencial shifts which this approach demands.
I agree with Sherilla that it would be interesting to see what happens with Bortoft's work in the hands of Dr. Grinder. I imagine he would be capable of translating the Goethean approach to researching inner states and strategies of attention.
Phenomenology is attempting to puncture the taut skin of old habits of thought which still influence our most contemporary attempts to 'get it right'.
And I absolutely loved Dr Grinder's description of most books on Phenomenology as being like steping into a conversation which started a long time ago and to which he was not invited- an accurate desciption of the field's historical and present failures. However Bortoft's work, and others as well, is refeshing its clear, clean and practical expression.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|NLP and phenomenology||19/07/2002 01:23:35||Christer Magnusson|
|Re:NLP and phenomenology||25/07/2002 20:10:30||Martin Fry|
|NLP and phenomenology||28/07/2002 19:40:56||Martin Fry|
|Re:NLP and phenomenology||14/01/2004 17:18:48||Juan Arce|
|Re:Re:NLP and phenomenology||03/08/2002 02:35:03||J Rose|
|Re:NLP and phenomenology||26/07/2002 22:19:56||John Grinder|
|Re:NLP and phenomenology||13/01/2004 13:50:00||Juan Arce|
|Re:Re:NLP and phenomenology||13/01/2004 14:07:27||Pete West|
|Re:NLP and phenomenology||13/01/2004 19:44:33||Ryan Nagy|
|Re:Re:NLP and phenomenology||13/01/2004 19:56:55||Lee|
|Re:Re:NLP and phenomenology||13/01/2004 20:31:42||John Schertzer|
|help me please||02/02/2004 02:54:35||hoainam|