dorion cairns - conversations with husserl and fink

r'P

HA

EN

OM

EN

OLO

GIC

A-

DQ

RIQ

N(jA

IRI\

COLLECTIO

NFQ

NDEEPAR

H.1..

vanBREDA

ETPUBLIEE.

sous'

ED

ES

CE

NT

RE

SD

Al(C

HIV

ES

-HU

SS

ER

Ln

|,

Corwersatzonswar/2Husserland

Fm/r

LE

PA

TR

OB

AG_

ED

ITE

IJR

YT

HE

1-{U

SS

ER

L-A

RC

'IIIVli5

INLO

UV

AIN

.D

OR

ION

CA

IRN

SW

ITHA

FOREWORD

BY

RIC

HA

RD

M.

ZA

NE

RConversations

withHusserland

Fink

ED

ITE

DB

YT

HE

HU

SS

ER

L-A

RC

IIIVE

S

INL

OU

VA

11

\.

WIT

HA

FO

RE

WO

RD

BY

RIC

HA

RD

M.

ZA

NE

R

0'(-1

0__ 4F}'1

o.|.'D3_+H

ICom

itde

rdactionde

lacollectio

Prsideni:S.Ijsseling

(Leuven);M

embres:

M.

Farbcr(B

uffalo),E.

Fin

kf(Freiburg

i.B

r.),L.

Landgrebe,(K6111),

\.V.Marx

(Freiburgi.

BL),

]..\T.M

ohanty(N

ewY

ork},P.

Ricocur

(Paris),E.

Strfjkcr

{K6111},'

].Tam

maux

{Louvain},K

.H

.V

ulkmann-S

chluck(K6111);

I_

_T

__T

__

_SBC1'1.iI'Bl

'lanlinauxI

MA

RrII\

[JE)

NI]

HO

IFfl

FH

EH

AG

UE

J."1976

I"2.

21/I/9

if.

4

I976

by.M

artnusNijko_f,=,

TheHague,NeHzer'Ia1cds

Allrights

reserved,inciuding

theright

totranslate

orto

reproducethis

bookorparts

thereofinany

form

ISBN9024715318

l._

I

VIX

XV

IIX

XV

IIIX

XIX

.X

XX

.X

XX

IX

XX

IIX

XX

IIIX

XX

IVX

XX

VX

XX

VI

XX

XV

IIX

XX

VIII

XX

XIXXL

XL

IX

LII

XL

IIIX

LIV

XLV

.X

LV

IX

LV

IIX

LV

IIIX

LIXXLLIL

IILIII

LIV.

LVLV

ILV

IILV

IIIL

VIXLX

LX

IL

XII.

LX

III.L

XIV

.LX

V.

LX

VI

LX

VII

TA

BL

EO

FC

ON

TE

NT

S

Conversationw

ithHusserland

Fink,20111131Conversation

with

HusserlandFink,24111131

Conversationw

ithFink,24111131

Conversationw

ithHusserland


with


Conversationw

ithHusserland


with


with

Husserl,8112131Conversation

with


with

Fink,19112131

Conversationw

ithHusserland


with


Conversationw

ithHusserland

others,26112131Conversation

with


with

HusserlandReiner,31112131

Conversation

with

Husserland

Fink,511132

Conversationw

ithHusserl,1311132

Conversationw

ithFink,

1811132Conversation

with


with


Conversationw

ithHusserland


with


with


with

Husserl,1113132

Conversation

with

Husserl,415132

Conversationw

ithHusserl,615132

Conversationw

ithHusserl,915132

Conversationw

ithHusserl,1115132

Conversation

with

Husserland

Fink,3115132

Conversationw

ithHusserl,216132

Conversationw

ithHusserl,416132

Conversationw

ithHusserl,816132

Conversationw

ithHusserl,1316132

Conversationw

ithHusserland


with


Conversationw

ithHusserl,2716132

Conversationw

ithHusserl,2916132

Conversationw

ithHusserland


with


Conversation

with

Fink,2319132

Conversationw

ithHusserland

Fink,25110132

TABLEo

rCO

NTENTS

Lxvrrr.Conversation

with

Husserl,2111132LXIX.

Conversationw

ithHusserland

Fink,15111132

Appendix1.Topics,Husserlconversation,241613111.

Conversationw

ithHusserl,2516131

111.Conversation

with

Husserl,2716131

Works

byH

assertmentioned

inthe

Conversations

Index01names

Indexofsubjects

v1199100

103104105

107

109

III

FO

RE

WO

RD

Thisis

anunusualvolum

e.During

hisperiods

ofstudyw

ithEd-

mund

Husserlfirstfrom

1924to

1926,thenfrom

I931to

1932-

Dorion

Cairnshad

become

imm

enselyim

pressedw

iththe

stri-king

philosophicalquality

ofI-lusserls

conversationsw

ithhis

studentsand

co-workers.Notunlike

hisdaily

writing

(fiveto

sixhours

aday

wasnot

uncomm

on,as

Husserlreportsherein,

thenature

ofwhich

wasa

continuoussearching,

reassessing,m

odi-fying,

advancingand

evenrejecting

offormer

views},Husserls

conversations,especially

evidencedfrom

Cairns'srecord,

wererem

arkablefor

theirdepth

andprobing

character.Because

ofthis,and

becauseofthe

importantlight

theythrew

onI-IusserI's

written

andpublished

works,Cairns

hadearly

resolvedto

setdown

inwriting,

asaccurately

aspossible,the

detailsofthese

conversations.Largely

prompted

bythe

questionsand

concernsofhis

students,includingCairns,the

presentConversations(from

thesecond

period,19311932,exceptforthe

initialconversation)provide

asignificant,

intriguing,and

alwaysfascinating

insightinto

boththe

issuesw

hichwere

prominentto

Husserlatthistim

e,and

thew

ayhe

hadcom

eto

viewthe

systematic

andhistorical

placementofhis

own

earlierstudies.Cairns

hadoften

insisted

principallyin

hisrem

arkablelec-

turesatthe

Graduate

Facultyofthe

NewSchooll

thatattainingafairand

accurateview

ofHusserlsenorm

ouslyrich

andcom

plex

1Cairnss

lecturesbetween

1956and

1964are

especiallyim

portant.He

addressedhim

selfto

suchtopics

as:Hl1sserl's

Theoryof

lntenticmality

{atour-sem

estercourse);

"TinePhenom

enologyof

Thinking";

]:lpiste|nology";as

well

asseveral

coursesdealing

with

ethicsand

value-theory,and

major

figuresi|1

thehistory

ofP11i10s0phY

(especiallyLocke,

Kant,

Hum

e,and

rgthcentury

thought).These

lec-tures,m

ostofwhich

were

written

outinfull,

forman

importantpartofC

airnsspapers

which,

itis

expected,w

illbe

preparedfor

publicationover

thenext

years.

XF

OR

EW

OR

D

bodyof

work

requiredthat

onebegin

onesstudies

with

thoseworks

whichwere

written

atthepeak

ofHusserlsphilosophical

powers,and

thenone

couldsensibly

turnto

therestofthe

cor-pus,always

readingit,however,in

thelightofthe

former.This

or-der,Cairnsm

aintained,placedthe

CartesianM

editation-$2first,fol-

lowed

bythe

Formaland

Tra-nscemieatalLogic,'3

onlyafter

mas-

teringthese,could

onem

eaningfullystudy

Ideas,I4(w

itha

focuson

PartII,

sincet-lusserlrightly

hadserious

reservationsabout

Partl,

which

heregarded

astoo

unclear).After

this,one

couldthen

turnto

thelargely

pre-philosophical(and

certainlypre-

transcendental)Logical

Irioesti'gati'or-is,5and

thenthe

restof

Husser1sworks,

publishedand

unpublished.The

presentCon-

versationsconfirm

preciselythis

interpretation,and

moreover

givethe

rationalefor

it:as

isam

plyclearherein,it

wasonly

inthe

lightofhis

laborsin

ther92os

culminating

inthe

firsttw

ow

orksm

entionedabove,

thatHusserlcam

eto

alevelofgenuine

philosophicalmaturity

fromthe

perspectiveofw

hichthe

earlierstudies

andinquiries

couldbe

viewedsystem

aticallyand

assessedas

totheir

approximation

to,or

failurefully

toachieve,

age-

nuinelyphilosophicalsignificance.

Hence,iffor

nootherreason,

theseCorwersah'ons

haveboth

historicalandsystem

aticim

por-tance

forunderstandingllusserl's

ownviews

ofhisw

ork.Coming

3E

dmund

Husserl,

Carcsiam'sri;e

.-lfetiritatitmen

mid

ParriscrI'ortr&gc.

Herausge-

gebenund

eingeleitetvon

Prof.

llr.S.Slrasser.

Hnsserliana

BandI.

Hang:

Martinus

Nijhoff,

I950.Eng.

tr.by

Dorion

Cairns.

The.I-lagne:

Marliiius

Nijhoff,

I960.3

Edm

undH

usserl,Form

alsand

trait-szcndentaleLogiic.

Vrrsucheincr

Kritik

defIogischm

Vrrrmm

.H

alle:M

axN

iemeyer

Verlag,I929.

ling.tr.

byD

orionC

airns.The

Hague:

Martinus

Nijliuff,

1969.4

Edm

undH

usserl,Idem

zueiner

reimm

1'Iaa11onie:mngi:andpiiiiuom

csmiogilscken

Pkilosophie.lirstes

Buch:

Allgenieine

lilinltihrungin

diereine

Phanornenologie.Her-

ausgegebenvon

Walter

lliemel.

Husserliaiia

Bandlil.

Hang:

l\-IartinusN

ijhofi,1950.

5E

dmunrll~ll1sserl,Logisr:.Fze

L-ntersacJ;:m_.r,'m.H

nlle:f\lH.X

Niem

eyerVerlag,

1900,or

{Vierte

Auflage,1:325).

ling.tr.

by_I.

N.

Findlay{in

two

volumes],

fromthe

2ndedition

ofI913.

Ne\v

York:

Thellunianities

Press,1970.

'5Such

as"P

hilosophieals

strengeW

issensel-rail,Logos,

1{191o

1911},pp.

289-341

(Eng.tr.

byQ

uentinLauer,

publishedalong

with

anotherof

Husserl's

articlesunder

thetitle:

II1sn-nrncnologyand

theC

risisof

Ihi-fosopky.N

ewY

ork:H

arperTorchbooks,

TheAcadem

yLibrary,

1965,pp.

_71:47].

Otherw

orksby

llusserlhavebeen

carefullyedited

andp11lJli5hP(l

underthe

auspicesofthe

HusserlA

rchives,inthe

seriesentitled

Husserliana,

publishedby

Marlinlis

Nijhofi.

Theseother

works,

Cairns

ofteninsisted,

must

heread

inthe

lightof

theForm

aland

Transcendmtal

I.o;;,-icand

theffartesian

.~'l-feditatrfmi-s;especially

isthis

theease

with

Erlalirim

gand

L-lrtsil,R'n's:'s

o'erzuropaiscken

lrl"i$$'n$t;kafi6Bm

iddie

transzerrdentafc

Pkrinoriicnologic,and

allthe

studiesleft

unpublishedby

Husserl

duringhis

lifetime.

FO

RE

VV

OR

DX

I

soonafterthe

completion

ofhissem

inalFormaland

Transcenden-talLogic,and

hislectures

inFrance,

thepresentvolum

erecords

hissubstantialeffort

tofind

aclearw

ayofpresenting

thisbasic

conceptionofphenom

enology,hisevidentconcern

tosethis

ear-lierstudies

intheir

propercontext,aswellas

whathe

seesas

them

ajorthrust

ofhis

imm

ediatelyforthcom

ingw

ork.Thus,

notonly

them

ajorthemes

ofthelogic

andtheir

extensionin

furtherlogicalstudies,but

alsoan

importantextension

tothe

CartesianMzdiitatziorz-s

(inas

many

asthree

additionalM

editations,as

mentioned

inthisw

ork),andsom

eofthe

importantthem

eslatertobe

takenup

inthe

Crisis,arealladdressed

herein.One

ofthem

oststriking

featuresof

Husserlslifelong

effortto

establisha

trulyfoundationaldiscipline

ofphilosophicalcriticismis

hereexhibited

quitedram

atically

andoften

toboth

Cairnssand

Fink'ssur-

prise,ifnotdism

ay.Hardly

anyinsightorresultis

regardedby

Husserl,evenatthis

latedate

inhis

career,asdefinitively

estab-lished:He

[andperforce

hisreaders),finds

itnecessarycontinual-

lyto

re-examine,

researchagain

andagain,

terrainw

hichm

ostofhis

followersand

criticsw

ouldlike

toregard

asH

usserlses-

tablishedview

s,but

which

Husserlhim

selfis

neverw

ontto

acceptasestablished

andclosed

tofurther

discussion.Thus,not

onlyhis

viewsofthe

ego,constitution,embodim

ent,intersubjec-tivity,

time-consciousness,

Passiv-ia't,and

otherwell

known

themes,but

evenintentionality

itselfaresubm

ittedto

renewedand

probingquestioning

inthese

Conversations.Nothing

as

heem

phasizesagain

andagain

can

betaken

asdefinitive;

inthe

wordsof

theForm

alandTrait-scerideuia!

Logic,the

j>oss1Tbiliyofdeception

isinherentin

theevidence

ofexperienceand

doesnot

annuleitheritsfundam

entalcharacteroritseffect

..."Indeed,he

quiteexplicitly

deniesthat

evidenceof

anykinds

canyield

anabsolute

securityagainstdeceptions

...9The

presentCori-oersai-ioas

giveam

pleevidence

thatHusserlmeantprecisely

what

hesaid:every

effort,andclaim

,toknow

inherentlyrequire

phe-nom

enologicalexplicativecriticism

,and

thatitself

necessitatescontinuous

transcerrdenialself-criticism.

Thisvolum

eis

thelastw

hichCairns

hadhim

selfpreparedfor

7Form

alandTranscendentalLogic,op.cit,p.

156.8

Ibtd-.pp.

284-39.9

Ibii,

p_157_

XII

FO

RE

WO

RD

publication.Itwas,however,by

nomeans

theonly

workwhich

hehad

hopedto

publish,theplans

forwhich

werecutshortby

hissudden

andtragic

deathin

january,1973.

Conversationsw

ithhim

earlieron,asa

resultofwhich

Ihad

agreedto

assume

legaland

philosophicalresponsibility

forhis

philosophicalw

ritings,clearly

indicatedthat

among

hisvast

andextensive

writings,

spanninga

periodofforty

years,Cairnsbelieved

thattherewere

betweenten

andtw

elvevolum

esw

hichcould

bem

anageablyedited

forpublication

overthe

years.W

iththe

greatassistance

ofProfessorFredKersten,who

iscurrentlyengaged

incom

pletinga

catalogueof

Cairnsspapers,1"

itis

hopedthat

othersof

hissem

inalwritings

will

appearsequentially

inthe

nearfuture.

Inthe

meantim

e,it

hasbeen

decidedto

placehis

papers,as

theyare

catalogued,w

iththe

Centrefor

AdvancedResearch

inPhe-

nomenology,

underthe

directorshipof

Professor_]'os

Huertas-

JourdaatW

ilfridLaurierU

niversityin

Waterloo,O

ntario,Cana-da,along

with

thepapers

ofotherscholarsin

thephenom

enologi-caltradition.

RICHARDM.ZANER

SouthernM

ethodistUniversity

Dallas,Texasjanuary,

I975

1"M

ostim

mediately,

Prof.

Kerstenis

preparinga

newtranslation

ofl-iusserI's

IdeaI,

basedon

Cairnss

wort-:.It

isanitinipaterl

thatthis

will

becom

pleteby

late1976.O

thersofC

airnssw

orks,especiallyhis

own

originalwritings,can

thenbe

turnedto.

ED

ITO

R'S

PR

EF

AC

E

InI968

them

anuscriptofthepresentw

orkreached

theHusserl-

Archivesow

ingto

thegood

officesof

ProfessorH

.Spiegelberg.

Toprepare

them

anuscriptforpresswe

then,inagreem

entwith

theauthor,assum

edthe

responsibilityforcarrying

outallthein-

dispensableeditorialcom

pilation.U

nfortunatelyD

orionCairns

wasnot

grantedthe

scrutinizingof

thesubm

ittedw

ordingnor

theelaboration

ofhisprojected

preface.As

with

CairnssG-aidefortranslating

Hasserlthe

editorsaim

edatpreparing

forpressa

textfaithfultothe

originalmanuscript.

Indoing

sotheir

interventionswere

limited

tothe

correctionof

theorthographicaland

gramm

aticalmistakes,to

theelim

inationofdisturbing

stylisticirregularities

andalso

tothe

completion

ofrather

alot

ofabbreviations.Through

hisrepeated

reviewing

ofthe

manuscript

ProfessorR

ichardM

.Zaner

kindlycontributed

thereto.Also

headded

theelucidative

completions

which

went

beyondm

erelinguistic

mistakes.These

additionsare

allindicatedby

theuse

ofsquarebrackets

[].In

orderto

facilitatethe

readingofthis

work,

toallG

erman

terms

andexpressions

wasadded

atranslation,

which

hasbeen

putbetween

angularbrackets

.

Thesetranslations

were

ifpossible

m

adeaccording

toCairns's

Guide.Ifone

andthe

same

expressionwasrepeatedly

usedinoneconversation

thetranslation

wasindicated

onlyupon

itsfirstappearance.

Allthe

numbered

footnoteswere

suppliedby

theeditors.These

footnoteschiey

comprise

biographicaland

bibliographicalre-

ferences,referringto

names

ofpersonsand

works

mentioned

inthe

text,which

todaym

ightbefam

iliaronlyto

asm

allgroupof

persons.Thereferences

bearingan

asteriskwereincluded

byCairns

himself.

XIVEDITOR'S

PREFACE

Inorder

tofacilitate

thescientic

utilizationof

thisrather

unusualwork,the

editorsfinally

thoughtitusefulto

adda

tableofcontents,an

indexofnam

es,anindex

ofsubjectsand

moreover

aliststating

allthew

orksofHusserlreferred

to.

Theeditorialw

orkwas

doneby

R.Bernet,G.deAlm

eidaand

R.Parpan,scientificcollaborators

oftheH

usserl-Archives,work-

ingfor

them

ostpart

underthe

directionofProfessor

Herm

anLeo

VanBreda

(T1974).Thecorrection

oftheproofs

wasaccom

-plished

byBrian

Maguire

andProfessor

Richard

M.Zaner.

Louvain,AugustI975.H

usserl-ArchivesI

Conversationwith

Husserl,I6/7/26Today

Icalled

forthe

lasttime

onHusserl.

Thereins

Gram

matik

(puregram

mar),

hesaid,

isa

more

in-clusive

sciencethan

onem

ightassume

fromthe

Logis-theU

rater-suckim

gerz.Everylanguage

musta

priorifigureforth

theform

ofthe

assertion"A

isB

;furtherm

ore,it111ustsetforth

them

odelform

s:Ais,perhaps,B

.Thissetting

forthm

aybe

doneby

thetone

ofvoice,if

notexpressly

byspecialwords.

Thew

ordthat

expressesthe

modality

may

figurein

anasserted

whole.A

isperhaps

B

may

beasserted.Thus,in

general,them

odalitym

aybecome

partofthem

atter.Furtherm

oreevery

languagem

ustsetforth

thedistinctions,

foundin

thenaturalEinsteliaag

(attitude),ofsubjectandobject,

Ichand

Umwelt(Ego

andsurrounding

world)

quality,relation,

etc.

II

Conversationw

ithHusserland

Becker,24/6/31Yesterday

ateleven-thirty

Isaw

Husserlforthe

firsttime

sincem

yreturn

toFreiburg.

Heseem

edm

uchthe

same

asve

years3g);hair

alittle

grayer,a11dhearing

alittle

lesskeen,especially

folm

ylow

-pitchedvoice.

Beckerlwas

therewhen

larrived.

1O

skarBecker

(:88g1964),

phenomenological

philosopher,co-editor

ofH

usser]sJ""l"'b"c"1

(Seenote

8,p.4],

contributed:1

smallsupplem

entto

l-IusserlsForm

al:and

lranszamierxlalz

Logik.

2C

ON

VE

RS

AT

ION

S

Apparentlyhe

wasseeing

Husserlforthe

firsttim

esince

thelatters

returnfrom

lecturingin

Frankfurt,Berlin,

andH

alle.A

fterafew

friendlyinquiries,

Husserlcontinuedto

speakon

thegeneralthem

eofthattrip.

III

Comlersat-to-nw

ithBeckerand

Kaufmam

i,25(26

or27)/6}31'

Becker,beim

Tee,bezwe-ifelt,

obes

cineallgem

eineInteresse

fairHusserljeizigebeu

refirde-

obsogar

derNachlass

publiziertsein

wiirde.Kaufm

annzthinks

thatin

theStim

mem

g3one

hasa

relationto

thewhole

world

thatis

notbasedon

Erfakmng

(ex-perience).Also

thatactsofcertain

sorts

actsofdrinking,

etc.,cannot

bee-ingeklam

mert

.(See

Finl

4CONVERSATIONS

canbe

graspedonlywhenspacehasbeen

constituted.Kinaesthesisdiffers

fromEinpfindnng

(sensation)byhaving

anintim

aterela-

tionto

subjectivepotentiality.

TheI

canw

orksdirectly

onor

with

kinaesthesis,andbrings

aboutsensationalandhence

objec-tive

changesonly

indirectly.The

identityofan

objectdepends

ona

certainrelation

tothe

"ichkann

(Ican).

Thebody

constitutesitself

throughperceptions

ofitself,and

theconstitution

ofthebody

asa

realobjectisa

necessarycon-

ditionfor

theconstitution

ofarealw

orldbeyond

thebody.

Iasked

Husserlwhether,if,

wereit

impossible

forthe

bodyto

havereflex

perceptionofitself

(onehand

touchthe

other,the

eyesee

thehand,etc.)

therew

ouldthen

bethe

possibilityofthe

constitutionofa

world,orofa

body.If,e.g.,ouronlysense

organwas

theeye,w

ouldwe

haveany

sortofworld?

Heanswered

no.Itold

himaboutBecker's

recentlectures,whereinhe

contrastedw

hathe

statedto

beHusserls

notionof

possibility,as

"purepossibility

alone,w

ithHeideggers7

notionof

possibilityas

potentiality,Verm

ogen(ability).N

aturallyHusserlwas

astonish-ed

thatanyone

couldattem

pta

distinctionbetween

himand

Heideggeralongthis

line.For

fifteenyears

atleast,he

hadbeen

operatingw

iththe

notionofM

ogliciikeitalsI/'ermo'gen

(possibilityas

ability)-

hehad

evenbeen

usingthe

termVerm

figlichkeii(facultative

possibility)to

expressthe

egosfree

potentiality.H

espoke

ofphenomenology

asthe

attempt

tom

akeunder-

standablethat

which

presentsitself

asbrute

fact,by

making

evidentits(rational)

constitution.This

inthe

endw

illgivem

ana

lifehe

canhonestly

andfully

acceptina

worldhe

canaccept,

inspite

ofbrutefacts

likewars

anddeath.

Thenextjahr/bucks

isto

containnot

onlythe

Germ

anof

theM

ditaiionsCartsiennes

butalso

furthertim

e-lecturesand

afurther

work

ofFink'sand

ashortthing

bya

Munich

jurist.Husserlm

aygive

asem

inarnextw

inter.

7M

artinHeidegger,

{bornr889],

Riekertsstudentat

Freiburg,assistantin

Hus-serls

philosophicalseminary

from1916

until1922,

editorof

Vart.-zsungen

zurPlatinu-

menologie

a'esirmeran

Zeitbewutseins,co-editorofI-lusser|s

jaltrbnck.3

jakrbuckM

rP.-hlosofikie

andphanom

wsoiogrischeForscim

ng:this

Annual

forphilosophy

andphenom

enologicalresearch"

wasedited

byH

usserlfrom

1913until

I930.rt

volumes

werepublished.Co-editors

wereM

oritzGeiger,Alexander

Pliinder,A

dolfR

einachand

Max

Schelcr.These

were

lateron

substitutedor

joinedby

Martin

Heidegger

andO

skarBecker.

WIT

HH

US

SE

RL

AN

DF

INK

5

HusserlcharacterizedHeideggers

Aristotleinterpretation

asa

readingback

intoAristotle

ofanattem

ptto

answera

questionw

hichfirst

arosein

Husserlsphilosophy.

Iforgot

aboveto

mention

anall-im

portantw

ideningof

them

eaningofkinaesthesis.

Husserlspokeofthe

freepossibility

ofturning

to"an

objectinm

emory

asinvolving

kinaesthesia.Pursuing

thestrain

indicatedby

theidea

ofpotentiality,

Iasked

himw

hetherfeelings

connectedw

iththe

beatingof

theheartorthe

processesofdigestion

werekinaesthesia

inthe

same

senseas

thefeelings

connectedw

ithhand

oreyem

ovements,and

asthe

kinaesthesiainvolved

inm

emory.

Hereplied

thatan

ex-press

actofvolitionwas

byno

means

necessarilyinvolved

whenthere

isa

connectionbetween

kinaestheticand

sensationaldata.The

ideaofkinaesthesis

expressesprim

arilya

functionalconnec-tion.Thus

theessentialdistinction

betweensense

dataand

kina-esthetic

datarem

ainsunclearform

e.

VI

Noteson

conversationw

itliHnsseri,18/7]31

Ibeganby

statingthatIwas

notclear

aboutthe

natureofkin-

aesthesis,andthis

startedHusserlon

ananalysis

ofperception,m

uchofw

hichwas

familiar.To

theperception

ofaphysicalobject

thereis

necessarynotonly

theconstitution

ofacertain

Einsiim

-migke-it(harm

ony,accord,accordance,agreement)in

theVerlanf

(course,flow)ofEm

pfind-ange-n(sensations),butalso

acorrelatedkinaesthetic

structure.Along

with

thesphere

ofnrspringlick-er

Passiuitcit(originary,

primitive

passivity)there

isnot

onlya

sphereofA

ktivitit(activity)butalsoa

sphereofsecondary

Passi-W-'5iI'5

(passivity).The

latterterm

indicatesw

hatnecessarily

fol-lows

ofitselfoncewe

haveactively

broughtaboutacertain

situa-tion.E.g.,once

Ihaveturned

toward

perceivingan

objectacer-

tainsortofVerlanffindetnotwendig

stair(course{orflow

)neces-

Sarilyoccurs).

Really

itis

aW

essnsznsaniinenhang(essential

interconnection).The

sphereofactivity

isone

offreedomand

inhibition

thesphere

wherethere

issom

esense

insaying

Icanor

Ican't.

6CONVERSATIONS

Activity

goesoutfrom

acertain

passivity,acertain

given.Thisis

truein

thecase

ofmem

ory.Itry

torem

embera

name.Ich

be-schciftige

mick

mi!den

Namen

mid

docknerm

agion

nichteszn

er-innern9.

Vihenthe

processgoes

furthertow

ardits

goal,there

isa

Hemninng

(inhibition).The

perceptionofan

objectinvolvesthe

presenceofa

bodyas

organism.

Only

becauseI

amas

bodya

thingin

thew

orld,may

Ihavea

world.These

analyses,orsomething

connectedw

iththis

generalprob-lem

,Husserlwanted

togive

asBeilageII

(supplementII)

(Really

asBeiiage

I)to

theLog-ische

Untersnchungenbuthe

sawthatthe

analysisofkinaesthesia

wasinsufficient

andaccordingly

hesup-

pressedthe

Beifage.TheotherBeiiage

hadalready

beenprinted,

andhence

itstands

as"Beilage

1though

thereis

infact

nofurther

Be-ilage.(In

factithas

nonum

ber.Husserlgot

thingsa

bittw

istedhere.

Really

thething

thathadalready

beenprinted

and

thatstandsin

the2d

edn.asa

footnote(II,p.364)

[was]

referringto

Beiiage2.1)

Theconstitution

ofmy

bodyform

eis

byvirtue

ofthefactthat

eachorgan

isin

oneorm

oreways

objectofanotherorgan.In

thecase

ofthekinaesthesia

oftouch(notthe

Empfindungen

(sensations))wehavethe

2dim

ensionalkinaestheticfield

localizedon

thesurface

ofthebody.

Butthe

two

arenotidentical.W

henI

move

thebody,

thesurface

isdeform

edbut

thefield

ofkin-

aesthesiaisnot.Indeed,ithasno

senseto

speakofthe

kinaestheticfield

beingdeform

ed.The

eyedoes

notsee

theeye,

andthe

relationof

thevisual

kinaestheticfield

tothe

eyeas

physicalobjectistherefore

dif-ferent.

Thereis

nogeneric

similarity

betweenkinaesthetic

dataand

sensations.Thelatter

~allofthem

,butin

differentdegreesand

waysaccording

tothe

fieldto

which

theybelong

are

capableofm

ediatingthe

perceptionofan

object.The

kinaestheticdata

arenot.

Butkinaesthetic

dataform

among

themselves

varioussystem

sw

hichin

turnare

interrelatedand

forma

unity.\Vith

eachsystem

9"I

occupym

yselfw

iththe

names

and,Yet,

Icannotrecall

them".

1Logische

Untersucim

ngen,2nd

volume,

rstpart,

p.364

(2nded.}.

WIT

!-IH

US

SE

RL

AN

DI-IN

K7

iscorrelated

an"organ",

aperceptive

organ,given

asan

objectthrough

sensationscorrelated

with

thekinaesthesis

orsome

otherorgan.(This

isthe

originalphenomenologicalconceptofan

organ,and

itisnotto

beconfused

with

thephysiologicalconcept,though

itism

itbestinimend

(co-determining)

forthelatter.)

Thebody

asorganism

ism

adeup

oftheorganization

ofsuchorgans

objects

with

correlatedkinaesthetic

fields.As

thefield

ofkinaesthesiais

theoriginalfield

ofpotentialityand

activity,sothe

bodyas

organismis

thefield

ofimm

ediateactivity

inthe

world

ofobjects.The

fieldofpotentiality

andactivity

admits

ofvaryingdegrees

ofapplicationofenergy.

Onecan

attend,e.g.,w

ithm

oreorless

energy.(Locke,

remarked

Husserl,had

noticedthese

variationsin

energyand,asekriicherilfe-nsch(an

honestman),had

describedthem

.Lockegoton

fineas

longas

hestuck

todescription.O

nlywhen

hetried

tobring

inthe

outsidew

orldis

theSachs

(matter)

sckwankend(vaci1lating).)

Husserlbroughtinthe

notionofthe

I-iktinesK

ind(fictitious

child)toillustrate

thatthereare

developmentalproblem

sasw

ellas

staticanalytic

problems.

Inparticular,

thedevelopm

entalproblem

ofthe

connectionof

certainkinaesthetic

connectionsw

iththeir

correspondingperceptive

variations.

VII

Conversationw

ithHusserland

Fink,I1/8/31

Husserlaskedif

Ihad

questions.I

mentioned

two

problems:

I)the

sphereof

kinaesthesisin

thew

idersense

and2)

association.The

meaning

ofkinaesthesis

iswidened

ina

way

which

haslittle

ornothingto

dow

ithaesthesis,so

Igather.Thebasisis

thegeneralquality

ofbeinga

rangeoffreedom

forIch-A

kte(acts

ofan

Ego).Thefield

ofkinaesthesisin

thenarrow

,comm

on,senseis

oneoffreedom

,ofVorderstitze(antecedents,preconditions)for

Wahrnekm

nng(perception).If

Imove

my

headso,Ibring

aboutcertain

changesin

theperceptualfield.So

alsothere

areVerde?-

sdtzeforremem

beringand

otheractsw

ithinthe

realmoffreedom

:If

Ido

soand

so,I

canrem

ember

suchand

such.I

didnot

getm

uchfurtherthan

thisin

thism

atter,which

formed

thesubject

8convsnsnrrons

ofourpreviousconversation.Fink

agreedw

ithme

(afterweleft

Husserl)that

theterm

kinaesthesiswas

unfortunatelyextended

tocoverthe

fieldofspontaneity,ofthe

{ch-kann(I

can).Forthe

rest,Husserlmostly

restatedalready

familiarm

atters:the

constitutionofan

objectivew

orld,ofintersubjectivity,ofthetranscendentalconsciousness.The

freedomofreturn

tothe

same

objectheem

phasizedas

beingim

portantforthe

constitutionof

objectivity.The

transcendentalegoitself

isnot,

inits

activity,tem

poralbutrathertemporalising

(zeitigend).Itlaysdow

nactsw

hichbecom

etem

porallyidentifiable.Itacquires

habitus,butasIch-Pol(Ego-pole)

itis

notintim

ethe

way

theO

bjekt-Poi(ob-ject-pole)

is.(Fink

pointedout

thatwhereas

theDi-ngerschei-

nungen(physical-thing

appearances)and

theirEinstim

migkeit

(harmony,accordance)are

thenecessary

conditionsfor

theexis-

tenceofthe

Objekt-Pol,itis

theSnbjekt-Polw

hichisthe

necessarycondition

fortheexistence

oftheacts,the

"Snb;iektersckeinnngen"(appearances

ofthesubject).)

Thisaboutthe

atemporality

ofthepure

egowas

newto

me.

Inspeaking

ofhabitu-s,Husserlspokeof

Habe

(having,possession),w

hichm

adeclearthat

hewas

awareof

theetym

ologicalsignificance,andon

thataccount

chosethe

word

nab-itns.

VIII

Conversationw

ithHusserland

Maloine

Hnsseri,I3i8/31'

(Margaretand

Iatdinner

atHusserls)Present-day

culture[is]characterized

byan

over-developmentof

technic.Tech-nik

issom

ethingw

hichcan

belearned

without

learningthe

culturebehind

it.Tecknik

[has]advancedfurtherin

America

because[there

is]lessculture

thereto

holdit

back.Our

culture[has

been]determ

inedfundam

entallyby

theideal

ofscience,w

hichfirstappearedin

Greeceandcontinued,though

mix-

edw

ithotherelem

ents.Todaythe

idealhasbecom

elost,though

thetechnic

which

isthe

resultofsciencerem

ains.Buttheculture

itselfmustfind

itsrenewalin

arediscoveryand

thoroughw

orkingoutofthe

ideaofscience:phenom

enology.Thecrisis,the

impasse,

ofculture[is]shown

bythe

factthattheyoung

todayare

dissatis-fied.Before

ithasbeen

theold.This

dissatisfaction[was]recorded

WIT

HH

US

SE

RL

AN

DF

INK

9

byH

uxley-

[in]Point

Counterpoint(Husserlread

apassage

wherescience

iscom

paredto

drinkasbeing

likewisea

flightfromthe

harderjobofliving.

Heseem

edpleased

with

theexposition

asan

indictment

ofpresentday

non-phenomenologicalscience),

-[and]by

Hergesheimenlz

Hespoke

ofanoptim

ismw

hichhe

hasbecause

oftheinterest

ofWertheim

er,13Gelb,14

andthe

Wertheim

ergroups

inBerlin,

Haile,and

Frankfurt.Previously

hehad

beenfor

along

time

pessimistic

-since

acarefulreading

ofHeidegger,

which

showedhim

howfar

Hei-

deggerwas

fromhim

.He

laidthis

toHeidegger

neverhaving

freedhim

selfcompletely

fromhis

theologicalprejudices,and

tothe

weightofthe

war

onhim

.The

war

andensuing

difficultiesdrive

men

intom

ysticisms.

Thistoo

accountsfor

Heidegger'spopularsuccess.But[is

not]Heideggerbyfarthe

mostim

portantofthe

non-Husserlian

philosopherstoday?

His

work

bearsthe

mark

ofgenius.Before

thusreading

Heideggerhehad

oftensaid

toHeidegger:

"You

andI

aredie

Phiinomenoiogie".

Atfirst,

Husserlthoughthewas

working

onlyforhim

self,andleaving

thebig

tasksto

theH

errnPkiiosopnen

(philosophers).Then

hesaw

thatw

hathehad

atlastfoundhad

universalvalidi-ty.

With

thepublication

ofthe

LogischeUntersnchungen

therecam

egreatresults.

Studentscam

efrom

allover,and

thegroup

worked

nightandday.

Diltheyl

inBerlin

gavea

seminar

onthe

LogischeU

ninsu-chnngen

andpublished

asm

allpaperinw

hichhe

speaksoftheir

importance

asepoch-m

aking.(Pitkinl

wasin

Diltheyssem

inar,became

interested,and

came

toG

ottingen,wherehe

receivedperm

issionto

translatethe

LogisekeUntersucfinngen.

Laterthe

prospectivepublisher

was

EAldous

LeonardH

uxley(1894-1963),

British

author..l"59P11

Hergesheimer(1830-1954),

USauthor,

novelist.1"

Max

Wertheim

er(1880-1943),

Germ

anpsychologist,

togetherw

ithK.

Koffka

3113W

.Kohler

oneof

thefounders

ofG

estaltpsychology.

15ddhm

arG

elb(188?-1936),

Germ

anpsychologist.

H_

Willhelnz

Dilthey

(r833-rgr1}G

erman

philosopher,chief

representativeof

theh15tF1C1!~\t"trend

inphilosophy,

which

was

criticizedby

Husserlin

Philosophie

alsstrange

Wissenschaft".

1W

alterBroughton

Firkin(1878-1949),

USphilosopher.

IOC

ON

VE

RS

AT

ION

S

advisedby

William

James"

notto

publish.Husserlthinks

thatJam

essaw

onlythe

Proegomemz,13and

thatitsanti-Psychoogz's-

mus

wasvery

unsympatisck

(unattractive)to

James.)

Thegreatresultm

adeHusserloptim

isticbuthe

soonsaw

thatthe

groupdid

notprogressw

ithhim

.Alreadywhen

hefirstread

onthe

phenomenologicalreduction,

many

didnot

come

along.A

fterthepublication

oftheIdem

,Reinachlgand,follow

inghim

,others,broke

awayfrom

thenew

developments.

Iam

togo

tohim

at11:30

Monday

with

definitequestions.

He

statedin

thisconnection

thatthereare

many

difficultiesw

iththe

phenomenologicalreduction,

difficultieshe

hadnot

seenat

thetim

eofthe

Idem.

Headvised

readingthe

youngEnglish

andAm

ericanauthors

togetin

touchw

iththe

culturalsituationthere,spoken

ofabove.Frau

Husserlseemsdoubtfulofthe

advisabilityofdevoting

som

uchtim

eto

therevision

oftheG

erman

Mdz'ta.-ionsCartsiennes.

Thisa

proposofm

ysaying

Ifound

theFrench

quitegood

asshowing

thatallphilosophy

which

stopsshortoftranscendental

constitutionis

inadequate,naive.Shesaid

thew

orkofrevision

stoodin

thew

ayofso

much

otherwork.

IrepliedthatIthought

theFrench

wasnotczusfiihrlick

(complete,detailed)

enough,be-cause

peoplewere

inthe

habitofreading

fastand

would

over-look

therealsense

ofthecom

pressedsentences.Husserlsaid

theM

ditationsCanfsiemzesm

ustberead

likea

mathem

aticalwork.

Hespoke

ofphenomenologicalw

orkas

evenstricter

thanm

athe-m

aticalwork.

Itold

himof

Whitehead's2'3

time-analysis,

howw

ithallits

similarity

toHusser1s,it

failedto

distinguishbetween

objectiveand

innertim

e,anddid

notseethe

constitutionalproblem.

Husserlsaidthatthe

theorythatwas

tocom

eto

correctviewshere

hadto

come

tothe

problemfrom

psychology,andthrough

Brentanozl.Hespoke

ofStout

asone

who,beinginfluenced

byBrentano,m

ighthavedone

so,butdid

not.

'7W

illiamJam

es{1842~rgro],

Am

ericanpsychologist

andphilosopher.

1"P

rolegoruenazur

reinenLogik"

(Prolegom

enato

purelogic")

isthe

titleof

thefirst

volume

ofH

usser]'sLogis.-sire

Lintersu-chungen.W

Adolf

Reinach

(rS831gr;'),

Germ

anphilosopher

oflaw

,phenom

enologist.2"

Alfred

North

Whitehead

(r36r1g.1.7),B

ritishphilosopherand

mathem

atician.21

FranzBrentano

(r8381gr7),1-Iusserls

teacherinVienna,exerted

agreatinflu-

enceupen

Husserland

inspiredhis

theoryof

iutentionality.*2

George

FrederickS

tout(1860-1944),

British

psychologistand

philosopher.

WIT

HH

US

SE

RL

AN

DF

INK

II

Hesaid

nothinggave

theevidence

ofphenomenology

likeac-

tualwork

ona

specialproblem.H

isprize

Schrift23saved

Fink,because

itsethim

tow

orkintensively

onthe

problemof

Neutralittsm

odifztation(neutrality

modification).

Becoming

historicallyconscious

ofitstradition

isnotadequate

tothe

salvationofpresent-day

culture,because

inhistory

thattradition

isnotitselfconscious

ofitsown

meaning.

He

spokeofhis

owninclination,always

toinquire

wherethings

werem

ostdistressingand

uncertain,asimportantin

determining

thenature

ofhisdiscoveries.

IX

Conversationw

ithF-ink,

I7/8/31

Ibeganby

askinghim

whatHusserlhad

meantatthe

endofm

ylastvisitwhen

hesuggested

thatI

askhim

questionsconcerning

thephenom

enologicalreduction,and

headded

thathe

hadbe-

come

awaresince

thepublication

oftheIdem

ofmany

difficultiesin

thereduction.

Tow

hichFink:

Thephenom

enologicalreductionis

nolongerregarded

byHus-

serlasm

erelya

stepw

hichfrees

thetranscendentalfield

forin-

vestigation.Its

significanceas

making

possiblea

naivesort

ofact-analysis,such

asonehas

inthe

Idem,rem

ains;butphenome-

nologicalinvestigationcannot,afterthe

phenomenologicalreduc-

tion,proceed

asifina

homogeneous

field,but

must

continuailyexercise

furtherreductionssuch

asthoseinvolved

inthe

problems

ofgenesis.

Thephenom

enologicalfieldis

notthere

atall,

butm

ustfirstbe

created.Thus

thephenom

enologicalreductionis

creative,butofsom

ethingw

hichbears

anecessary

relationto

thatwhich

isthere.

Thephenom

enologicalreductionhas

frequently,even

atfirstby

Husserlhim

self,been

confusedw

ithcertain

epochsw

hichm

aybe

exercisedin

thenatural

attitude.An

example

which

Husserlearlierusedto

illustratethe

phenomenologicalreduction

HV-"8-lgenwzirtigursg

andB

d(see

note5,

p.2),

which

receiveda

prizein

anacadem

iccontest

in1929,

beforebeing

submitted

andaccepted

asa

doctoraldisser-

tation.

I2C

ON

VE

RS

AT

ION

S

butwhich

henow

usesto

illustratea

differentialcharacterofanepoch

inthe

naturalattitude,is

asfollow

s:Tw

opersons

havinga

differenceofopinion

agreeto

sus;:endjudgm

entuntilthey

canappealto

thefacts.

Eachhoweverre-

tainshis

ownopinion,notonly

asacontent,butalsoasanopinion,

he"suspendsjudgm

ent"onlyin

thesense

thatheno

longermakes

useofhis

opinion,pendingverification.This

epochis

notpheno-m

enologicalrcduction,sincethe

real(world-)background

oftheopinion

remains

positedby

thepersons

inour

illustration.The

epochconcerns

adetailof

thenaturalw

orld,whereas

thephe-

nomenologicalepoch

concernsthe

entiretyofexistence.

Butitis

importantto

seethatthe


doesnotinvolve

asuspension

ofthetic

activity.This

characte-ristic

ithas

incom

mon

with

theabove-described

"suspension"of

judgment.The

naivesetting

ofthew

orldstillgoes

on.Theepoch

isone

exercisedby

theego,notas

directlylie-ivig

itsintentionall-

ties,butas

reflectingon

them.

Asphenom

enologicallyreecting

uponitselfand

itsacts,the

egodoes

notparticipatein

thedoxic

elementinvolved

inits

acts.Thus

onehas

adoubling

ofthe

egoin

thephenom

enologicalattitude:

thesim

ple,believing

egois

distinguishedfrom

thereflective

egow

hichexercises

thephenom

enologicalepoch.Still

thetw

oegos

areessentially

identical,and

thisdistinction

within

theego

becomes

aphenom

enologicalproblem.

Anecessary

stepin

itselucidation

isthe

analysisofthe

doublingofthe

egothattakes

placewhen,in

thenaturalattitude,one

reflectson

andexercises

epochconcerning

anact.

Inthis

caseit

isthe

psychicego

which

reflects,since

itcontinues

toexecute

thethesis

ofthew

orldin

general,andcontinues

toregard

itselfasin

thew

orld.The

considerationthat

thephenom

enologicalreductiondoes

notinhibitthenaive

thesiskeeps

usfrom

erroneouslysupposing

thatanalyses

inthe

phenomenologicalattitude

areanalyses

ofpseudo-actsand

apseudo-world.Itshouldm

akeiteasierto

under-stand

what

thephenom

enologicalreduction

isw

ithrespect

tonon-doxic

acts,such

asdecisions.

Insuch

casesit

would

seemthat

anydirectepoch

would

inhibitallthere

wasofthe

act,orchange

itessentially.

Anepoch

inreflection,

however,lets

theactproceed

asitnaturallydoes.

Having

oncecarried

outthephenom

enologicalreduction,one

WIT

HH

US

SE

RL

AN

DF

INK

I3

comes

uponacts

which

canbe

describedw

ithrespect

totheir

noeticand

theirnoematic

aspects(asin

theIdem

),butwhich

bearw

ithinthem

selvesindications

thatthey

havebeen

established(gestiftet)

historicallyorgenetically.

Thisgenetic

establish-m

entisnot

tobe

confusedw

iththe

phenomenon

offounding(Fundierm

ig)such

asis

exemplified

inthe

erectingofa

valuingon

thebasis

ofaperceiving.The

latter(founding)is

nothistoricalin

thew

aythat

establishingis:

i.e.,it

doesnot,

likethe

latter,involve

aiiabitiis.

Theperceiving

ofatree,

forexam

ple,refers

back"to

previousperceptions

oftrees,to

theestablism

entofa

liabiiusw

hichdeterm

inesthat

onesees

certainthings

astrees.

Thisapplies

toevery

sortofobjectivation.Thus

onehas

thefurther

phenomenologicaltask

ofexercisingan

epochconcerning

theeffect

(Leislimg)

ofthehabitus

andde-

scribingthe

structurew

hichbears

evidenceofits

genesis.One

hasthen

theproblem

ofw

hetheror

notevery

habitatsnecessarily

refersback

toan

eventwhich

isits

originalestablishing

(Urstif-

timg).This

problemleads

naturallyto

thetranscendentalproblem

ofchildhood.Theapproach

tothis

problemis

bythe

way

ofin-vestigating

thew

ayin

which

my

childhoodis

givenm

e.I

findthat,although

formally

my

pastextendsw

ithoutend,itbecom

esquite

empty

beyonda

certainextent.

Knowledge

oftheearlier

periodsof

my

life-in-the-world

isnecessarily

obtainedfrom

society,either

frompersons

who

remem

berm

ychildhood,

orfrom

observationofothers

whoare

nowchildren.As

thebeing

ofotherpersons

form

eis

agenetically

developedaffair

involving,am

ongother

things,the

previousapperception

ofmyselfin

the"w

orld-as-miue,*

avery

complicated

processis

involvedin

theoriginal

awarenessofm

ychildhood.

Thesam

ew

ouldbe

trueaboutbirth

anddeath.These

seemto

involvethe

egoas

psyche,onone

level,andon

anothertoinvolve

theego

asbearer

ofhabit-us.To

aquestion,Fink

repliedthat

Heideggerhadnotw

orkedon

Husserlinthis

matter,butvice

versa.Everything

which

Heideg-

*See

theM

edimtiom

in

M

44:P.124

ff.

14convnnsarrons

gertakes

overfrom

Husserlloses

them

ethodologicalsense

whichithas

forHusserl.W

rhenspeaking

ofthe

problemofcontinually

layingbare

thetranscendentalfield,Fink

spokeofthe

phenomenologicalinvesti-

gator'speculiardifficulty

with

languagedue

tothe

factthatonto-logicalpositing

istaken

upinto

thevery

essenceofthe

terms

ofeveryday

life,sothatevery

descriptioninvolves

verbalhypostati-zation.

Thisdifficulty

isadded

tothe

difficultyofa

ttingde-

scriptionof

phenomena,

adifficulty

present,however,

inthe

essenceofevery

naturaldescription.The

activityofthe

egois

thesetting

ofbeing.In

self-aware-ness

itsets

itsown

being.Suchpositing

isinvolved

inthe

senseofevery

act.Phenom

enologyis

thecom

ingto

self-awarenessof

theego

overitsown

activities.Assuch,

[itis]

aninfinite

task.The

termG

odis

usedoccasionally

byHusserlin

privateconver-

sationto

mean

thecom

munity

oftranscendentalegosw

hich"cre-

ates"a

world,but

thisis

forHusserla

"privateopinion.

Phenomenology

hasonly

comparatively

latelycom

eto

aware-ness

ofitsown

goalorprogram

.To

saythat

Husserlhasbeen

guidedby

theidealofscience

andthen

toassum

ethatcriticism

ofthegoalofthe

factualsciencesis

likewisecriticism

ofthegoal

ofphenomenology

isthe

resultofmisunderstanding

thesense

inw

hichthe

goalofscienceis

thegoalofphenom

enology.Thegoal

ofscience

becomes

greatlytransform

edand

itssignificance

deepened,it

isbut

actne

tothe

goalofphenomenology,

tothe

goaloftruescience

itself,which

isphenom

enology.I

askeda

questionabout

thefields

ofsensationand

thetype

ofunityw

hichthey

have,remarking

thatitm

ightbeinteresting

toanalyse

thekey

tow

hichdata

arespatially

outsideeach

otherand

come

tom

otivatethe

correspondingqualities

ofseenobjective

aspects,whereas

thereis

adifferentstructure

for,e.g.,auralsense-fields.

He

tookoccasion

toindicate

firstthatthesensory

fieldsappear

onlywhen

westop

shortof

them

otivatedapprehension

ofthe

correspondingobjective

sensoryaspects,andthatthis

stoppingshortwas

difficult.N

ext,that

theanalysis

hadto

takeplace

asstatic

analysisofthe

totalperceptualphenomenon.W

eoughtto

bevery

carefulabout

speculationsas

to,e.g.,

theconceiva-

bilityofa

consciousstream

inw

hichthere

wasno

motivation

for

WIT

HH

US

SE

RL

AN

DF

INK

I5

theapprehension

ofidentitieseither

imm

anentor

transcendent(although

Husserlspeaksin

theldeen

ofapossibility

ofsucha

breakdown

oftheelem

entsin

thestream

thattherew

ouldbe

nom

orew

orldforn1e25).

Theontologicalstatus

ofanego

which

didnot

expressitself

psychophysicallyforothers

anddid

notapperceiveitselfpsycho-

physicallyw

ouldbe

ariddle.Onem

ayw

elldoubtthatsuchques-

tionshavc

alegitim

atem

eaningwhen

askedaboutthe

transcen-dentalego.

Sensefields

are,ingeneral,connected

with

kinaestheticfields,

which

latter,by

apperception,arein

thew

orld".Fink

himselfintends

toturn

nexttothe

problemofthe

appre-hension

oftotalities,such

asthe

wholeofnature,

thewhole

oftim

e,andthe

wholeofrealspacc*.

Thisproblem

isin

closeconnection

with

theKantian

problemofthe

solutionofthe

antinomy

ofpurereason.

Kant'ssolution

ischaracterized

byFink

asnegative.

Spaceis

neitherfinite

norinfinite.In

Husserlonefinds

atendency

toexplicate

theawareness

ofinfinite

spaceas

anawareness

ofthe

infiniteiterability

ofthe

extensionof

onesown

environment

everfurther.

Finkdoubts

thatinfinitespace

forusis

obtainedby

sucha

process.Itmust

bealready

therefor

theprocess

ofendlessextension

ofmy

near-space

totake

placein.

Herem

arkedon

theregrettable

factthatsuch

matters

asthe

deepernatureofthe


arenotin

finalform

anywherein

Husserlsm

anuscripts.Forthe

mostpartFink

haslearned

oftheselaterdevelopm

entsonly

inconversations.It

doesnotseem

likelythat

Husserlhimselfcan

stillhavetim

eto

write

anauthoritative

developmentofthem

.The

secondpart

ofthe

Ideen,w

hichcontains

analysesofthe

development

oftheego

throughthe

acquisitionofhabitus,

andthe

thirdpart,although

both[are]in

finished(P)m

anuscriptform,

arenotdestined

forpublication.

Thetim

electures

thatareto

appearinthe

nextvolume

oftheL

ThisProblem

seemsopportune

becauseof

thestress

Heideggerputs

uponthe

awarenessof

wholes.

25cf

lags

I14~

9:

I14

f-

16convnnsarrons

jahrlmck

arefrom

theyears

1915-1919and,

insteadofdealing

chieflyw

ithacts

ofmem

ory,anticipation,

andthe

like,as

dothe

alreadypublished

analyses

developfurther

theanalysis

ofthe

passiveassociation

which

forms

thestream

.In

thevolum

efor

thefollow

ingyear

areto

appearseparate

investigationsconnected

with

problems

outlinedin

theM

edita-tion-en.The

greatpointofgettingthe

Meditationen

outbeforehandis

toprovide

afram

ework

fororienting

theseparate

investi-gations.

Thedifficulty

ofseeingthe

placeofthe

earliertime-lectures

inthe

wholesystem

isthe

chiefsourceofHusserls

dissatisfactionw

iththeir

publicationat

thetim

ew

ithHeideggers

insufficientintroduction.

X

Conuersat-ion-with

HusserlandFink,17/8/31

After

talkingtogether,

Finkand

Icalled

forHusserl,

whoex-

pressedapprovalwhen

toldwe

hadbeen

talkingaboutthe

deepen-ing

ofthe

understandingof

thephenom

enologicalreduction*.

Finksupplied

theinform

ationthat

wehad

goneout

fromthe

problemofthe

reductionofnon-doxic

acts,suchas

decisions.A

decision,saidHusserl,is

oneofm

anyvolitionalm

odi.Thereis

avolitional"doubt",

andthere

aredegrees

ofvolitional"cer-tainty.A

llsuchm

odiareclosely

connectedw

iththe

doxicm

odi.I

donotrem

emberhow

hew

entonfrom

thispoint.

Thecon-

versationturned

tothe

natureofhabitus,and

tothe

natureofan

originallyestablishing

act.Husserllooked

foran

example.

At

firsthetook

amountain,butrejected

itbecauseitwasa

particularobject,and

hencenotagood

instanceofw

hathew

antedto

show.Instead

hesaid,suppose

Iseean

albatrossfor

thefirsttim

eand

learnthe

natureofthe

birdfor

thefirst

time

asalbatross.

Everafter

Isee

albatrosseswhen

Icom

eupon

suchindividuals.

Againthe

threadof

theconversation

escapesm

ym

emory.

*Insightinto

thenature

ofphenomenology,constitution,fills

usw

ithwonder,yet

notvulgar

wonder,

sincewe

haveinsight.

Thephenom

enologicalproblem

spresent

themselves

asriddles,

butitis

theessence

of:1

riddleto

havethe

clueto

itsansw

erin

itself.l\'o

impossible

riddles.

WIT

HH

US

SE

RL

AN

DF

INK

I7

Husserlcameto

theanalysis

oftheinner

time-consciousness.I

raisedthe

doubtwhetherthe

now-pointas

pointwasperceivable,

whetherit

wasnot

anideallim

itofthe

narrowing

downofthe

speciouspresent,something

indicated(angedeutet)by

thespecious

present,butnotstrictly

perceived.In

thissphere,said

Husserl,thereis

nothinglike

anideal.True,

toevery

experiencedcontinuity

am

athematicalcontinuity

canbe

fitted,but

thisprocess

ofmathem

atization,oflogicizing,is

asecondary

one.Itislikewise

notsimple.He

returnedto

theanaly-

sisofthe

time-consciousness,and

developedits

characteristicof

beingm

orethan

am

ereboundary

betweenpastand

future,sinceout

ofitthe

pastspringsand

init

thefuture

isactualized.

Itis

interestingthat

inthe

latterprocess

something

likehabitats

playsarole:the

futureisrealized

accordingto

apatterndeterm

in-ed

bythe

past.H

ethen

proceededto

developthe

ideaoflogicizing,

firstas

aprocess

appliedto

theobjects

ofthe

outsidew

orld.One

must

theredistinguish

two

forms,

oneofw

hichneverleads

tom

athe-m

atization,butremains

descriptiveoftypes

(genusand

species).The

otherform

oflogicizinginvolves

theapplication

ofmathe-

matical

formulations

true

toa

certainnum

berof

decimal

places".Inthe

first,quantityhas

aplace;butitis

thequantity

with

which

wedealin

everydaylife,

XI

Conversationw

ithHusserl,Fink,

andM

iyake(japan),

I9/8/31

Bliyakeasstarted

readinga

paperon

Die

Intersnbfektinitatanddie

Konstitutiontter

objective-nW

elt97.The

paperbegan

with

aresum

eofthe

accountinthe

Med-itationen

oftheprim

ordialsphereofthe

ego23.Concerningthis

heattem

ptedto

developthe

thingfuffhfif,

sayingquite

incorrectly"In

tierprirnordialenSphere

gibtes

keinenkom

ogenenRanrn,sondern

tierprimordiate

Ranmistein

2,-.

..

Iburg

Gm

chlMlyk

(born1895),

Japanesephilosopher,

astudentof

Husserl

atFrei-

2?1-

-.

._

,_

_:8

Clntersnbjeetivity

theconstitution

ofthe

objectivew

orld".arteswam

sclieM

edztatwncn,

44-47,

pp_;;>4_135_

I8CONVERSATIONS

speziffsckzenfrierterRcmm

29.Incorrectly,sincethe

motivation

tothe

constitutionofa

homogeneous

spacelies

alreadyin

theprim

ordialsphere.Finkjum

pedon

thispointim

mediately.

Hus-

serltookthe

occasionfor

generalconsiderationson

phenomeno-

logicalmethod,

asthe

constitution-problems

ingeneral,and

inparticular

theconstitution

ofhomogeneous

space.[W

em

ust]startalwaysw

iththe

givenw

orldand

proceedby

them

ethodofLeitfdden

(clues)to

disclosethe

variouslevels

ofcon-stitution.

(Alreadywe

havem

adeabstraction

fromthe

Unstim

-m

igkeiten(discordancies,inconsistencies)ofexperience.B

utU

n-sttm

migkeiten

areauffallend

(conspicuous,striking),and

unlessthey

areto

beseen,allm

aybe

saidto

flowon

inEinstim

mgkeit

(harmony,accord).)

Thisis

thesense

oftheAbbas

(unbuilding)ofthe

physicalworld,m

isunderstoodby

Heidegger.[A]

chargeofabstractness

[was]m

adeagainsttranscendental

phenomenology,

[with

the]replythatopponents

don'tknoww

hatrealconcrete

method

is.W

eare

reallyconcrete

sincewe

alwaysare

butreadingoffw

hatisinthe

fullpresentedphenom

enon.The

pointsin

theobjective

time

ofthe

primordialsphere

correspondone

toone

with

thepoints

oftime

oftheim

manent

flowofErlebm

sse(m

entalprocessesoroccurrences).

Motion

isfounded

onrest.

Eachpoint

ofmovem

entis

essen-tially

apointofpossible

rest.Kinaesthetic

systems[are

regarded]asnecessarytothe

foundingofrestand

motion.

KinaestheticRube

(rest)is

Still-bieiben(standing-still).

B25Still-bleibentierKinaesthesz's3

providedIam

unmoved

byother

bodies(I

asordered

inthe

sphereofphysicalcausality

bythe

possibilitythereof)

otherobjectsconstitute

themselves

asat

restina

synthesisofunvaried

aspects.A

certaingiven

changeofaspectsm

ayconstitutem

ovingobjects

orm

yown

movem

entin"w

orld"

orboth

according

tothe

accompanying

kinaesthesia.(In

earlyw

orkbefore

LogischeU-ntersucim

ngenHusserlconfused

Erlebms

(mentalprocess)and

Aspekt-Erscheinung(appearance

of

*9There

isin

thepriornordialsphere

nohom

ogeneousspace,butratherprim

ordialspace

isa

specificallycentered

space.5

While

thekinaesthesia

isata

standstill."

WIT

HH

US

SE

RI.

AN

DF

INK

I9

anaspect),whereas

itisthe

casethatEinstim

migkeit(harm

ony,accord)ofonesortconstitutes

Aspekte

(aspects),andEi-nstim

mg-

ken!ofaspects,objects.His

errorsand

oscillationswere

dueto

acom

plicatedproblem

,nottosom

efortuitous

stupidity.N

othing'sfortuitous.)

Thesynthetic

systemofpossible

pointsofrest,

asalloutside

ofeachotherand

correlatedw

iththe

varioussynthetic

systems,

foundsthe

orientedspace.

My

bodyis

thenull-oriented

object.When

anobjectis

attachedto

my

body(as

whenIcarry

it,orit

me)itm

aintainsw

ithm

ea

nullorientationas

Im

ayperam

bulatespace.Sim

ilarly,parts

ofm

ybody

may

takeon

perspectivewhen

cutoff.(Problemoflosing

thew

holebody

bitbybituntilallisgone.)Then

[thereis]no

basisfor

apsychophysical

apperceptionof

thesensation

and

kin-aesthetic

systems

asGrenzf-all(borderline

case).Assimilating

anobjectto

my

body(giving

same

nullorientation),moving

with

itetc.,asallprocesses

foundedin

certainkinaesthetic

syntheses.Perception

isa

bodilyactivity,

involvingkinaesthesis.

Problemofphantasying

myselfin

anotherplace[is]quite

diffi-cult,butits

solution[is]an

importantstep

inm

akingunderstand-

ablethatanalogizing

associationw

hichm

akesintelligible

theex-

perienceofother

minds.

Associationis

bylikeness.

Ihere,

andanotherbody

there,isnotsufficientunless

Ihavephantasied

my-

selfasthere.B

utsuchphantasy

may

beitselfbased

onexperience

ofothers,itw

illbeobjected.Such

would

seemcertainly

tobe

thecase

whenone

seesa

mirrored

reflectionas

ofoneself.Thesequestions

indi-cate

[the]difficultyofproblem

shere.

After

onehas

analyzedthe

constitutionof

theother

mind

ingeneral

onem

ayproceed

toconsider

thehigher,

founded,structures

ofintersubjectivityand

thevarious

forms

ofsocialre-lation

-m

arriage,family,etc.in

Wese-asallgerrie-miaeit(eidetic

uni-versality);then

theproblem

sofabnorm

alities,ofnon-human

sub-jects,blind,

deaf,idiots,etc.,

andthe

problems

ofage-rm

inelife

underethicallaws.Each

problemin

itsplace.

Birth

anddeath

weknow

onlyon

thebasis

ofintersubjectivity.D

eathappears

asa

pausein

otherlife.In

thisit

isanalogous

toSleellButsleep

appearsin

theprirnordialsphere,too,

likewise

R511pause

andits

analysisis

verydifficult.

20

CO

NV

ER

SA

TIO

NS

Finktells

me

them

anuscriptI

hadofthe

Mditations

Cami-

siennesis

anexact

duplicateofthe

onefrom

which

theFrench

wasdone.Ifso

thetranslators

areguilty

oferrorsand

omissions,

asIhave

indicatedin

my

copyatthe

beginningofthe

5thM

edi-ration.

XII

Conversationw

ithHusserland

Fink,22/8/31

IhadsentHusserlon

theprevious

daya

listofthew

orstomissions

anderrors

Ihadfound

inthe

earlypartofthe

Frenchtranslation

oftheFifth

fldeditation.So

thatsthe

way

thetw

otranslations

are,hesaid

ineffect.They

willbe

hindrancesratherthan

helpsto

anunderstanding

inEngland

andFrance.

Hethen

passedon

tospeaking

ofwhat

hehad

recentlybeen

doing.Them

orninghe

hadspentin

puttinghis

recentmanuscripts

inorder.H

egets

intoan

Arbeitsfieber(w

ork

fever)anddoes

noteven

numberhis

pagesso

thatafterwards

hehas

ajob

straight-ening

themout.

Recently

hehas

beenw

orkingon

aproblem

which

hedeveloped

asfollows.

Startingfrom

thefully

concretesituation

onecom

esthrough

abbauendeA

nalytik(unbuiiding

analyses)and

thenthe

oppositelydirected

syntheticorconstitutionalw

orkto

distinguishseveralSckichten

(strata)inthe

structureofthe

concretephenom

e-non.Assum

ing,for

example,

thatwe

havecom

e

alwaysfrom

theconcrete!

to

considerthe

fieldsof

sensationas

lowestlevels

ofconstitutionofobjects,we

may

isolate,say,thefield

ofvision

asa

syntheticunity

throughassociation.W

em

ayfurther

abstractfrom

allsystems

ofkinaesthesissave

thesystem

be-longing

(inapperception)

to".4ugenbewegung

(eye-movem

ents).W

em

aythen

observehow,otherkinaesthetic

systems

beingheld

still,thereconstitute

themselves

unitiesw

ithinthe

fieldofvision,

correlatedw

iththe

eye-kinaesthesia.Ingeneralthereisconstituted

an"A

ugmbewegungsraum

(spaceofeye-m

ovements).Then

thereconstitute

themselves

identicalplanesurfaces

within

thatspace

identical,howeverthe

eye-kinaesthesism

aytake

place.In

thesim

plestcase

wehave

theconstitution

ofa

stationarysurface,

buttherecan

alsobe

constitutedidenticalsurfaces

asmoving,as

WIT

HH

US

SE

RL

AN

DF

INK

2I

changingtheirshapes

andcolors.W

ithinthis

simple

spacethere

may

evenbe

constitutedsom

ethinglike

causalrelations.W

lien,now,other

kinaestheticsystem

s,instead

ofremaining

still,are

broughtintoplay,

theseidenticalplane

"objects"m

ayshow

themselves

tobe

aspectsofthree-dim

ensionalobjects.Thisis

mostobviously

thecase

whenthe

kinaestheticsystem

sofloco-

motion

arebroughtinto

play.Then

again,w

ithreference

tointersubjectivity

theseprivate

3dim

ensionalspace-objectsbecom

easpects

ofintersubjective3

dimensionalspace-objects.Forsim

plicityssake

assuredly,Hus-

serlomitted

thesyntheses

oftheseveral

objectsof

theseveral

fieldsofsensation

tothe

constitutionofone

object.Now

theanalysis

upto

herehas

beencarried

through(roughly)

forthe

constitutionof

thepresent.

Butthe

privatepresent

isextended

bythe

inclusionofthe

privatepastand

future,tow

hichwe

haveZugangsweisen

(ways

ofaccess)in

theform

sof

recol-lection

andanticipation.

Objects

constitutethem

selvesas

goingbeyond

thepresent,m

ayeven

constitutethem

selvesasgoing

be-yond

thereach

ofindividualrecollection.For

acertain

stretchback

my

pastaccompanies

thepastofm

yobjects,butnotallthe

way.In

intersubjectivityI

findthat

thereis

acorresponding

ex-tension

intopastand

future,notonlythrough

theinclusion

ofthepastand

futureLeistungen

(productions,products)ofthepresent

mem

bersoftheintersubjective

society,andthe

correlatedobjects-

alsoobjects

oftheirmem

oriesand

anticipations,butthroughthe

Le-isttmgen

ofpastandfuture

mem

bersofthe

same

intersubjectivegroup.

Thew

orldas

itgives

itselfon

thisintersubjective

levelbearscharacteristics

dueto

theLeistunge

ofthe"cultural"group

backthrough

theages.

Thereare

two

waysin

which

suchan

intersubjectivitycan

widenitself.

First,through

coming

incontact

with

anotherhis-

toricalintersubjectivity,aswhen,e.g.two

racesw

ithno

pastcon-nections

(perhaps

thoughprobably

notexactly

-Europe

andChina?)

come

togethermaking

acom

mon

intersubjectivityw

ithtw

oseparate

pasts.The

otherway

isthrough

theextension

ofthepastofthe

inter-Subjective

world

backbeyond

thefurthest

reachesofthe

inter-subjective

past,as

throughthe

studyofpalaeontology.

Thisis

22C

ON

VE

RS

AT

ION

S

theanalogy

onthe

intersubjectivelevelofthe

extensionofthe

privatew

orlds-pastback

beyondbirth

ofthe

individual.The

resultisthat

theintersubjective

world

itselfw

ithits

objectsis

seenas

anErscheinung

(appearance)ofsom

em

orebasic

world,

tow

hichwe

have,however,some

sortofaccess,evenexperiential

access,throughpresentgeologicalstrata

e.g.?There

arisesnow

theproblem

whetherthis

processofrelativi-

zingthe

world

couldproceed

further;ifso,whetherit

couldpro-

ceedw

ithoutlimit.

Iremarked

thatIcouldnotconceive

ofafurtherrelativization,

andHusserlsaid

hecould

noteither,butthatdid11otanswerthe

question,notshowthatit

couldntbe

asked.Fink

remarked

thatinNeo

Kantianis1nthe

developmentofthe

world

isin

aw

ayconsidered

asparallelto

thedevelopm

entof

reasonin

history,butthatacloserparallel,though

stillnaive,ofcourse,is

tobe

foundin

Hegel.This

impelled

Husserltosay

thatthegreatdifference

wasthat

inphenom

enologyone

hasto

come

tothese

questionsfrom

thebottom

up,and

isnot

impelled

directlyby

anyhistoricalA

n-regm

ag(suggestion,incitem

ent).Hegel,hesaid

hehad

neverread.He

usedto

give(oronce

gave)acourse

onK

antandhis

successors,but

nevergotbeyondKant.

Yetisit

sothat

thestudy

ofthehistory

ofphilosophyoffers

thephenom

enologistmany

Am/egzmgen,once

hehas

progresseda

certainway.It

isofinterestto

seein

whatSchichten

(strata)theolder

philosophersask

theirquestions.

One

findsthem

ofchiefinterest

preciselywhere

theycom

einto

difficultiesbecause

oftheir

naivet.K

ant(particularly

wherehe

isdealing

with

theE-iabzTldungs-

kmft(im

aginativefacu1ty))is

working

atproblems

ofphenomeno-

logicalsignificance,although

heis

involvedin

a"faZsrrhe

L0g:'f1'-z-iem

ng(false

logicizing)and

isnot

quiteclear.

(During

thew

arHusserlturnedto

Fichte'sspeeches

andread

with

greatUberraschm

zg(surprise)

forthe

firsttim

e.)H

istoryofphilosophy

must

beinterpreted

fromthe

pointof

viewofthe

systematic

insightprimarily.Thatinsightitselfm

akesas

itwere

a"cut

inhistory

ofphilosophy.

Setseverything

inm

otion.The

problemoftranscendentalconstitution,said

Husserlin

WIT

HI-IU

SS

ER

LA

ND

FIN

K23

effect,is,asIhave

saidto

Herrn

Dr.Fink,none

otherthanthe

problemofhow

God

createdthe

absolutew

orld,and

continuesto

createit,

evenas

thetranscendentalintersubjectivity

createsits

world".

Thephenom

enologicalformofthe

ontologicalargu-m

entisthe

conclusionfrom

theabsolute

constitutiveconscious-

ness.(The

laststage

ofthe

processof

relativizationof

objectswhich

Husserlspokeofatthe

outset.)Butallthese

arelastquestions,questions

ofsuchgreatinterest,

thatone

istem

ptedto

gointo

metaphysics

inan

"Aarfsci1wung(soaring)

a

phraseby

which

Scheler31actually

characterizedm

etaphysics.H

owever

onem

ustcreep

beforeone

canfly;

onem

ustdo

alot

ofdirty

work

(schmutzige

Arbert)on

theground

beforeone

cangetinto

onesairplane

andfly.

Theearlier

problems

ofphenom

enologyare

much

them

ostcom

plicated.Husserls

dirtyw

orkwas

largelydone

inthe

LogischeU

uter-suckrm

genand

thefirst

workings

outoftherough

outlineofthe

constitutionofthe

objectivew

orld.In

Giittingen

itwas

finethe

way

thestudents

discussedand

developedtheir

phenomenologicalproblem

s

albeitthey

gota

bittoosolidly

settledin

aHei-m

welt(familiarw

orld)oftheirown

sothat

theyw

ouldlisten

notto

anythingw

hichwas

strangeto

it,such

asthe

lecturesHusserlgave

atthetim

e.B

y1907-8

(P)whenhe

came

togive

acertain

seriesoflectures

(onphenom

enologyas

awhole?),

hewas

surprisedto

seehow

wideand

systematic

aknowledge

ofthe

fieldhe

hadalready

gained.Butasitistodaysodifficultforhim

tow

riteazusam

menfassende

Arbeit(sum

marizing

work)

(theGerm

anriled-r'tatons)32,

soit

wasthen

impossible,

ashe

wasin

doubtaboutthetotalpicture.

Stillthe

lackofa

generalorientingw

orkw

ouldhave

made

hisSpecial

studiesliable

tom

isunderstandingsthat

would

havehindered

alater

understandingoftheir

truesignificance.

Sohe

didnotpublish

anythingfor

along

time.

With

Finkhe

thentalked

ofthenecessity

ofacarefulintro-

ductoryexposition

oftherelations

oftheabout-to-be-published

31M

axSchdeff13?4

r928J,German

phenomenologicalphilosopher.

3See

note6,p.3.

24C

ON

VE

RS

AT

ION

S

Time-Lectures

tothe

generalscheme,asitis

tobe

outlinedin

theM

edttationsw

hichthe

same

volume

ofthejahrbnch

isto

contain.Also

therelation

oftheselater

Time-Lectures

tothe

earlieronesm

ustbem

adeclear.

XIII

Coneersatto-nwith

Fink,24/8/3rIbegan

byasking

whetherthe

Gedanken-gang(train

ofthought)oflastSaturday

broughtanythingnew,and

Finksaid

itdidnot.

ThenI

askedw

hetherornot

itwas

anoversim

plificationon

Husserlspart

tospeak

ofthe

ocnto-motomsche-nRam

n(oculo-

motoric

space)asblesszwetztt-rne-nstonat(merelytw

o-dimensional).

Againhe

recalledthe

importance

ofbearingin

mind

thefactthat

oneis

alwaysconfronted

with

anexperience

whereinthe

world

isalready

fullyconstituted,and

thatitisdifficulttoisolate

alowerlevelofthatconstituted

phenomenon.W

henone

doesso

andcon-

siderssuch

alevelasis

oculomotorspace,

thenit

isincorrectnot

onlyto

speakofsuch

aspace

asthree-dim

ensional,but

evento

speakofit

astwo-dim

ensional,sincetw

o-dimensionality

isitself

aquality

ofsurfacesin

afullyconstitntertw

orldspace.

Inproceeding

todistinguish

thevarious

levelsofconstitution

ofobjectivityhe

mentioned

whatHusserlspeaks

ofasthe

Phan-tom

,the

identicalobject

oftheseveralsensefields,

butw

ithoutcausalqualities.

ThePhantom

isaccordingly

notthe

fullobjectofthe

world.

Theprocedure

fromlevel

tolevelin

theconstitution

ofob-

jectsm

ightwell.be

spokenofas

aW

antttnng(change).

Thatw

ordsuggests

thatthere

isan

identicalelement

inthe

severallevels,asis

thecase:they

arenotoutside

eachother.

Hedistinguished

t

dorion cairns - conversations with husserl and fink

Documents

vanbredaetp editeijrythe1