Tag: Husserl

Phenomenological Analysis of Vipassana Meditation Noema

On By Chris Shuttleworth1 Comment
Originally Written: March 24th 2020

While mindfulness requires diligent effort towards directing the gaze of conscious awareness towards the content of the present moment arising in consciousness, a phenomenological analysis requires much more psychologically rooted tools to perform at a truth revealing level (optimal/accurate/useful in degrees). While we can acquire the benefits of mindfulness through attention to the present, the requirements for a phenomenological analysis require intellectual clarity, knowledge of various scientific disciplines, non-contradictory logical reasoning, causal intuition, time and diligence directed by the mental gaze towards an authentic unravelling of the structure of the psyche, in short they require the ability to concentrate and pursue abstract correlates in their relation to the manifest contents discovered in mindfulness. This necessarily entails work, time, and discipline if one is to uncover the essential foundations for the noeses from which the noema (Husserl’s Terminology) are correlated and initially perceived as inextricably connected.

I wish to pursue the meaning, the noeses, the mode of Being, and its essential attributes for an experiential noema of, namely: entering into a Vipassana present moment meditation (Basic Vipassana Meditation). Now, first and foremost, I must recognize that the experience is of a specific differentiated nature, meaning, that I recognize my transition into a mode of awareness directed upon the present moment which is distinctly different from the previous mode of being, for which I conceptualize in my phenomenological analysis as an experience of mindfulness meditation. The goal for me, here, is to recognize the essence of the mode of Being which enabled and embodied such a subjective experience, and to uncover why.

First I analyze the situation for what it is, through recollection in memory and reflection upon the experiential content. Once I have clearly in mind the content I was experiencing in conscious awareness at the time of the period of mindfulness, I can circumnavigate the experience to get a clear view of the noema with which we are interested in attaining the correlated noesis. The multiple perspective exploration which ensues is the part of the work we must undergo to get a clear and authentic representation of the content. Here a reliance on clear, judgmental, unbiased memory is a preferred indifferent to us, as certain acts of reflection we may be unable to untangle from the truth of the matter. It is preferred in that it directly relates to an optimal outcome, and indifferent in that we recognize that the ability to do so is inherent in our intellectual capacities, and may…unfortunately…be out of our control in the time being, yet ultimately able to be improved through persistence and experience in performing phenomenological analyses, as well as with the increase of wisdom and knowledge in related mental faculties (logic / reason / intellectual concentration). To be able to perform such an endeavor we must “bracket” the “natural world” as described by Husserl, the degree to which we are able to separate the influence of a natural standpoint, or the unmindful mode of being, is crucial to the accuracy of the conclusion acquired. The amount of clarity in our recollection, and the resistance to any narrating and “Ego” driven defining of the content of the noema enable us to better or worse produce a clear, more accurate phenomenological result.

With the noema defined and held in our conscious gaze, that of the Vipassana mediation experience, we probe into our intuition to disclose what the intentionality of the acts performed in the noema are stemming from, or how the noematic content relates to the noetic content, their connection and formulation. For what purpose did we pursue such activity? From what mode of Being did it stem from? Why would we spend time doing such an act? Obviously the answer to these questions are differentiated in response to the individual, his circumstances, and the specific noema in space and time in which we are analyzing. Thus, my uncovering of the phenomena of mindfulness is related to this singular experience, and the work put in is towards the end in direct regard to that singular experience. The results therefore disclose information related to that mode of being intuited as being preliminary and underlying to the noema, but, also, they disclose a possible mode of being which can generally be stated as being able to manifest across the realm of future experience. While we discover the noesis of that singular noema in the analysis, we recognize it as an integral part of our psyche, and thus as having the potential of emerging again as a correlate to any future experience, and more specifically to acts of similar nature to the one inquired upon.

The intentionality in the case described is personally intuited in conceptualizations (word representations of “real” phenomena) based upon our acquired total synthesis of Being, containing specific knowledge with which the individual utilizes in his description and exploration of the phenomenological correlates to the experience. Language and its epistemology in regards to the individual is therefore an important aspect of any abstraction. Different perspectives and explanations are possible as being uncovered, as all being parts of the whole correlated explanation of the mode of Being relevant. Thus, we can expect always a partial conclusion, as the limit of knowledge and the kind of representation used (definition of words used in conceptualization is varied according to the individual). In my personal case I concluded, after work towards unravelling, a number of intuitions which may partially constitute the nature of the noeses underlying the phenomena of Vipassana meditation, in its manifestation and presentation in memory discovered by myself. The implications of such findings, and their relevancy towards further explanation across multiple disciplines, is later to be expounded upon.

I here wish to expound my personal findings to explore what I found, the implications, again, will later be preliminarily sketched out. In looking towards the intention I intuited that a mode of being of intentionality was prevalent throughout the experience. The conscious thought arose in which directed my being towards actualizing a mindfulness practice, and thus I habitually followed previous attempts at actualizing a Vipassana mediation, as I have up to this point acquired. The sitting still, eyes closed, and directing of the gaze into the present moment followed this consciously directed thought of wishing to perform a Vipassana meditation. Attention was focused upon the fleeting, transient contents of consciousness as it presented an awareness of perceptions of sensations and sensory content such as hearing, bodily pressure upon the chair, thoughts used in describing the present, attention brought to non-conceptually arising observation of the breath, sounds, feeling. I witnessed thoughts appear, I witnessed attention change. In retrospect there was always a content to which I could possibly be attentive to, although for brief moments my initial intention of pursuing a constant awareness of the present moment (a general guideline for Vipassana) was broken by forgetfulness of the practice as a thought or mental formation hindered my remembrance of the practice, but eventually was brought back to the attention upon the task at hand of being mindful. The variation in the content of consciousness in pursuing itself, varied in accuracy as it drifted between the awareness of the present, and non-awareness of its own content. These two poles make up a general description of the noema from start (that of entering into the mode of being) to end (that of exiting the mode of being and transitioning to a phenomenological analysis of the noema which had passed). The noema has been roughly, simply, conceptualized.

As there was a content connected to consciousness, there is a content of the underlying mode of being, the noesis, to that noema. Where consciousness was intent on pursuing Vipassana meditation, why was it pursuing Vipassana meditation? The answer lies in a multitude of phenomenological reasons relating to the nature of the mode of being which so desires such an experience (Phenomenology of Desire). This desire we will later expound upon. Several I will here explore as being uncovered in intuitional analyses. The mode of being is characterized by a will for character development, for becoming a better person, embodying the virtues with which to act upon in an optimal way for said character development. Upon investigation I discovered that from a doxological perspective (of my inherent intellectual belief structure) that I believe the pursuit of mindfulness to be relating and influential towards the goal of the improvement of character. Thus, part of the noetic content making up the whole noesis isn’t only of intentionality constitution, but also of doxic positionality (my Being’s relation to what I believe). I, through whatever reason (a causal chain of connectivity leads to our current belief structure), also hold as high in my meaning structure, or value hierarchy, the pursuit of character development (probably a conceptually acquired content stemming from content such as experiential knowledge and practical evaluation of Aristotle’s Nichomechean Ethics).  Thus, the mode of being described as character development has revealed itself as containing noetic content of intentionality, doxic positionality (my relation to my beliefs), and value pursuit (my pursuit of a value which I have personally acquired as something hierarchical more important to me than other experiences). The result of such content in experience being the actualization of the underlying desire for character development manifest in the Vipassana meditation noema which I experienced.

Now we look to analyze why I contain such a doxic, value, and intentional structure. While the noema, the experience itself, is put into the highest position of concreteness, a relation to the recollection in the awareness of the memory of the experience would be in the second order of concreteness (it loses something of the initial concrete experience in the conceptual and mental formation), and in the third dimension of abstraction we have intuited the noetic structure which we believe to underlie the initial 1st dimension experience based upon the 2nd dimension experience (of recollection). The 3rd dimensional conceptual abstraction defines parts of the contents of the noesis available to us through the 2nd dimension and is itself able to be subject to phenomenological analyses, just as much as any other noema. But that’s a side note just to convey two things, namely, that each step in the phenomenological analyses is itself a moment which can be phenomenologically analyzed in its own noematic content, and also from that to conclude that the limit of content available to be phenomenologically analyzed is thus limitless in extension.

Continuing down our analysis we enter a 4th dimension of analysis, as to what purpose the noesis, the mode of being, which contains (in our partial exploration) the content of the underlying mode of being producing the noema, is itself produced by. To this we must enter into much broader and more profound territory, the full exploration of requires much scientific insight, and the space of which is open to further investigation in the fields of sociology, evolutionary biology, formal biology, psychology, and philosophy. As Merleau Ponty points out, there are many senses to which a phenomenon gives, multiple significant attributes that are interrelated and constituting of the phenomenon, many interrelated perspectives from which to gaze upon it, all of which simultaneously constitute the phenomena, yet we can find, that some give a broader defining of its characteristics than others do, although, in actuality, they cannot be separated. On a basic level it is an automatic habitual intuition, for me, to explain the noetic content thus described in evolutionary biological terms. Underlying all intentionality and modes of being, and in their modification, and their discovered content, is a persistent desire on behalf of the organism which I find myself as (Dasein (thrown)), as well as the genetic makeup, to “desire” (in affect) to preserve itself, recreate itself, and accurately recreate itself. By desire here in quotations we are referring to the biological correlate of the anthropomorphic sense of desire and its synonymous connotation of “willing/wanting/striving”, which, in effect, is attempting to achieve something. While we can view acquisition of character traits and thus modes of being underlying them in part to society, culture, past experience, the circumstances, time; I initially look towards the concrete and most fundamental underlying substratum for my personal exploration of this 4th dimension. This biological “desire” evolutionarily is beneficial in its manifestation in the mode of being of character development in that, (I believe), through making myself a better person I can better navigate existence (insight into nature of reality through Vipassana), enabling me to become a stronger, wiser individual (in my reduction of suffering and improving of wellbeing). This biological “desire” underlying the manifestation of the mode of being of character development also simultaneously allows the individual to be better able to avoid death, sickness, injury, in short, that which is contrary to the continuation of my genetic material, and necessarily the individual with which I am. The preservation and safety of the genome is thus satisfied in this explanation. Also, the second characteristic of genetic “purpose”, the procreation and replication of the genetic material, find their explanation in the noema and its coinciding noesis. By embodying what the individual believes to be character enhancing he is simultaneously embarking to become a more viable candidate for procreation, in thus manifesting the mode of being previously described, the individual (in my case unconsciously, yet consciously uncovered) “believes” (proof through action)  in the pursuit of such activities which are produced by a character development mode of being, as being themselves tools towards character development and thus to the replication of his genes. This satisfies the second requirement in the biological imperative.

This rudimentary exploration towards the phenomenological underpinnings of a specific noematic experience is far from conclusive, but has provided information towards which I can use to understand how and why and from what mode of being the content of my experience is possible to be originating in. The conscious pursuit of ever more accurate descriptions of such a nature, indeed the meaning as to why the entire phenomenological investigation can be performed, is found in the insights gleaned by our own self-examination and realization, as well as has its utilization in the various scientific fields; psychology, biology, as well as obviously philosophy. With logic, reason, and intuition as our guides, following a phenomenological methodology, we are able to piece together the underlying characterizations of modes of being from a reduction from the “things themselves” experientially in any given noema. As the intuitions are discovered philosophically, the deeper explorations and explanations of the questions it is able to discover are thus open to pursuance by the various scientific disciplines. The verification of initial insights, the pursuit of answers to novel questions discovered in phenomenological analysis, and the subjective revelation of objective truths intuitive through persistent work in phenomenological analysis is something which can benefit anyone who contains the psychic imperative to seek the truth. The intentionality behind such an imperative leaves itself open to important and necessary research, across various disciplines, of which the answers can be valuable in their usefulness and beneficiality for us all (I believe).

On Phenomenology – Continued

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: March 10th 2020

Mindfulness in its traditional application is a mode of being in which the practitioner becomes aware of the awareness of consciousness in the present moment, i.e. the practitioner becomes aware of the contents of consciousness as they present themselves to the field of consciousness. Attention is directed toward phenomena as they arise, and subsequently fade away to be replaced. Important insights are gleaned from such practice, such as the impermanence of mental phenomena and their inherent transitoriness, the lack of a self – as the contents being ushered into consciousness’s gaze are not being determined by the subject (the practitioner) – and the root of such phenomena is found to be in the very general care structure, or ability to desire. Upon closer introspection and further development of the practice, the root of suffering, and the all-pervasive nature of suffering, are discovered. While mindfulness is useful to the realization in first-hand experience of such immutable truths, experientially we solely are limited to insights gleaned from the gaze into the present moment. Mindfulness enables further recognition of the nature of consciousness, but the story is not completed by such pursuits, it is only partially informed. (Mindfulness and Phenomenology)

In practicing mindfulness, or Vipassana, we become aware of the noema (Husserl’s terminology), or the conscious mental manifestation of phenomena as viewed subjectively. The noema is the experiential aspect of the present moment, whatever content may arise is a given noema. It is the act itself of what is intentioned by our conscious directing in the present moment. It is the content of experience, as we are able to view it. We can push mindfulness to a higher resolution image of these contents through retrospective phenomenological analysis of the content manifested in the present moment. This analysis is done through discrimination, retrospectively, upon the mode of Being, the field of consciousness, which gives rise to the phenomena available to be gleaned in mindfulness.

The pursuit of this content, that of the noesis, is purely the job of the phenomenologist, for purposes which range from psychological to metaphysical, from the advance of our understanding to our personal development. In discerning phenomena using a mindfulness process, we direct our attentional gaze using both subjective intuition and logical reduction of the phenomena to find their essence, i.e. we seek to discover the noesis which is present in the manifestation of the noema, which is available to us introspectively. The groundwork for such phenomena can be found tricky to reduce from the neomatic content, which are ever transient in their appearing, yet philosophers such as Husserl, Heidegger, and Hegel have sought to classify, organize, describe, and relate the different modes of being and their progression through their influential works.

While the phenomenological method has been dictated in many forms, the practical implementation of a phenomenological examination in the course of a detailed practice has been lacking in a structure which is available to be practiced by the general public.

This is a topic which I am seeking to pursue, how to conceptualize a process for the identification of noeses behind noema, and for the ability to utilize such information once it is acquired towards the promotion of the wellbeing of the individual, as well as a higher resolution of the truth of our own, of my own, of the phenomenologist’s own, consciousness, and thus of reality. This is truly a task for those who wish to seek the truth of their Being, and while mindfulness meditation and practice opens the door, phenomenological analysis into the groundwork of conscious modes of Bring which lays behind the phenomena is truly stepping through the door. While science can depict aspects of the neural underpinnings of the cortical mass which can be linked to emotion, thought, and relational hierarchical reasoning, and other modes of sensual representation in their displays to consciousness, the phenomenologists and thus the philosopher seeks a task which only he himself can pursue. These grounds are subjectively discoverable and give us an insight into the objective realization of the structure of our consciousness, and our Being. Only through retrospective phenomenological analysis into the information gleaned through a mindfulness practice is it to be acquired.

The implications of such pursuit are vast, what insight and beneficiality there is to be gained through recognition of structural modes of being which lay behind the perceived phenomena arising in consciousness is something to be discovered, which can be discovered, and we would be wise not to ignore them. The directing of our current mode of being towards such content necessarily places us in a new mode of being separate from the (time/content) to be analyzed, allowing for an infinite regress of content to be explored. What immediately is clear is that modes of being can overlap, and several can be present within the present moment, dependent upon the content thus produced. It is the task of the philosopher to parse out the constituent defining characteristics of such modes of beings, and furthermore to the interrelatedness of the modes, viz. how they interact, and how the separate thesis’s which are used to describe them overlay in their totality to form the synthesis which comprised the synthetic unitary mode of consciousness which contains them. This synthetic unitary mode is all encompassing in its definition, and applies to the field of which all modes of Being are connected, yet they are discretionary in their arising, due to causal factors which we can also further elaborate on. It is clear that this enterprise is vast in its scope and deep in its implications, but the utilization of it, and the insights which are possible to be discovered, appear to be ever vaster.

In reference to the beneficiality of such practice, here noted as phenomenological practice, we are going to base the further discussion upon the insights gleaned through Vipassana, or as will further be described as mindfulness (as the insight meditation practice focusing attention upon the contents of consciousness). In mindfulness we learn how certain contents, and habitual formations arise, and in response to what triggers them. We learn how to cope with such phenomena in a way which is beneficial to us, or in alignment with our morals, or preconceived value and care structures. We can apply our value, moral, and care structures to the navigation not only in response to the shifting contents of our consciousness, but to the modes of being discoverable and thus subsequently recognizable in their manifestation through phenomenological practice. E.g. we discover through the exclamation of certain truths, or of conceptual exertions of truth-claims (valued as certain through our doxic (belief) structure) as being contained in a mode of being of certainty. Thus we state something with absolute confidence, perhaps in a conversation, as being categorically true. Upon reflection upon that content which manifests itself in our awareness through being mindful of the moment, we can later reflect upon such memory, or stored representation of the present moment, and seek to reduce the mode of consciousness which we inhabited in the moment of exertion. Of course the topic on hand is relevant to the mode of being we find ourselves in, but we strip that away further, and find that beneath the content, beneath the circumstances, beneath the external and internal causality which conditions the response in us of exerting what we believe to be a truth-claim, that we are inhabiting a mode of consciousness of “certainty”.

If our moral and value structure is thus formulated to be one of fallibility (Intro to Fallibilism), in the spirit of continual progression and abhorrence to dogmatic claims, we find the mode of certainty to be truly dissonant in respect to our value structure. Thus we can consciously direct our efforts to avoid pursuing the mode of being thus recognized as “being certain” and through conscious training become habitualized to act otherwise than the prior causally condition habitual response. We are not looking in grounding our actions to be counter to the manifestation of the content which is elicited by the mode of being of certainty, but instead to be counter to the mode of “being certain” itself. Such an effort in affecting our mode of being will subsequently produce actions and intentions which are directed from a mode of being counter to the original mode of being, and properly in line with our conscious value structure of remaining fallible.

In a similar sense as the Buddhist works at conditioning himself away from unwholesome thoughts and towards the propagation of wholesome thoughts, and likewise in speech, views, and actions, we seek to condition ourselves towards wholesome modes of being, and away from unwholesome modes of being. Thus in the case where such further encounters with the mode of being of certainty, we can quickly recognize the triggers to its manifestation, its formal manifestation, and in response, move away from making neomatic claims (actual acts) and seek to inhabit the mode of being fallible, in order to produce a reactive response which is in line with our moral and value structure, which isn’t overpowered by the “archetype”, so to speak, of certainty, but instead that of fallibility. This mode of being more accurately represents the synthetic unitary mode of Being, to me at least (in this personal example) which is a more authentic representation of the totality of who we are, rather than the one dominant mode being which seeks to overexert itself, namely, that mode of “certainty”.

In this way we can, in addition to mindfulness, consciously direct ourselves towards the implication of a phenomenological practice, the fruits of which can be used in a practical manner not only to provide information depicting a higher resolution image of the truth of our Being, and thus reality, not only towards the beneficiality of our wellbeing in the navigation away from dominant modes of being which we contain yet don’t desire to be prominent, but we additionally can give a more authentic representation of ourselves in our thoughts, speech, and actions, through the practical application of its findings, and work towards habitualized, consciously directed, practice. The progression of our understanding, in our pursuit for truth, and in the realization and authentication of our moral and hierarchical value structures is of paramount importance for the individualization, and progression of the individual, to becoming more fully actualized in his conduct and cognitive apprehension of reality (Value System Instantiation). Thus if we seek to be moral, and seek truth, we should endeavor to push past mindfulness practice into the newly discovered field of phenomenological practice.

In summary, what underlies the present moment act, or mental activity, which presents itself in mindfulness, is the type or mode of acting which is taking place. Here we are defining the content as the noema, and the acting, or mode of consciousness producing the noema, as noesis. (Husserl’s Terminology) The noema is consciously directed toward an object, whether in that moment it be memory, a thought, a perception, a feeling of sensual origination, etc. The mode of being giving rise to such content, is described linguistically as remembering, thinking, perceiving, feeling, etc. What we seek to discover in our analysis is first, the noema, secondly, the noesis, thirdly, the conditions and essential nature of the noesis, fourthly, the causal connectedness of underlying factors producing the noesis (external circumstances, inner disposition, biological/hereditary/cortical processing (neuroscientific explanations)), fifthly, how to navigate the reduction and the instigation of modes of being or noesis in a consciously directed way in order to give an optimal result in our experience of life and the manifestations of our actions, which is dictated by acquired knowledge, and implemented using practical wisdom (phronesis).

Where the intention from which acts in the noema stem from are to be uncovered through discovery of the noesis present in their manifestations, we can also look to what is manifesting the noesis itself. This entails seeing the causal relation between modes of being changing, whether it be directed through conscious instigation, environmental factors, or necessary progression. We can seek to reduce from the given information present to us what are the causal conditions which allow the synthetic unitary consciousness, or the Totality of our Being, to give rise to the mode of being discoverable in the noesis. We can find this to be conditioned through unconsciously formulated pathway of reciprocity to present situations, which has roots in biological processes and, in short, the totality of our experience through life (starting with hereditary and environmental factors).

While these are surely relevant to us, what is more valuable is the course correcting away from sub optimal, or dissonance causing modes of being (in contrast to our consciously formulated value structure). Consciousness is constantly undergoing an updating process as new experience and data is collected through our perspectival horizon, this datum enters into its triage, which is collected through the value system’s discrimination, and in turn the filtration system itself is modified. This modification of the value structures filtration of perceived content subsequently affects the relevant experience presented to us in our subjective experience of consciousness itself. We are interested in how to affect this system consciously, in the most optimal way for our Being, that which we are in our entirety. This is to be done through the aforementioned noesis recognition, a conscious system of noeses which are discerned as more optimal, and the consciously directed self-conditioning of the instigation of modes of being in line with the pre thought-out value structure. Just as we learn anything through experience, practice, and self-training, the same principle applies to the adjustment of our mode of being. Once we learn to recognize the manifestation of an unwanted or wanted mode of being, and are able to conscious recognize such content through the noema present to us in proper mindfulness, we are able to utilize that information towards the cessation of unwanted modes of being, and the arising of wanted modes of being. The desire structure which is inherent in all content is not able to be avoided, or replaced by simply the “denial of the will” as Schopenhauer puts it, as even such a denial is a manifestation of the desire structure – such phenomena as our desire structure we must learn to live with, and utilize to our benefit, through the phenomenological practice directed towards the modes of being which are of greater interest to us in our hierarchical structure. Thus we can utilize the tool which causes us suffering, in order to minimize, or move to a mode of being which contains less suffering, through directing our mode of being in this way.

Where is the proper direction to head? Which modes of Being do we value more than others? How do we manifest different modes of Being? How do we find the synthetic unitary consciousness with which we should seek to authentically represent in our speech and actions through instigation of proper modes of Being? All these questions are relevant and discoverable to the philosopher. And thus an existential question is posited, towards which end ought we head? And using which metric should we follow? It is here that the individual philosopher must make a stand. He must formulate answers to these questions, and seek to embody them, for the development and authentic representation of his being depends on it. We can move in degrees towards the peak of the mountain which we so choose to climb, while one may choose a pathway designated by the current cultural zeitgeist, another may choose the hedonistic peak, while another may follow a whim, it is up to us to decide. There is morality in question, there is truth in question, and there is living in alignment with what we will, there is also, most importantly, that pathway which leads to optimal wellbeing for us. This path towards optimal wellbeing may necessarily involve suffering in its formulation, and is in no way opting for a utopia of the mind which is universal, what is truly the best mode to inhabit for one person, may not be for another, and there is no form in which to generalize such conclusions.

While moral realism holds ground if it is based upon solid foundations, as formulated by Sam Harris, that doesn’t mean that we all will be competent enough to discover what is truly best for us, although our degree of success will always be placed upon a spectrum towards the unknowable height of perfection. What phenomenological analysis enables us to do is to discover the roots of our mode of Being, and what phenomenological practice does is allow us to condition ourselves in the direction we wish to head. While every path objectively is meaningless, and it always is full of meaning to us, subjectively. Thus it is of paramount importance that we discover what is meaningful to us, which modes of being we as the individual who has to subjectively experience this life must further experience. This information, and this uncovering, will allow us to formulate the location in which we are to direct our phenomenological practice towards achieving.

 The expression of our inner state in the form of our actions / content of consciousness isn’tof primary importance to us here, what we are more interested in is the mode of being from which all content stems from. For we can alter our speech and actions within a given domain of Being, and they will all reflect the same state, albeit in slightly altered forms. What we must optimize is the mode of Being which we inhabit given a certain set of problems / circumstances which we seek to oppose. There are better or worse solutions to the problems in our lives, navigable to lesser or greater degrees. What we must seek to find is an optimal mode of being from which the appropriate response can flow from.

I find the danger in strict dogmatism in regards to moving forward with utmost confidence in a frame of mind of infallibility. This, I believe, is a trademark of the modern man, and of utmost importance to be corrected from. The archetype of the tyrant, the man who claims to know the answer, the soul who seeks to dominate reality with his current understanding. This mode of Being runs rampant, and plagues the development of the individual to grow, learn, and optimize his current understanding. It is not merely the claim that we know the best solution, nor is it solely claiming that we simply “don’t know”, which is surely true but inconclusive. The mode of being I think that can best correct, and improve the individual, is to have logically conclusive beliefs, in which harmonize with the conceptual unity of the individuals metaphysical doxic structure, yet, simultaneously, the individual must hold that these beliefs are merely beliefs. This doesn’t mean that knowledge is unattainable, it solely means that whether we have true knowledge, or are ignorant, that there is a possibility that at the very most this information is partial. There is always more “background” truths to be uncovered, there is always more information to be had, more time to be spent, more “wisdom” to be encountered and utilized towards a “better” optimal solution. We may be truly correct, objectively, yet when one maintains a fallibilistic mode of being in regard to truth claims, what happens is that we gain a pragmatic advantage in every area with which we are ignorant, whether it be in areas of known unknowns, or unknown unknowns, yet while passionately holding a belief, we do not resign from action and evaluation, or in decisiveness. We lose certainty and we gain every possibility for ever growing inner expansion. If we don’t hold this mode of being close, we risk losing out, on something we may not even know we are missing. The only knowledge and information we have to work with in response to novel problems arising necessarily stems from experience, and it is natural to seek to move forward with preconceived knowledge in the confrontation with chaos. While we must not stagnant, we must also hold firmly in mind that any decision we make, any truth-claim we state, can be improved upon, can be better informed, can come from a mode of being which altogether transcends our current one. The amount of time taken in pursuit of more optimal solutions, and towards which issues we direct our conscious attention to analyzing, falls under the domain of wisdom. While we must look to overcome challenges, if something is a challenge to us, it necessarily implies an unknown. In order to combat it we must seek to recognize that there is an unknown, and transfer it into our conceptual framework for “known unknown”. This requires relinquishment of the mode of being of absolute certainty.

Phenomenological Bracketing, Analysis, and Insights Gleamed

On By Chris Shuttleworth1 Comment
Originally Written: March 2nd 2020

We begin a phenomenological analysis by bracketing all that is included in the transcendent domain of experience, as that which is wholly external to the subjective experience of consciousness, which here is defined as “immanent”. We bracket judgments, perceptions, beliefs, scientific truths, and externally gained insights (includes forms of speech). External content isn’t our focus, neither is our perception of appearances, only what the content of the consciousness doing the perceiving is essentially consisting of. In short, we do not deny or affirm the validity of the transcendent world (of that which exists beyond consciousness) we merely remove ourselves from the domain of the consistent striving to describe it, in order to focus on the essential nature of consciousness. In so doing, we neutralize any belief and judgment, and remove any causal explanation for conscious phenomena which we had acquired from a non-phenomenological method. What is left over after the bracketing is the space of immanent consciousness, which, unfortunately, if we wish to convey the experience of, and relate an essential structure, we must use a form of communication such as language which itself is not implicitly originating in consciousness, but is itself produced by consciousness as a coherent string of symbolic representation of any kind (mathematic, scientific, logical).

Although the objects in the “bracketed world” to which the form of communication we use is directed at describing isn’t itself part of the phenomenological structure which we are seeking to analyze, the object of the “unbracketed world” is for us, it does exist for us, in that it lies within the perceptible horizon of our gaze. The communication used in that representation is an experiential representation of the underlying subconscious structure, and the only insight we can gleam in a conceptual form of which produces a logically shareable structure depicting this inner immanent domain requires the use of the communication system which we contain in the acquired skill of language (used in tangent with other cortical structures in representation). To represent accurately phenomena outside of the immanent domain that isn’t itself part of the phenomenological Being “of consciousness”, is wholly the job of the Sciences. Thus the language which arises in conscious experience (thought / speech) is a phenomenon which is an acquired trait through social and biological conditioning methods, and is an output of the Being which we are in the way any intentional act, or content of our psyche (which is available in awareness, self-reflectively), also respectively is. The phenomena of language itself in its relation to the foundational, essential aspect of our psyche which gives rise to it, is a direct expression of that subconscious structure and bears a direct relation to it. In analyzing its arising in the manner just described, we can look for ways in which the experience of language in thought, in its manifestation, can point to truths about the nature of consciousness in its essential aspects.

The consciousness which gives rise to language in the form of thought, which we probably recognize as conceptualization of other phenomena, whether past, present or future, is contained in a mode of consciousness specific to the content of the thought just produced, and has many traits which separate it from other modes of non-conceptual mental states, or modes of Being, which is an area for deep inquiry and further expansion. The causal and correlative nature of different modes of Being in respect to each other, and their relation to the unit of the synthetic whole, is a web of causal interconnections which, if properly differentiated and sufficiently analyzed, we can tease apart to recognize individual relations as they relate to a phenomena available in experience.

So, we opt to attempt a description of the essentiality of consciousness and its different modes of which we are able to experience, and we can discover phenomenological truth which, due to bracketing, is far from verifiable outside of the context of our own experience, but since we have discovered it in our own experience, its validity is therefore never to be diminished as the truth of our perception of our own consciousness. We must use the gaze of conscious awareness in order to grasp conscious manifestations, or phenomena arising in consciousness (Mindfulness and Phenomenology), and we must use language to attempt to give a description of the phenomena and their arising and subjectively verify their place within the realm of consciousness. The findings in such a realm of inquiry are potentially limitless as the quantity of experience, place in time which we discover, and the reduction towards the isolation of experience is continually progressing. In other words, every moment of conscious experience is potentially a subject to phenomenological analysis, on the first degree, but even an analysis upon the consciousness which itself is performing the “first level” phenomenological analysis (a phenomenally directed mode of Being) is possible to be undertaken, in a “second level” phenomenological analysis, ad infinitum. Therefore, every moment which contains content in consciousness can be subject to a reduction and separation from the external world, and viewed “as it is itself” and thus we can discover thematic elements which constitute its essence and place within the sphere of the synthetic unity of consciousness.

Upon further work, we can later document the discoveries in the phenomenological sphere, and post analysis unbracket the scientific tools and discoveries which conventional knowledge has provided us with. The application and attempt of explanation of the phenomenologically derived “fact” by means of the now unbracketed realm of resources may provide insightful into the application, lineal development, causation, origination, and biological constituents which can be related to the phenomena. That being said, it would in practice be the applying of objective knowledge to subjectively acquired datum. Thus we can look at the intentionality, belief structure, or value structure, which we find to be acting upon our consciousness of a certain object, found to be characteristic of all experience in a phenomenological depiction of the present moment, and look for a description in evolutionary biology towards how the genes would benefit in survivability or profundity by the ability to manifest such behaviors in its host organism’s survival machine. We can apply psychological tools towards the optimization of such mechanisms, and test the efficiency of said modifications upon the subjective structure (how different value/belief structures affect subjective wellbeing). The realm of application for subjectively discovered and philosophically expounded descriptions of the nature of consciousness has real, objective consequences which, other than a mere depiction of reality as initially posited by the philosopher, can be used for practical expansion in every other domain of inquiry.

The conceptualization of phenomenological truths which we can discover in the essence of modes of Being which constitute consciousness, allows us to visualize the foundations for which every objective realm of inquiry necessarily stems from. The thought, the idea, the perception, the action, the speech, the phenomena, is only manifested through the human consciousness. The essential components of consciousness are metaphorically the filter between reality and our conscious understanding of reality, and it is here which is the root of all objective discovery. It is therefore not only beneficial but wholly necessary to have a phenomenological grasp of the Being which is the “background” to the arising of all subjective experience, and thus the point of departure towards which any truth-statement or conceptualization of reality must pass through. Consciousness itself must be thoroughly described as an aspect of the reality which it is part of, it is essential in any truth-statement, and it is always there lurking as the mediator between what is objectively discoverable and what is able to be subjectively experienced (including thoughts / formulations of transcendental reality i.e. what is not immanent consciousness, what is other than consciousness itself).

Original, naive, “natural” beliefs about the conditions of consciousness erode under further scrutiny when the proper aspects of understanding are bracketed. Ideas such as free will, or the positing of a self who controls consciousness, can become intuited as nonsensical when one is mindful of the essence of consciousness in its separateness from preconceived beliefs. Free will isn’t a phenomenon, and thus never presents itself phenomenologically, it only appears to be a concept that makes sense on surface level subjective intuition. There is no sense of the universe or logical explanation as to how such a thing could even exist, it simply is impossible and at a conclusively demonstrated (through phenomenological analysis) level its non-existence could be no clear. This doesn’t mean the idea of “freewill”, or a belief in it doesn’t exist, as we can obviously gleam from social interaction, most people act as if they have freewill, and it’s arising as a concept is merely a subjective misuse of language, and a fundamental misunderstanding into the nature of the organism which inhabits our consciousness.  In the unbracketed sphere of the “natural world” we find use of the concept of referring to “ourselves” and of the notion that “I” am in control of this organism’s manifestations, and we use such forms of speech to interact with others in a way that holds meaning in terms of practicality of ownership and responsibility. But, as to the essence of consciousness producing such states, and to the fact of the matter itself, we find that a confusion is found in the distinction “I am directing my attention”, from the true notion of the phenomena being “attention is directional, and being directed”.

A similar line of thought holds true for other contents produced by our fundamental belief and language structures, such as the belief in the existence of ideas such as depicted in supernatural claims, as well as religious certainties and the notion of a “self”. Different modes of consciousness are related to different degrees of “certainty” in form of “possibility”, “probability”, and “doubt”. The problem I see which should be crucially examined is our mode of being in “certainty”, which leaves us closed off for further investigation and truth-revelation. As long as we avoid any state of “certainty” and always acknowledge the probability of the relationship between our conceptualization of reality in its matching up to reality itself, including probability of inaccuracy, we remain in a state of consciously instituted fallibility, and thus are open to error correction and further development. In discovering which beliefs are more or less likely (in a probabilistic way) to be accurate depictions of reality, we can harken back to a phenomenological approach in order to analyze if the grounds for such claims are truly present in our experience, our experience being the formal dictator of all logical and necessary truths, through which we must thoroughly seek to remove any falsehood from, and actively seek to better inform the beliefs which underlie the modes of consciousness which direct our life the most. Due to the inherent belief structure which is actively present in our actions, thoughts, Being, and which work to manifest our subjective experience, and thus our wellbeing, we are wise to examine that the beliefs from which our behavior and thus our mental state arises from, are wholly in tune with reality in a way that is logically explainable to us, without which we run the risk of being prey to false notions of belief, and thus less than optimal experience and manifestation of a truth expressing character. As belief plays an optimal role in the formations of the path of our lives, and our experience is limited by the time in which we are alive on this path, we would be remiss to not work to form a foundation of belief which is on firm ground, at least, insofar as we are philosopher, and lovers of truth.

What is the best way to which discover our doxic (intellectually discoverable belief) structure and its validity in corresponding to the reality which we find ourselves in? (Value Structure Instantiation) Through a phenomenological analysis, and later through a psychological examination, and lastly, through usefulness, beneficiality, and accurate truth-representing in everyday life situations. Through differentiations in input (of belief), and output (psychological state), together with real, meaningful results (real life application and usefulness), we can determine which beliefs we desire to contain, desire being used in a way to describe which we would most like to contain. Of course it is impossible to consciously believe in something we do not bodily believe in, analysis into the validity of our beliefs will necessarily close us off from this possibility, to the ability that we as human Beings, are able to accurately conceptualize the truth, and the proximity we have to it will be in direct proportion to our environmental factors, experience, and knowledge. The production of this process would be the foundation derived through wisdom, in the production of wisdom, which can be used to guide our behavior in life, and therefore affect others, and thus produce a system I have described elsewhere as “wisdom ethics”. The component of wisdom ethics thus described in this portion of writing is upon the foundational belief structure, and the phenomenological analysis used to uncover it, which would give rise to the most optimal wisdom schemata, if we wish for the implications of our ethical conduct to be grounded upon the truth, to the best of our ability in uncovering it. 

Husserl’s Terminology

On By Chris Shuttleworth3 Comments
Originally Written: February 28th 2020
  • Nous – means mind, or Jungian psyche, so it is the general base for our subjective experiencing, which contains different components which themselves can be conceptualized and represented by different words, in reference to the totality of the psyche, or the nous.
  • Noema – is the thought, or mental content as experienced, the perceived object as it is meant by the subjective actor, what is intended through the act of thinking/perceiving/judging, the subjectively experienced moment that is perceived
  • Noemata – different perspectives or moments of perception relating to a single conceptual object, the characteristics which define the noema
  • Noesis – denoting a part of the mind such as one of the acts of mental experience, the mode of being which is background to the presentation of the noema in experience, that which is the active abstract mode manifesting content
  • Noetic content – content directly relating to the mental act itself, the noesis, as object, in its processing, such as the characteristics of the act of thinking, perceiving, judging, it is the description of traits which are embodied in the noesis

The thought itself, as we experience it, and its attributes and characteristics presented to us subjectively, as in the object thought about, and what is meant by it (the intention of intentionality) would be the noema. This noema is experienced momentarily, as what we perceive in the moment of thinking as being the object of thought would be depicted as the noema, a collection of various perceptions directed at the self-same object of perception or thought, the collection of norms in their unity as depicting an object, would collectively be called the neomata, or the description and characteristics of the momentary experience itself. This I describe as the neomata or the noematic content. If we were to have thoughts arising, the process of being which is “thinking” – being – the conceptual explanation part of the mind, would be a noesis, which contains an underlying essence which describes it in itself, the noetic content, what is that content we use to describe the act of thinking itself.

As an example, if we take the subjective experience of imagining a unicorn in our head. That image we get, and the conceptualization which corresponds to it in a subsequent moment of “thought”, and the meaning given by such conceptual symbolization in another moment, would be different noemas. The perspective which we inhabit and experience in the present moment is the content of the noema. All these different moments of being, experientially, which relate to the object of thought (the unicorn) are different noema, the way in which they all relate to the object, in the abstract intentionality and the characteristics of it, would be denoted as neomata. The noesis would the act of imagining as it is itself, giving rise to such an experience. That mode of being in which the noema occurs, that which is background and presupposed by the subjective experience, is the noesis. The noetic content would be the components which make up the noesis, or what constitutes imagining, such as doubting, mental imagery, belief, intentionality (directedness of though towards an object), all this content is underlying the act of noesis, of imagination, which in its subjective experience is shown in different ways, one of which would be the experience of imagining a unicorn, in its describing, picturing, doubting, questioning validity, judging, etc.

On the Phenomenological Method

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: February 14th 2020

The phenomenologists method of discovering the in itself of an object within consciousness (any phenomena) isn’t properly explained through an empirical or rational methodology, but rather through using an eidetic (internal intuition) reduction to reveal the essential nature of an object. This is done through taking the known characteristics of a phenomena as they are understood by consciousness (science, philosophy, psychology aides us in discovering the attributes relating to an “object”), and discarding any attributes or perceptions or judgments which do not constitute the nature of the object so as to not alter its form. This means any characteristic that is able to be removed from or altered within the object, while the object is able to retain its structure and “Being” after the reduction, is removed, and the essential characteristics are what remains. By removing the transient, we can gain intuition into the concrete essence of a phenomena. We, in part, are able to do this through applied knowledge of the phenomenological method, in concordance with our developed logical and rational capacities, the data called into question acquired through our perceptive system selecting content through a value hierarchy structure. We must have knowledge of, and consciously employ a phenomenological method to properly carry out the eidetic reduction, and this, if carried out sufficiently, can provide us with foundational features which we can verify subjectively through experience. The ability to linguistically describe a process, and its accuracy in being a symbolic representation of that content, relies on our conceptual vocabulary and our ability to articulate the abstract essence into a relatable and meaningful content. Through the positing of a questionable concrete phenomena within the realm of consciousness, we are able to cognitively model the content and imaginatively vary its attributes until a limitation found within the object of desire is reached so that any further reduction or alteration would fundamentally not apply to the object, revealing the invariable, or essential necessary form or shape or pure essence of the content in question.

We must not mistake the Being of our own consciousness employed in the act of cognition with the content within consciousness, both are separate phenomena in which the phenomenologist is able to scrutinize. The mode of Being which is able to employ an eidetic reductionist method is itself an object which can be analyze by the phenomenologist, as is any other content that is able to be imagined by us. The conceptualization of objects allows us to properly bracket the content and organize it into our mental framework, allowing a ready-to-hand language in which to work with in our efforts. As we become aware of a content arising within consciousness (can even be the awareness of awareness in a meta sense) we can run that object through the eidetic reduction to be able to apply a description to the content in a fashion that reveals its essential nature in a way that is clear and objective, albeit, if experientially intuited then the content uncovered in the reduction is true to its nature, an symbolic representation is necessarily related to this true nature by degrees of precision according to our ability to articulate and preciseness of concepts in denoting their represented phenomena. This defining, or application of a description which relates the essence of a phenomena, isn’t a material or empirical fact, as science can discover, but more of a hypothesis into the nature of an “object”. This hypothesis can in turn be objectively validated in its externalizing through applying logic and reason, as well as philosophical argumentation, to prove its usefulness and beneficiality. This explanation of a phenomena produced through the eidetic reduction, due to its abstract nature, is discoverable solely by the philosopher in his ability to clarify an abstract phenomenon. It is the job of the philosopher to transmit a clear and articulate description, and must not, in my opinion, ever claim the depiction as being more than a hypothesis. While certain hypotheses properly discovered using this methodology are surely to be miscalculated, varied by biases and judgments, or wrongly concluded upon based on the limited perceptibility and the mental substratum’s natural limitations, we can conversely discover descriptions of essences which prove to be logically non-contradictory, as well as useful or beneficial within the philosophical realm of comprehension.

Thus the discoveries of phenomenology can be used to inform our belief and value structures, and reveal aspects of reality not able to be unveiled through a strictly empirical, deductionistic, inductionistic, or scientific methodology. This standard methodology, science of psychology, deals with facts and truth seeking of phenomena in their perception to us in the external world (also material phenomena constituting the foundations for our internal world – consciousness), what phenomenology allows us to do is take a lower resolution image of the Being which is engaged in scientific endeavors, analyze the theoretical explanations of scientific discoveries, methodologies, and allows us to conceptualize the makeup of scientific findings so that the content is more accurately represented to our human perspective, from the human perspective, to the human perspective. The perceptible system is the foundation for which datum arises in consciousness, the essence of which is discovered in phenomenology. This consciousness, therefore, is necessarily presupposed in any scientific endeavor, and always modifies the endeavor and interprets it through biological lens. The facts of science are truly external facts, while our conceptual representations of them are merely models. Phenomenology allows us to parse the data discovered in science while simultaneously analyzing the description which we apply to such data through the use of our language, or mathematical logic, in order to not only give a more truthful representation of it, but also to differentiate and isolate specific components in a way that gives insight into the specific nature of each separable piece, or as the whole (the totality of aspects which makeup the essentially of a concept if it has constituent parts).

While a particle can be scientifically and mathematically theorized to exist, and can be found in a laboratory to exist, the perception of such an object is always altered by the observer, not only in the conscious content arisen in experience, but in the very ability to perceive, and the necessary value structure through which it is filtered. The significance, or sense, that we don’t seek out, but for which we find to constitute the intentionality of our being towards the data, is posited in the revelation of the data, and we become aware of content through the system which selects for it. Aside from conceptualizing content discovered in the phenomenological lens, in the natural mode of being we also come across difficulty in parsing data and affecting it based upon the mode of being which we inhabit in our directedness towards it.The microscope used, the light interference upon the particle and upon the instrumentation used to record it, our own eye sight and mental reflection of it, our mental state of recognizing such data and symbolizing them consciously, is all variants in interpreting the particle. From every perspective, from every moment, the content of such depictions is altered, yet theoretically, the object exists objectively. To describe it as it truly is, being that we are humans located in time at which both us (our conscious mode of Being) and the object in its essential nature are constantly in a state of flux and impermanence, requires philosophical and grammatical cohesion with the application of logic to really nail down the underpinnings of what makes something what it is, the in-itself of an object thus can only be articulated, or the sense of it experienced, only in partial relation to the fullness of its actuality. The natural way of interpreting data, and thinking of scientific discovery, is by just taking the data as they are discovered at face value, without analyzing the aspect of human intervention which always is a variable in the perception of any content, being that we are limited to our human state. Recognizing the indeterminateness of our experience and how it relates to the analysis of scientific discovery, leaves us open to the normal way of viewing and describing phenomena, without taking into account the human experiential aspect which is side-by-side to the present moment awareness and creation of the object of inquiry. We ignore the essence of the content in our naturally progressing and transient conscious experience, and therefore lose our own possibility of deeper insight into the nature of the content of consciousness and the mode of Being which coincides with the awareness of such content. In science, this can amount to the improper conceptualization of phenomena, creating an obfuscated description (inarticulate, not properly described or defined concept or group of concepts) which misses out on the possibility of a more accurate representation, which would be, for us, possible through a phenomenological investigation. 

The phenomenological conclusion, taken to its limit (the limit of an investigation with itself as object) produces a result that was discovered through a much less vigorous method – without our current understanding of logic and reduction (as well as a lack of science) – over two thousand years ago. The concluding remark upon the essential aspects of phenomena themselves prove to be unsatisfactory, as is the natural state of our conscious experience, by the very absence of integral essence to phenomena. All phenomena, outside of the bounds of our conceptualization, are at their core essence less, as they are interdependent with every other conceptually described phenomena. All phenomena are impermanent, transient, timeless, and lacking a core structure in their facticity. All phenomena as we discover them in our conscious experience are constantly in a state of change, and exist due to a causal structure predicated upon a conditioned nature. They appear as they do now because of factors which preceded them, and they are being altered within the present moment, and will be different in the future in regard to how they appear to us, as they are themselves not concrete entities. What can become a concrete entity, for us, in our experience, isn’t a truth about the content of reality (a phenomenon) but rather a truth about our mode of being as it represents phenomenon to itself, even if that intentioned content is itself. This is only stable in an abstract manner, about metaphysical concepts, such absolute truths appear foreign to the natural mode of Being, yet are discoverable through introspection and philosophical analysis – namely phenomenology. Such absolute metaphysical and representational truths are such as the statements “all phenomena are conditioned” “all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and subject to change” “all phenomena is absent of an essential nature” etc.

In conclusion, philosophy, and the phenomenological process, cannot produce a factual representation of the essence of a phenomena existing in reality or our experience, because by its very nature, it is a representation. That the representation works to provide a logically successful result, that is inherent within the structure, such as deductive truths, are rather abstract truths about logic, than being a phenomenon that exists in the world

What I refer to as the content that is unfindable as a fact in reality would be in reference to the essence or permanence of such phenomena such as the mode of Being which underlies the ability to produce the consciousness positing the logical truth aforementioned. The argument that a representation is factually in its alignment with reality is a perversion of the word fact, or truth, in the way I am using it here. While facts about the world do exist, their nature is purely abstract and general, and not existing in the conscious minds of humans. What this means is that phenomenology doesn’t produce facts, but logical descriptions in the correlation between conceptualized groupings of reality (into concepts, language, or mathematical formulations). These groupings or descriptions aren’t merely mental constructs, as their existence (such as mathematical numbering) isn’t merely a product of our mentality, but rather such things are merely to be taken as a mental construct arising in consciousness in the form of language and symbols which themselves (the symbols) are representative of an abstract way of perceiving reality. These symbols in their ordering and relation can produce a result that is logically true, but this isn’t the unfindable empty essence of a phenomena which phenomenological inquiry is aimed at discovering. Nevertheless, the inquiry isn’t fruitless, it can strip away the unnecessary and variable content to find an invariable shape of a concept which is representing a phenomenon, to better understand the phenomena, and how it relates to our picture of reality or how it relates to us in our lives, etc.

The mode of Being which is perceiving reality, must be understood as it is, as just that, a mode of our consciousness producing a perception using mentally constructed language (symbology) to represent a perceived phenomenon within the world. This is an accurate prediction. Now in the logical and seemingly objective venture of phenomenology to be able to produce conclusive statements as to the essence of a phenomena in its concrete invariable form, isn’t a fact, as all phenomena themselves are constantly changing, impermanent, and inherently “empty of an essence”, rather what phenomenology can profess to produce is the logical ordering and articulation of the symbology which is a mental representation as it relates to the phenomena as it appears to us in reality, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on its clarity and depth and scope of comprehension. This means that it can be beneficial and useful to us in our human endeavors, as we are a conceptualizing, experiencing, living, Being, with modes of consciousness that are able to use value systems and interpret reality in a more or less beneficial way to be better in line with its actuality. The phenomenological method aids us in progression along this path, and any deep inquirer can use it to better articulate the state of reality, but the point I wish to stress here is of the nature of its conclusion must not be posited as a fact, or as having concrete existence, but rather, its utility, or pragmatic usefulness, in aiding us in the human experience of understanding reality, which is great, considering were human.

If the contents herein seem to be contradictory, they are, as a progressive comprehension of the use of phenomenology itself is being presented. The contrast between our normal mode of intuiting (regular perception) and a phenomenological examination of a transcendent essence, necessarily refers to two different modes of Being, and consequently two different modes of Being, characterizes by different attributions. And thus different rules and conclusions support and follow from their exploration. The logical formulation of concepts which led to their conclusion is a building process, through which diametrically opposed beliefs are found in succession, and through a Hegelian dialectic, the contradicting truths are superseded to produce a picture which contains both truths within. This process occurs across the span of all conscious development, and this holds true for the process of phenomenological methodology and understanding, the discoveries found and understood through eidetic reduction might contradict the discoveries of other inquiries, and the summation of both contradictory “truths” may necessarily be transcended by a further conceptualization which in its formulation can include both aspects of reality. Thus in phenomenology we are absurdly (Camus’ definition) seeking the meaning to the essence of an object within a meaningless world, finding truths about aspects of reality in content which has no concrete immutable truths, without illogically being unreasonable in our discoveries. There is a place and a usage to these terms that is both deeper and more transcendental than immediately meets the eye. Phenomenology can find the essential structure to phenomena as to their representation in our consciousness, yet recognize the essence less of the actual phenomena themselves.

Mindfulness and Phenomenology

On By Chris Shuttleworth3 Comments
Originally Written: February 12th 2020

Mindfulness and Phenomenology

Here I wish to delineate several related terms to better differentiate their usage and respective attributes. The terms in question are that of mindfulness, philosophical phenomenology, and psychological phenomenology. Edmund Husserl pointed to key differences between psychological phenomenology and philosophical phenomenology, but here, for clarification and ease of understanding, I wish to additionally employ the use of mindfulness or Vipassana in the Buddha’s conception. These terms are used in the study of our own experience, and all are different possible states of Being we may enter into, and can potentially be used towards specific aims once they are unveiled to us within our own experience. They are Hiedeggerian “modes of Being” which can become open options to us (due to deterministic causality) in the exploration and truth seeking in the direction of comprehending and conceptualizing our own experience.

We begin with an analysis of the content of our consciousness, through introspective awareness, this is defined as mindfulness. Through mindfulness we can direct our consciousness to become aware of the contents within its sphere of awareness within the present moment (Basic Vipassana and Samatha Meditation). When we knowingly are aware (meta awareness – aware of our awareness) of what is happening within consciousness within this presentment, we can learn about the nature of consciousness, and gain insights into its fundamental nature (philosophical phenomenology) as well as its development, prior and post causality, what brings certain aspects into awareness and how we act and behave in response to them, and what effect that experience has upon us (psychological phenomenology). Thus we use mindfulness as a groundwork structure to gain insight into the two fields of further application. Mindfulness allows us to be aware of what content enters into our consciousness, and with enough practice in being in this mode of Being, certain insights can become clear to us (recognized as True).

Such insights available to be gleaned and recognized firsthand through the practice and training of mindfulness are broadly grouped into three useful, essential, basic truths about our inner experience. These are delineated by the Buddha, and while they are not comprehensive as to the content which is able to be uncovered, they are immediately intuitable, and beneficial to recognize. Those I speak of are the nature of non-self, impermanence, and the unsatisfactory underpinnings of our existence. The lack of a definite self, or ego, or non-self is to be discovered through the coinciding insight of impermanence, as their being no content or no phenomena to be found as being permanent. We find upon investigation that the content of our consciousness is in constant flux from moment to moment, and is characterized by its transient arising and fading away nature, as objects of consciousness (inner subjective content within the realm of consciousness within each moment) come into view and are replaced by new content. This causally led chain of content is discovered as modal changes to being without an anchor or headmaster, what we find to be its basis is simply Being as Being, rather than as Being as Self. Being becomes conceptualized, or experientially seen as, an active happening, lacking the “self” which we normally attribute as being an agent acting as the contributing subject to the content of our experience. Lack of “free will”, or, lack of control over what is the next content of consciousness, becomes apparent as a negative attribute of our experience. Mindfulness has the ability to allow the mindful practitioner to realize the suffering, or unsatisfactory nature of his being, through the experiencing of a consistently present desire, or craving, or clinging which propels the consciousness to become dissatisfied with its current state, and to be directed towards future states of the present moment. This is what Husserl terms intentionality, or the directedness or pointlessness of consciousness towards something. This intentionality, spurred by desire and dissatisfaction, is acted the content of our perceptual environment, including mental content, under the fundamental concern, importance, value, of what the perceived horizon presents as optimal to the totality of our Being. This directedness towards value is what Heidegger defines as fundamental to our Being, that of “care” (Heideggarian Terminology).

From the findings of mindfulness stems the scientific study of phenomenological psychology, which is a variant upon, and later rediscovery, of the very methodology which Buddha painted the picture of two thousand years prior. In psychological phenomenology, we take the experience of consciousness, and analyze them in a way towards an aim of giving description to the content found within. The describing of such content allows us to classify and arrange experiential content (psychologically phenomenological) in a cohesive and useful manner, in which to recognize and give a conceptual understanding to the causality of such states arising, as well as towards goal-directed states of optimization. This is the role of psychology within the phenomenological subfield, to identify states as falling into discovered groups of classification, and towards the arising of future states with a goal in mind towards the state of Being with which we wish to embody.

As to the nature of the Being which is able to experience mindfulness, we must employ a “science” of objective philosophical phenomenology to analyze and interpret its foundation structures. The role of philosophy is to describe the nature, essence, limit, scope, and characteristics of the Being which is able to experience, the being which we analyze, that which is necessarily most readily available to us, is our own, a “human being”, defined as “Dasien” in Hiedeggerian terms. When we seek to know what is universal about such consciousness, and its ability to experience, its ability to enter into different modes of Being, we seek the use of philosophy in its depiction. We find explanations attempting to attribute essential foundational, objective, universal, consistencies that form the basis of Human Being. Hiedegger finds our being inextricably linked to a tripartite temporality, as existing within a structure of time we didn’t choose to inhabit, the “thrown” of our existence (past creating a present creating a future). We are found within this period of temporality with the primary characteristic of having a foundational “care structure” (comparable to desire in Buddhism) which affects our entire existence. We find ourselves “thrown” into an existence which is unprecedented, and we have an anxiety towards death, a constant anticipation of future inexistence, and we embody the will to escape it (Buddhist dissatisfaction). The answer is to heed the call of conscience and to live authentically while seeking to understand our Being.

In Hegel we find that human consciousness exhibits a form of Being which is able to be in distinctive general modes, or forms of Being, which can progress itself through a dialectical method to higher states of more comprehensive knowledge and understanding of itself and reality. As contradictory truths are discovered in our experience, we seek to transcend them through forming a synthesis which contains opposing facts about our existence, allowing us to supersede our prior mode of consciousness. Subsequent philosophy is able to analyze and depict the Being which we are, Dasien, as containing infinite modes of Being which give rise to the experiences which shape these forms of Being, and which can progress.

Philosophy is able to generalize about the steps taken in the conscious development, or of a hypothetical ideal conscious development as derived from the objective nature of experience which itself is discovered through the use of reason and conceptualization within this consciousness, which is, the objective study of subjectively discovered philosophical phenomenology.