Sunday, June 26, 2011

Collective intentionality

Balder started a thread at IPS on Sean Avila Saiter's paper called "Husserl, Schultz and collective intentionality." Here are some excerpts from the thread:


That´s reminding me my college years of the 70ies. Sartre´existentialism and Phenomenology were more or less already "disclassified" by the growing structuralism of Levi-Strauss, Saussure and Jabokson in France.

Using KW terminology, if we are locating us in the ULQ in the interior of the first zone, then we can reconcile the two approches if we don´t fall back into husserlian speculations of a "trancendental subject", by being more empirically based like Shultz try to do with his sociology, more in phase with Garfinkel´s ethnomethodology. It would be fine to bring back intentionality from its  "lit de parade".


Haven't seen the paper yet but can say that later on, Husserl followed Schutz along his notion that the 'life world' was a kind of "ground" for phenomenological enquiry, a kind of presupposition, and also along these lines, that intersubjectivity was also presupposed. So Husserl was not totally naive. Just a guess as to what is to come.

Ya, structuralism kinda exploded phenomenology. Foucault gives a gives a good account of this.


Kennilingam uses Foucault's geneaological method  to support his transcend-and-include progression of subjective consciousness, yet according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Foucault "the point of a genealogical analysis is to show that a given system of thought...was the result of contingent turns of history, not the outcome of rationally inevitable trends." In this sense he is post-structural and also exploding structuralism, including the kennilinguist variety. Postruct seems itself to now be taking a U-turn (fold) back into a more  hermeneutic phenomenology, one not so "self" absorbed, one which sees the intersub/objective and unconscious ground in the lifeworld.

That said, I'm wondering to what degree Avila Saiter sees the collective as "intentional?"


Sean has a blog where he discusses this.


Doesn't EH though accept the very kind of kennilingual structuralism which presupposes direct, conscious apprehension of the real through intentional methods (e.g. meditation, and "how the collective interior evolves"), a presupposition about intentionality that the polydoxae (including Foucault) question? (See Foucault excerpt above.)

PS: When you said Sean I assumed you meant Sean EH, and by the blog I see you meant the author of the thread paper. This Sean might even have the same criticisms of the other Sean? Never mind...

For example, this abstract of one of Saiter's papers:

This article is an inquiry into Ken Wilber's integral epistemology as applied to social systems, namely, through organizations and leadership. It explicates the constructionist component inherent in the universalist nature of AQAL theory (a framework covering all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all states, all types). The relationship between integral methodological pluralism and the AQAL model are explored in the context of a fundamental misunderstanding of phenomenology, transpersonal psychology, and the human sciences, not as a method among many but as an essential characteristic of Wilber's integral theory. This article aims to contribute to the further development of integral research and design methods through clarification and contextualization.

1 comment:

  1. Sean joined our IPS discussion and so far said the following. See the discussion for further commentary:

    "It such a pleasure to have the chance to say that I am responsible for the abstract you are talking about. I wrote that abstract and presented as short paper version at a phenomenology and existentialism conference in 2009. However, I should mention that what may not be clear is that this was a previous version of my dissertation as it stood at the time. My dissertation has changed quite dramatically as I found that I was (typically) trying to cover too much. However, one thing that has come out of my interest in intersubjectivity in phenomenology is a new chapter for the upcoming True But Partial book where I discuss in more focus Husserl and Schutz in relation to Integral Theory. Yet, in this chapter that I am still working on I am not exclusively focusing on intersubjectivity but, rather, on what Schutz called the problem of relevance. But I digress from this thread...

    "There are few things I'd love to reply to here: One is that even though I don't agree with everything Husserl had to say and that I recognize that phenomenology has evolved and incorporated many insights since Husserl (e.g. hermeneutics, social constructionism, feminism, etc.) I feel I need to defend Husserl as being essentially misinterpreted. In fact, I feel that people like Foucault have actually chosen to focus on particular works by Husserl in their critiques (the earlier Husserl) and have failed to appreciate the fact that Husserl wrote more about intersubjectivity (among other themes) than any of the other phenomenologists after him (see Zahavi). Similarly, in an interesting turn of events, Schutz (who came after Husserl not before), directly inspired the introduction of social constructionism, ethnomethodology, and conversation analysis, all very influential in contemporary thought. So, what I found is that both Husserl and Schutz, if one were to take the time to read their original work and not the critiques through people like Derrida and Foucault (among many others) one would find many of these critiques to be questionable if not downright inaccurate (though, I must say, transcendentalism doesn't seem to be recoverable at this point).

    "This is a point that I have spent so time with, especially as it seems that Wilber is basing much of his opinion of phenomenology and Husserl on other people's interpretations, namely, Foucault and Heidegger, which is problematic for a number of reasons. Yet, this is the essential limitation of making broad claims about a philosophy. Trying to read Husserl, much less Husserl and Schutz and the other phenomenologists to really understand what they were about is a very tall order. Husserl is notoriously difficult and cryptic.

    "Balder, you mentioned David Michael Levin, whom I am fan of and I tend to agree with. Levin is faithful to Husserl without failing to recognize that there have been many improvements to phenomenology beyond him that necessarily have been added to the project. It is an evolving philosophy and one that I think is not dead. It depends on what one finds to be relevant and just because a trend moves in one direction or another doesn't mean that something is dead, just that the locus of attention has shifted for one reason or another. I find it's mostly about the "packaging.'"


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.