This essay was written on the basis of what I call a ‘happy misunde rstanding’, which is already conspicuous in the first paragraph below. Most misunderstandings have negative consequences. But in this case I was delighted to learn that I was mistaken in believing that phenomenology was just getting going in South Africa, when actually there have been phenomenologists there since before World War II! Why I and my colleagues editing the Encyclopedia of Phenomenology were ignorant of this and failed (...) to include an entry on South Africa I am not yet able to explain, but I was at least able to apologise for this omission at the recent meeting. Beyond the firstclass quality of the presentations that I heard, the colleagues on the program were typically younger than I have seen in meetings of other groups recently and also a higher proportion were women, both factors auguring well for the future. I have not tried to hide my misunderstanding in the following essay and do hope to see two delegates at the meeting of the Organization of Phenomenological Organizations in Australia next year. (shrink)

While it seems obvious that the embodied self is both a subject of experience and an object in the world, it is not clear how, or even whether, both of these senses of self can refer to thesameself. According to Husserl, the relation between these two senses of self is beset by the “paradox of human subjectivity.” Following Husserl’s lead, scholars have attempted to resolve the paradox of subjectivity. This paper categorizes the different formulations of the paradox according to the (...) dimension each pertains to and considers the prospects of each proposed resolution. It will be shown that, contrary to the claims of the respective authors, their attempted resolutions do not really resolve the paradox, but instead rephrase it or push it to the next dimension. This suggests that there is something deeper at work than a mere misunderstanding. This paper does not aim to resolve the paradox but instead initiates a new approach to it. Instead of seeing the paradox as a misapprehension that needs to be removed, I dig deeper to reveal its roots in ordinary consciousness. Investigating the proposed resolutions will reveal the fundamental role of the natural attitude, and I will argue that already the general thesis of the natural attitude makes the decisive cut that leads to what Sartre calls a “fissure” in pre-reflective self-awareness. The phenomenological reduction deepens the cut into what Husserl calls the “split of the self,” which in turn engenders the paradox of subjectivity. The paradox’s roots in the structure of ordinary consciousness not only constitute a reason for its persistence, but also suggest a new way to further investigate the embodied self. (shrink)

This paper argues that the shared intersubjective accessibility of mathematical objects has its roots in a stratum of experience prior to language or any other form of concrete social interaction. On the basis of Husserl’s phenomenology, I demonstrate that intersubjectivity is an essential stratum of the objects of mathematical experience, i.e., an integral part of the peculiar sense of a mathematical object is its common accessibility to any consciousness whatsoever. For Husserl, any experience of an objective nature has as its (...) correlate a “we,” which he terms the “community of monads”. Thus, even before mathematical objects gain expression, formalization, and axiomatization through natural and scientific language, from a phenomenological viewpoint their objectivity has its roots in raw pre-linguistic though intersubjective experience. Accordingly, I demonstrate the different senses in which the experience of mathematical objects is permeated by intersubjectivity, suggesting a picture of mathematical intersubjectivity as pre-linguistic common experience based on Husserl’s idea of a “community of monads”. (shrink)

This essay will move toward a phenomenology of “more” in ten steps. 1st, situates the investigation within the tradition of Husserlian phenomenological practice, then 2nd draws upon Husserl’s own experience of doing phenomenology. 3rd considers some initial aspects of the structure of the lived experience of “more” and 4th is about the number series, while 5th addresses the primal experience of time, space, and movement. 6th focuses on the phenomenological notion of horizons, then 7th turns to the related question of (...) transcendence. 8th takes a critical look at a particular conceptual model sometime used in thinking about the experience of “more”; 9th briefly brings out one of the ethical implications of this critique; and finally, 10th highlights some of the ways in which the research documented here is itself still incomplete and demands “more”.Este ensayo se moverá hacia una fenomenología de "más" en diez pasos. El prime-ro, sitúa la investigación dentro de la tradición de la práctica fenomenológica husserliana; luego, el segundo se basa en la propia experiencia de Husserl de hacer fenomenología; el tercero considera algunos aspectos iniciales de la estructura de la experiencia vivida de "más" y el cuarto es sobre la serie numérica, mientras que el quinto aborda la experiencia primordial de tiempo, espacio y movimiento. El sexto se centra en la noción fenomenológica de horizontes; después el séptimo pasa a la cuestión relacionada con la trascendencia. El octavo echa una mirada crítica a un modelo conceptual particular usado en algún momento para pensar sobre la experiencia de "más"; el noveno destaca brevemente una de las implicaciones éticas de esta crítica;y, finalmente, el décimo resalta algunas de las formas en las que la investigación aquí documentada todavía está incompleta y exige "más". (shrink)