Dan,
Husserl “plays” with words. He contrasts, for instance, the natural gaze from the naturalistic. Did you read the quote from Moran? Moran is no slouch.
Husserl, as he states for himself in Crisis wanted to return science to a HUMAN science, not to the mechanized version that was overtaking the discipline. There is not just one version of science in Crisis.
And I am glad you recognize the inconsistency in dabbling with quasi-things etc.
Phil
> On May 5, 2023, at 3:40 PM, Dan Bloom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> That is consistent with what I said or intended to say. Husserl wanted to find a firm foundation or ground for the positivist sciences. He thought he accomplished this in the Crisis.
>
>> On May 5, 2023, at 5:22 PM, Philip Brownell <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> There is a difference between science and positivistic science. We live, for instance, in a post-positive era in regards to the philosophy of science. I have been teaching and writing about this in the work on research.
>
> If you are defining positivism as a only doctrine that rejects all forms of speculation that is not restricted to sensory experience, how are you distinguishing that from phenomenalism?
>
> I don’t object to GT having positivist elements that might be guardrails against religious-mythic and untethered metaphysical thoughts. Good lord, I know I tread on shaky ground when I dabble in field-emergence and play with “atmospheres,” “quasi-things,” and the “uncanny.” To say nothing about “nothing,” too. :)
>
> I payed a little attention to analytic philosophy and logical positivism before I caught the phenomenology bug. I liked analytic philosophy. But it took too much time for me to study it as a hobby. And it was too distant from my clinical work.
>
> Dan
>>
>> From Moran’s book about the Crisis:
>>
>> Husserl’s real target is the then current positivist and neo-positivist interpretations of modern science (Crisis § 3) associated with Auguste Comte (1798–1857), Mach and the Vienna Circle (Husserl was familiar with Schlick and Carnap). The nineteenth century had been the great age of positivism, the doctrine that rejected all forms of speculation and restricted knowledge to the contents of sensory experience. Auguste Comte (1798–1857), for instance, championed modern science against religious-mythic and metaphysical thought.9 For the positivists, science was objective, inductive and experimental. Husserl regarded the positivists as holding an essentially mistaken conception of science owing to their deliberate narrowing of the concept of reason: they Husserl’s real target is the then current positivist and neo-positivist interpretations of modern science (Crisis § 3) associated with Auguste Comte (1798–1857), Mach and the Vienna Circle (Husserl was familiar with Schlick and Carnap). The nineteenth century had been the great age of positivism, the doctrine that rejected all forms of speculation and restricted knowledge to the contents of sensory experience. Auguste Comte (1798–1857), for instance, championed modern science against religious-mythic and metaphysical thought.9 For the positivists, science was objective, inductive and experimental. Husserl regarded the positivists as holding an essentially mistaken conception of science owing to their deliberate narrowing of the concept of reason: they
>>
>> Moran, Dermot. Husserl's Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (Cambridge Introductions to Key Philosophical Texts) (pp. 70-71). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
>>
>> The Vienna Circle, and positivism, rejected metaphysical conversations as nonsense. Note what Moran says above. They reject all forms of speculation and restrict knowledge to the contents of sensory experience. That is why I said that GT carries a residue of positivism (which of course has been debunked).
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>> On May 5, 2023, at 1:36 PM, Dan Bloom <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Look it up.
>>> I am sure of it. Husserl first studied the logic of arithmetic. His interest preceded from there.
>>>
>>> He was not a positivist. He wanted to find a secure ground upon which the positivistic attitude could be grounded. That was part of his project in the Crisis. He never faltered from a commitment to objective science.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 5, 2023, at 3:28 PM, Philip Brownell <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> NO. I don’t believe so. He was speaking against positivism, one of the earliest people to do so. He also referred to it as the naturalistic attitude, and to me it was the rise of positivism in science that was the Crisis. If he was in support of positivism, then … no. Really? That is how you see it?
>>>>
>>>>> On May 5, 2023, at 1:19 PM, Dan Bloom <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Husserl was adamant that there was a there, there. I think he referred to that as “the principle of all principles.” His phenomenology was neither solipsism nor idealism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn’t Husserl’s major project from Logical Investigations onward to find a proper foundation upon which the positivist sciences could stand?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t have an opinion on what you say about positivism and GT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 5, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Philip Brownell <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan,
>>>>>> To constitute is to interpret something already there (I would like to hear how others define “constitute”). To, as you put it, take possession of it. To bring it to mind. This goes back to the starting point of phenomenology. Is there No thing? There must be Some thing in order for it to be given as an appearing. There may indeed be no thing to subjective experience, nothing for the person (because it has not been given to a particular consciousness, but if what is given does not in some way correlate to what is actually there and available for constituting, then what is “given” is not GIVEN; it is simply created ex nihilo. And that would be insanity or solipsism. But then, to me, to maintain that there is no meaningful world, nothing worth discussing outside of the way I see it, and really nothing that actually exists unless I constitute it from my sensed experience, seems positivistic. How would it not be so? The positivists maintained that metaphysics was dead, meaningless, because everything had to be constructed from the experience of the senses (and then logically explained). That is why I believe there is a residue of positivism in GT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 5, 2023, at 12:36 PM, Dan Bloom <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm, again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I say. “My world,” aren’t I taking possession of some thing? That is the meaning of “my”? He is “my” husband. This is “my” computer. There is a computer prior to my making it mine. There is a person — an other — prior to my making him mine. And so, there is a world prior to my taking it on as mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 5, 2023, at 1:26 PM, Philip Brownell <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Peter,
>>>>>>>> “The” world or “my” world? I think it is your a priori that makes the difference. If one assumes there is no difference between the world and my world, then of course one cannot be thrown into something that doesn’t exist (until I exist). Reality. If, before all else, I am committed to the notion that nothing exists before I exist, then there is no reality outside of what I make of it. Constituted reality is nothing but my interpretation of experience. Everything else is meaningless, nonsense. Like what the logical positivists did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In some ways I do believe that GT carries with it a residue from positivism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 5, 2023, at 9:53 AM, Peter Philippson <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your and Phil's argument, pulling out one bit of history in an ahistorical way and using it to convince me of a pre-existing world that is solid enough to be 'thrown' into, seems to me like the argument that was made against Ed Sheeran in the copyright case, that the song was made from similar chords to a previous song, therefore it was the same. The judge rightly threw that out, and agreed that the point was not the chords but the song, and you could make many different songs with the same chords (the basis of the Blues, or of modal classical music). When do you distinguish one family from another rather than going back to our common ancestor in Africa? Is the experience of flying in a war the same experience as telling the story, or not telling the story? Why the war experience rather than cutting yourself shaving? We select what is significant to us or about others and call it history.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You did not choose what you were taught, but you could choose how you learnt. I remember my main interest in childhood Bible study was looking up girls' skirts. Language: I was first taught German, but by two people with wildly different German accents, and I still do not have a fixed German accent. My English accent was about hiding my German accent at a time when that would have been very unacceptable in Britain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 16:32, Dan Bloom <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Peter:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don’t think your example addresses the meaning of a pre-existing world into which we are thrown.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Karen’s daughter was born into a family and into a language that she will make her own. And she will change it, inevitably, since the very nature of being-in-the-world is to be changing the world. That is what Heidegger meant by “understanding.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “History" is another way of looking at the world into which we are thrown. I was born into a particular time and situated into a sweep of tradition. I took up generations of family background, affective narratives, social and cultural aspects of the world and lifeworld.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was not born a tabula rasa. My heritage is not the twin strands of my DNA by the third of history. An extended phenotype. Transgenerational and not of my choice. I was born into the shadows of a second generation American household and all its tensions and aspirations that had nothing to do with me and everything to do with my parents and grandparents (who I never knew). I didn’t choose the religion I was born into or the language I was taught to speak. I could go on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I could say more about “history” since it is not one event after another, but how we in the present make sense of our past as it is both handed over to us and how we reach back and make use of it in the present.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The group you walked into was indeed a pre-existing world and your experienced it as such as a world in which no one looked at you, yet. You were an other, an alien, outside the order that, in some sense, circumscribed and defined that world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, in terms of “thrown,” I myself wonder who or what is the “thrower”! I suppose it is time. LOL As Heidegger’s Jewish girlfriend Hannah Arendt might have said, “Oy."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 5, 2023, at 10:58 AM, Peter Philippson <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Karen,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good to speak to you today.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you gave a concrete example of what I was talking about in talking about your daughter. She was not born into a pre-existing world, because that world was not the world in which your life had just been turned upside down by her birth!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think about a training group I worked with. When I came into the room, nobody looked at me. That was not an expression of a pre-existing world, but a way of pushing away the new situation that my entry produced.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My favourite take on Nothing is Tao Te Ching Chapter 1:: 'without desire we see the mystery, desiring we see 10,000 things'. So we turn a world of processes into a world of things that we can satisfy our desire with. So a whole set of processes moving around carbon, oxygen etc in a cyclic way gets turned into a forest where we can distinguish trees and the ground as separate things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 11:07, Karen Nimmo <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm enjoying and interested to read this discussion. And, not having any real background of study of these writers to draw on I'm feeling a bit stuck with how to engage. Which I would like to do. I'm wondering about what all of this means for practice, and what experiences these ideas might give name and meaning to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The main thing I am left with though, in response to this thing of 'nothing', is the thought of my 4 year old daughter who delights in responding to my questions about what she might like for lunch or our next thing to do, with 'Nuffin!' (nothing).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John wymore, sometime ago you asked me about how I define myself as a Gestalt practitioner and why is that enough. This is a very useful question for me which I'm still mulling over. I hope to say something in response soon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And, my situation of having that 4 year old means that holding a train of thought or interest for any length of time is difficult. This is taking me to another curiosity around our professional field and how mothers like me, and other parents of small children might engage when time is limited, and day to day experience includes very visceral realities of food on the table, bath time and wiping bottoms. I feel an urge to want to create a bridge between this exploration of philosophical ideas and life as it's lived and happening.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I've done something of that in talking about my daughter and motherhood.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>>>> Karen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Karen Nimmo
>>>>>>>>>> Gestalt Therapist Edinburgh
>>>>>>>>>> www.karennimmo.co.uk <http://www.karennimmo.co.uk/>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 May 2023, 00:20 Dan Bloom, <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 2023, at 5:25 PM, Peter Philippson <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Dan,
>>>>>>>>>> I can see ways that I can assent to all you write below, and ways in which it is easy to slip into something very different, where Heidegger's embeddedness in the world made Hitler the Dasein of Germany. My image is of gravity, so the 'concrete' world is bigger than me and its pull on me is bigger than my pull on it. That is the danger, because, as Fritz and Lore Perls (and my parents) showed, the world embedded with me can be changed as much as the world affects me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I can see how that image makes sense to you. To me, the world is a lot more malleable or fluid than that since it is a human process. It is a being-with-others The world is also an historical process much as is the lifeworld.
>>>>>>>>>> What pulls us forward is our sense of our own possibilities in the face of our own deaths. We pro-ject ourselves to the future. We are pulled and pull ourselves forward.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That bring us to Heidegger and history. And therein is the trouble. It is the same kind of trouble we find in Hegel. Fate. Destiny. Many an evil is justified by historical inevitability. Communism and National Socialism. Stalin’s gulags and Hitler’s camps. Hitler as Dasein has a lot to do with Heidegger’s notion of history. I don’t think that disturbs many of the other ideas in Heidegger’s philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you about intentionality. Heidegger was mistaken re Husserl and especially about intentionality. In fact, I read a few Heideggerians who point out that intentionality is an essential but hidden part of Heidegger’s being-in-the-world since Dasein is always directed toward the world in which it is in.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Heidegger incorporated Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics into his phenomenology to show how we are inescapably of the world so that our understanding — an important aspect of being-in-the-world — and the world itself are of one whole. This is the hermeneutic circle. Nothing can dislodge our embeddness in and of the world. And I also mean Nothing.
>>>>>>>>>> I have no objection to that. But then there is no difference of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>> Accurate world? He did thank that “truth” is hidden and is disclosed in moments of clarity. But that is not the clarity I think you mean. It is not about an objective observer, but closer to what we’d experience when the natural attitude is set aside. In Heidegger, “truth” is disclosed in moments of authenticity…. Oh, how I hate simple summaries. There is so much more to say. “Truth” ? You’d have to read his essay “The Essence of Truth” to figure out what he meant by that! I’d have to re-read it to explain it. :)
>>>>>>>>>> I would put it differently. If I and my world co-form, nothing is hidden, but truth forms in (as) the disclosing. It seems very concrete to me, but not a concrete world. In my new book I wrote:'For example a man brings difficulties with his wife. The therapist has never met the wife, and only ‘meets’ her in therapy through three lenses: how the client wants to show his relationship to the therapist (who is the bad person?); how the client sees his wife; and moreover, how the client sees his wife as she relates to him rather than to other people and situations. Yet the therapist is in effect being asked to change this person for the client!' You could say that the truth of the relationship is hidden, but then you are in the language of uncovering the hidden, which I cannot distinguish from cleaning up our consciousness. My moments of clarity with clients have often seemed at best simplifications at other times. I would prefer to say that these 3 perspectives are all we ever get as field-emergent people. There is no hidden truth. Yet paradoxically, because we are so fully part of the world, the objects that form in consciousness do have meaning for our lives both separately and together: co-forming, I am part of you and you are part of me, so we can know each other in the contact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Uncovering the hidden is very much like discovering a new perspective or Husserl’s Anshauung of something that had been there all along, yet somehow not yet “seen.” I don’t like bringing truth into the equation. This might lead to the nonsense of “my truth” “your truth” and go knows what. I prefer meaning-making, contacting, and the aesthetic criterion of gestalt forming.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The philosophical attitude which Husserl asked people to temporarily put aside the natural attitude for is not another way of looking at the world, but of looking at consciousness as it constitutes the world. This fits with the GT concept that awareness is not 'in' the person but on the boundary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “Shows itself as itself” means that we as Dasein are open to what is. Then what is and we appear to one another. Dasein is the process of disclosure. Think “contacting.” I understand this in terms of how that in insight, the figure stand out sharply against its ground. This is not independent of me. Merleau-Ponty put this in terms of the perceiver and the perceived.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I have no objection, so long as the Sein (Being) is in the Da (there) of the figure, and that doesn't fit well with the language of being open to something hidden at one time and at others revealing what is hidden.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why doesn’t that fit with the hidden and revealing? Can’t we say that ground of figure/ground is “there”? And figure is “being” as in an existent? “I” cannot be without a “there.” The “there” includes what may be background and not yet available. And so on. This perspective adds an existentiality to the way we usually consider f/g emergence. To say nothing of the contact-boundary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not a Heideggerian, by the way. My own point of view, for the most part, is closer to Husserl’s. Yet Heidegger’s existentiality makes sense to me. His ontological difference (Being and being) makes sense to me. Dasein makes sense to me. Being-towards-Death and Being-in-the-World make sense to me. Being thrown and being projected towards the future make sense to me. Care makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>> Make less sense to me as you know. I would say we are NEVER thrown (e.g. my baby example). Human beings can care for other things (their country, their politics or religion, more than their existence more than other animals, who, if they sacrifice themselves do it from instinct.
>>>>>>>>>> Thrownness makes intuitive sense to me. I am born into an already existing world, which is as if handed over to me. I am thrown into this time, this place. Human beings care for many things other than their own existence. I agree with you on that. Some Heidegger scholars say Heidegger would agree, too. Anyway, it took Levinas to correct Heidegger for all time. It is not merely our knowledge of our being-toward-death that marks us as human, but our knowledge of our being-toward-the-death-of-the-other. We do not live alone. Our dying is a dying away from those we love. Those we love die away from us. Levinas took this further. He said that this is an ethics that precedes being itself, where ethics is nothing more nor less that primordial relationality. This is how I will try to base a pre-dialogical approach in GT, which will rescue the individual from the relational soup. :)
>>>>>>>>>> Both Husserl and Heidegger are important steps on the way to Merleau-Ponty. Heidegger is an important step on the way to Levinas. And all of them shine different lights on gestalt therapy.
>>>>>>>>>> I get that.
>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>> My best to Mary!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> love,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 2023, at 12:57 PM, Philip Brownell <[log in to unmask] <https://mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “…since appearance precedes one’s consciousness, consciousness itself is conceived as a realm of givenness and absoluteness.” —Ronny Miron, "The Phenomenologyofthe Nothing: The Hidden Dialogue Between Conrad-Martius and Heidegger” in Hedwig Conrad-Martius: The Phenomenological Gateway to Reality. Springer.
>>>>>>>>>> Ronny Miron is a spectacular scholar and has done a great deal to make known the influence of the women who studied with Husserl. Hedwig Conrad-Martius was one. Edith Stein was another.
>>>>>>>>>> Phil______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter (Philippson)
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 21:31, Dan Bloom <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Heidegger never, ever meant we could clean consciousness or that there is an objective observer. Being-in-the-world is precisely that. He criticized Husserl precisely in that basis. Fairly or not, he objected to the phenomenological and transcendental reductions of Husserl as movements away from the world and into abstractions. Being and Time is an analysis of our being as finite existents in and of the concrete world — practically and existentially. He rejected intentionality because it was consciousness directed AT an object. Some say he misread Husserl. But one thing is clear regarding this, to Heidegger, there is no objective observer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is the danger, no objective observer, but a concrete world, with this image of a greater gravity. Newton said that with a big enough lever you can move the world, Einstein showed how you can make a bomb that will melt concrete. A baby is born into the world in which a baby has just been born, and changes it in the fact of its birth. Intentionality is not intention, it is consciousness of something, but that something doesn't have to be an object. E.g. I want to look behind that door because I am curious what I will find. Sartre wrote about the experience of absence.
>>>>>>>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Peter (Philippson)
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Peter (Philippson)
>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>>
>>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>>
>>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>>
>> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
>
> ______________ Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, <http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L,> and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
______________
Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.
|
