Post on 05-Nov-2015
r'P
HA
EN
OM
EN
OLO
GIC
A-
DQ
RIQ
N(jA
IRI\
COLLECTIO
NFQ
NDEEPAR
H.1..
vanBREDA
ETPUBLIEE.
sous'
ED
ES
CE
NT
RE
SD
Al(C
HIV
ES
-HU
SS
ER
Ln
|,
Corwersatzonswar/2Husserland
Fm/r
LE
PA
TR
OB
AG_
ED
ITE
IJR
YT
HE
1-{U
SS
ER
L-A
RC
'IIIVli5
INLO
UV
AIN
.D
OR
ION
CA
IRN
SW
ITHA
FOREWORD
BY
RIC
HA
RD
M.
ZA
NE
RConversations
withHusserland
Fink
ED
ITE
DB
YT
HE
HU
SS
ER
L-A
RC
IIIVE
S
INL
OU
VA
11
\.
WIT
HA
FO
RE
WO
RD
BY
RIC
HA
RD
M.
ZA
NE
R
0'(-1
0__ 4F}'1
o.|.'D3_+H
ICom
itde
rdactionde
lacollectio
Prsideni:S.Ijsseling
(Leuven);M
embres:
M.
Farbcr(B
uffalo),E.
Fin
kf(Freiburg
i.B
r.),L.
Landgrebe,(K6111),
\.V.Marx
(Freiburgi.
BL),
]..\T.M
ohanty(N
ewY
ork},P.
Ricocur
(Paris),E.
Strfjkcr
{K6111},'
].Tam
maux
{Louvain},K
.H
.V
ulkmann-S
chluck(K6111);
I_
_T
__T
__
_SBC1'1.iI'Bl
'lanlinauxI
MA
RrII\
[JE)
NI]
HO
IFfl
FH
EH
AG
UE
J."1976
I"2.
21/I/9
if.
4
I976
by.M
artnusNijko_f,=,
TheHague,NeHzer'Ia1cds
Allrights
reserved,inciuding
theright
totranslate
orto
reproducethis
bookorparts
thereofinany
form
ISBN9024715318
l._
I
VIX
XV
IIX
XV
IIIX
XIX
.X
XX
.X
XX
IX
XX
IIX
XX
IIIX
XX
IVX
XX
VX
XX
VI
XX
XV
IIX
XX
VIII
XX
XIXXL
XL
IX
LII
XL
IIIX
LIV
XLV
.X
LV
IX
LV
IIX
LV
IIIX
LIXXLLIL
IILIII
LIV.
LVLV
ILV
IILV
IIIL
VIXLX
LX
IL
XII.
LX
III.L
XIV
.LX
V.
LX
VI
LX
VII
TA
BL
EO
FC
ON
TE
NT
S
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,20111131Conversation
with
HusserlandFink,24111131
Conversationw
ithFink,24111131
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,25111131Conversation
with
HusserlandFink,30111131
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,4112131Conversation
with
Fink,7112131Conversation
with
Husserl,8112131Conversation
with
Fink,14112131Conversation
with
Fink,19112131
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,22112131Conversation
with
HusserlandFink,23112131
Conversationw
ithHusserland
others,26112131Conversation
with
Husserl,28112131Conversation
with
HusserlandReiner,31112131
Conversation
with
Husserland
Fink,511132
Conversationw
ithHusserl,1311132
Conversationw
ithFink,
1811132Conversation
with
Fink,2011132Conversation
with
HusserlandFink,2611132
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,2911132Conversation
with
Husserl,313132Conversation
with
Husserl,713132Conversation
with
Husserl,1113132
Conversation
with
Husserl,415132
Conversationw
ithHusserl,615132
Conversationw
ithHusserl,915132
Conversationw
ithHusserl,1115132
Conversation
with
Husserland
Fink,3115132
Conversationw
ithHusserl,216132
Conversationw
ithHusserl,416132
Conversationw
ithHusserl,816132
Conversationw
ithHusserl,1316132
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,1516132Conversation
with
HusserlandFink,2316132
Conversationw
ithHusserl,2716132
Conversationw
ithHusserl,2916132
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,1517132Conversation
with
HusserlandFink,2019132
Conversation
with
Fink,2319132
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,25110132
TABLEo
rCO
NTENTS
Lxvrrr.Conversation
with
Husserl,2111132LXIX.
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,15111132
Appendix1.Topics,Husserlconversation,241613111.
Conversationw
ithHusserl,2516131
111.Conversation
with
Husserl,2716131
Works
byH
assertmentioned
inthe
Conversations
Index01names
Indexofsubjects
v1199100
103104105
107
109
III
FO
RE
WO
RD
Thisis
anunusualvolum
e.During
hisperiods
ofstudyw
ithEd-
mund
Husserlfirstfrom
1924to
1926,thenfrom
I931to
1932-
Dorion
Cairnshad
become
imm
enselyim
pressedw
iththe
stri-king
philosophicalquality
ofI-lusserls
conversationsw
ithhis
studentsand
co-workers.Notunlike
hisdaily
writing
(fiveto
sixhours
aday
wasnot
uncomm
on,as
Husserlreportsherein,
thenature
ofwhich
wasa
continuoussearching,
reassessing,m
odi-fying,
advancingand
evenrejecting
offormer
views},Husserls
conversations,especially
evidencedfrom
Cairns'srecord,
wererem
arkablefor
theirdepth
andprobing
character.Because
ofthis,and
becauseofthe
importantlight
theythrew
onI-IusserI's
written
andpublished
works,Cairns
hadearly
resolvedto
setdown
inwriting,
asaccurately
aspossible,the
detailsofthese
conversations.Largely
prompted
bythe
questionsand
concernsofhis
students,includingCairns,the
presentConversations(from
thesecond
period,19311932,exceptforthe
initialconversation)provide
asignificant,
intriguing,and
alwaysfascinating
insightinto
boththe
issuesw
hichwere
prominentto
Husserlatthistim
e,and
thew
ayhe
hadcom
eto
viewthe
systematic
andhistorical
placementofhis
own
earlierstudies.Cairns
hadoften
insisted
principallyin
hisrem
arkablelec-
turesatthe
Graduate
Facultyofthe
NewSchooll
thatattainingafairand
accurateview
ofHusserlsenorm
ouslyrich
andcom
plex
1Cairnss
lecturesbetween
1956and
1964are
especiallyim
portant.He
addressedhim
selfto
suchtopics
as:Hl1sserl's
Theoryof
lntenticmality
{atour-sem
estercourse);
"TinePhenom
enologyof
Thinking";
]:lpiste|nology";as
well
asseveral
coursesdealing
with
ethicsand
value-theory,and
major
figuresi|1
thehistory
ofP11i10s0phY
(especiallyLocke,
Kant,
Hum
e,and
rgthcentury
thought).These
lec-tures,m
ostofwhich
were
written
outinfull,
forman
importantpartofC
airnsspapers
which,
itis
expected,w
illbe
preparedfor
publicationover
thenext
years.
XF
OR
EW
OR
D
bodyof
work
requiredthat
onebegin
onesstudies
with
thoseworks
whichwere
written
atthepeak
ofHusserlsphilosophical
powers,and
thenone
couldsensibly
turnto
therestofthe
cor-pus,always
readingit,however,in
thelightofthe
former.This
or-der,Cairnsm
aintained,placedthe
CartesianM
editation-$2first,fol-
lowed
bythe
Formaland
Tra-nscemieatalLogic,'3
onlyafter
mas-
teringthese,could
onem
eaningfullystudy
Ideas,I4(w
itha
focuson
PartII,
sincet-lusserlrightly
hadserious
reservationsabout
Partl,
which
heregarded
astoo
unclear).After
this,one
couldthen
turnto
thelargely
pre-philosophical(and
certainlypre-
transcendental)Logical
Irioesti'gati'or-is,5and
thenthe
restof
Husser1sworks,
publishedand
unpublished.The
presentCon-
versationsconfirm
preciselythis
interpretation,and
moreover
givethe
rationalefor
it:as
isam
plyclearherein,it
wasonly
inthe
lightofhis
laborsin
ther92os
culminating
inthe
firsttw
ow
orksm
entionedabove,
thatHusserlcam
eto
alevelofgenuine
philosophicalmaturity
fromthe
perspectiveofw
hichthe
earlierstudies
andinquiries
couldbe
viewedsystem
aticallyand
assessedas
totheir
approximation
to,or
failurefully
toachieve,
age-
nuinelyphilosophicalsignificance.
Hence,iffor
nootherreason,
theseCorwersah'ons
haveboth
historicalandsystem
aticim
por-tance
forunderstandingllusserl's
ownviews
ofhisw
ork.Coming
3E
dmund
Husserl,
Carcsiam'sri;e
.-lfetiritatitmen
mid
ParriscrI'ortr&gc.
Herausge-
gebenund
eingeleitetvon
Prof.
llr.S.Slrasser.
Hnsserliana
BandI.
Hang:
Martinus
Nijhoff,
I950.Eng.
tr.by
Dorion
Cairns.
The.I-lagne:
Marliiius
Nijhoff,
I960.3
Edm
undH
usserl,Form
alsand
trait-szcndentaleLogiic.
Vrrsucheincr
Kritik
defIogischm
Vrrrmm
.H
alle:M
axN
iemeyer
Verlag,I929.
ling.tr.
byD
orionC
airns.The
Hague:
Martinus
Nijliuff,
1969.4
Edm
undH
usserl,Idem
zueiner
reimm
1'Iaa11onie:mngi:andpiiiiuom
csmiogilscken
Pkilosophie.lirstes
Buch:
Allgenieine
lilinltihrungin
diereine
Phanornenologie.Her-
ausgegebenvon
Walter
lliemel.
Husserliaiia
Bandlil.
Hang:
l\-IartinusN
ijhofi,1950.
5E
dmunrll~ll1sserl,Logisr:.Fze
L-ntersacJ;:m_.r,'m.H
nlle:f\lH.X
Niem
eyerVerlag,
1900,or
{Vierte
Auflage,1:325).
ling.tr.
by_I.
N.
Findlay{in
two
volumes],
fromthe
2ndedition
ofI913.
Ne\v
York:
Thellunianities
Press,1970.
'5Such
as"P
hilosophieals
strengeW
issensel-rail,Logos,
1{191o
1911},pp.
289-341
(Eng.tr.
byQ
uentinLauer,
publishedalong
with
anotherof
Husserl's
articlesunder
thetitle:
II1sn-nrncnologyand
theC
risisof
Ihi-fosopky.N
ewY
ork:H
arperTorchbooks,
TheAcadem
yLibrary,
1965,pp.
_71:47].
Otherw
orksby
llusserlhavebeen
carefullyedited
andp11lJli5hP(l
underthe
auspicesofthe
HusserlA
rchives,inthe
seriesentitled
Husserliana,
publishedby
Marlinlis
Nijhofi.
Theseother
works,
Cairns
ofteninsisted,
must
heread
inthe
lightof
theForm
aland
Transcendmtal
I.o;;,-icand
theffartesian
.~'l-feditatrfmi-s;especially
isthis
theease
with
Erlalirim
gand
L-lrtsil,R'n's:'s
o'erzuropaiscken
lrl"i$$'n$t;kafi6Bm
iddie
transzerrdentafc
Pkrinoriicnologic,and
allthe
studiesleft
unpublishedby
Husserl
duringhis
lifetime.
FO
RE
VV
OR
DX
I
soonafterthe
completion
ofhissem
inalFormaland
Transcenden-talLogic,and
hislectures
inFrance,
thepresentvolum
erecords
hissubstantialeffort
tofind
aclearw
ayofpresenting
thisbasic
conceptionofphenom
enology,hisevidentconcern
tosethis
ear-lierstudies
intheir
propercontext,aswellas
whathe
seesas
them
ajorthrust
ofhis
imm
ediatelyforthcom
ingw
ork.Thus,
notonly
them
ajorthemes
ofthelogic
andtheir
extensionin
furtherlogicalstudies,but
alsoan
importantextension
tothe
CartesianMzdiitatziorz-s
(inas
many
asthree
additionalM
editations,as
mentioned
inthisw
ork),andsom
eofthe
importantthem
eslatertobe
takenup
inthe
Crisis,arealladdressed
herein.One
ofthem
oststriking
featuresof
Husserlslifelong
effortto
establisha
trulyfoundationaldiscipline
ofphilosophicalcriticismis
hereexhibited
quitedram
atically
andoften
toboth
Cairnssand
Fink'ssur-
prise,ifnotdism
ay.Hardly
anyinsightorresultis
regardedby
Husserl,evenatthis
latedate
inhis
career,asdefinitively
estab-lished:He
[andperforce
hisreaders),finds
itnecessarycontinual-
lyto
re-examine,
researchagain
andagain,
terrainw
hichm
ostofhis
followersand
criticsw
ouldlike
toregard
asH
usserlses-
tablishedview
s,but
which
Husserlhim
selfis
neverw
ontto
acceptasestablished
andclosed
tofurther
discussion.Thus,not
onlyhis
viewsofthe
ego,constitution,embodim
ent,intersubjec-tivity,
time-consciousness,
Passiv-ia't,and
otherwell
known
themes,but
evenintentionality
itselfaresubm
ittedto
renewedand
probingquestioning
inthese
Conversations.Nothing
as
heem
phasizesagain
andagain
can
betaken
asdefinitive;
inthe
wordsof
theForm
alandTrait-scerideuia!
Logic,the
j>oss1Tbiliyofdeception
isinherentin
theevidence
ofexperienceand
doesnot
annuleitheritsfundam
entalcharacteroritseffect
..."Indeed,he
quiteexplicitly
deniesthat
evidenceof
anykinds
canyield
anabsolute
securityagainstdeceptions
...9The
presentCori-oersai-ioas
giveam
pleevidence
thatHusserlmeantprecisely
what
hesaid:every
effort,andclaim
,toknow
inherentlyrequire
phe-nom
enologicalexplicativecriticism
,and
thatitself
necessitatescontinuous
transcerrdenialself-criticism.
Thisvolum
eis
thelastw
hichCairns
hadhim
selfpreparedfor
7Form
alandTranscendentalLogic,op.cit,p.
156.8
Ibtd-.pp.
284-39.9
Ibii,
p_157_
XII
FO
RE
WO
RD
publication.Itwas,however,by
nomeans
theonly
workwhich
hehad
hopedto
publish,theplans
forwhich
werecutshortby
hissudden
andtragic
deathin
january,1973.
Conversationsw
ithhim
earlieron,asa
resultofwhich
Ihad
agreedto
assume
legaland
philosophicalresponsibility
forhis
philosophicalw
ritings,clearly
indicatedthat
among
hisvast
andextensive
writings,
spanninga
periodofforty
years,Cairnsbelieved
thattherewere
betweenten
andtw
elvevolum
esw
hichcould
bem
anageablyedited
forpublication
overthe
years.W
iththe
greatassistance
ofProfessorFredKersten,who
iscurrentlyengaged
incom
pletinga
catalogueof
Cairnsspapers,1"
itis
hopedthat
othersof
hissem
inalwritings
will
appearsequentially
inthe
nearfuture.
Inthe
meantim
e,it
hasbeen
decidedto
placehis
papers,as
theyare
catalogued,w
iththe
Centrefor
AdvancedResearch
inPhe-
nomenology,
underthe
directorshipof
Professor_]'os
Huertas-
JourdaatW
ilfridLaurierU
niversityin
Waterloo,O
ntario,Cana-da,along
with
thepapers
ofotherscholarsin
thephenom
enologi-caltradition.
RICHARDM.ZANER
SouthernM
ethodistUniversity
Dallas,Texasjanuary,
I975
1"M
ostim
mediately,
Prof.
Kerstenis
preparinga
newtranslation
ofl-iusserI's
IdeaI,
basedon
Cairnss
wort-:.It
isanitinipaterl
thatthis
will
becom
pleteby
late1976.O
thersofC
airnssw
orks,especiallyhis
own
originalwritings,can
thenbe
turnedto.
ED
ITO
R'S
PR
EF
AC
E
InI968
them
anuscriptofthepresentw
orkreached
theHusserl-
Archivesow
ingto
thegood
officesof
ProfessorH
.Spiegelberg.
Toprepare
them
anuscriptforpresswe
then,inagreem
entwith
theauthor,assum
edthe
responsibilityforcarrying
outallthein-
dispensableeditorialcom
pilation.U
nfortunatelyD
orionCairns
wasnot
grantedthe
scrutinizingof
thesubm
ittedw
ordingnor
theelaboration
ofhisprojected
preface.As
with
CairnssG-aidefortranslating
Hasserlthe
editorsaim
edatpreparing
forpressa
textfaithfultothe
originalmanuscript.
Indoing
sotheir
interventionswere
limited
tothe
correctionof
theorthographicaland
gramm
aticalmistakes,to
theelim
inationofdisturbing
stylisticirregularities
andalso
tothe
completion
ofrather
alot
ofabbreviations.Through
hisrepeated
reviewing
ofthe
manuscript
ProfessorR
ichardM
.Zaner
kindlycontributed
thereto.Also
headded
theelucidative
completions
which
went
beyondm
erelinguistic
mistakes.These
additionsare
allindicatedby
theuse
ofsquarebrackets
[].In
orderto
facilitatethe
readingofthis
work,
toallG
erman
terms
andexpressions
wasadded
atranslation,
which
hasbeen
putbetween
angularbrackets
.
Thesetranslations
were
ifpossible
m
adeaccording
toCairns's
Guide.Ifone
andthe
same
expressionwasrepeatedly
usedinoneconversation
thetranslation
wasindicated
onlyupon
itsfirstappearance.
Allthe
numbered
footnoteswere
suppliedby
theeditors.These
footnoteschiey
comprise
biographicaland
bibliographicalre-
ferences,referringto
names
ofpersonsand
works
mentioned
inthe
text,which
todaym
ightbefam
iliaronlyto
asm
allgroupof
persons.Thereferences
bearingan
asteriskwereincluded
byCairns
himself.
XIVEDITOR'S
PREFACE
Inorder
tofacilitate
thescientic
utilizationof
thisrather
unusualwork,the
editorsfinally
thoughtitusefulto
adda
tableofcontents,an
indexofnam
es,anindex
ofsubjectsand
moreover
aliststating
allthew
orksofHusserlreferred
to.
Theeditorialw
orkwas
doneby
R.Bernet,G.deAlm
eidaand
R.Parpan,scientificcollaborators
oftheH
usserl-Archives,work-
ingfor
them
ostpart
underthe
directionofProfessor
Herm
anLeo
VanBreda
(T1974).Thecorrection
oftheproofs
wasaccom
-plished
byBrian
Maguire
andProfessor
Richard
M.Zaner.
Louvain,AugustI975.H
usserl-ArchivesI
Conversationwith
Husserl,I6/7/26Today
Icalled
forthe
lasttime
onHusserl.
Thereins
Gram
matik
(puregram
mar),
hesaid,
isa
more
in-clusive
sciencethan
onem
ightassume
fromthe
Logis-theU
rater-suckim
gerz.Everylanguage
musta
priorifigureforth
theform
ofthe
assertion"A
isB
;furtherm
ore,it111ustsetforth
them
odelform
s:Ais,perhaps,B
.Thissetting
forthm
aybe
doneby
thetone
ofvoice,if
notexpressly
byspecialwords.
Thew
ordthat
expressesthe
modality
may
figurein
anasserted
whole.A
isperhaps
B
may
beasserted.Thus,in
general,them
odalitym
aybecome
partofthem
atter.Furtherm
oreevery
languagem
ustsetforth
thedistinctions,
foundin
thenaturalEinsteliaag
(attitude),ofsubjectandobject,
Ichand
Umwelt(Ego
andsurrounding
world)
quality,relation,
etc.
II
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Becker,24/6/31Yesterday
ateleven-thirty
Isaw
Husserlforthe
firsttime
sincem
yreturn
toFreiburg.
Heseem
edm
uchthe
same
asve
years3g);hair
alittle
grayer,a11dhearing
alittle
lesskeen,especially
folm
ylow
-pitchedvoice.
Beckerlwas
therewhen
larrived.
1O
skarBecker
(:88g1964),
phenomenological
philosopher,co-editor
ofH
usser]sJ""l"'b"c"1
(Seenote
8,p.4],
contributed:1
smallsupplem
entto
l-IusserlsForm
al:and
lranszamierxlalz
Logik.
2C
ON
VE
RS
AT
ION
S
Apparentlyhe
wasseeing
Husserlforthe
firsttim
esince
thelatters
returnfrom
lecturingin
Frankfurt,Berlin,
andH
alle.A
fterafew
friendlyinquiries,
Husserlcontinuedto
speakon
thegeneralthem
eofthattrip.
III
Comlersat-to-nw
ithBeckerand
Kaufmam
i,25(26
or27)/6}31'
Becker,beim
Tee,bezwe-ifelt,
obes
cineallgem
eineInteresse
fairHusserljeizigebeu
refirde-
obsogar
derNachlass
publiziertsein
wiirde.Kaufm
annzthinks
thatin
theStim
mem
g3one
hasa
relationto
thewhole
world
thatis
notbasedon
Erfakmng
(ex-perience).Also
thatactsofcertain
sorts
actsofdrinking,
etc.,cannot
bee-ingeklam
mert
.(See
Finl
4CONVERSATIONS
canbe
graspedonlywhenspacehasbeen
constituted.Kinaesthesisdiffers
fromEinpfindnng
(sensation)byhaving
anintim
aterela-
tionto
subjectivepotentiality.
TheI
canw
orksdirectly
onor
with
kinaesthesis,andbrings
aboutsensationalandhence
objec-tive
changesonly
indirectly.The
identityofan
objectdepends
ona
certainrelation
tothe
"ichkann
(Ican).
Thebody
constitutesitself
throughperceptions
ofitself,and
theconstitution
ofthebody
asa
realobjectisa
necessarycon-
ditionfor
theconstitution
ofarealw
orldbeyond
thebody.
Iasked
Husserlwhether,if,
wereit
impossible
forthe
bodyto
havereflex
perceptionofitself
(onehand
touchthe
other,the
eyesee
thehand,etc.)
therew
ouldthen
bethe
possibilityofthe
constitutionofa
world,orofa
body.If,e.g.,ouronlysense
organwas
theeye,w
ouldwe
haveany
sortofworld?
Heanswered
no.Itold
himaboutBecker's
recentlectures,whereinhe
contrastedw
hathe
statedto
beHusserls
notionof
possibility,as
"purepossibility
alone,w
ithHeideggers7
notionof
possibilityas
potentiality,Verm
ogen(ability).N
aturallyHusserlwas
astonish-ed
thatanyone
couldattem
pta
distinctionbetween
himand
Heideggeralongthis
line.For
fifteenyears
atleast,he
hadbeen
operatingw
iththe
notionofM
ogliciikeitalsI/'ermo'gen
(possibilityas
ability)-
hehad
evenbeen
usingthe
termVerm
figlichkeii(facultative
possibility)to
expressthe
egosfree
potentiality.H
espoke
ofphenomenology
asthe
attempt
tom
akeunder-
standablethat
which
presentsitself
asbrute
fact,by
making
evidentits(rational)
constitution.This
inthe
endw
illgivem
ana
lifehe
canhonestly
andfully
acceptina
worldhe
canaccept,
inspite
ofbrutefacts
likewars
anddeath.
Thenextjahr/bucks
isto
containnot
onlythe
Germ
anof
theM
ditaiionsCartsiennes
butalso
furthertim
e-lecturesand
afurther
work
ofFink'sand
ashortthing
bya
Munich
jurist.Husserlm
aygive
asem
inarnextw
inter.
7M
artinHeidegger,
{bornr889],
Riekertsstudentat
Freiburg,assistantin
Hus-serls
philosophicalseminary
from1916
until1922,
editorof
Vart.-zsungen
zurPlatinu-
menologie
a'esirmeran
Zeitbewutseins,co-editorofI-lusser|s
jaltrbnck.3
jakrbuckM
rP.-hlosofikie
andphanom
wsoiogrischeForscim
ng:this
Annual
forphilosophy
andphenom
enologicalresearch"
wasedited
byH
usserlfrom
1913until
I930.rt
volumes
werepublished.Co-editors
wereM
oritzGeiger,Alexander
Pliinder,A
dolfR
einachand
Max
Schelcr.These
were
lateron
substitutedor
joinedby
Martin
Heidegger
andO
skarBecker.
WIT
HH
US
SE
RL
AN
DF
INK
5
HusserlcharacterizedHeideggers
Aristotleinterpretation
asa
readingback
intoAristotle
ofanattem
ptto
answera
questionw
hichfirst
arosein
Husserlsphilosophy.
Iforgot
aboveto
mention
anall-im
portantw
ideningof
them
eaningofkinaesthesis.
Husserlspokeofthe
freepossibility
ofturning
to"an
objectinm
emory
asinvolving
kinaesthesia.Pursuing
thestrain
indicatedby
theidea
ofpotentiality,
Iasked
himw
hetherfeelings
connectedw
iththe
beatingof
theheartorthe
processesofdigestion
werekinaesthesia
inthe
same
senseas
thefeelings
connectedw
ithhand
oreyem
ovements,and
asthe
kinaesthesiainvolved
inm
emory.
Hereplied
thatan
ex-press
actofvolitionwas
byno
means
necessarilyinvolved
whenthere
isa
connectionbetween
kinaestheticand
sensationaldata.The
ideaofkinaesthesis
expressesprim
arilya
functionalconnec-tion.Thus
theessentialdistinction
betweensense
dataand
kina-esthetic
datarem
ainsunclearform
e.
VI
Noteson
conversationw
itliHnsseri,18/7]31
Ibeganby
statingthatIwas
notclear
aboutthe
natureofkin-
aesthesis,andthis
startedHusserlon
ananalysis
ofperception,m
uchofw
hichwas
familiar.To
theperception
ofaphysicalobject
thereis
necessarynotonly
theconstitution
ofacertain
Einsiim
-migke-it(harm
ony,accord,accordance,agreement)in
theVerlanf
(course,flow)ofEm
pfind-ange-n(sensations),butalso
acorrelatedkinaesthetic
structure.Along
with
thesphere
ofnrspringlick-er
Passiuitcit(originary,
primitive
passivity)there
isnot
onlya
sphereofA
ktivitit(activity)butalsoa
sphereofsecondary
Passi-W-'5iI'5
(passivity).The
latterterm
indicatesw
hatnecessarily
fol-lows
ofitselfoncewe
haveactively
broughtaboutacertain
situa-tion.E.g.,once
Ihaveturned
toward
perceivingan
objectacer-
tainsortofVerlanffindetnotwendig
stair(course{orflow
)neces-
Sarilyoccurs).
Really
itis
aW
essnsznsaniinenhang(essential
interconnection).The
sphereofactivity
isone
offreedomand
inhibition
thesphere
wherethere
issom
esense
insaying
Icanor
Ican't.
6CONVERSATIONS
Activity
goesoutfrom
acertain
passivity,acertain
given.Thisis
truein
thecase
ofmem
ory.Itry
torem
embera
name.Ich
be-schciftige
mick
mi!den
Namen
mid
docknerm
agion
nichteszn
er-innern9.
Vihenthe
processgoes
furthertow
ardits
goal,there
isa
Hemninng
(inhibition).The
perceptionofan
objectinvolvesthe
presenceofa
bodyas
organism.
Only
becauseI
amas
bodya
thingin
thew
orld,may
Ihavea
world.These
analyses,orsomething
connectedw
iththis
generalprob-lem
,Husserlwanted
togive
asBeilageII
(supplementII)
(Really
asBeiiage
I)to
theLog-ische
Untersnchungenbuthe
sawthatthe
analysisofkinaesthesia
wasinsufficient
andaccordingly
hesup-
pressedthe
Beifage.TheotherBeiiage
hadalready
beenprinted,
andhence
itstands
as"Beilage
1though
thereis
infact
nofurther
Be-ilage.(In
factithas
nonum
ber.Husserlgot
thingsa
bittw
istedhere.
Really
thething
thathadalready
beenprinted
and
thatstandsin
the2d
edn.asa
footnote(II,p.364)
[was]
referringto
Beiiage2.1)
Theconstitution
ofmy
bodyform
eis
byvirtue
ofthefactthat
eachorgan
isin
oneorm
oreways
objectofanotherorgan.In
thecase
ofthekinaesthesia
oftouch(notthe
Empfindungen
(sensations))wehavethe
2dim
ensionalkinaestheticfield
localizedon
thesurface
ofthebody.
Butthe
two
arenotidentical.W
henI
move
thebody,
thesurface
isdeform
edbut
thefield
ofkin-
aesthesiaisnot.Indeed,ithasno
senseto
speakofthe
kinaestheticfield
beingdeform
ed.The
eyedoes
notsee
theeye,
andthe
relationof
thevisual
kinaestheticfield
tothe
eyeas
physicalobjectistherefore
dif-ferent.
Thereis
nogeneric
similarity
betweenkinaesthetic
dataand
sensations.Thelatter
~allofthem
,butin
differentdegreesand
waysaccording
tothe
fieldto
which
theybelong
are
capableofm
ediatingthe
perceptionofan
object.The
kinaestheticdata
arenot.
Butkinaesthetic
dataform
among
themselves
varioussystem
sw
hichin
turnare
interrelatedand
forma
unity.\Vith
eachsystem
9"I
occupym
yselfw
iththe
names
and,Yet,
Icannotrecall
them".
1Logische
Untersucim
ngen,2nd
volume,
rstpart,
p.364
(2nded.}.
WIT
!-IH
US
SE
RL
AN
DI-IN
K7
iscorrelated
an"organ",
aperceptive
organ,given
asan
objectthrough
sensationscorrelated
with
thekinaesthesis
orsome
otherorgan.(This
isthe
originalphenomenologicalconceptofan
organ,and
itisnotto
beconfused
with
thephysiologicalconcept,though
itism
itbestinimend
(co-determining)
forthelatter.)
Thebody
asorganism
ism
adeup
oftheorganization
ofsuchorgans
objects
with
correlatedkinaesthetic
fields.As
thefield
ofkinaesthesiais
theoriginalfield
ofpotentialityand
activity,sothe
bodyas
organismis
thefield
ofimm
ediateactivity
inthe
world
ofobjects.The
fieldofpotentiality
andactivity
admits
ofvaryingdegrees
ofapplicationofenergy.
Onecan
attend,e.g.,w
ithm
oreorless
energy.(Locke,
remarked
Husserl,had
noticedthese
variationsin
energyand,asekriicherilfe-nsch(an
honestman),had
describedthem
.Lockegoton
fineas
longas
hestuck
todescription.O
nlywhen
hetried
tobring
inthe
outsidew
orldis
theSachs
(matter)
sckwankend(vaci1lating).)
Husserlbroughtinthe
notionofthe
I-iktinesK
ind(fictitious
child)toillustrate
thatthereare
developmentalproblem
sasw
ellas
staticanalytic
problems.
Inparticular,
thedevelopm
entalproblem
ofthe
connectionof
certainkinaesthetic
connectionsw
iththeir
correspondingperceptive
variations.
VII
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,I1/8/31
Husserlaskedif
Ihad
questions.I
mentioned
two
problems:
I)the
sphereof
kinaesthesisin
thew
idersense
and2)
association.The
meaning
ofkinaesthesis
iswidened
ina
way
which
haslittle
ornothingto
dow
ithaesthesis,so
Igather.Thebasisis
thegeneralquality
ofbeinga
rangeoffreedom
forIch-A
kte(acts
ofan
Ego).Thefield
ofkinaesthesisin
thenarrow
,comm
on,senseis
oneoffreedom
,ofVorderstitze(antecedents,preconditions)for
Wahrnekm
nng(perception).If
Imove
my
headso,Ibring
aboutcertain
changesin
theperceptualfield.So
alsothere
areVerde?-
sdtzeforremem
beringand
otheractsw
ithinthe
realmoffreedom
:If
Ido
soand
so,I
canrem
ember
suchand
such.I
didnot
getm
uchfurtherthan
thisin
thism
atter,which
formed
thesubject
8convsnsnrrons
ofourpreviousconversation.Fink
agreedw
ithme
(afterweleft
Husserl)that
theterm
kinaesthesiswas
unfortunatelyextended
tocoverthe
fieldofspontaneity,ofthe
{ch-kann(I
can).Forthe
rest,Husserlmostly
restatedalready
familiarm
atters:the
constitutionofan
objectivew
orld,ofintersubjectivity,ofthetranscendentalconsciousness.The
freedomofreturn
tothe
same
objectheem
phasizedas
beingim
portantforthe
constitutionof
objectivity.The
transcendentalegoitself
isnot,
inits
activity,tem
poralbutrathertemporalising
(zeitigend).Itlaysdow
nactsw
hichbecom
etem
porallyidentifiable.Itacquires
habitus,butasIch-Pol(Ego-pole)
itis
notintim
ethe
way
theO
bjekt-Poi(ob-ject-pole)
is.(Fink
pointedout
thatwhereas
theDi-ngerschei-
nungen(physical-thing
appearances)and
theirEinstim
migkeit
(harmony,accordance)are
thenecessary
conditionsfor
theexis-
tenceofthe
Objekt-Pol,itis
theSnbjekt-Polw
hichisthe
necessarycondition
fortheexistence
oftheacts,the
"Snb;iektersckeinnngen"(appearances
ofthesubject).)
Thisaboutthe
atemporality
ofthepure
egowas
newto
me.
Inspeaking
ofhabitu-s,Husserlspokeof
Habe
(having,possession),w
hichm
adeclearthat
hewas
awareof
theetym
ologicalsignificance,andon
thataccount
chosethe
word
nab-itns.
VIII
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Maloine
Hnsseri,I3i8/31'
(Margaretand
Iatdinner
atHusserls)Present-day
culture[is]characterized
byan
over-developmentof
technic.Tech-nik
issom
ethingw
hichcan
belearned
without
learningthe
culturebehind
it.Tecknik
[has]advancedfurtherin
America
because[there
is]lessculture
thereto
holdit
back.Our
culture[has
been]determ
inedfundam
entallyby
theideal
ofscience,w
hichfirstappearedin
Greeceandcontinued,though
mix-
edw
ithotherelem
ents.Todaythe
idealhasbecom
elost,though
thetechnic
which
isthe
resultofsciencerem
ains.Buttheculture
itselfmustfind
itsrenewalin
arediscoveryand
thoroughw
orkingoutofthe
ideaofscience:phenom
enology.Thecrisis,the
impasse,
ofculture[is]shown
bythe
factthattheyoung
todayare
dissatis-fied.Before
ithasbeen
theold.This
dissatisfaction[was]recorded
WIT
HH
US
SE
RL
AN
DF
INK
9
byH
uxley-
[in]Point
Counterpoint(Husserlread
apassage
wherescience
iscom
paredto
drinkasbeing
likewisea
flightfromthe
harderjobofliving.
Heseem
edpleased
with
theexposition
asan
indictment
ofpresentday
non-phenomenologicalscience),
-[and]by
Hergesheimenlz
Hespoke
ofanoptim
ismw
hichhe
hasbecause
oftheinterest
ofWertheim
er,13Gelb,14
andthe
Wertheim
ergroups
inBerlin,
Haile,and
Frankfurt.Previously
hehad
beenfor
along
time
pessimistic
-since
acarefulreading
ofHeidegger,
which
showedhim
howfar
Hei-
deggerwas
fromhim
.He
laidthis
toHeidegger
neverhaving
freedhim
selfcompletely
fromhis
theologicalprejudices,and
tothe
weightofthe
war
onhim
.The
war
andensuing
difficultiesdrive
men
intom
ysticisms.
Thistoo
accountsfor
Heidegger'spopularsuccess.But[is
not]Heideggerbyfarthe
mostim
portantofthe
non-Husserlian
philosopherstoday?
His
work
bearsthe
mark
ofgenius.Before
thusreading
Heideggerhehad
oftensaid
toHeidegger:
"You
andI
aredie
Phiinomenoiogie".
Atfirst,
Husserlthoughthewas
working
onlyforhim
self,andleaving
thebig
tasksto
theH
errnPkiiosopnen
(philosophers).Then
hesaw
thatw
hathehad
atlastfoundhad
universalvalidi-ty.
With
thepublication
ofthe
LogischeUntersnchungen
therecam
egreatresults.
Studentscam
efrom
allover,and
thegroup
worked
nightandday.
Diltheyl
inBerlin
gavea
seminar
onthe
LogischeU
ninsu-chnngen
andpublished
asm
allpaperinw
hichhe
speaksoftheir
importance
asepoch-m
aking.(Pitkinl
wasin
Diltheyssem
inar,became
interested,and
came
toG
ottingen,wherehe
receivedperm
issionto
translatethe
LogisekeUntersucfinngen.
Laterthe
prospectivepublisher
was
EAldous
LeonardH
uxley(1894-1963),
British
author..l"59P11
Hergesheimer(1830-1954),
USauthor,
novelist.1"
Max
Wertheim
er(1880-1943),
Germ
anpsychologist,
togetherw
ithK.
Koffka
3113W
.Kohler
oneof
thefounders
ofG
estaltpsychology.
15ddhm
arG
elb(188?-1936),
Germ
anpsychologist.
H_
Willhelnz
Dilthey
(r833-rgr1}G
erman
philosopher,chief
representativeof
theh15tF1C1!~\t"trend
inphilosophy,
which
was
criticizedby
Husserlin
Philosophie
alsstrange
Wissenschaft".
1W
alterBroughton
Firkin(1878-1949),
USphilosopher.
IOC
ON
VE
RS
AT
ION
S
advisedby
William
James"
notto
publish.Husserlthinks
thatJam
essaw
onlythe
Proegomemz,13and
thatitsanti-Psychoogz's-
mus
wasvery
unsympatisck
(unattractive)to
James.)
Thegreatresultm
adeHusserloptim
isticbuthe
soonsaw
thatthe
groupdid
notprogressw
ithhim
.Alreadywhen
hefirstread
onthe
phenomenologicalreduction,
many
didnot
come
along.A
fterthepublication
oftheIdem
,Reinachlgand,follow
inghim
,others,broke
awayfrom
thenew
developments.
Iam
togo
tohim
at11:30
Monday
with
definitequestions.
He
statedin
thisconnection
thatthereare
many
difficultiesw
iththe
phenomenologicalreduction,
difficultieshe
hadnot
seenat
thetim
eofthe
Idem.
Headvised
readingthe
youngEnglish
andAm
ericanauthors
togetin
touchw
iththe
culturalsituationthere,spoken
ofabove.Frau
Husserlseemsdoubtfulofthe
advisabilityofdevoting
som
uchtim
eto
therevision
oftheG
erman
Mdz'ta.-ionsCartsiennes.
Thisa
proposofm
ysaying
Ifound
theFrench
quitegood
asshowing
thatallphilosophy
which
stopsshortoftranscendental
constitutionis
inadequate,naive.Shesaid
thew
orkofrevision
stoodin
thew
ayofso
much
otherwork.
IrepliedthatIthought
theFrench
wasnotczusfiihrlick
(complete,detailed)
enough,be-cause
peoplewere
inthe
habitofreading
fastand
would
over-look
therealsense
ofthecom
pressedsentences.Husserlsaid
theM
ditationsCanfsiemzesm
ustberead
likea
mathem
aticalwork.
Hespoke
ofphenomenologicalw
orkas
evenstricter
thanm
athe-m
aticalwork.
Itold
himof
Whitehead's2'3
time-analysis,
howw
ithallits
similarity
toHusser1s,it
failedto
distinguishbetween
objectiveand
innertim
e,anddid
notseethe
constitutionalproblem.
Husserlsaidthatthe
theorythatwas
tocom
eto
correctviewshere
hadto
come
tothe
problemfrom
psychology,andthrough
Brentanozl.Hespoke
ofStout
asone
who,beinginfluenced
byBrentano,m
ighthavedone
so,butdid
not.
'7W
illiamJam
es{1842~rgro],
Am
ericanpsychologist
andphilosopher.
1"P
rolegoruenazur
reinenLogik"
(Prolegom
enato
purelogic")
isthe
titleof
thefirst
volume
ofH
usser]'sLogis.-sire
Lintersu-chungen.W
Adolf
Reinach
(rS831gr;'),
Germ
anphilosopher
oflaw
,phenom
enologist.2"
Alfred
North
Whitehead
(r36r1g.1.7),B
ritishphilosopherand
mathem
atician.21
FranzBrentano
(r8381gr7),1-Iusserls
teacherinVienna,exerted
agreatinflu-
enceupen
Husserland
inspiredhis
theoryof
iutentionality.*2
George
FrederickS
tout(1860-1944),
British
psychologistand
philosopher.
WIT
HH
US
SE
RL
AN
DF
INK
II
Hesaid
nothinggave
theevidence
ofphenomenology
likeac-
tualwork
ona
specialproblem.H
isprize
Schrift23saved
Fink,because
itsethim
tow
orkintensively
onthe
problemof
Neutralittsm
odifztation(neutrality
modification).
Becoming
historicallyconscious
ofitstradition
isnotadequate
tothe
salvationofpresent-day
culture,because
inhistory
thattradition
isnotitselfconscious
ofitsown
meaning.
He
spokeofhis
owninclination,always
toinquire
wherethings
werem
ostdistressingand
uncertain,asimportantin
determining
thenature
ofhisdiscoveries.
IX
Conversationw
ithF-ink,
I7/8/31
Ibeganby
askinghim
whatHusserlhad
meantatthe
endofm
ylastvisitwhen
hesuggested
thatI
askhim
questionsconcerning
thephenom
enologicalreduction,and
headded
thathe
hadbe-
come
awaresince
thepublication
oftheIdem
ofmany
difficultiesin
thereduction.
Tow
hichFink:
Thephenom
enologicalreductionis
nolongerregarded
byHus-
serlasm
erelya
stepw
hichfrees
thetranscendentalfield
forin-
vestigation.Its
significanceas
making
possiblea
naivesort
ofact-analysis,such
asonehas
inthe
Idem,rem
ains;butphenome-
nologicalinvestigationcannot,afterthe
phenomenologicalreduc-
tion,proceed
asifina
homogeneous
field,but
must
continuailyexercise
furtherreductionssuch
asthoseinvolved
inthe
problems
ofgenesis.
Thephenom
enologicalfieldis
notthere
atall,
butm
ustfirstbe
created.Thus
thephenom
enologicalreductionis
creative,butofsom
ethingw
hichbears
anecessary
relationto
thatwhich
isthere.
Thephenom
enologicalreductionhas
frequently,even
atfirstby
Husserlhim
self,been
confusedw
ithcertain
epochsw
hichm
aybe
exercisedin
thenatural
attitude.An
example
which
Husserlearlierusedto
illustratethe
phenomenologicalreduction
HV-"8-lgenwzirtigursg
andB
d(see
note5,
p.2),
which
receiveda
prizein
anacadem
iccontest
in1929,
beforebeing
submitted
andaccepted
asa
doctoraldisser-
tation.
I2C
ON
VE
RS
AT
ION
S
butwhich
henow
usesto
illustratea
differentialcharacterofanepoch
inthe
naturalattitude,is
asfollow
s:Tw
opersons
havinga
differenceofopinion
agreeto
sus;:endjudgm
entuntilthey
canappealto
thefacts.
Eachhoweverre-
tainshis
ownopinion,notonly
asacontent,butalsoasanopinion,
he"suspendsjudgm
ent"onlyin
thesense
thatheno
longermakes
useofhis
opinion,pendingverification.This
epochis
notpheno-m
enologicalrcduction,sincethe
real(world-)background
oftheopinion
remains
positedby
thepersons
inour
illustration.The
epochconcerns
adetailof
thenaturalw
orld,whereas
thephe-
nomenologicalepoch
concernsthe
entiretyofexistence.
Butitis
importantto
seethatthe
phenomenologicalreduction
doesnotinvolve
asuspension
ofthetic
activity.This
characte-ristic
ithas
incom
mon
with
theabove-described
"suspension"of
judgment.The
naivesetting
ofthew
orldstillgoes
on.Theepoch
isone
exercisedby
theego,notas
directlylie-ivig
itsintentionall-
ties,butas
reflectingon
them.
Asphenom
enologicallyreecting
uponitselfand
itsacts,the
egodoes
notparticipatein
thedoxic
elementinvolved
inits
acts.Thus
onehas
adoubling
ofthe
egoin
thephenom
enologicalattitude:
thesim
ple,believing
egois
distinguishedfrom
thereflective
egow
hichexercises
thephenom
enologicalepoch.Still
thetw
oegos
areessentially
identical,and
thisdistinction
within
theego
becomes
aphenom
enologicalproblem.
Anecessary
stepin
itselucidation
isthe
analysisofthe
doublingofthe
egothattakes
placewhen,in
thenaturalattitude,one
reflectson
andexercises
epochconcerning
anact.
Inthis
caseit
isthe
psychicego
which
reflects,since
itcontinues
toexecute
thethesis
ofthew
orldin
general,andcontinues
toregard
itselfasin
thew
orld.The
considerationthat
thephenom
enologicalreductiondoes
notinhibitthenaive
thesiskeeps
usfrom
erroneouslysupposing
thatanalyses
inthe
phenomenologicalattitude
areanalyses
ofpseudo-actsand
apseudo-world.Itshouldm
akeiteasierto
under-stand
what
thephenom
enologicalreduction
isw
ithrespect
tonon-doxic
acts,such
asdecisions.
Insuch
casesit
would
seemthat
anydirectepoch
would
inhibitallthere
wasofthe
act,orchange
itessentially.
Anepoch
inreflection,
however,lets
theactproceed
asitnaturallydoes.
Having
oncecarried
outthephenom
enologicalreduction,one
WIT
HH
US
SE
RL
AN
DF
INK
I3
comes
uponacts
which
canbe
describedw
ithrespect
totheir
noeticand
theirnoematic
aspects(asin
theIdem
),butwhich
bearw
ithinthem
selvesindications
thatthey
havebeen
established(gestiftet)
historicallyorgenetically.
Thisgenetic
establish-m
entisnot
tobe
confusedw
iththe
phenomenon
offounding(Fundierm
ig)such
asis
exemplified
inthe
erectingofa
valuingon
thebasis
ofaperceiving.The
latter(founding)is
nothistoricalin
thew
aythat
establishingis:
i.e.,it
doesnot,
likethe
latter,involve
aiiabitiis.
Theperceiving
ofatree,
forexam
ple,refers
back"to
previousperceptions
oftrees,to
theestablism
entofa
liabiiusw
hichdeterm
inesthat
onesees
certainthings
astrees.
Thisapplies
toevery
sortofobjectivation.Thus
onehas
thefurther
phenomenologicaltask
ofexercisingan
epochconcerning
theeffect
(Leislimg)
ofthehabitus
andde-
scribingthe
structurew
hichbears
evidenceofits
genesis.One
hasthen
theproblem
ofw
hetheror
notevery
habitatsnecessarily
refersback
toan
eventwhich
isits
originalestablishing
(Urstif-
timg).This
problemleads
naturallyto
thetranscendentalproblem
ofchildhood.Theapproach
tothis
problemis
bythe
way
ofin-vestigating
thew
ayin
which
my
childhoodis
givenm
e.I
findthat,although
formally
my
pastextendsw
ithoutend,itbecom
esquite
empty
beyonda
certainextent.
Knowledge
oftheearlier
periodsof
my
life-in-the-world
isnecessarily
obtainedfrom
society,either
frompersons
who
remem
berm
ychildhood,
orfrom
observationofothers
whoare
nowchildren.As
thebeing
ofotherpersons
form
eis
agenetically
developedaffair
involving,am
ongother
things,the
previousapperception
ofmyselfin
the"w
orld-as-miue,*
avery
complicated
processis
involvedin
theoriginal
awarenessofm
ychildhood.
Thesam
ew
ouldbe
trueaboutbirth
anddeath.These
seemto
involvethe
egoas
psyche,onone
level,andon
anothertoinvolve
theego
asbearer
ofhabit-us.To
aquestion,Fink
repliedthat
Heideggerhadnotw
orkedon
Husserlinthis
matter,butvice
versa.Everything
which
Heideg-
*See
theM
edimtiom
in
M
44:P.124
ff.
14convnnsarrons
gertakes
overfrom
Husserlloses
them
ethodologicalsense
whichithas
forHusserl.W
rhenspeaking
ofthe
problemofcontinually
layingbare
thetranscendentalfield,Fink
spokeofthe
phenomenologicalinvesti-
gator'speculiardifficulty
with
languagedue
tothe
factthatonto-logicalpositing
istaken
upinto
thevery
essenceofthe
terms
ofeveryday
life,sothatevery
descriptioninvolves
verbalhypostati-zation.
Thisdifficulty
isadded
tothe
difficultyofa
ttingde-
scriptionof
phenomena,
adifficulty
present,however,
inthe
essenceofevery
naturaldescription.The
activityofthe
egois
thesetting
ofbeing.In
self-aware-ness
itsets
itsown
being.Suchpositing
isinvolved
inthe
senseofevery
act.Phenom
enologyis
thecom
ingto
self-awarenessof
theego
overitsown
activities.Assuch,
[itis]
aninfinite
task.The
termG
odis
usedoccasionally
byHusserlin
privateconver-
sationto
mean
thecom
munity
oftranscendentalegosw
hich"cre-
ates"a
world,but
thisis
forHusserla
"privateopinion.
Phenomenology
hasonly
comparatively
latelycom
eto
aware-ness
ofitsown
goalorprogram
.To
saythat
Husserlhasbeen
guidedby
theidealofscience
andthen
toassum
ethatcriticism
ofthegoalofthe
factualsciencesis
likewisecriticism
ofthegoal
ofphenomenology
isthe
resultofmisunderstanding
thesense
inw
hichthe
goalofscienceis
thegoalofphenom
enology.Thegoal
ofscience
becomes
greatlytransform
edand
itssignificance
deepened,it
isbut
actne
tothe
goalofphenomenology,
tothe
goaloftruescience
itself,which
isphenom
enology.I
askeda
questionabout
thefields
ofsensationand
thetype
ofunityw
hichthey
have,remarking
thatitm
ightbeinteresting
toanalyse
thekey
tow
hichdata
arespatially
outsideeach
otherand
come
tom
otivatethe
correspondingqualities
ofseenobjective
aspects,whereas
thereis
adifferentstructure
for,e.g.,auralsense-fields.
He
tookoccasion
toindicate
firstthatthesensory
fieldsappear
onlywhen
westop
shortof
them
otivatedapprehension
ofthe
correspondingobjective
sensoryaspects,andthatthis
stoppingshortwas
difficult.N
ext,that
theanalysis
hadto
takeplace
asstatic
analysisofthe
totalperceptualphenomenon.W
eoughtto
bevery
carefulabout
speculationsas
to,e.g.,
theconceiva-
bilityofa
consciousstream
inw
hichthere
wasno
motivation
for
WIT
HH
US
SE
RL
AN
DF
INK
I5
theapprehension
ofidentitieseither
imm
anentor
transcendent(although
Husserlspeaksin
theldeen
ofapossibility
ofsucha
breakdown
oftheelem
entsin
thestream
thattherew
ouldbe
nom
orew
orldforn1e25).
Theontologicalstatus
ofanego
which
didnot
expressitself
psychophysicallyforothers
anddid
notapperceiveitselfpsycho-
physicallyw
ouldbe
ariddle.Onem
ayw
elldoubtthatsuchques-
tionshavc
alegitim
atem
eaningwhen
askedaboutthe
transcen-dentalego.
Sensefields
are,ingeneral,connected
with
kinaestheticfields,
which
latter,by
apperception,arein
thew
orld".Fink
himselfintends
toturn
nexttothe
problemofthe
appre-hension
oftotalities,such
asthe
wholeofnature,
thewhole
oftim
e,andthe
wholeofrealspacc*.
Thisproblem
isin
closeconnection
with
theKantian
problemofthe
solutionofthe
antinomy
ofpurereason.
Kant'ssolution
ischaracterized
byFink
asnegative.
Spaceis
neitherfinite
norinfinite.In
Husserlonefinds
atendency
toexplicate
theawareness
ofinfinite
spaceas
anawareness
ofthe
infiniteiterability
ofthe
extensionof
onesown
environment
everfurther.
Finkdoubts
thatinfinitespace
forusis
obtainedby
sucha
process.Itmust
bealready
therefor
theprocess
ofendlessextension
ofmy
near-space
totake
placein.
Herem
arkedon
theregrettable
factthatsuch
matters
asthe
deepernatureofthe
phenomenologicalreduction
arenotin
finalform
anywherein
Husserlsm
anuscripts.Forthe
mostpartFink
haslearned
oftheselaterdevelopm
entsonly
inconversations.It
doesnotseem
likelythat
Husserlhimselfcan
stillhavetim
eto
write
anauthoritative
developmentofthem
.The
secondpart
ofthe
Ideen,w
hichcontains
analysesofthe
development
oftheego
throughthe
acquisitionofhabitus,
andthe
thirdpart,although
both[are]in
finished(P)m
anuscriptform,
arenotdestined
forpublication.
Thetim
electures
thatareto
appearinthe
nextvolume
oftheL
ThisProblem
seemsopportune
becauseof
thestress
Heideggerputs
uponthe
awarenessof
wholes.
25cf
lags
I14~
9:
I14
f-
16convnnsarrons
jahrlmck
arefrom
theyears
1915-1919and,
insteadofdealing
chieflyw
ithacts
ofmem
ory,anticipation,
andthe
like,as
dothe
alreadypublished
analyses
developfurther
theanalysis
ofthe
passiveassociation
which
forms
thestream
.In
thevolum
efor
thefollow
ingyear
areto
appearseparate
investigationsconnected
with
problems
outlinedin
theM
edita-tion-en.The
greatpointofgettingthe
Meditationen
outbeforehandis
toprovide
afram
ework
fororienting
theseparate
investi-gations.
Thedifficulty
ofseeingthe
placeofthe
earliertime-lectures
inthe
wholesystem
isthe
chiefsourceofHusserls
dissatisfactionw
iththeir
publicationat
thetim
ew
ithHeideggers
insufficientintroduction.
X
Conuersat-ion-with
HusserlandFink,17/8/31
After
talkingtogether,
Finkand
Icalled
forHusserl,
whoex-
pressedapprovalwhen
toldwe
hadbeen
talkingaboutthe
deepen-ing
ofthe
understandingof
thephenom
enologicalreduction*.
Finksupplied
theinform
ationthat
wehad
goneout
fromthe
problemofthe
reductionofnon-doxic
acts,suchas
decisions.A
decision,saidHusserl,is
oneofm
anyvolitionalm
odi.Thereis
avolitional"doubt",
andthere
aredegrees
ofvolitional"cer-tainty.A
llsuchm
odiareclosely
connectedw
iththe
doxicm
odi.I
donotrem
emberhow
hew
entonfrom
thispoint.
Thecon-
versationturned
tothe
natureofhabitus,and
tothe
natureofan
originallyestablishing
act.Husserllooked
foran
example.
At
firsthetook
amountain,butrejected
itbecauseitwasa
particularobject,and
hencenotagood
instanceofw
hathew
antedto
show.Instead
hesaid,suppose
Iseean
albatrossfor
thefirsttim
eand
learnthe
natureofthe
birdfor
thefirst
time
asalbatross.
Everafter
Isee
albatrosseswhen
Icom
eupon
suchindividuals.
Againthe
threadof
theconversation
escapesm
ym
emory.
*Insightinto
thenature
ofphenomenology,constitution,fills
usw
ithwonder,yet
notvulgar
wonder,
sincewe
haveinsight.
Thephenom
enologicalproblem
spresent
themselves
asriddles,
butitis
theessence
of:1
riddleto
havethe
clueto
itsansw
erin
itself.l\'o
impossible
riddles.
WIT
HH
US
SE
RL
AN
DF
INK
I7
Husserlcameto
theanalysis
oftheinner
time-consciousness.I
raisedthe
doubtwhetherthe
now-pointas
pointwasperceivable,
whetherit
wasnot
anideallim
itofthe
narrowing
downofthe
speciouspresent,something
indicated(angedeutet)by
thespecious
present,butnotstrictly
perceived.In
thissphere,said
Husserl,thereis
nothinglike
anideal.True,
toevery
experiencedcontinuity
am
athematicalcontinuity
canbe
fitted,but
thisprocess
ofmathem
atization,oflogicizing,is
asecondary
one.Itislikewise
notsimple.He
returnedto
theanaly-
sisofthe
time-consciousness,and
developedits
characteristicof
beingm
orethan
am
ereboundary
betweenpastand
future,sinceout
ofitthe
pastspringsand
init
thefuture
isactualized.
Itis
interestingthat
inthe
latterprocess
something
likehabitats
playsarole:the
futureisrealized
accordingto
apatterndeterm
in-ed
bythe
past.H
ethen
proceededto
developthe
ideaoflogicizing,
firstas
aprocess
appliedto
theobjects
ofthe
outsidew
orld.One
must
theredistinguish
two
forms,
oneofw
hichneverleads
tom
athe-m
atization,butremains
descriptiveoftypes
(genusand
species).The
otherform
oflogicizinginvolves
theapplication
ofmathe-
matical
formulations
true
toa
certainnum
berof
decimal
places".Inthe
first,quantityhas
aplace;butitis
thequantity
with
which
wedealin
everydaylife,
XI
Conversationw
ithHusserl,Fink,
andM
iyake(japan),
I9/8/31
Bliyakeasstarted
readinga
paperon
Die
Intersnbfektinitatanddie
Konstitutiontter
objective-nW
elt97.The
paperbegan
with
aresum
eofthe
accountinthe
Med-itationen
oftheprim
ordialsphereofthe
ego23.Concerningthis
heattem
ptedto
developthe
thingfuffhfif,
sayingquite
incorrectly"In
tierprirnordialenSphere
gibtes
keinenkom
ogenenRanrn,sondern
tierprimordiate
Ranmistein
2,-.
..
Iburg
Gm
chlMlyk
(born1895),
Japanesephilosopher,
astudentof
Husserl
atFrei-
2?1-
-.
._
,_
_:8
Clntersnbjeetivity
theconstitution
ofthe
objectivew
orld".arteswam
sclieM
edztatwncn,
44-47,
pp_;;>4_135_
I8CONVERSATIONS
speziffsckzenfrierterRcmm
29.Incorrectly,sincethe
motivation
tothe
constitutionofa
homogeneous
spacelies
alreadyin
theprim
ordialsphere.Finkjum
pedon
thispointim
mediately.
Hus-
serltookthe
occasionfor
generalconsiderationson
phenomeno-
logicalmethod,
asthe
constitution-problems
ingeneral,and
inparticular
theconstitution
ofhomogeneous
space.[W
em
ust]startalwaysw
iththe
givenw
orldand
proceedby
them
ethodofLeitfdden
(clues)to
disclosethe
variouslevels
ofcon-stitution.
(Alreadywe
havem
adeabstraction
fromthe
Unstim
-m
igkeiten(discordancies,inconsistencies)ofexperience.B
utU
n-sttm
migkeiten
areauffallend
(conspicuous,striking),and
unlessthey
areto
beseen,allm
aybe
saidto
flowon
inEinstim
mgkeit
(harmony,accord).)
Thisis
thesense
oftheAbbas
(unbuilding)ofthe
physicalworld,m
isunderstoodby
Heidegger.[A]
chargeofabstractness
[was]m
adeagainsttranscendental
phenomenology,
[with
the]replythatopponents
don'tknoww
hatrealconcrete
method
is.W
eare
reallyconcrete
sincewe
alwaysare
butreadingoffw
hatisinthe
fullpresentedphenom
enon.The
pointsin
theobjective
time
ofthe
primordialsphere
correspondone
toone
with
thepoints
oftime
oftheim
manent
flowofErlebm
sse(m
entalprocessesoroccurrences).
Motion
isfounded
onrest.
Eachpoint
ofmovem
entis
essen-tially
apointofpossible
rest.Kinaesthetic
systems[are
regarded]asnecessarytothe
foundingofrestand
motion.
KinaestheticRube
(rest)is
Still-bieiben(standing-still).
B25Still-bleibentierKinaesthesz's3
providedIam
unmoved
byother
bodies(I
asordered
inthe
sphereofphysicalcausality
bythe
possibilitythereof)
otherobjectsconstitute
themselves
asat
restina
synthesisofunvaried
aspects.A
certaingiven
changeofaspectsm
ayconstitutem
ovingobjects
orm
yown
movem
entin"w
orld"
orboth
according
tothe
accompanying
kinaesthesia.(In
earlyw
orkbefore
LogischeU-ntersucim
ngenHusserlconfused
Erlebms
(mentalprocess)and
Aspekt-Erscheinung(appearance
of
*9There
isin
thepriornordialsphere
nohom
ogeneousspace,butratherprim
ordialspace
isa
specificallycentered
space.5
While
thekinaesthesia
isata
standstill."
WIT
HH
US
SE
RI.
AN
DF
INK
I9
anaspect),whereas
itisthe
casethatEinstim
migkeit(harm
ony,accord)ofonesortconstitutes
Aspekte
(aspects),andEi-nstim
mg-
ken!ofaspects,objects.His
errorsand
oscillationswere
dueto
acom
plicatedproblem
,nottosom
efortuitous
stupidity.N
othing'sfortuitous.)
Thesynthetic
systemofpossible
pointsofrest,
asalloutside
ofeachotherand
correlatedw
iththe
varioussynthetic
systems,
foundsthe
orientedspace.
My
bodyis
thenull-oriented
object.When
anobjectis
attachedto
my
body(as
whenIcarry
it,orit
me)itm
aintainsw
ithm
ea
nullorientationas
Im
ayperam
bulatespace.Sim
ilarly,parts
ofm
ybody
may
takeon
perspectivewhen
cutoff.(Problemoflosing
thew
holebody
bitbybituntilallisgone.)Then
[thereis]no
basisfor
apsychophysical
apperceptionof
thesensation
and
kin-aesthetic
systems
asGrenzf-all(borderline
case).Assimilating
anobjectto
my
body(giving
same
nullorientation),moving
with
itetc.,asallprocesses
foundedin
certainkinaesthetic
syntheses.Perception
isa
bodilyactivity,
involvingkinaesthesis.
Problemofphantasying
myselfin
anotherplace[is]quite
diffi-cult,butits
solution[is]an
importantstep
inm
akingunderstand-
ablethatanalogizing
associationw
hichm
akesintelligible
theex-
perienceofother
minds.
Associationis
bylikeness.
Ihere,
andanotherbody
there,isnotsufficientunless
Ihavephantasied
my-
selfasthere.B
utsuchphantasy
may
beitselfbased
onexperience
ofothers,itw
illbeobjected.Such
would
seemcertainly
tobe
thecase
whenone
seesa
mirrored
reflectionas
ofoneself.Thesequestions
indi-cate
[the]difficultyofproblem
shere.
After
onehas
analyzedthe
constitutionof
theother
mind
ingeneral
onem
ayproceed
toconsider
thehigher,
founded,structures
ofintersubjectivityand
thevarious
forms
ofsocialre-lation
-m
arriage,family,etc.in
Wese-asallgerrie-miaeit(eidetic
uni-versality);then
theproblem
sofabnorm
alities,ofnon-human
sub-jects,blind,
deaf,idiots,etc.,
andthe
problems
ofage-rm
inelife
underethicallaws.Each
problemin
itsplace.
Birth
anddeath
weknow
onlyon
thebasis
ofintersubjectivity.D
eathappears
asa
pausein
otherlife.In
thisit
isanalogous
toSleellButsleep
appearsin
theprirnordialsphere,too,
likewise
R511pause
andits
analysisis
verydifficult.
20
CO
NV
ER
SA
TIO
NS
Finktells
me
them
anuscriptI
hadofthe
Mditations
Cami-
siennesis
anexact
duplicateofthe
onefrom
which
theFrench
wasdone.Ifso
thetranslators
areguilty
oferrorsand
omissions,
asIhave
indicatedin
my
copyatthe
beginningofthe
5thM
edi-ration.
XII
Conversationw
ithHusserland
Fink,22/8/31
IhadsentHusserlon
theprevious
daya
listofthew
orstomissions
anderrors
Ihadfound
inthe
earlypartofthe
Frenchtranslation
oftheFifth
fldeditation.So
thatsthe
way
thetw
otranslations
are,hesaid
ineffect.They
willbe
hindrancesratherthan
helpsto
anunderstanding
inEngland
andFrance.
Hethen
passedon
tospeaking
ofwhat
hehad
recentlybeen
doing.Them
orninghe
hadspentin
puttinghis
recentmanuscripts
inorder.H
egets
intoan
Arbeitsfieber(w
ork
fever)anddoes
noteven
numberhis
pagesso
thatafterwards
hehas
ajob
straight-ening
themout.
Recently
hehas
beenw
orkingon
aproblem
which
hedeveloped
asfollows.
Startingfrom
thefully
concretesituation
onecom
esthrough
abbauendeA
nalytik(unbuiiding
analyses)and
thenthe
oppositelydirected
syntheticorconstitutionalw
orkto
distinguishseveralSckichten
(strata)inthe
structureofthe
concretephenom
e-non.Assum
ing,for
example,
thatwe
havecom
e
alwaysfrom
theconcrete!
to
considerthe
fieldsof
sensationas
lowestlevels
ofconstitutionofobjects,we
may
isolate,say,thefield
ofvision
asa
syntheticunity
throughassociation.W
em
ayfurther
abstractfrom
allsystems
ofkinaesthesissave
thesystem
be-longing
(inapperception)
to".4ugenbewegung
(eye-movem
ents).W
em
aythen
observehow,otherkinaesthetic
systems
beingheld
still,thereconstitute
themselves
unitiesw
ithinthe
fieldofvision,
correlatedw
iththe
eye-kinaesthesia.Ingeneralthereisconstituted
an"A
ugmbewegungsraum
(spaceofeye-m
ovements).Then
thereconstitute
themselves
identicalplanesurfaces
within
thatspace
identical,howeverthe
eye-kinaesthesism
aytake
place.In
thesim
plestcase
wehave
theconstitution
ofa
stationarysurface,
buttherecan
alsobe
constitutedidenticalsurfaces
asmoving,as
WIT
HH
US
SE
RL
AN
DF
INK
2I
changingtheirshapes
andcolors.W
ithinthis
simple
spacethere
may
evenbe
constitutedsom
ethinglike
causalrelations.W
lien,now,other
kinaestheticsystem
s,instead
ofremaining
still,are
broughtintoplay,
theseidenticalplane
"objects"m
ayshow
themselves
tobe
aspectsofthree-dim
ensionalobjects.Thisis
mostobviously
thecase
whenthe
kinaestheticsystem
sofloco-
motion
arebroughtinto
play.Then
again,w
ithreference
tointersubjectivity
theseprivate
3dim
ensionalspace-objectsbecom
easpects
ofintersubjective3
dimensionalspace-objects.Forsim
plicityssake
assuredly,Hus-
serlomitted
thesyntheses
oftheseveral
objectsof
theseveral
fieldsofsensation
tothe
constitutionofone
object.Now
theanalysis
upto
herehas
beencarried
through(roughly)
forthe
constitutionof
thepresent.
Butthe
privatepresent
isextended
bythe
inclusionofthe
privatepastand
future,tow
hichwe
haveZugangsweisen
(ways
ofaccess)in
theform
sof
recol-lection
andanticipation.
Objects
constitutethem
selvesas
goingbeyond
thepresent,m
ayeven
constitutethem
selvesasgoing
be-yond
thereach
ofindividualrecollection.For
acertain
stretchback
my
pastaccompanies
thepastofm
yobjects,butnotallthe
way.In
intersubjectivityI
findthat
thereis
acorresponding
ex-tension
intopastand
future,notonlythrough
theinclusion
ofthepastand
futureLeistungen
(productions,products)ofthepresent
mem
bersoftheintersubjective
society,andthe
correlatedobjects-
alsoobjects
oftheirmem
oriesand
anticipations,butthroughthe
Le-isttmgen
ofpastandfuture
mem
bersofthe
same
intersubjectivegroup.
Thew
orldas
itgives
itselfon
thisintersubjective
levelbearscharacteristics
dueto
theLeistunge
ofthe"cultural"group
backthrough
theages.
Thereare
two
waysin
which
suchan
intersubjectivitycan
widenitself.
First,through
coming
incontact
with
anotherhis-
toricalintersubjectivity,aswhen,e.g.two
racesw
ithno
pastcon-nections
(perhaps
thoughprobably
notexactly
-Europe
andChina?)
come
togethermaking
acom
mon
intersubjectivityw
ithtw
oseparate
pasts.The
otherway
isthrough
theextension
ofthepastofthe
inter-Subjective
world
backbeyond
thefurthest
reachesofthe
inter-subjective
past,as
throughthe
studyofpalaeontology.
Thisis
22C
ON
VE
RS
AT
ION
S
theanalogy
onthe
intersubjectivelevelofthe
extensionofthe
privatew
orlds-pastback
beyondbirth
ofthe
individual.The
resultisthat
theintersubjective
world
itselfw
ithits
objectsis
seenas
anErscheinung
(appearance)ofsom
em
orebasic
world,
tow
hichwe
have,however,some
sortofaccess,evenexperiential
access,throughpresentgeologicalstrata
e.g.?There
arisesnow
theproblem
whetherthis
processofrelativi-
zingthe
world
couldproceed
further;ifso,whetherit
couldpro-
ceedw
ithoutlimit.
Iremarked
thatIcouldnotconceive
ofafurtherrelativization,
andHusserlsaid
hecould
noteither,butthatdid11otanswerthe
question,notshowthatit
couldntbe
asked.Fink
remarked
thatinNeo
Kantianis1nthe
developmentofthe
world
isin
aw
ayconsidered
asparallelto
thedevelopm
entof
reasonin
history,butthatacloserparallel,though
stillnaive,ofcourse,is
tobe
foundin
Hegel.This
impelled
Husserltosay
thatthegreatdifference
wasthat
inphenom
enologyone
hasto
come
tothese
questionsfrom
thebottom
up,and
isnot
impelled
directlyby
anyhistoricalA
n-regm
ag(suggestion,incitem
ent).Hegel,hesaid
hehad
neverread.He
usedto
give(oronce
gave)acourse
onK
antandhis
successors,but
nevergotbeyondKant.
Yetisit
sothat
thestudy
ofthehistory
ofphilosophyoffers
thephenom
enologistmany
Am/egzmgen,once
hehas
progresseda
certainway.It
isofinterestto
seein
whatSchichten
(strata)theolder
philosophersask
theirquestions.
One
findsthem
ofchiefinterest
preciselywhere
theycom
einto
difficultiesbecause
oftheir
naivet.K
ant(particularly
wherehe
isdealing
with
theE-iabzTldungs-
kmft(im
aginativefacu1ty))is
working
atproblems
ofphenomeno-
logicalsignificance,although
heis
involvedin
a"faZsrrhe
L0g:'f1'-z-iem
ng(false
logicizing)and
isnot
quiteclear.
(During
thew
arHusserlturnedto
Fichte'sspeeches
andread
with
greatUberraschm
zg(surprise)
forthe
firsttim
e.)H
istoryofphilosophy
must
beinterpreted
fromthe
pointof
viewofthe
systematic
insightprimarily.Thatinsightitselfm
akesas
itwere
a"cut
inhistory
ofphilosophy.
Setseverything
inm
otion.The
problemoftranscendentalconstitution,said
Husserlin
WIT
HI-IU
SS
ER
LA
ND
FIN
K23
effect,is,asIhave
saidto
Herrn
Dr.Fink,none
otherthanthe
problemofhow
God
createdthe
absolutew
orld,and
continuesto
createit,
evenas
thetranscendentalintersubjectivity
createsits
world".
Thephenom
enologicalformofthe
ontologicalargu-m
entisthe
conclusionfrom
theabsolute
constitutiveconscious-
ness.(The
laststage
ofthe
processof
relativizationof
objectswhich
Husserlspokeofatthe
outset.)Butallthese
arelastquestions,questions
ofsuchgreatinterest,
thatone
istem
ptedto
gointo
metaphysics
inan
"Aarfsci1wung(soaring)
a
phraseby
which
Scheler31actually
characterizedm
etaphysics.H
owever
onem
ustcreep
beforeone
canfly;
onem
ustdo
alot
ofdirty
work
(schmutzige
Arbert)on
theground
beforeone
cangetinto
onesairplane
andfly.
Theearlier
problems
ofphenom
enologyare
much
them
ostcom
plicated.Husserls
dirtyw
orkwas
largelydone
inthe
LogischeU
uter-suckrm
genand
thefirst
workings
outoftherough
outlineofthe
constitutionofthe
objectivew
orld.In
Giittingen
itwas
finethe
way
thestudents
discussedand
developedtheir
phenomenologicalproblem
s
albeitthey
gota
bittoosolidly
settledin
aHei-m
welt(familiarw
orld)oftheirown
sothat
theyw
ouldlisten
notto
anythingw
hichwas
strangeto
it,such
asthe
lecturesHusserlgave
atthetim
e.B
y1907-8
(P)whenhe
came
togive
acertain
seriesoflectures
(onphenom
enologyas
awhole?),
hewas
surprisedto
seehow
wideand
systematic
aknowledge
ofthe
fieldhe
hadalready
gained.Butasitistodaysodifficultforhim
tow
riteazusam
menfassende
Arbeit(sum
marizing
work)
(theGerm
anriled-r'tatons)32,
soit
wasthen
impossible,
ashe
wasin
doubtaboutthetotalpicture.
Stillthe
lackofa
generalorientingw
orkw
ouldhave
made
hisSpecial
studiesliable
tom
isunderstandingsthat
would
havehindered
alater
understandingoftheir
truesignificance.
Sohe
didnotpublish
anythingfor
along
time.
With
Finkhe
thentalked
ofthenecessity
ofacarefulintro-
ductoryexposition
oftherelations
oftheabout-to-be-published
31M
axSchdeff13?4
r928J,German
phenomenologicalphilosopher.
3See
note6,p.3.
24C
ON
VE
RS
AT
ION
S
Time-Lectures
tothe
generalscheme,asitis
tobe
outlinedin
theM
edttationsw
hichthe
same
volume
ofthejahrbnch
isto
contain.Also
therelation
oftheselater
Time-Lectures
tothe
earlieronesm
ustbem
adeclear.
XIII
Coneersatto-nwith
Fink,24/8/3rIbegan
byasking
whetherthe
Gedanken-gang(train
ofthought)oflastSaturday
broughtanythingnew,and
Finksaid
itdidnot.
ThenI
askedw
hetherornot
itwas
anoversim
plificationon
Husserlspart
tospeak
ofthe
ocnto-motomsche-nRam
n(oculo-
motoric
space)asblesszwetztt-rne-nstonat(merelytw
o-dimensional).
Againhe
recalledthe
importance
ofbearingin
mind
thefactthat
oneis
alwaysconfronted
with
anexperience
whereinthe
world
isalready
fullyconstituted,and
thatitisdifficulttoisolate
alowerlevelofthatconstituted
phenomenon.W
henone
doesso
andcon-
siderssuch
alevelasis
oculomotorspace,
thenit
isincorrectnot
onlyto
speakofsuch
aspace
asthree-dim
ensional,but
evento
speakofit
astwo-dim
ensional,sincetw
o-dimensionality
isitself
aquality
ofsurfacesin
afullyconstitntertw
orldspace.
Inproceeding
todistinguish
thevarious
levelsofconstitution
ofobjectivityhe
mentioned
whatHusserlspeaks
ofasthe
Phan-tom
,the
identicalobject
oftheseveralsensefields,
butw
ithoutcausalqualities.
ThePhantom
isaccordingly
notthe
fullobjectofthe
world.
Theprocedure
fromlevel
tolevelin
theconstitution
ofob-
jectsm
ightwell.be
spokenofas
aW
antttnng(change).
Thatw
ordsuggests
thatthere
isan
identicalelement
inthe
severallevels,asis
thecase:they
arenotoutside
eachother.
Hedistinguished
t