/lit/ - Literature

>>20935688
>you probably havent read even 50 pages of Husserl
Picrel.
>masquerade to disguise your jordan petersonian brainletism
You need to work on your reading comprehension, buddy.

>>19989600
It's all manuscript for now, so I cant really share much (and I'm at work now). I have maybe 50 pages of notes, which translate to about 20 pages of "articles" a la Tractatus (on legal format paper).
I'm (trying) to do the inverse path that usual phenomenologist use, that is, produce a structured development from the point of view of a pure reduced consciousness, and build back up through all the different pheno-ontological stratas that are necessary to constitute our existence.
I'm confident that the successful joining of Husserl's and Witty's brands of turbo-autism should end all philosophy forever.

>>19696397
>Because sense-perceptions are only one aspect of our lived experience, we also have knowledge of things like thoughts and emotions, however these latter things are not made known to us through any of the senses unlike sense-perceptions
I think you are reading too much into what I said. I perfectly agree with you that sense-percept does not exhaust our conscious activity, or doesnt even exhaust are perceptual activity, but it certainly constitutes the majority of whatbwenencounter in natural conscious life. And empiricists cannot study anything that isn't empirical, so as long as they limit their claims about the empiricalmaspects of our consciousness, I.e. our cognitive apparatus, then they are proceeding according to the object of their science.
It is a question, as I said earlier, of states of analysis.
Natural life > level of psycho-pop, (Freud, intentions, etc). This is where we operate in daily life and for the most part, there is no requirement of actuality, only operationality.
Empirical life > level of cognitive sciences and empirical psychology. This is seemingly where the modalities of our contact to the outside world are worked out and implemented.
Eidetic life> level of essences, of immanent contingency. This is where you understand, outside (but through, as in, lead to beyond) empiricism, the contingent structures of consciousness, such as awareness and union.
Transcendental life > which is where you understand the apodictic nature of the Self, of pure intuition and of consciousness as lived time.
> What unites them with sense-perceptions in our experience? The answer is that they and sense-perceptions are all known alike by awareness
Awareness is a modality of intentional acts, it is subject to a multitude of permutations, such as daydreaming which is awareness of imagined content without the awareness of imagination itself. At any point in my perceptual life I perceive things without being aware of them, or through different degrees of awareness. I can bring them to the foreground, and whether or not I can do it purely from an immanent act or not is how I know if this thing is abstract or concrete.
> All of these thoughts, sense-perceptions and emotions are not self-knowing
Of course they aren't. But as intentional acts of a being, they constitute a self eidetically. And this isn't the only Self built. At each strata corresponds one or more Self-operation. There ARE cognitive 'selves', psychological selves, at least one eidetical Self (the Cogito), and at least one transcendantal Self (two, if you are a Theist).

>>19580509
Not a stack but a spread.

>>19136148
> Light reading at home.