[Smt-talk] Phenomenology, tangent from Classical Form and Recursion
Brian Kane
brian.kane at yale.edu
Mon Mar 30 12:13:56 PDT 2009
Dear Ildar,
> I admire your interest in phenomenology. However, this seems to be a
> much more complicated field than we can presently handle.
Why is this more complicated than we can handle? I'm sorry but I don't
think that one can wipe away the discussion with the wave of a hand.
More to the point, I'll address your three bullet points:
>
> 1) Your quote from Scruton indicate that you both missed one
> important problem:
> What we understand, in understanding music, is not the material
> world, but the intentional object: the organization that can be
> heard in the experience (Scruton, The Aesthetics of Music, 221)
> This is exactly the mistake which Roman Ingarden made and that
> caused him the relationship with Husserl. Music is not an
> intentional object.
I think that you are confusing my position with Roger Scruton's (or
Ingarden's). Nowhere did I say that I agree with Scruton's claim--
hence I don't know how "you both" (i.e. Scruton and I) have made a
mistake. My point was simply that an appeal to the acousmatic
situation does not, of its own accord, efface real and virtual
spatiality. If you possess a theory of the senses that can demonstrate
how closing one's eyes can efface real and virtual space (and the
Other), then with all earnestness I'd love to hear about it.
> 2) Your presentation on intersubjectivity as an earlier topic and
> "reduction" as the later does not make any sense.
I'm not sure why you find this confusing and worthy of dismissal.
Perhaps you misunderstood my sentence, "The path that Husserl takes in
the later work always moves via intersubjectivity towards reduction,
as opposed to the Cartesian approach of the Ideas I, which was often
accused of being solipsistic. Iso Kern has a nice essay on this..."
I'll make it clearer. Look, we both know that reduction gets its
classic treatement in the writings that lead up to Ideas I,
culminating in §32 (on the epoche) of that work. Naturally, the
question of intersubjectivity is involved in Husserl early work, but
it is hardly controversial to say that it gets a fuller treatment in
the later works as the concept of the Lebenswelt is being developed in
response to Heidegger. When I said that the later work moves via
intersubjectivity towards reduction I was merely echoing a point that
the Husserl scholar Iso Kern makes in "The Three Ways to the
Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction in the Philosophy of Edmund
Husserl," in Husserl: Expositions and Appraisals, ed. McCormick and
Elliston: 126-149. In that essay, Kern describes three different
strategies that Husserl used over his career to introduce the concept
of the "reduction": The Cartesian way, presented in Ideas I; the way
through "intentional psychology" from the "Erste Philosophie" lecture
of 1923-4; and finally, the way thorough the ontology of the
Lebenswelf, as presented in the Krisis. (Let me know if you, or anyone
else, want a .pdf!)
Now that that's clear, perhaps there could be a real response to my
old point 2. I found it strange that you invoked Husserl's Lebenswelt
and Merleau-Ponty to argue for the erasure of the other in the intra-
uterine experience of the fetus in the Mutterleib. Even Derrida and
company wouldn't support this claim--in fact, this motif of the
"sonorous envelope" or the mother's womb is something of a trope in
that body of literature. It is typically used to support the claim
that all listening is originally intersubjective, in that before we
are even ourselves we are always already "rhythmed" by the mother's
voice and heartbeat.
For example, here's Lacoue-Labarthe from the "Echo of the Subject" in
Typography, ed. Fynsk, p. 205-6:
"...perhaps it is impossible to get beyond the maternal closure. Of
what else, other than the mother, could there in fact be reminiscence?
What other voice could come back to us? What else could echo, resonate
in us, seem familiar to us?"
Before we turn ourselves into subjects via auto-affection, we are
always hetero-affected...
Lastly, your comment:
> 3) As a result, it happened so that both Husserl and Merleau-Ponty
> do not belong in this discussion, while Dr. Lewin has become the
> only phenomenologist worthy of discussion. This is quite strange.
I said nothing of the sort. I think Husserl and Merleau-Ponty are
central to the discussion, not only discussion of recursion but
absolutely central to theories of the sensorium, listening,
"acousmatic" sound, subjectivity, etc. etc. etc. That's precisely why
I don't think it is legitimate to say that it is a "more complicated
field than we can presently handle." If not now, when? Furthermore, it
isn't an either/or between Lewin and Phenomenologists.
Best,
Brian
_________________
Brian Kane
Assistant Professor
Department of Music
Yale University
206 Stoeckel Hall
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20090330/6855e314/attachment-0004.htm>
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list