12/12 Phenomenology Debate Part II: Pema Pera and Gilles Kuhn - The Kira Institute
Starting from a scientific world view - we ask the question, what else is true
HomeAbout the InstituteCurrent InitiativesPast InitiativesPublicationsContact
Home arrow Current Initiatives arrow 12/12 Phenomenology Debate Part II: Pema Pera and Gilles Kuhn
12/12 Phenomenology Debate Part II: Pema Pera and Gilles Kuhn

This debate took place on Husserl's Phenomenology Friday, 12/12 in the Kira Cafe.  This was the second debate in a four part series, which opened with a debate and continued with individual presentations by Pema Pera and Gilles Kuhn (which are not posted as they were in voice). 

Alfred Kelberry: gen! :)
Alfred Kelberry: pema, wol! hello! :)
genesis Zhangsun: Hey Alfred!
Pila Mulligan: hi
Gilles Kuhn: Hello all !
genesis Zhangsun: Hey everyone!
Prospero Frobozz: howdy
Alfred Kelberry: gilles, hey :)
Wol Euler: hello everyone
Pila Mulligan: nice circle :)
Alfred Kelberry: yes, indeed
genesis Zhangsun: Oh! So sad about the fire in the Cafe ;)
Wol Euler: I have a mesage from Pem and Storm -- yes gen
genesis Zhangsun: no really though its hard to see this place like this
Prospero Frobozz: Yeah
Wol Euler: kitchen fire last night, 3/4 of hte prims are gone :(
Prospero Frobozz: The cafe was so beautiful....
Alfred Kelberry: pema, what were you cooking so flammable? :)
Pema Pera: hahaha
Gilles Kuhn: ouch what haapend ?
Pema Pera: chef's secret
Alfred Kelberry: ;)
genesis Zhangsun: Hey Cal!
Wol Euler: hello gilles
genesis Zhangsun: Hey Vic!
Vic Michalak: Hi!
Caledonia Heron: hey there :)
genesis Zhangsun: Vic meet Caledonia part of Kira!
Pema Pera: Hi Gilles!
Vic Michalak: Hello Caledonia.... nice to meet you....
Alfred Kelberry: pema, i looked up those apons(?) you had for breakfast? looks nice. i'm going to try to make them :)
Alfred Kelberry: hi, vic
Pema Pera: :)
Vic Michalak: Nice day in Sl... I need a little sun anyway... :)
Pema Pera: anpans
Alfred Kelberry: ah! anpans, right
Vic Michalak: Hello Alfred!
genesis Zhangsun: yummy :) had no idea making them was so dangerous :)
Female Walk ZHAO: Could not find animation 'sit_feet up'
Pema Pera: hehehe
Alfred Kelberry: pema.. question for you: have you heard of a recent study of galaxies formation that eliminates the need for dark matter?
quen Oh: hello all
Alfred Kelberry: hi, quen
Wol Euler: hello quen
Tarmel Udimo: hi
Pema Pera: let's leave astro for another time
quen Oh needs to warn everyone, she is on hot chocolate again...
Wol Euler: !!!
Alfred Kelberry: eh.. alright :)
Gilles Kuhn is Offline
genesis Zhangsun: yippie hot chocolate!
Vic Michalak: Have you ever tried the MystiTool chairs/table that expand to accommodate the participants?
Prospero Frobozz: Yeah -- there is one at the ISM place where MICA used to meet
TR Amat: Lo cal hot choc? :)
quen Oh: oops Gilles has some technical problems...
Prospero Frobozz: (now we have our own island... although nothing's on it yet, and I think nobody but George can get there.)
Alfred Kelberry: what interesting clusters formed in this circle :)
genesis Zhangsun: Well All lets get started!
Alfred Kelberry: eh.. gilles left and ruined one
quen Oh: good news Prospero!
genesis Zhangsun: This is the second of a debate on Phenomenology which started last Friday
genesis Zhangsun: for more information on the Kira Institute please go to www.kira.org
genesis Zhangsun: there you can find out more about our events
Alfred Kelberry: pros, who we? kira?
Prospero Frobozz: we MICA
genesis Zhangsun: I would like to warn everyone that they will be recorded
genesis Zhangsun: that if they participate
Alfred Kelberry: ah, cool
genesis Zhangsun: they will be included in the transcript
quen Oh: gosh we are sitting nicely hands crossed in our lap
Gilles Kuhn: big sister watch you ! ;-)
genesis Zhangsun: the transcript will be posted to our website after the session for all those interested!
Pema Pera: you can click on the chairs to change poses!
quen Oh: :-) !!!
genesis Zhangsun: Prospero Frobozz has so kindly offered to moderate this discussion
genesis Zhangsun: All questions should be IMed to him
Alfred Kelberry: thank you, pros
genesis Zhangsun: Is that correct Pros?
Alfred Kelberry: storm! :)
Prospero Frobozz: yes
Prospero Frobozz: although I should warn that I'm multitasking a little bit
Vic Michalak: Whoops... I forgot my shoes (I visited a mosque yesterday)....
genesis Zhangsun: So the first thirty minutes will be a debate between Pema and Gilles and then they will open the floor to Q &A
Alfred Kelberry: gilles, how's your connection? you're good?
Gilles Kuhn: let me guess kids ? or worst wife ?; -)
Gilles Kuhn: i hope so
genesis Zhangsun: Q: Can people IM Pros during the debate with questions to be answered later?
genesis Zhangsun: Pema, Gilles, or Pros?
quen Oh: lol I am sitting like the uninterested students of a class I took over this week, they were highly suspicious... their teacher seems to be having a burnout now
Gilles Kuhn: why not
Prospero Frobozz: Sure
Pema Pera: fine with me, and if there are too many questions, Pros can pick and choose
Prospero Frobozz: I will queue them up
genesis Zhangsun: ok great
genesis Zhangsun: perfect Pros
genesis Zhangsun: just wanted to make sure
genesis Zhangsun: I hand it over to Pema and Gilles now
Pema Pera: we don't burnout quen, only the cafe does :)
TR Amat: Explosive cafe...
Pema Pera: Gilles, would you like to start somewhere, or shall I?
Gilles Kuhn: messieur les hollandais tirez les premier ;-)
Pema Pera: merci bien!
Pema Pera: Gilles, you said in your talk: Newton wanted did not want to speculative about the mechanism of gravity, he wanted to focus instead on the mathematical structure of gravity. I fully agree! And I see a strong parallel with Husserl: he does not want to speculate about the mechanism of consciousness, he wanted to study it as it appears -- totally independent of any concern about brains, eyes, world even.
Pema Pera: (- wanted)
quen Oh whispers nice hat Prospero
Almond Andel is Online
Gilles Kuhn: yes indeed pema i see you point but newton would have LOVED to be able to discover the mechanism and was complaining he cannot do ; in the same way i have problem that following your argument husserl was content to let a lot of knowlledge out of our research in his thinking
Pema Pera: What was novel in Galileo's approach was his vision: start by dropping balls and really focus on the simplest aspects of pure objects, and over the generations great things will be discovered
Pema Pera: Husserl: similar: focus in a simple, clean and clear way on the pure subject, as a multi-generational pursuit --
Pema Pera: Not a typical philosopher's game of trying to make a statue for yourself with a pseudo-complete theory in your own life time.
Gilles Kuhn: indeed that s the new thing in modern scientififc method abandon full understanding to try piecemeal
Pema Pera: yes!
Pema Pera: focus on the method, not the result
Pema Pera: and thus pure science comes up with better and more novel applications than "applied" science
Gilles Kuhn: but in the case of husserl to paraphrase F Bacon isee a "spider " philosopher who adresses problem that fall in scholastic argument
Pema Pera: we see something different, it seems :-)
Pema Pera: he saw something simple but was searching for words and ways to explain it
Gilles Kuhn: my big problem with husserl his is idealims and his manner of treating it , when i read it i have the impression to read old metaphysical argument , justly because he pretend to found an absolute and apodicitic knowledge
Pema Pera: not idealism
Pema Pera: nor realism
Pema Pera: he drops both
Gilles Kuhn: and i have no problem to see a coming back to the purity of sheer empiricism by beginning as descartes with only phenomena
Pema Pera: apodictic for him meant to really focus on the subject pole, like math really focuses on the equations as equations -- for him the subject as subject, consciousness as consciousness
Pema Pera: and that is very very very hard for us, all having grown up in a lopsided object-oriented world
Gilles Kuhn: he pretend to drop both and to endorse both too he want to have to found true exact undisputable knowledge for me in the XX century after kant and poincarré work it is almost crazy
Pema Pera: but if you read his motivations, you get a different picture . . . .
Pema Pera: math being indubitable does not mean that you cannot doubt what a mathematican writes
Pema Pera: math types also make mistakes
Gilles Kuhn: BUT i repeat i am sympathetic with the freshness of his fundamental idea begin science with pure phenomena
Pema Pera: but you can check them
Pema Pera: and Husserl says: you can check my philosophy, it is not speculation
Pema Pera: in that sense it really is like math
Pema Pera: doubt it? fine! check for yourself!
Gilles Kuhn: oh yes i dont criticize husserl to have make error at all but i doubt of the usefulness of his approach apart of the first stage of critic and refocusing
Pema Pera: the usefulness is in the doing
Pema Pera: have you every really done an epoche? This is a serious question!
Pema Pera: *ever
Gilles Kuhn: yes HEsaid it is not speculation sorry but i dont agree : when he begin to discuss about essen ce for example its almost platonic you can really hold the reverse option in fact as he play with pure reason he fall on the kantian problme you can make antynomy with a lot of his propositions
Prospero Frobozz: For the clueless present : could you say waht an epoche is?
Pema Pera: sorry Pros, sure
Gilles Kuhn: about epoche what is epoche in a fundamental matter is brezad and butter for pjhilosopheer i mean that to put ALL in doubt repetedly
Pema Pera: suspension of judgment
Pema Pera: don't ask how consciousness arises
Pema Pera: instead studies it on its own ground, qua consciousness
Pema Pera: does that help, Pros?
Tarmel Udimo: yes
Prospero Frobozz: ok\
Pema Pera: If two people talk about math, and one of them has done a lot of math exercises and the other only wants to talk about it, it is not clear how far they will get . . . .
Pema Pera: so I have worked with the epoche extensively, but Gilles, have you tried it?
Pema Pera: and if so, what did you find?
Gilles Kuhn: well thats pheno epoche pema i dont border me with the "impeachment" not to ask too how consciousness arrive as descartes put it the only thing we cannot doubt is the fact there is doubt but nothing more
Pema Pera: epoche is not doubt
Pema Pera: it is the suspension of judgement INCLUDING doubt!
Pema Pera: very very different
Gilles Kuhn: and i repeat what you call epoche is for me fundamen tal to philo method we do that all the time even if we call it reflexion
Pema Pera: have you tried it?
Pema Pera: what did you find?
Pema Pera: how did you do it?
Gilles Kuhn: sorry but what you dzescribe is almost mystical you cannot suspend all judgement i think that absolute epoche as you propose it is imposssible
Pema Pera: but if someone tells me that math is nonsense and not useful, but refuses to do the math exercises because the pictures and descriptions look almost mystical, what can I do ???
Gilles Kuhn: because you still hjave your me,tal process and you cannot fully control it and event the control would be contradictory with so extreme an epoche
Pema Pera: if someone doesn't even want to try?
Pema Pera: and argues that it cannot be done
Pema Pera: like the cardinal who didn't want to look through Galileo's telescope?
Gilles Kuhn: sorry but i dont acccept you math metaphor math are very usefull for everbody i havent seen that for pheno or for epoche
Aurora Kitaj is Offline
Pema Pera: you haven't tried, so how do you know?
Gilles Kuhn: and feyerabend make a very interesting case for Bellarmino about galileo telescope you know
Gilles Kuhn: i have tried a lot of time actually : to find that absolute epoche was impossible
Pema Pera: ah!
Pema Pera: let's talk about experiments!
Gilles Kuhn: i can suspend judgement yes i do that often
Pema Pera: much more interesting than theory
Gilles Kuhn: BUT i cannot suspend my minfd
Almond Andel is Offline
Pema Pera: can you describe how it is to see see the whole world as given in mind, as experience?
Gilles Kuhn: i am shure but for that i wanbt convincing experimental proof !
Aurora Kitaj is Online
Pema Pera: you can suspend your belief in a certain structure of your mind
Gilles Kuhn: and as you pretend to can make it please state your proofs
Pema Pera: in science, we are talking about exploration: observation and experiment
Pema Pera: from there theories can be formulated
Pema Pera: working hypotheses
Pema Pera: not "proofs"!
Gilles Kuhn: yes AND theory and theoretical thought
Pema Pera: so let's start with observation and experiment
Pema Pera: yes, you have to have an idea of how to start, for sure
Pema Pera: so Husserl had an idea
Pema Pera: so what happens when we test it?
Pema Pera: what happens when you test it?
Gilles Kuhn: in experimental science you have to make convincing case ok no proof let be popperian things that can be falsified so make that
Pema Pera: what happened for you, can you describe it, when you tested Husserl's working hypothesis?
Prospero Frobozz: Just a note -- in about 5 minutes, we'll be at the 30 minute mark, and we'll want to start throwing in questions
Pema Pera: thanks, Pros!
Gilles Kuhn: and apparently not a lot happened uring a century.....
Gilles Kuhn: during*
Pema Pera: did you do it for a century, Gilles?
Gilles Kuhn: (a century of pheno)
Pema Pera: very impressive . . .
Pema Pera: ah!
Pema Pera: but for you, what happened?
Gilles Kuhn: yes and it qas not impressive at all...
Gilles Kuhn: was*
Pema Pera: so either Husserl was wrong or you didn't immediately find the right way to do ti
Pema Pera: which do you think was the case?
Gilles Kuhn: but you what experience have you and what result you have ?µ
Pema Pera: I gave examples last Monday in my talk
Pema Pera: the discovery of degrees of freedom in the subject pole of experience
Gilles Kuhn: not only me but all phenomenologist in 100 year but you pema you what have you as evidence as you say you can do it what atre you result ?
Pema Pera: akin to the degrees of freedom in the object pole, studied by science
Pema Pera: I gave very simple examples, and a way for anyone to explore it concretely in half an hour, walking in a park
Pema Pera: matter -> light -> experience -> appearance
Gilles Kuhn: what give us these ""new "" degree of freedom because what you describe i found too in empirical science
Pema Pera: now if you don't want to do that, we cannot go much further . . . . .
Pema Pera: if you do, and find nothing, then at least we can talk to see whether I found something spurious or you overlooked something
Pema Pera: two simple possibilities
Gilles Kuhn: but what do you found in that because indeed thats a nice method to inspire poetry and i love to do that myself (i lived in a wood....)
Pema Pera: we shoudl be able to figure that one out, no?
Pema Pera: poetry is closer to the subject pole, science to the object pole, yes
Pema Pera: but why not study the subject pole scientifically too, why leave it only to the poets?
Gilles Kuhn: becaue what you describe qwas done for thousand of year and indeed for artistic inspiration it IS fine but for knowledge....
Pema Pera: I'm talkng about you doing it, Gilles, there was a thousand years before Galileo did his thing . . . he didn't say: nobody discovered science in a throusand years, so I give up!
Prospero Frobozz: So, if it's OK, why don't we interrupt and start throwing in some questions.
Pema Pera: fine!
Gilles Kuhn: but i dont think you do that ('studying the subject pole ) introspection is misleading if taken alone why disregard neurology cognitive science etc because introspectio onlyh was already done and well by al ot of tradition including buddhism and the jesuits
Prospero Frobozz: QUESTION from genesis Zhangsun: Pema, could you talk a bit more about how scientists actually "do" an epoche or examples in the past where scientists have actually done it?
Prospero Frobozz: (Some of this was answered already.)
Pema Pera: scientists haven't done it yet, unfortunately
Pema Pera: yes, we should start from scratch, as in my Monday talk
Prospero Frobozz: related question
Prospero Frobozz: quen Oh: Question for Pema: what is the exact difference between having a different kind of perspective than usual (seeing the world as built of light, not matter, like photographers, cameramen or architects can) and epoche?
Pema Pera: it is closely related
Pema Pera: the epoche is a switch, to shift between different levels -- different "seeing as" ways
Prospero Frobozz: OK, another related question, again from genesis:
Prospero Frobozz: genesis Zhangsun: Is the result of an "epoche" a paradigm shift? Is it defined by the result it creates or does it merely describe the process of suspending judgment? How does epoche relate to Kuhn's "paradigm shift"?
Pema Pera: it can lead to one
Pema Pera: footnote here:
Pema Pera: Husserl in his letters wrote to some friends: for me, the epoche is like a religious conversion in some sense, but I find it so hard to show that to my students. Now there are two ways to read that sentence:
Pema Pera: 1) phenomenology is mystical, vague, can't really work with it
Gilles Kuhn: well paradigm shift are not in kuhn point of view comparable they are not systematics all of them are absolutely singulars so a single method or pretention to be a method like pheno epoche is not related to kuhnian paradigm shift
Pema Pera: 2) Husserl had stumbled on the core experience of religions, set apart from all the dogma and cultural trappings, he isloated the essence of chemistry from alchemy, so to speak
Pema Pera: Gilles sees 1), I see 2)
Prospero Frobozz: follow-up question : quen Oh: A different way of seeing, an angle of perspective is always a conscious shift made in mind, which can be done if well described by others too, and if others recognise this way of seeing it is useful in discussing art for instance... can that be done with epoche too?
Pema Pera: sure!
Pema Pera: in PaB we are trying to do that
Pema Pera: (play as being)
Prospero Frobozz: Some other questions in a slightly different direction
Prospero Frobozz: Pila Mulligan: Q: how do you decide that something like epoche is worthwhile or helpful without judging it?
Pema Pera: (for PaB: http://playasbeing.wik.is/)
Pema Pera: try it
Pema Pera: then discuss it with your peers
quen Oh: in that case you could describe some epoche experience? so we could try to have it too? because if for instance Gilles would master too the trick he would obviously be more easy to convince?
Gilles Kuhn: well that can be done with a lot of methods even methods that are in fact non problematics and possible (because for me absolute epoche and yes i tried pema is impossible
Pema Pera: I tried to describe that on Monday, Quen; if anyone did the half-hour exploration that I described, I'd love to compare notes with them. It really is a peer method like science
Prospero Frobozz: I have a related question to that one. I've tried, occasionally, to do the PaB exercise, and I've also tried to view the things "just as light". But, I have found it impossible to convince my brain not to interpret meaning in what I see. I just see light... but it's not just light, it's letters on the screen which have meaning and form words.
Gilles Kuhn: sorry but to sescribe subjective non reproducible impression has nothing to do with science in my opinion
Gilles Kuhn: describe*
Pema Pera: oh sure, thanks for bringing that up, Pros, that is NOT what is meant, to see it as light while trying to deny the other information structure
Pema Pera: on the contrary
Prospero Frobozz: Ah! So I've misunderstood....
Pema Pera: what is meant is to see a movie as a movie and NOT as someone murdering people in the front of the room
Pema Pera: even WHILE you fall into a movie, and laugh and cry, you STILL know it is only light
Pema Pera: simultaneously
Pema Pera: if you didn't you couldn't sit ther and watch it
Prospero Frobozz: genesis Zhangsun: Gilles, it seems that Pema is pointing out that like science which is based on phenomena Husserl was attmepting to reign philosophy back from esotericism to something that all people have access too...are you Gilles proposing that philosophy should confine itself completely or do you have other experiential philsophies which you do agree with that you would like to share with
Gilles Kuhn: well if you mean seeing phenomena as phenomena ok i advcated for that in my speech as ultimate test for scientific theories......
Prospero Frobozz: ^^ Question for Gilles
Gilles Kuhn: well philosophy as nothing to do with esotericism
Gilles Kuhn: at the reverse philosophy want to be universally understood clear and open to critic
Gilles Kuhn: critic is the core of the philosophical method
Pema Pera: but critic before experimenting is speculation . . . .
Gilles Kuhn: and experience is a method but not the only one and philosophical reasoning consider all the methods and criticize them (in kantion way)
Prospero Frobozz: Pema : is it really? Again, I'm stuck in the objectivist mindset, but you can make theoretical objections to other scientific theories -- perhaps on the basis of inconsistency with other theorie that are well tested, so experiment is in there somewhere.
Gilles Kuhn: look even husserl speak of experienceing essence eidetic reasning so YES i have experienced EVEN in husserl sense
Prospero Frobozz: Another question, this from TR Amat: Are you two talking about suspension of an attempt to see if phenomenology is consistent with any other of your systems of beliefs?
Pema Pera: Pros, at least scientists try and describe in great detail HOW they fail to find something
Pema Pera: they don't ARGUE that they couldn't possibly find something
Pema Pera: they do it . . . . first
Prospero Frobozz: Well, I've seen some do that :)
Pema Pera: hehehe, yeah
Prospero Frobozz: Sitting on Time Allocation Committees, especially....
Gilles Kuhn: yes but phenomenologist i think have only found absolute relativsim like deleuze or derrida.....
A group member named Extropia DaSilva gave you Catherine House, SupportforHealing (203, 206, 30).
Pema Pera: TR, Gilles started off saying that phenomenology was basically a failed method
Pema Pera: I disagreed :)
Prospero Frobozz: Another question : Wester Kiranov: To Gilles (and Pema): What do you try to do with "absolute epoche"? Because for me it sounds a bit like a beginning zen student who thinks he has to stop all thinking.
Free Radar HUD v1.1 by Crystal Gadgets
Free Radar HUD v1.1 by Crystal Gadgets
Gilles Kuhn: well as i said for me absolute epoche if not as a theoretical gedankenexperiment is impossible so pema ?
Pema Pera: absolute in the sense that you really have to look at thought as thought -- just put aside any notion of brain etc - not doubting, just putting aside
Pema Pera is glad to be doing the impossible every day :-)
Gilles Kuhn: or to believe you do it which is perhaps more problematic
Prospero Frobozz: A question that I have to admit I don't understand, because I didn't see the word used, but : TR Amat: Would it be senible to ask for a definition of "apodicitic knowledge"?
Pema Pera: at least attempting to do so, and learning along the way
Pema Pera: apodictic means that there cannot be any doubt
Pema Pera: like in 2 + 3 = 5
Prospero Frobozz: Ah, OK.... was that brought up in the context of the epoche?
Gilles Kuhn: certain uniscutible perfectly grounded and mandatory that impose herself evidently knowledhge = apodictic
Moon Fargis is Online
Prospero Frobozz: My apologies if I missed it
Vimalya Vaher declined your inventory offer.
antares Martian declined your inventory offer.
Pema Pera: but there are two ways to read that: math is apodictic in principle, but in practice all mathematicians make plenty of mistakes of course -- and then get corrected
Pema Pera: same with epoche
Gilles Kuhn: well since godel apodicity off math are questionnable
Prospero Frobozz: One more question in the queue : genesis Zhangsun: Seems like Gilles critique is that Husserl never laid out a methodological way of investigating the subject do you believe he did or alternatively do you propose such a method?
Pema Pera: (also Goedel's proof of his theorems can be seen as apodictic)
Gilles Kuhn: i do propose a method and its to study the mind in all manner and first in empirical one knowing what limitation science have (refer to my speech)
Gilles Kuhn: yes godel proof in themselve are splendid example of internal apodicity with a transcendantal touch
Pema Pera: but you start with the assumptions of science, right, Gilles?
Prospero Frobozz: (Everybody : that's the last question I had in the queue ; we have a few minutes left, so IM me if you have any additional ones.)
Gilles Kuhn: NO i start with what work technicaly in order to help my pheno life and to modify agreedabklky my lived world
Moon Fargis is Offline
Prospero Frobozz: Ah -- this is a question that I have myself, as it relates to the whole idea of "reproducability" : Pila Mulligan: would epoche practice lead to different revelations for different people? is there an absolute common ground of what appears?
Threedee Shepherd is Online
Pema Pera: that's the main question, Pila
Gilles Kuhn: btw agreed to gen last remark/question
Storm Nordwind thinks that's a great question
Pema Pera: not enough people have done it in a systematic and agreed upon way, like in science; I hope that will happen soon
Prospero Frobozz: R Amat: Q: How safe is phenomenology in that it sounds like trying to use a mirror to look at itself?
Prospero Frobozz: s/R/TR/
Wol Euler chuckles
Gilles Kuhn: not enough people !?!? you know how much people losed their life trying to do pheno in the XX century ?
Pema Pera: that's a fair question, TR
Pema Pera: I almost killed myself as age 13 building a rocket that exploded prematurely
Pema Pera: so any exploration can be fatal
Prospero Frobozz: Vic Michalak : Would either of our debaters like to address mind experiments like Einstein said he performed?
Pema Pera: anything you do in life can lead to side effects, and yes, that is why it is so important to talk with others
Gilles Kuhn: yes but errore humanum est SED persevare diabolicum petrus !
Pema Pera: sure, Einstein was a phenomenologist, the way he did thought experiments, Pros
Pema Pera: I like to persevere, Gilles, and not give up because I argue that it wouldn't work :)
Prospero Frobozz: Ah! Interesting.... that gives me personally something concrete to latch on to that is a better floatation device than anything I've heard so far... Einstein's thought experiments as an example of this sort of phenomenology
Pema Pera: perhaps I am too diabolic :)
Tarmel Udimo: :)
Pema Pera: oh yes, thought experiments!
Prospero Frobozz: We are rapidly approaching the end of the hour....
Prospero Frobozz: Do each of you want to make a final statement?
Prospero Frobozz: And then we'll see how the voters respond in November
Wol Euler: lol
Gilles Kuhn: well in this respect in a basic way all experimental scientist and philosopher are too pema and me included BUT that dont implies we stop there and that we believe in the capacity of a unique epoche and certainly not to an absolute one pretending to suspend ALL judgement
Pema Pera: Einstein: forget about Newton's dogma of absolute space and time -- If I do a thought experiment and do an epoche on Newton, if i ONLY focus on what is experienceable, then WHAT do I find -- pure phenomenology, Pros!
Gilles Kuhn: no i dont agree thats only normal empirical sccienc ewith the help of the necessary systemic doubt that btw is not husserl but descartes invention so typically old science
Pema Pera: yes, Gilles, all science so far, but only on the object pole of experience. I say: time to open the subject pole for scrutiny too -- but WITHOUT insisting on importing the object pole methodology.
Pema Pera: (to previous sentence of GIlles, not his last sentence)
Pema Pera: sorry, didn't understand your last sentence, Gilles
Prospero Frobozz: Gills is talking about Einstein thought experiments, isn't he?
Gilles Kuhn: i dont consider that the difference is so imoprtant between subject and object because NECESSARILY you constitue and object of you r own consciousness and of science itself you cannot PRETEND yto go out of that
Prospero Frobozz: We're at 5:05... so we should probably come to a close.
Gilles Kuhn: an object*
Pema Pera: aha, Gilles, that's the whole crux!
Prospero Frobozz: I don't think anybody expected us to solve all of the problems, nor for either Gilles or Pema to convert....
Gilles Kuhn: YES i agree pema !
Pema Pera: if you DO it then you will find that is not true
Pema Pera: if you don't then you can keep that conviction, sure
Pema Pera: hehe -> Pros
Gilles Kuhn: i pretend that it is NOT possible or yes in a delusory way (an d YES i tried)
Prospero Frobozz: Genesis : do you want to say any last words?
Gilles Kuhn: lol pro !
genesis Zhangsun: No sorry!
genesis Zhangsun: Thanks everyone!
Prospero Frobozz: OK :)
genesis Zhangsun: Please see the calendar for our events!
Gilles Kuhn: (btw consider the use of capital as italic please (damn chat interace)))
Pema Pera: Thank you all for coming! And thank you, Gilles!
genesis Zhangsun: And thanks Pros for moderating!
Vic Michalak: I am looking foward to the next debate!!
genesis Zhangsun: you did a great job :)
Pema Pera: agreed, Gilles :)
Wol Euler applauds. thanks to all three.
Gilles Kuhn: thank to everybody partculary pema and the kira cafe for this great opportunity to debate in so fine company !
Pema Pera: yes, thanks a lot, Pros!!!
Prospero Frobozz: thanks :)
Gilles Kuhn: cheers Pro !
TR Amat: Personally I wanted to see if phenomenology might provide me with some useful additions to my mental toolkit. :)
Prospero Frobozz: I need to tp out somewhere else now myself...
quen Oh: thanks Pema, Prospero and Gilles
Sonic Moonites: great chat the bits i saw, sorry i couldnt get here sooner!
Prospero Frobozz: TR AMat : have you been to Play as Being?
TR Amat: Thanks for the debate(s).
Pema Pera: I do feel that we are getting closer in digging out what our differences really are, so I really enjoyed that part too
Wester Kiranov: thanks!
Tarmel Udimo: that was great and look forward to reading transcripts
Prospero Frobozz: OK! Have fun everybody.
Alfred Kelberry: thank you, pema, gilles. today's debate cleared up things for me.
Pema Pera: yes, TR, http://playasbeing.wik.is/ is one such approach
Pema Pera: glad to hear that, Alf!
Pila Mulligan: thanks for the insights
TR Amat: I had a look at PLay As Being, and it resembles a number of other mental disciplines that I've looked at in past. I do intend to look at it more closely.
Alfred Kelberry: thank you, pros. good work.
genesis Zhangsun: bye Pros
Pema Pera: I think we have closed a circle here
Pema Pera: after initial debate, then a talk by each of us, then a second debate
TR Amat: The nature of consciousness is something I'm interested in from an Artificial Intelligence viewpoint. :)
Pema Pera: We can either just stop here or
Alfred Kelberry: i must admit i liked this form better than voice lectures :)
Pema Pera: if not, a natural step would be to go into the laboratory
Pema Pera: and just do the epoche, in a group, comparing notes
Gilles Kuhn: well pema knowing a little you and knowing me we will never stop .....
Pema Pera: I'd be happy to do that
Pema Pera: hehehe, Gilles
Alfred Kelberry: pema, it'd be nice to see play as being experiments
genesis Zhangsun: we could make a weekly phenomenology session
Alfred Kelberry: with comments
Pema Pera: we could do it outside play as being
Alfred Kelberry: yes, within debates
genesis Zhangsun: where people could share their experiences with sitting in the park and engaging in an epoche
Alfred Kelberry: as a showcase
Pema Pera: but the only way to continue would be to really do it, as a workshop, emphasis on work
Gilles Kuhn: but pema i think there is way lmore interesting thing to do in relation to classic science for one part and of the oriental study of psychology
Pema Pera: yes, Gen
genesis Zhangsun: or to have people do their homework ;)
genesis Zhangsun: seriously people get out there and lets meet next week and report what we see!
Wol Euler: :)
Tarmel Udimo: I'm up for that
Pema Pera: well, we probably need a bit more structure, Gen
genesis Zhangsun: ok would you like to advise us on how to do it?
TR Amat: In my late teens or early twenties I had an experience of fully understanding how reality worked. But, I realised that it was not something explicable. And, that I would likely spend a long time trying to make more sense of it.
Pema Pera: If we want to do that, I suggest that we meet netxt week
genesis Zhangsun: or a good beginning place?
Gilles Kuhn: i have already read levinas and i cannot digest hot chocolate well gen ;-)
Pema Pera: without any home work
Pema Pera: and just spend that hour to design an experiment, together
Pema Pera: as a peer group
Pema Pera: no teachers, no dogma, from scratch
Pila Mulligan: I actually live in a rainforest, so going to a park could be like the entering a more structured zone :)
Pema Pera: then the week after we can report
genesis Zhangsun: That is a great idea
Pema Pera: hehehe, Pila
genesis Zhangsun: lets get together and design an experiment together
Wester Kiranov: sounds good
Alfred Kelberry: i'd really like to try the epoche approach.. although, just like pros, caught in objectivist thinking, i find it really hard to accomplish
genesis Zhangsun: just the designing part would be interesting
Pema Pera: yes, Alf, I understand!
Tarmel Udimo: yeah
Pema Pera: so if we design together, we can struggle together
Pema Pera: and see whether we find anything
Alfred Kelberry: yes.. so, next monday?
Pema Pera: no, Friday
Gilles Kuhn: well you can try all of you good luck and success and send me a good discovering like special relativity when ou achieve it ;-)
Pema Pera: let's do it once a week
Pema Pera: will do, Gilles :)
genesis Zhangsun: ok so next Friday
Alfred Kelberry: we have to design an experiment, first. or you have it all prepared already? :)
TR Amat: No drugs then, not even alcohol or hot chocolate? :)
genesis Zhangsun: title could be Phenomenology: Lets make it an actuality!
Gilles Kuhn: well let try.....
genesis Zhangsun: no so Al that session is to design the experiment
Alfred Kelberry: gilles, please, have an open mind :)
Tarmel Udimo: I thought we were going to work it all out together
Pema Pera: yes we will
Tarmel Udimo: the expereiment I mean
genesis Zhangsun: exactly Tarmel
Gilles Kuhn: i have it only studied it for a long time.......
Gilles Kuhn: (my mind and pheno btw...;-))
Alfred Kelberry: well, tyr a bit more with us :)
Wol Euler: get your hands dirty :)
genesis Zhangsun: actually we need you Gilles....to bring the critique and rigor!
Gilles Kuhn: i am the gymnot the critic the poison drinker ;-)
genesis Zhangsun: push us to design a better theory
Gilles Kuhn: thanks gen
TR Amat: Can you train part of your mind to watch the rest of your mind, is it that sort of thing?
Pema Pera: yeah, quality control!
Pema Pera: <- Gilles
Alfred Kelberry: yes, so that pema wouldn't fool us :)
genesis Zhangsun: yes exactly Pema
Pema Pera: don't know, TR, let's try and find out!!!!!
Pema Pera: yes, Alf!!
Alfred Kelberry: ;)
Tarmel Udimo: yeah i think its called awareness this witnessing part :-)
TR Amat: I spend quite a lot of years experimenting with that, the resuls have been... mixed.
Pema Pera: let's design, then do, then report, and then try to analyze -- in that order!
Pema Pera: not skipping anything!
Gilles Kuhn: well thats indeed the job of epistemologist to be hated by all ;-)....
Pema Pera: we love you, GIlles!
Wol Euler: no gilles, that is not hte point :)
Alfred Kelberry: but first, let's speculate! :)
Tarmel Udimo: group hugs
Gilles Kuhn: love and hate are so close they are passion of the soul ;-)
Storm Nordwind: We can suspend disbelief and love Gilles
Pema Pera: hahaha
Wol Euler: indeed.
Tarmel Udimo: smiles
Alfred Kelberry: gilles, so true
Gilles Kuhn: please never suspend disbelief storm !
Tarmel Udimo: in fact still laughing
TR Amat: Can we suspend emotions, and, should we even try?
Gilles Kuhn: alway free examination !
Gilles Kuhn: we cannot but we can say to them shut up a while i try to think
Alfred Kelberry: suspending emotions means no emicons :(
Gilles Kuhn: ;-)
Alfred Kelberry: and no voice chat either
TR Amat: :-)
Vic Michalak: Did anyone hear about the Russian who is trying to "patent" emoticons? Read a bit about that this morning....
Alfred Kelberry: pure pixel light
Wester Kiranov: gilles: whats the difference between suspending emotions an d telling them to shut up for a while?
Gilles Kuhn: i have np with voice chat btw i think my mic was open by accident during the debate if you hear me swear it was about my keyboard....
Pema Pera: didn't hear a thing, Gilless
Gilles Kuhn: the difference wester is that you cannot fully suspend them so you try to make them less loud
Pema Pera: unfortunately . . . .
TR Amat: "I have no voice, but I must grin" :)
Alfred Kelberry: ah, crap! i missed it, gilles :)
Wol Euler: heheheh
Gilles Kuhn: good somebody else here would have killed me ;-)
Alfred Kelberry: was in french? :)
Alfred Kelberry: *it
Pema Pera: you can look through emotions, Wester, and in fact experience them more fully that way (like crying at a movie)
genesis Zhangsun: Hey Neela!
Gilles Kuhn: actually i swear in english when typing english alfred lol
Neela Blaisdale: Hello evryone
TR Amat: Russian is best for swaering. :)
Pema Pera: Hi Neela!
Tarmel Udimo: hi
Tarmel Udimo: must run will see you all soon no doubt
Vic Michalak: #@^*$&#* (universal swearing)
Wol Euler: bye tarmel, take care
Gilles Kuhn: and be rreassured i only vowed philip rosendael to the deepest pit of hell ;-)
Wol Euler: and hello neela
genesis Zhangsun: Bye Tarmel!
Alfred Kelberry: how do you know, tr?
Sonic Moonites: yup im off too, great discussion guys
genesis Zhangsun: Well I must be off too!
Tarmel Udimo: group good bye
genesis Zhangsun: I will add this to the calendar
genesis Zhangsun: and send reminders to all of you about our experiment design session
Alfred Kelberry: thanks, gen
genesis Zhangsun: :)
TR Amat: Given the different sorts of swearing that I've heard, Russian sounded the most satisfying. :)
Pema Pera: you should try Dutch!





Home | About the Institute | Current Initiatives | Past Initiatives | Publications | Contact Site designed and developed by Josh Bergman
Copyright © Kira Institute. All rights reserved.