the Thought Phenomenology of Edmund Husserl

As a movement and a method, as a "first philosophy," phenomenology owes its life to Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), a German-Czech (Moravian) philosopher who started out as a mathematician in the late nineteenth century and wrote a book on the philosophy of mathematics, Philosophie der Arithmetik (1891; The Philosophy of Arithmetic). His view was that there was a strict empiricism, but on being shown (by the great German logician Gottlob Frege) that such an analysis could not possibly succeed, Husserl shifted his ground and started to defend the idea that the truths of arithmetic had a kind of necessity that could not be accounted for by empiricism. Thus, one of the main themes of his next book, Logische Untersuchungen (1913, 1921; The Logical Investigations), was a protracted argument against "psychologism," the thesis that truth is dependent on the human mind. Rather, Husserl argues that necessary truths are not reducible to our psychology. Phenomenology was Husserl's continuing and continuously revised effort to develop a method for grounding necessary truth.
Given Husserl's beginnings in the rigorous field of mathematics, one must appreciate the temperament that he brought to his new discipline. By the end of the nineteenth century, a new perspectivism (or some would say a relativism) had come into philosophy. Friedrich Nietzsche, in particular, had argued that all knowledge is perspectival and that philosophy could not be reduced to a single perspective, that philosophy might be relative to a people, or to our particular species, or even to individual psychology. Husserl's contemporary Wilhelm Dilthey defended a milder but similar thesis, and the "sociology of knowledge" was just beginning its ascension. Against any such relativism, Husserl insisted on philosophy as a singular, rigorous science, and his phenomenology was to provide the key.
It is often debated whether phenomenology is a philosophy or a method, but it is both. As a "first philosophy," without presuppositions, it lays the basis for all further philosophical and scientific investigations. Husserl defines phenomenology as the scientific study of the essential structures of consciousness. By describing those structures, Husserl promises us, we can find certainty, which philosophy has always sought. To do that, Husserl describes a method—or rather, a series of continuously revised methods—for taking up a peculiarly phenomenological standpoint, "bracketing out" everything that is not essential, thereby understanding the basic rules or constitutive processes through which consciousness does its work of knowing the world.

lebih lanjut: Phenomenology - Edmund Husserl - Consciousness, Philosophy, Objects, and Nature - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/10639/Phenomenology-Edmund-Husserl.html#ixzz1tVvQ1L4M

To Get Ahead, Think Ahead

5 steps to help you advance in your career
by Ben Smith
Each week I speak with high-performing individuals who are seeking career advice. These people are almost always ambitious and talented, but they're often doing a disservice to their career by not thinking far enough ahead. They focus on what the next logical step in their career might be, but they don't look any further ahead than that next step.
Focusing only on the next step on the job ladder often results in developing a deep but narrow skill set that's unique to a specific class of jobs. That might be fine if you want to stay within that type of job, but if you're looking to go further, the narrow skill set that you're developing might not be sufficient to take you to your ultimate objective.
The key to getting ahead in your career is to look past your next job. Here's a five-step strategy for thinking ahead that you can use in your own career or to help your employees advance in their careers.
Step 1: Think a Job Ahead
Whenever you find yourself ready to change jobs or advance to the next level in your career, take time to think about what you want the next job after that one to be. I like to call the job two steps ahead of where you are right now "the job that you really want."
The reason to think another step ahead is because your next opportunity must equip you with the skills and experience you need for the subsequent job—the one you really want. Ask yourself "What gaps in my current skills and experience do I need to fill before I can get the job I really want?" Your next job should help you fill those gaps. For example, if you're a frontline manager of administrators, it's unlikely that you'd be able to step directly into the position of director of operations. You need to think about the skills that you're lacking for the director of operations position, then make sure your next job takes you closer to your goal.
Step 2: Find Mentors
Identify people who currently have the job you really want or a comparable one and ask them for a few minutes of career mentoring. Send each person your resume in advance and explain your intentions.
During the meeting, be up-front. Explain that you'd eventually like to have a job similar to the one that your mentor has. Summarize your experience and your current role. Then, ask what would prevent you from getting your mentor's job if you were to interview today to succeed him or her.
After talking with a few people, determine the common themes that arose across those discussions. You should be able to identify a set of skills and achievements that you'll need to qualify for the job you really want. Building on the earlier example, you might find, for instance, that the people who currently hold director of operations and network operations manager positions aren't confident that you have the experience necessary to manage a seven-figure budget, would prefer a candidate who has a stronger business background, and believe that you'll need to show that you've successfully managed people of multiple disciplines rather than just administrators.
By seeking out mentors who hold positions similar to the one you want to eventually have, you'll expand your professional network more than you would have been able to by networking only with your co-workers and current manager. You might very well meet people who know of opportunities that could help you further your career. It's also important to stay in touch with those mentors as you progress in your career. At some point in the future, those people might have a need for someone with your skill set or experience. Making yourself known and leaving a positive impression on the people you meet with can pay huge dividends in the future.
Step 3: Obtain Needed Skills and experience
When you have a clear idea of the types of skills and experience you'll need in order to get the job you really want, map those skills and that experience to a job that will help you obtain them. You might find that there's more than one job between you and the job you really want, but you should be able to plan your ascension strategically.
Continuing with our earlier example of moving from being a frontline manager of administrators to a leadership position in the IT department, you realize that as a front- line manager, you've never been involved in forecasting and managing a budget. Your management experience might also be limited to overseeing a few people who report directly to you as the functional expert in your group. To become qualified for the leadership position you want, you'll need to develop budgeting skills and broaden your management experience.
To gain experience in managing a budget, you might want to pursue a position in which budget management is a core responsibility. Alternatively, you could ask your current manager to give you a role in the budgeting process. To build your business background, you might enroll in a certificate program in finance or organizational management at a local university or community college. To broaden your management experience, you might consider looking for a position that expands your role beyond just the area in which you're recognized as a technical expert. For example, you might go after a job as the manager of a line of business (LOB) application team that includes developers as well as administrators. Such a position gives you a chance to demonstrate that you can be successful in other areas and can adapt to new situations. Put them all together, and these actions constitute your plan of attack for achieving the skills and experience you need.
Step 4: track and Quantify Your Achievements
As you learn new skills and broaden your experience, be results-driven and quantify your accomplishments. As you progress in your career, your accomplishments and results become more important than how you spent your time. For instance, consider the difference in these two resume bullet points:

• Managed budget for LOB application team
• Grew LOB application user base by 50 percent while reducing per-user costs by 16 percent

The first statement simply describes how you spent your time; the second recounts what you actually accomplished. Both points might describe you, but the first is much more effective and impressive than the second.
Step 5: Focus on Your Strengths
Often, I find that otherwise well-qualified individuals disqualify themselves from a job after reading the job description and seeing a requirement or two that they can't fulfill. For example, a job description for the position of director of operations might state that applicants must have an MBA or experience with a specific software package, neither of which you possess. But you shouldn't assume that you'd never be considered a viable candidate for that job. Most job descriptions are boilerplate templates that might—or might not—apply exactly to the job you're interested in. Instead of being discouraged by deficits in your experience, think about the assets that you'll bring to the position: the skills, experience, and accomplishments that uniquely qualify you for the role. Focus on those assets and play them up.
It's Who You Know and What You Know
I constantly see people make huge strides in their careers simply by thinking ahead, identifying the job they really want, and planning their path to that position. Along the way, they might debate the cliche"It isn't what you know, but who you know." As is so often the case, the cliche is wrong: It's both who you know and what you know. Follow this five-step strategy, and you'll come out ahead in both areas. And don't forget, as you take that next step up the career ladder, to advance your thinking and your planning another step into the future.

head thinking

Because it is ego-driven, head thinking can often be delusory. Heart thinking is focused on reality and therefore unlikely to go too wrong 

 

When Carl Jung, the great psychoanalyst, went to Taos Peublo in New Mexico in 1925, he met the chief of the native people, Ochwiay Biano. Biano told Jung that according to his people, the Whites were 'mad'-uneasy, restless, always wanting something.

Jung asked him why he thought they were mad, and the chief replied that it was because they thought with their heads, a sure sign of mental illness among his tribe. Jung asked him how he thought and he pointed to his heart. The response plunged Jung into a deep introspection that enabled him to see his race from outside himself and realise how much of the race's character was within him.

Ever since I read this fascinating excerpt I have been pondering over the difference between heart thinking and head thinking. Most gurus and spiritual teachings exhort us to make this very transition-from head to heart. But what does it actually mean? For most head thinkers this appears to be an inferior state of mind.

They fear that they are being asked to surrender their reason and descend to some level of gibbering infantilism, where they are expected to accept anything told to them without a whimper. Naturally, they clutch at their minds with renewed determination.

However, heart thinking is at a level higher than reason, not lower. And it is not opposed to reason. The difference is that it does not allow reason the star role it plays in head thinking. Heart thinking arrives at conclusions through faculties other than the mind, but it will use the mind to articulate these conclusions, and even validate them. So what are these faculties?

Most of us would call it intuition-a knowing that seems to come from the very depth of our being, from every cell in our body. Unlike the logic-driven processes of the mind, this knowledge seeps into our being and the certainty of knowing is utterly indisputable. The conclusions that the head arrives at can never give us that level of deep-rooted certainty, particularly in matters of ethics, values, decision-making and behavioral choices.

For instance, many of us who penetrate the spiritual dimension of life make dramatic job changes which make no sense from the point of view of the head. I just met a young man who left his lucrative software job in the US to work for a spiritual organization. I know of IIT graduates who have renounced plush mainstream jobs in order to devote themselves to the betterment of villages.

What about people who make decisions to become monks and renunciate against their familial and social pressure? What gives them the courage to throw everything to the wind? It is the courage that comes from following the dictates of heart. So what are the main differences between head and heart thinking?

One of the most fundamental differences, I believe, is that head thinking is fractured and separatist, while heart thinking is holistic. I have been doing some research for the forthcoming LP Plus issue on Gandhi and what is obvious is that Gandhian thinking can only be accessed by those who have moved from the head to the heart.

For head thinkers he comes across as an anti-progressive crank. Heart thinkers, on the other hand, worship him as a fount of wisdom, whose solutions to the country's problems at the social, environmental, economic and political levels were pragmatic, down-to-earth and in the best interests of society and the environment.

The radical difference in the two perceptions arise from the fact that Gandhian thinking is holistic, which means that it emerges from one root and radiates in all directions, somewhat like the spokes of a wheel.

Gandhi's advocacy of khadi, his focus on economic and political self-reliance for the village, his repudiation of western civilization, the political weapons of Satyagraha, his focus on ahimsa, his preference for frugality and simplicity, all have an internal consistency not accessible to those who try and understand it from the head.

Head thinking is fractured. It will look at one aspect of a situation at a time and draw conclusions based on that, while ignoring others. Modern civilization is a perfect example of head thinking, for all its systems are based on separatism.

Modern-day economics is a striking example of the limitations of separatist thinking. Capitalism, for instance, is motivated primarily by the profit factor, which means that many of its decisions can be and are unethical, unprincipled and even inhuman. In this scheme of things, the best way to improve the bottomline is to sack the employee.

But this decision does not take into consideration the psychological and emotional cost to the individual, nor of its larger repercussions on society. It follows that heart thinking is balanced while head thinking is not. Because the former keeps the whole in mind, its approach is measured and pragmatic, unlikely to damage any aspect of life.

Head thinking is given to drama, to extreme measures. Violent revolutions such as those that took place in France and later in Russia were dictated by head thinking and not heart thinking. Because heart thinking is holistic, it is also down-to-earth, here and now. It is not focused on abstract theories and formulas, it looks at each situation as it is and arrives at solutions. It is simple.

Head thinking, on the other hand, gives rise to endless complexities, for it is unable to see things as they are. Hence there will be contingency plans for everything, uniform rules and regulations for all situations no matter how dissimilar (such as, for instance, insisting that your 16-year-old returns home after a party at the same time as she did when she was 12) and extremely complicated procedures.

Try and make sense of any of our modern systems-political, economic or scientific-without being an expert. The mind simply boggles. Why? Because of head thinking. Can you imagine that at one time, life was actually comprehensible to the average man? Today, most us, if not all, find it impossible to understand modern life. This is the unnecessary complexity of head thinking.

At the head level, one arrives at truths through logic and reason, such as understanding that two and two makes four. But the truths of the heart, which are really the truths about life, are resonated to. When you encounter such a truth, your whole being reverberates in response. I remember participating in a psychoanalytical group for a while.

The facilitator was a brilliant man; we particularly admired the facile way he rounded up the discussions by pointing how one subject had led to another, and how it all added up to a particular picture. And yet, I never could figure how he arrived at the conclusions he did. Later, we were taught by a writer.

Everything she said seemed to me wise and true. I could resonate with everything that she said in contrast to the bafflement I felt in the case of our analyst. I then came to realize that the analyst was drawing pretty pictures in his head, without too much concern with whether they correlated to reality. Because it is ego-driven, head thinking can often be delusory.

Heart thinking is focused on reality and therefore unlikely to go too wrong. There are probably far more profound differences between heart and head thinking, for I feel I am still scratching at the surface. If you can think of any, write in. Let's have a dialogue on the matter.
by Suma Varughese