In distinguishing between simple and complex intentional acts Husserl
refers to machines. “A compound
machine”, he says, “is a machine compounded out of machines, but so compounded,
that it has a total performance into which the performances of the partial
machines flow, and the like is the case in regard to compounded acts.” (LI V §18,
p115). It seems to me that it would be useful to
extend the analogy further by referring to the property of "emergence" known in
systems thinking. The function of a
machine (“a combination of rigid or resistant bodies having definite motions
and capable of performing useful work.”) is often not entirely predictable
based upon an inspection of its parts.
One might look for quite some time at the interdigitating cogs of a watch
before one surmised that the telling of time was the function. Perhaps a clearer example is that of water
where its properties of flow and the properties of its states seem not to be
predicable from an examination of the chemical properties of hydrogen and
oxygen. One wonders in a parallel
fashion if something of emergence is at play in intentionality? Husserl insists upon the unity of the
intentional act in a manner that seems to be more than just a mere summing up
of partial acts.
I’ll be working on this over the coming weeks for the
Husserl Logical Investigations seminar I am taking with Frédéric Seyler. Primarily I will be reading Logical
Investigation III On the Theory of Wholes and Parts and LI V On Intentional
Experiences and Their Contents. Any
thoughts on resources? Robert Sokolowski has some useful papers on LI III
onwards from the 1960s.
No comments:
Post a Comment