International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Volume 37 Article 12 Issue 2 Vol. 37, Iss. 2 (2018) 9-1-2018 Subjectivity Is No Object: Can Subject-Object Dualism Be Reconciled Through Phenomenology? Brent Dean Robbins Point Park University, Pittsburg, PA, USA Harris L. Friedman University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Chad V. Johnson University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA Zeno Franco Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies Part of the Philosophy Commons, Religion Commons, and the Transpersonal Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Robbins, B. D., Friedman, H. L., Johnson, C. V., & Franco, Z. (2018). Subjectivity is no object: Can subject-object dualism be reconciled through phenomenology?. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 37 (2). http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/ 10.24972/ijts.2018.37.2.144 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Newsletters at Digital Commons @ CIIS. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Transpersonal Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CIIS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Subjectivity Is No Object: Can Subject-Object Dualism Be Reconciled through Phenomenology? Brent Dean Robbins1 Harris L. Friedman2 Point Park University University of Florida Pittsburgh, PA, USA Gainesville, FL, USA Chad V. Johnson Zeno Franco University of Oklahoma Medical College of Wisconsin Norman, OK, USA Milwaukee, WI, USA Transpersonal psychology has at times critiqued the broader psychology field for perpetrating a somewhat arbitrary Cartesian subject-object divide. Some phenomenologists claim that reframing this purported divide as an experienced phenomenon can defuse its philosophical impact. If subjective experiences are viewed as continuous with the lifeworld out of which objective phenomena are abstracted, the divide between these is revealed as a somewhat arbitrary, if useful, construction. This, in turn, challenges psychology to engage with subjective phenomena in a more substantive way. In this paper based on excerpts from a protracted email conversation held on the American Psychological Association’s Humanistic Psychology (Division 32) listserv, two academic psychologists with transpersonal interests explore this extraordinary claim of phenomenology, one being a proponent and the other being a skeptic of the claim. Two other academic psychologists with transpersonal interests who participated in this dialogue comment on its relevance for transpersonal psychology. The conversation focuses on the ideas of Husserl and Heidegger, and emphasizes how phenomenology might reconcile the subject-object divide through exploring intentionality, the meaning of noetic/noema, and thinking itself, while the discussion serves as an example of an adversarial collaboration in which disagreeing parties seek deeper understanding through dialogue. Keywords: adversarial collaboration, phenomenology, transpersonal, philosophy of science, Heidegger, Husserl, subject/object dualism, Cartesian dualism, noetic/noema, Dasein, thinking he listserv for the Society of Humanistic divide within humanistic research. This allowed for Psychology (also known as the American differing views to be aired back-and-forth as a type TPsychological Association Humanistic of adversarial collaboration, providing opportunities Psychology Division 32) had a history of producing for generating common ground among the protracted, often intense, dialogues at the participants and observers of these conversations. intersection of complex issues within psychology Another one of these “epic” collaborations on and related fields, such as philosophy. One of the same listserv occurred between Brent Dean these previous conversations (Franco, Friedman, Robbins (B. D. R.) and Harris L. Friedman (H. L. F.), & Arons, 2008) was reformatted for academic with Chad V. Johnson (C. V. J.) and Zeno Franco publication because of the depth of its examination (Z. F.) participating (along with lesser involvement of the qualitative-quantitative methodological by some others) during the years 2009 and 2010). 144 International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 37(2), 2018, pp. 144–167 https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2018.37.2.144 It focused on the claim that phenomenology can as a tautology, but instead suspected that he might reconcile the dualism involving the Cartesian subject- just be right. object divide, which could be of great interest to In contrast, at the time of this exchange, I many transpersonal scholars not familiar with the (C. V. J.) was fascinated with and lacked fluency complex approach of phenomenology in this area. in phenomenology. The in-depth study of lived Over these two years, we explored the claim made experience and the search for “the things in by Husserl and Heidegger that phenomenology is themselves” appealed to me, as did claims that foundational to all scientific endeavors, and that it phenomenology successfully addressed the vexing can transcend the troubling subject-object dualism problem of Cartesian dualism. I was interested in its found in post-positivistic science. This position place in humanistic, existential, and transpersonal that it does this successfully is championed by B. psychologies, as well as its overall relevance for D. R., but is challenged by H. L. F. in a series of science. I had been trained in qualitative research deep interchanges. Although heavily edited with and supported its role in the human sciences, but many deletions for brevity, many of B. D. R. and H. was mostly familiar with other methodologies L. F.’s interchanges are captured verbatim, providing like grounded theory. I wondered what kind of a vivid glimpse of a sincere yet agonistic dialogue philosophy (and research methodology) it was, how (Tannen, 2002) in which two seasoned academic it was practiced, and what it offered the human psychologists with transpersonal interests debated sciences and transpersonal psychology with its and argued their way to a deeper understanding. C. emphasis on consciousness and an interconnected V. J. and Z. F., primarily in observer roles throughout unity of phenomena. Were its claims defensible? this exchange, offer their initial and concluding Was it worth the time and effort to learn its thoughts to frame this discussion, and served as the philosophy and methodology? What did it offer primary arbiters of what portions of the interchanges me as a transpersonal psychologist, a researcher, would be removed or retained. a human being? Why was it held in such high We start with introductory statements from esteem among some in humanistic, existential, and Z. F. and C. V. J. Then we plunge into the dialogue transpersonal psychology? I found this exchange with B. D. R. taking the opening move. a wonderful introduction to phenomenology and philosophy of science, yet also quite erudite and Setting the Context for the Dialogue worthwhile for those more experienced with these f interest to me (Z. F.) was the unfolding issues. Concomitantly, I studied phenomenological Osense of understanding of B. D. R.’s position literature to learn more and ascertain who was more throughout the intense questioning by H. L. correct: B. D. R., with his admirable command of F., who often pushed to have the difficult-to- phenomenology and qualitative research, and ability comprehend portions of Heidegger’s and Husserl’s to clearly communicate its concepts, which many work expressed in common language—in effect find mystifying and enigmatic; or H. L. F., whose holding B. D. R.’s “feet to the fire” to describe knowledge of the philosophy of science, training in these concepts in terms everyone on the list would quantitative research methods, and deeply skeptical find approachable. H. L. F. also provided a deeply and wily mind pushed ideas and thinkers to their skeptical view of subjectivity, while B. D. R. held limits? Each time I read this exchange, I reached to "privileging the inner, experience, over the outer, a different conclusion. It is truly up to readers to objective reality." By default, I find myself favoring decide for themselves. H. L. F.’s bias toward the external, the publically accessible, and the “objective.” However, B. D. R.’s Is Phenomenology Foundational? recitations and exemplars pointing toward the idea B D R (1) of das Verliegende, or “letting lie forward,” were Just as a preliminary reflection on these compelling and, for a brief moment in re-reading questions, I would say that I do not presume that the manuscript, I no longer saw B. D. R.’s arguments science should always be about prediction and Can Subject-Object Dualism Be Reconciled? International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 145 control. Prediction and control exist in the realm of explanation but explanation ultimately is grounded Understanding Phenomenology and Dasein in description, and description is necessarily B D R (2) qualitative in nature. We need to define what it is we Thanks for your questions and willingness are studying—what it means—before we can begin to engage me on these issues, H. L. F. The key point to even imagine how to predict what will happen to you make is that by stating that phenomenology it in the future. This process of categorizing things is foundational for all of science, I am therefore has, for example, metaphysical assumptions