I personally subscribe to the Kurogane school of fap first, worry later. It’s much more… satisfying.

Love,
-lolikitsune

I think that it is, indeed, a re-articulation, a 20th century reshaping of what Edmund Husserl and his phenomenology teaches. To understand, or to have that moment of insight, there must be an occurrence of four things. They do not have to be in order, but they simply have to occur.

One of the first things that was taught us was that one need to realize that within him is an existence of biases, or what Husserl call a naturlicher Weltbegriff, a ‘natural attitude,’ a natural way on how one looks at the world. This is the certain truth value imbued to them, and for one to truly ‘get’ the meaning he must realize that he has this bias inherent to him.

This bias must be placed in brackets, a process of epoche, in which rather than asking the question IMMEDIATELY needed to be answered in a philosophy, like What is that? for ontology, Is it certain? for epistemology, or Is it right or wrong? for ethics, we search for the meaning of what we want to ask. In asking the ontological question we need to know of the quiddity, or of that which we ask of; in epistemology we need to define what is certainty, or in ethics we need to know what is right from wrong before we ask those questions ourselves.

The following two steps are relatively hazy, but there must also be an intentionality of consciousness and phenomenological reduction. Intentionality of consciousness means that a consciousness must have a direction: simply put, consciousness is consciousness of. Phenomenlogical reduction seeks to describe, not explore the essences of things. It is much harder than it seems, because for example we can ‘describe’ an orange through its properties in science. But science is only one of the lenses which we can view the world! It is not the end-all, or be-all.

It’s quite hazy, but if you have anything further to ask just ask away and I’ll try to answer.