The Continuity of Cognition and Its Sources: A Survey
A. The root issue concerning cognition, its subject-object pattern, indeed lies in the underlying puzzle that Kant formulated at the outset of his voluminous dissertation on the entire schema of human understanding. He stresses that there are two sources of cognition, which essentially depend upon each other: the senses and understanding. The senses are blind without understanding, and inversely, understanding is empty without the import provided by the senses. Only together, by complementing each other, may the senses and understanding form cognition (E. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason , 1987, Macmilian Education Ltd., Translated by Norman Kemp Smith).
The question of cognition has always been and still remains that of the origin of sensations as well as their passage into the form of meaning. The first puzzle of cognition is that of the frontier between sensibilia, which standing alone are formless, and the meaningful emergence of concepts, which without the data of experience are empty. Only by completing each other do they accomplish cognition. However, the passage from one to the other in their completion, in the differentiation of sense, remains to be clarified.
Husserl, partly agreeing with Kant, assigns the essential role in gaining knowledge to the subject with its absolutely decisive formal function of pure consciousness otherwise pure reason. But, he differentiates the import of the empiria in the progress of the genitive flux of the conscious unfolding in conceptualizings progressively higher evolutionary transactional phases. (See his Erfahrung und Urteil .). Only with the fulfillment of its entire genetic development does the pure consciousness of Husserl enter its decisive phase.
Reaching this point, we find in the formative progress enigmatic disjunctions of sense . There lies the key: the definitive formal schema of the cognition/constitution of objects is seen by both Kant and Husserl, and by their followers, as being ultimately determined by a priori rules and principles of the conscious human subject. The constituted meaningful objects are formed with the application of categories, rules carried by the mind itself. The data of empiria, the material which is submitted to the sense-crafting powers of the mind, are worked upon by a series of formal categorizations. That is to say that the definitive act of complete cognitive/constitutive formation is performed by pure consciousness/pure reason.
After a long itinerary in his genetic phenomenology, Husserl reached the level of sensation, on the one side, and raised it in seeming continuity to the highest level of pure intellective consciousness, on the other. Yet the passage from the generative level of empiria to that of pure abstract forms remains enigmatic. Granted, the objective world is constituted by both, yet when we ask after the source of the forms of abstract consciousness, we are referred to pure consciousness as their transcendental origin, whereas the genetic progress of empiria surges from and obviously stems from origins in nature that are physiological. As we know, these generative forms always stem from within and along with circumambient empirical (and other) conditions. The first question that then arises is that of how the pure forms of consciousness would be adjusted to the generative formations of life? The second question that occurs is that of what would be the sense of the differentiation of and adjustment between pure consciousness and generative formations.
B. In the previously cited essay, I have already discussed the continuity of sense among the genetic steps of becoming at the level of the ultimate formation of the ontopoietic logos of life. On the cognitive level, however, as we have just seen, there occurs a seeming bifurcation, one quite apparent in Husserls ultimate transcendental reference to pure, absolute consciousness as it enters into the final phase of cognitions genetic unfolding. At this point, this consciousness arrives at definitive, objective conceptualizations of knowledge as well as at the objectifying/thematization of distinctive sense, on the one hand, and at that conceptualization/objectifications empirical deployment in its concrete life-enactment, on the other.
C. There is indeed an oscillation between cognition as a network of specific functions performed by the leading agent and orienting him in pragmatic existence (life), on the one side, and the meaning of that actors life course, the sense of which becomes objectively manifest (informative, communicative, constitutive of the living world, the reality of life), on the other. On making this distinction, we are struck by the enigma of the origin of the cognitive-pragmatic articulations of life both in the generation and dissolution of individual or collective lives, on the one side, and in the constitutive meaningful configurations in lifes networks of world-manifestation, on the other. I use the term oscillation because, depending on the various stages of the progressive or degenerative functional operations of life, there is a growing interplay between those operations and the role significance assumes in the meaningful manifestation and conceptualization of life as well as in its generative transformations. In this oscillation we speak of, although we do attribute major parts in this unfolding to the sensing of empirical functions, that is, to both the sensory-physiological apparatus and the human conscious mind and its intellective powers, we ultimately emphasize the constitutive continuity of the ontopoiesis of life. This is in contrast to Husserls schema, in which they both are ultimately subsumed under pure consciousness, which becomes their transcendental origin.