Abstract

The central argument of the present work consists of an attempt to show that within Husserl's phenomenology, the phenomenon of human communication is impossible. The argument is developed in terms of the centrality and tenacity of Husserl's assumption that there exists a radical separation of the conceptual and corporeal components of meaningful or sense-informed behavior. ;As the context for such a separation, the presumption of immanence that historically has attended the notion of intentionality is taken over by Husserl and is instantiated methodologically by means of the phenomenological reductions. Secured methodologically, this presumption is re-affirmed in Husserl's specification of the content of the tripartite complex of relations by means of which the character of meaningful behavior is parsed. The consequence of this specification--radical separation of the conceptual and corporeal components of meaningful behavior--is that the phenomenon of human communication is rendered impossible. ;The possibility of the phenomenon of communication, once this radical separation is presumed, involves two necessary correlations: the correlation of a conceptual with a corporeal act; and, the correlation of a conceptual with a conceptual act. As a result of the use of transcendence and immanence as the basis by which the separation of the corporeal and the conceptual act is made, the corporeal act is allowed to traverse the distance separating the Other. This traversing, however, is forbidden the conceptual act. Consequently the correlation between conceptual and conceptual act must be accomplished by means of the correlation between corporeal and conceptual act. ;The dilemma that results from these stipulations is that the first correlation can never insure the second. This is the case because the correlation of conceptual with corporeal act can only guarantee one side of the presumed interaction. A correlation of conceptual with corporeal act is required on the part of the Other. But for these concurrent correlations to take place, there already must be a correlation of conceptual with conceptual act. So that what is supposed to accomplish the correlation of conceptual with conceptual act surreptitiously presupposes, as accomplished, what it has yet to accomplish