Dear Dan and Peter,

> On Jun 27, 2021, at 6:22 PM, Dan Bloom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I agree  that the lifeworld is the pre-given world that is always already there. I consider it the “pre-“ of the contact-boundary.  It is the “founded” basis upon which experience  and living proceeds.  It is  founded basis for all attitudes. The problem for Husserl and others is how we have access to this lifeworld.

This is the crux, isn’t it? And it is a current concern. Two articles relate to this.  The first is Frank Staemmler’s article in the recent issue of the BGJ (“There is no inside/outside”). And the second from Dan Zahavi ("Internalism, externalism, and transcendental idealism”).

But I want to go to your statement above. Lifeworld is the pre-given world, the “pre-“ of the contact-boundary. Are we accessing something that is already ours, that is inside? Or are we accessing something that is pre- in the sense of Heidegger’s world into which we are thrown, a world already going on, and thus outside? If pre- means outside, then the contact-boundary is truly an organism-environment boundary. If the pre- means inside, then in what sense is the contact boundary not a solipsistic dream about life? 

I’m a realist.  I don’t believe people make up the word, nor even completely their experience of the world.  However, I do believe any given person's lifeworld is created over time through contacting and it is the internal record against which we “check” novel experience.  I don’t know if that makes me an internist or an externalist.

Phil
______________
Gstalt-L is an independent eCommunity of people interested in gestalt therapy theory and its various applications. Its public archives can be found at http://listserv.icors.org/scripts/wa-ICORS.exe?A0=GSTALT-L, and subscriptions can be managed by clicking on "Subscriber's Corner," which is found at the archives.