Further investigation into Bill D's spittly "Fie" remark, I find th eeidetic approach document also states:

"The eidetic reduction differs from concept analysis in that the reduction does not claim to clarify linguistically the boundaries of a phenomenon or how a concept is being used in different contexts. Rather, the reduction attempts to offer iconic images of the phenomenon --intimations of meaningfulness. The eidetic reduction asks: Does this piece of text bring the experience into view? Does this phrase resonate with our prereflective sensibilities? Are these portrayals of lived meaning recognizable? Do they evoke something unique about this human experience?

So the eidetic reduction is not a simplification, fixation, or contraction of the world into a system of fully resolved concepts --rather it is the exact opposite: the eidetic reduction makes the world appear as it precedes every cognitive construction: in its full ambiguity, irreducibility, contingency, mystery, and ultimate indeterminacy...".

And I think I shall retreat to my original response about being three sheets to the wind. I just do not believe there is any excuse for talking like that in public...he sounds like a Prussian alchemist fresh out of Heidelberg.



A