NPPF Commentary Line 209, P. 163

[Vincent A. Maeder]

> From: Ghetta Life [mailto:ghetta_outta at hotmail.com]
> >From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph at rci.rutgers.edu>
> >
> >To my knowledge, Husserl didn't consider in vitro [[I think you mean "in
> >utero"]] experience and the phenomenology of the foetus, if that is what
> >you mean. I imagine pre-birth time sense would be unlike anything we
> >know--with the possible exception of air travel, and maybe reading John
> >O'Hara. Husserl talks about the experience of time (as past, present, and
> >future) as a continual stream that underlies every act of awareness
> >(so-called intentional acts, e.g. remembering, imagining, etc.), which he
> >calls "primal prescencing."
> 
> I couldn't find "prescence" in the dictionary.  Cound you mean "presence,"
> as in a personal awareness of being in a place?

Perhaps prescience: Knowledge of actions or events before they occur;
foresight
 
> >How would a foetus--and I guess we're talking about older foetuses, the
> >more mature kind (the suave foetuses in smoking jackets sipping single
> malt
> >mother's milk)--come to primal presencing? Does a foetus possess a
> database
> >of post-conceptual undulations within its little developing brain with
> >which it can piece together the simple narrative of time? Why doesn't
> >anyone remember pre-birth stuff, then?
> 
> Not remembering isn't proof that an awareness wasn't there.  Sometimes I
> barely remeber last night, but I'm told I was charming nonetheless  :)
> Also, I think foetus have been observed to dream.  Of what could they be
> dreaming?

Of life after the womb, of course.  V.