Key Arguments

• Husserl describes that when data undergo pairing, there is ‘a living mutual awakening and an overlaying of each with the objective sense of the other’, indicating an active intertwining of meanings between the paired items.
• This overlaying can have ‘a total or a partial coincidence, which in any particular instance has its degree, the limiting case being that of complete “likeness”’, so the extent of sense-sharing in pairing is graded, from partial overlap to full likeness.
• He explains that, ‘As the result of this overlaying, there takes place in the paired data a mutual transfer of sense — that is to say: an apperception of each according to the sense of the other’, explicitly characterizing the associative outcome as a reciprocal re-interpretation of each in terms of the other’s sense.
• However, he adds a restrictive clause: this mutual transfer operates ‘so far as / moments of sense actualized in what is experienced do not annul this transfer, with the consciousness of “different”’, acknowledging that further determinate sense-moments can interrupt or limit the analogizing process by instituting a consciousness of difference.
• Thus, pairing does not blindly equate the paired data but structures an analogical field in which senses are transferred and overlaid up to the point at which specific differentiating features are actualized in experience.

Source Quotes

If there are more than two such data, then a phenomenally unitary group, a plurality, becomes constituted. On more precise analysis we find essentially present here an intentional overreaching, coming about genetically (and by essential necessity) as soon as the data that undergo pairing have become prominent and simultaneously intended; we find, more particularly, a living mutual awakening and an overlaying of each with the objective sense of the other. This overlaying can bring a total or a partial coincidence, which in any particular instance has its degree, the limiting case being that of complete “likeness”.

On more precise analysis we find essentially present here an intentional overreaching, coming about genetically (and by essential necessity) as soon as the data that undergo pairing have become prominent and simultaneously intended; we find, more particularly, a living mutual awakening and an overlaying of each with the objective sense of the other. This overlaying can bring a total or a partial coincidence, which in any particular instance has its degree, the limiting case being that of complete “likeness”. As the result of this overlaying, there takes place in the paired data a mutual transfer of sense — that is to say: an apperception of each according to the sense of the other, so far as / moments of sense actualized in what is experienced do not annul this transfer, with the consciousness of “different”.

This overlaying can bring a total or a partial coincidence, which in any particular instance has its degree, the limiting case being that of complete “likeness”. As the result of this overlaying, there takes place in the paired data a mutual transfer of sense — that is to say: an apperception of each according to the sense of the other, so far as / moments of sense actualized in what is experienced do not annul this transfer, with the consciousness of “different”. In that case of association and apperception which particularly interests us — namely apperception of the alter ego by the ego — pairing first comes about when the Other enters my field of perception.

Key Concepts

• we find, more particularly, a living mutual awakening and an overlaying of each with the objective sense of the other.
• This overlaying can bring a total or a partial coincidence, which in any particular instance has its degree, the limiting case being that of complete “likeness”.
• As the result of this overlaying, there takes place in the paired data a mutual transfer of sense — that is to say: an apperception of each according to the sense of the other, so far as / moments of sense actualized in what is experienced do not annul this transfer, with the consciousness of “different”.

Context

Middle of §51, immediately after the general definition of pairing, where Husserl analyzes in detail how pairing functions as an associative apperception through mutual overlaying and graded transfer of sense, and how this is limited by countervailing sense-moments that generate consciousness of difference.