Kick Around Phenomenology of Narrative with Me?

This is my first post here. I have been looking for a forum to kick around some things I am working on and it seems there is a positive vibe here with people interested in pushing each other appropriately. I am a grad student at an undisclosed American University which focuses in Continental thought.

I want to get some talk around an issue of developing a Phenomenology of Narrative (PN). There is a bit out there regarding the PN in regards to fictional works, but I have found little connected to the PN in terms of the narrative of the self (a la Ricoeur). For a little project I am trying it out here. I am convinced just writing it out for a community will help me to conceive a bit better about this. Help me think more clearly about this…

For the sake of the work I am following Ed Casey’s method in Remembering and Imagination. He draws on Brentano: “Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the scholastics of the MA called the intentional (or mental) inexistence of an object, and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content, direction toward an object…or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something as object which itself, although this does not always occur in the same way.”

Or if you prefer Husserl’s terms of noesis and noema.

Or, simply: the act phase (how) and object phase (what) of consciousness

Granted a major portion of the reflection on narrative (or narrativizing the past) is that it is quite similar to a phenom of memory (see Casey) with extra moves. I will start (for now) with a brief outline. Here goes:

(I will walk through the Act Phase first and then the Object Phase. These, of course, are not successive, rather they develop simultaneously.)

Act Phase:
First, there is the retrieval in consciousness a past event. The event is not a narrative, but an aspect appearing as discrete from other events occurring.
Second, there is a pushing (temporally) back and ahead from the retrieved event to extend the aura (see object phase) toward and into other events surrounding. This can also require the consciousness “filling in” around the conscious experience of event remembered.
Third, there is a connecting and configuring of the seemingly discrete events (as Ricoeur would call into concordant discordance).
Fourth, configuration made whole in retelling/recounting
Fifth, narrative granted meaning and interpreted.

Object Phase:
First, event Remembered (in this there are varying degrees of clarity, density, etc. according to the Mode of Givenness)
Second, included is the Content Frame of the Event (place, time, mood, etc.)
Third, there is an aura to the event (a blurry fringe to the retrieved memory)
Fourth, connected string of events
Fifth, events connected into a larger narrative
Sixth, narrative with meaning

Looking forward to remarks.

Not sure what your question or comment is. Never studied this stuff before.

that’s right