[1]
The English translation is as follows: “Clearly, if someone says 'I', he does not only refer to himself, but he is also aware of this referring to himself as such, and this awareness builds an essential part of what constitutes the meaning of the word 'I'. The current act of meaning oneself is functioning […] in such a way that in the course of it its [intentional] object is […] being meant as the object of an act of meaning oneself. […] The hearer understands it, if he takes it as an indication for the whole structure of consciousness just described, that is to say, if the speaker is regarded by him as someone who refers to himself precisely as 'I', i.e., as someone who refers to himself as the object of his recognition of himself recognized as a recognition of himself.” (My translation.)
[2]
This may also fit in with the Brentanian conception of consciousness that Pacholik-Żuromska alludes to in section 4.
[3]
The English translation is as follows: “I see coal as heating material; I recognize it and recognize it as useful and as used for heating, as appropriate for and as destined to produce warmth. […] I can use [a combustible object] as fuel; it has value for me as a possible source of heat. That is, it has value for me with respect to the fact that with it I can produce the heating of a room and thereby pleasant sensations of warmth for myself and others. […] Others also apprehend it in the same way, and it acquires an intersubjective use-value and in a social context is appreciated and is valuable as serving such and such a purpose, as useful to man, etc. That is how it is first 'looked upon' in its immediacy.” (Husserl 1989, pp. 196f.)
[4]
The English translation is as follows: “[S]peaking elicits response; the theoretical, valuing, or practical appeal, addressed by one to the other, elicits, as it were, a response coming back, assent (agreement) or refusal (disagreement) and perhaps a counterproposal, etc. In these relations of mutual understanding, there is produced […] a unitary relation of [persons] to a common surrounding world.” (Husserl 1989, pp. 203-204)
[5]
The English translation is as follows: “How did I hit upon that, what brought me to it? That questions like these can be raised characterizes all motivation in general.” (Husserl 1989, p. 234; in part my translation)
[6]
Pacholik-Żuromska also refers to Davidson’s notion of triangulation in this connection. For a Husserl- and Føllesdal-inspired critique of Davidson’s recourse to causal concepts in this context, see Beyer 2006, pp. 88–99. In the last paragraph of section 4 she draws a distinction between diachronic externalism— a position she ascribes to Davidson—, synchronic and social externalism, claiming that the latter “creates trouble for Beyer” (Pacholik-Żuromska this collection, p. 8). In the light of both the foregoing considerations and her misreading of my view on Searle's Background Hypothesis (see section 4), I regard this claim as false.