David Morris

I suggest how Merleau-Pontian sense hinges on an ontology in which passivity and what I call “development” are fundamental. This means, though, that the possibility of philosophy cannot be guaranteed in advance: philosophy is a joint operation of philosophers and being, and is radically contingent on a pre-philosophical field. Merleau-Ponty thus transforms philosophy, revealing a philosophy of tomorrow: a new way of doing philosophy that, because it is grounded in pre-reflective contingency, has to wait to describe its beginnings, and so has to keep studying its beginnings tomorrow. This does not destroy Husserl’s project of a transcendental philosophy, it just accepts that the transcendental conditions of philosophy cannot be constituted or even revealed via wholly active or autonomous reflection. Merleau-Ponty thus brings phenomenology down to earth by expanding it into a phenomenology of life and earth that describes the concrete beginnings of phenomena and phenomenology.

Le chiasme de l’être: une exploration de l’ontologie du sens de Merleau-PontyLa question de l’ontologie inclut celle de savoir comment un être se détermine et acquiert son sens, autrement dit comment il instaure sa différenciation par desorientations, des significations et des différences en général. Cette étude explore l’idée que le sens d’un être provient d’une « chiralité ontologique », c’est-à-dire d’un type de différence ontologique présentant un apparentement caractéristique de ses deux côtés droit et gauche. L’étude montre tout d’abord comment l’ontologie merleau-pontienne de la réversibilité conduit à la question de la chiralité. On fait ensuite entrer dans la discussion des résultats obtenus dans les domaines de la chimie, de la biologie et de la géométrie, pour mieux mettre en lumière l’importance des différences en chiralité et pour élaborer une définition de la « chiralité ontologique » en étroite liaison avec l’ontologie du sens.Il chiasma dell’essere: un’esplorazione dell’ontologia del senso merleau-pontianaIl problema dell’ontologia include il problema di come l’essere sia determinato e acquisisca senso, acquisisca cioè gli orientamenti, i significati, tutte quelle differenze che fanno la differenza. Questo saggio esplora il pensiero secondo il quale il senso dell’essere deriva da una ‘chiralità ontologica,’ una sorta di differenza ontologica con caratteristiche affini alle differenze fra le mani destra e sinistra. Il testo illustra in primo luogo come l’ontologia merleau-pontyana della reversibilità porti alle questioni della chiralità. I risultati della ricerca attuale, in chimica, biologia e geometria sono poi discussi per illuminare l’importanza delle differenze chirali e per sviluppare una definizione della chiralità ontologica che si connette ad una ontologia del senso.

Movement is crucial to Merleau-Ponty’s effort to comprehend sense, meaning as generated within being. This requires a new concept of movement, not as a dislocation within an already determinate space- or time- frame, but as a deeper, more fundamental change that first engenders space and time as determinate contexts in which movement can follow a sensible course. This poses a novel challenge: conceptualizing determinate space and time as contingently arising from a deeper sort of change, which I call templacement. I address this challenge by turning to the Mexica/Aztecs because the most basic term of their ontology is motion-change, and it is obvious to them that motion-change does not occur in an abstract space-time container. Instead, time-place is woven out of ‘prior’ motion-change. This study leads to a deeper lesson for phenomenology, regarding ‘obvious’ presuppositions about what time and philosophy obviously are – and how these presuppositions go hand in hand.La question du mouvement est cruciale dans l’effort de Merleau-Ponty pour comprendre le sens, la signification telle qu’elle se produit dans l’être. Cela requiert un nouveau concept du mouvement, qui n’est pas compris comme un déplacement dans un cadre spatial – ou temporel – prédéterminé, mais plutôt comme un changement plus profond et fondamental, qui, avant tout, produit l’espace et le temps comme des contextes déterminés dans lesquels le mouvement peut suivre un cours sensible. Cela pose un nouveau défi : conceptualiser un espace et un temps déterminés qui résulteraient, de manière contingente, d’un type de changement plus profond, que j’appellerai templacement. Je lance ce défi en me tournant vers les Mexicas/Aztèques parce que le terme le plus élémentaire de leur ontologie est le mouvement-changement, et il est naturel pour eux que le mouvement-changement n’ait pas lieu dans un conteneur spatio-temporel abstrait. Au contraire, le temps-lieu est tissé sans mouvement-changement « préalable ». Cette recherche conduit à un enseignement encore plus profond pour la phénoménologie, concernant au sujet des présupposition “évidentes” sur le temps et sur la philosophie, et elle nous montre aussi comment ces présuppositions sont étroitement liées.Il movimento è un elemento cruciale nello sforzo di Merleau-Ponty di comprendere il senso, il significato in quanto generato all’interno dell’essere. Questo sforzo richiede un nuovo concetto di movimento, da intendere non come movimento-spostamento nell’ambito di una cornice spazio-temporale predefinita, ma come più profondo e più fondamentale mutamento che inaugura lo spazio e il tempo, in quanto contesti nei quali il movimento stesso può esprimere una traiettoria dotata di senso. Si pone quindi una nuova sfida: quella di concettualizzare lo spazio e il tempo come generati da una forma più radicale di mutamento, che propongo di definire templacement. Per affrontare questa sfida, mi rivolgo ai Mexica/Aztechi poiché il termine più basilare della loro ontologia è quello del moto-mutamento, e poiché essi ritengono ovvio che questo moto-mutamento non si verifichi all’interno di un contenitore spazio-temporale astratto: al contrario, lo spazio-tempo è per loro un intreccio che risulta da un moto-mutamento “precedente”. Questo studio permette di ricavare una lezione più profonda per la fenomenologia, che concerne le sue “ovvie” presupposizioni riguardo a che cosa siano “ovviamente” il tempo e la filosofia – e a come queste presupposizioni siano strettamente connesse.

Merleau-Ponty, la passivité et la scienceJe soutiens qu’il y a plus en jeu dans l’intérêt de Merleau-Ponty pour la science qu’une simple dialectique entre disciplines. C’est parce que son évolutionméthodologique le conduit à trouver dans la science un moyen spécifique d’approfondir ses recherches ontologiques, que celle-ci hante de plus en plus sa philosophie. En effet, dans le chapitre « champ phénoménal » de la Phénoménologie de la perception, il est possible de rapprocher certains aspects de son défi méthodologique et l’idée selon laquelle la philosophie tient son origine d’une conscience réflexive, active et autonome dans son ensemble. Je lie cela aux problèmes de la passivité de telle sorte que la science apparaisse comme une façon de saisir la réflexion non pas comme autonome, mais comme une opération du champ phénomenal, comme réflexion radicale. Grâce à l’analyse critique des recherches récentes sur le génome, je montre ensuite commentl’embryologie peut nous aider à conceptualiser la vie comme un champ phénoménal, c’est-à-dire comme un champ qui engendre ce même genre d’opérations qui caractérisent aussi la phénoménalité. Cela nous conduit à voir la phénomenologie non plus comme une réflexion de survol sur les phénomènes, mais plutôt comme une réflexion radicale qui se realise à travers un phénoménalité plus « ancienne », qui appartient à la vie ellemême. Cela ouvre également des perspectives sur quelques problèmes difficiles de la dernière philosophie de Merleau-Ponty; ceux-ci sont abordés d’une manière nouvelle, grâce au rapprochement de sa première philosophie et de la science actuelle.Merleau-Ponty, la passività e la scienzaRitengo che, nell’interesse che Merleau-Ponty rivolge alla scienza, vi sia in gioco qualcosa di più del semplice confronto dialettico con un’altra disciplina. Il motivo è che il suo impegno metodologico finisce per individuare nella scienza una speciale risorsa per l’indagine di quelle profonde questioni ontologiche che investono in modo crescente la sua filosofia. Intendo argomentare tale ipotesi, connettendo dei passi del capitolo di Fenomenologia della percezione “Il campo fenomenico” con la sua sfida metodologica all’idea che la filosofia abbia inizio da una coscienza riflessiva autonoma e interamente attiva. Collego questo alle questioni della passività in un modo che rivela la scienza come una potenziale risorsa per comprendere la riflessione non come autonoma, bensì in quanto operazione di e nel campo fenomenico – come riflessione radicale. Poi, attraverso un’analisi critica dei risultati recenti riguardanti il DNA regolatore, mostrocome l’attuale embriologia può aiutarci a concettualizzare la vita come un campo fenomenico che implicitamente produce i tipi di operazioni rivelatrici distintive della fenomenalità. Questo ci permette di collocare la fenomenologia non semplicemente come una riflessione dall’alto sui fenomeni, ma come una riflessione radicale che opera grazie ad una “più antica” fenomenalità della vita. Questo ci fornisce degli spunti su alcune difficili questioni nella filosofia dell’ultimo Merleau-Ponty, suggerendo un nuovo percorso che giunga a queste combinando il primo periodo della sua filosofia con la scienza recente.

This introduction to a special section of Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences reviews some historical and contemporary results concerning the role of development in cognition and experience, arguing that at this juncture development is an important topic for research in phenomenology and the cognitive sciences. It then suggests some ways in which the concept of development is in need of rethinking, in relation to the phenomena, and reviews the contributions that articles in the section make toward this purpose.

Le chiasme de l’être: une exploration de l’ontologie du sens de Merleau-PontyLa question de l’ontologie inclut celle de savoir comment un être se détermine et acquiert son sens, autrement dit comment il instaure sa différenciation par desorientations, des significations et des différences en général. Cette étude explore l’idée que le sens d’un être provient d’une « chiralité ontologique », c’est-à-dire d’un type de différence ontologique présentant un apparentement caractéristique de ses deux côtés droit et gauche. L’étude montre tout d’abord comment l’ontologie merleau-pontienne de la réversibilité conduit à la question de la chiralité. On fait ensuite entrer dans la discussion des résultats obtenus dans les domaines de la chimie, de la biologie et de la géométrie, pour mieux mettre en lumière l’importance des différences en chiralité et pour élaborer une définition de la « chiralité ontologique » en étroite liaison avec l’ontologie du sens.Il chiasma dell’essere: un’esplorazione dell’ontologia del senso merleau-pontianaIl problema dell’ontologia include il problema di come l’essere sia determinato e acquisisca senso, acquisisca cioè gli orientamenti, i significati, tutte quelle differenze che fanno la differenza. Questo saggio esplora il pensiero secondo il quale il senso dell’essere deriva da una ‘chiralità ontologica,’ una sorta di differenza ontologica con caratteristiche affini alle differenze fra le mani destra e sinistra. Il testo illustra in primo luogo come l’ontologia merleau-pontyana della reversibilità porti alle questioni della chiralità. I risultati della ricerca attuale, in chimica, biologia e geometria sono poi discussi per illuminare l’importanza delle differenze chirali e per sviluppare una definizione della chiralità ontologica che si connette ad una ontologia del senso.

This paper studies the role of faces in animal life to gain insight into Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy, especially his later ontology. The relation between animal faces and moving, animal bodies involves a peculiar, expressive logic. This logic echoes the physiognomic structure of perception that Merleau-Ponty detects in his earlier philosophy, and exemplifies and clarifies a logic elemental to his later ontology, especially to his concept of an invisible that is of the visible. The question why the logic of the face can manifest this analogy or homology with the logic of perception and ontology is treated through a study of embryology, which suggests that the logic of the face ramifies a deeper logic of being. Methodologically, the face is taken as something like a lens into the onto-logic of being. This lens suggests that what underlies Merleau-Ponty’s later ontology is a logic of animality.

After Finitude’s project of returning philosophy to the “great outdoors” hinges on a critique of subject-object correlation as central to phenomenology (“correlationism”). A philosophy that pursues being from within the terms of correlation, Meillasoux argues, can never reach being itself and remains anthropocentric. His provocative diagnosis of this problem, via the related problem of ancestrality, presses key questions about philosophy and its beginnings. After Finitude’s critique of phenomenology is, however, all too schematic, missing important phenomenological resources that suggest critical responses and alternatives. In particular, Merleau-Ponty’s continual struggle with phenomenology’s beginnings , for example, via his concepts of radical reflection and passivity, lead him to grasp correlation as rooted in the non-human, and eventually in “wild being” as a radically contingent pre-phenomenological beginning. Wild being paradoxically appears precisely in non appearing, as a resistance to manifestation intrinsic to correlation: an invisible of the visible that challenges inside/outside divisions; an opening to being at once anterior to manifestation yet indicated in its depths. Merleau-Ponty thus exposes methodological and ontological presumptions in Meillasoux , whilst Meillasoux provokes a deepening of Merleau-Ponty’s ontology. The first section lays out Meillasoux’s argument, to frame the second section, which traces Merleau-Ponty’s route to passivity and his methods of radical reflection and indirect ontology. This leads to a critique of Meillasoux as taking the activity of thinking for granted, without attending to its passivity, or the ontological implications thereof. One such implication is that we should not confuse being with determinate being—a confusion crucial to Meillasoux’s ancestrality problem. Together these results show how Meillasoux overlooks indications of radically contingent being within correlation itself. The third section clarifies and supports this claim via physics. While Meillasoux invokes mathematics and science to advance his position, his treatment of science is schematic and neglects the problem of how mathematics and being connect in the first place. I take this up via contemporary cosmology and problems of measurement in quantum mechanics, showing how these echo Merleau-Ponty’s concept of an invisible of the visible—of there being something less than determinate being within manifestation.

A study of habit and other unconscious backgrounds of action shows how shapes of spiritual life in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit each imply correlative senses of lived time. The very form of time thus gives spirit a sensuous encounter with its own concept. The point that conceptual content is manifest in the sensuous form of time is key to an interpretation of Hegel's infamous and puzzling remarks about time and the concept in ``absolute knowing.'' The article also shows how Hegel's Phenomenology connects with current discussions of lived time, habit, and, via discussion of Wallace's Infinite Jest, addiction.

Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy attempts to locate meaning-sense-within being. Space and time are thus ingredient in sense. This is apparent in his earlier studies of structure, fields, expression and the body schema, and the linkage of space, time and sense becomes thematic in Merleau-Ponty’s later thinking about institution, chiasm and reversibility. But the space-time-sense linkage is also apparent in his studies of embryogenesis. The paper shows this by reconstructing Merleau-Ponty’s critical analysis of Driesch’s embryology (in the nature lectures) to demonstrate how, for Merleau-Ponty, embryogenesis entails a principle of sense-generation that is irreducible to the plenitude of space or spatial distributions of material, yet is inseparable from being and spatial facts. This principle indicates a ‘depth’ or ‘hollow’ internal to “flat being,” in virtue of which being can create more sense than is yet given. The paper illuminates this ‘depth’ and the role of space in sense by turning to some recent scientific accounts-of bees deciding on new nesting places, of termites building mounds, and of embryogenesis-to suggest how space is inherently ingredient in the genesis of sense. This depends on turning from a concept of space as extensive to place as intensive, for it is the intensity of places, rather than the extensity of already delineated spaces, that affords sense generation.

This chapter studies the theme of the body in Merleau-Ponty by first showing how it is anticipated in The Structure of Behaviour and is central to the Phenomenology of Perception. In addition to illuminating Merleau-Ponty's concept of the body, the aim is to show how the body is, for Merleau-Ponty, a key methodological term, since it marks philosophy's inherent openness to something prephilosophical, to which philosophy must be responsible. The chapter shows how this openness and the body's expressive role in the earlier philosophy anticipates key issues in the later The Visible and the Invisible.

The chapter’s central question is how place and memory connect so intimately and how the architecture of buildings and rooms can play such a powerful role in memory. I develop an initial answer in two steps. First, I explicate Merleau-Ponty’s argument in the passivity lectures (IP ) that, contra classical concepts of memory as purely passive recording or purely active construction, memory entails a peculiar passivity that is not, however, wholly passive. Merleau-Ponty’s argument entails some deep conceptual points about the ontology of temporality and spatiality that I briefly tackle. In the second step I flesh out these ontological points in terms of a passivity granted by bodily levels and habits. This let me show how place, as that through which we move and as intrinsic to movement, also grants a passivity crucial to memory, such that our memorial activity is fringed with and draws on a passivity that is beyond us in the places we inhabit. I make sense of this by conceptualizing such passivity, specifically as granted by places through which we move, as an “I already can” that is kin to a habit—but outside us. We thus find ourselves fringed with a peculiar habit through which we find our movements already passively woven into surrounding places. I suggest that architecture works to actively articulate this fringing habit, and that, like bodily habits, this fringing habit opens our future by keeping our past going—and thus garbs our movement with our past. To move in architectural places is thus to move to one’s future through the garb of one’s past and is thence to be fringed with memory. The key to this linkage between memory and place is the passivity of memory.

This chapter challenges the view that perceptual illusions are mistakes, by first of all emphasizing how the concept of illusions-as-mistakes relies on perspectives unavailable within illusory experiences and introduces norms fixed outside such experiences. A study of ‘rubber hand illusions’ suggests how illusions are not mistaken perceptions, but cases in which perceived objects makes a different kind of sense—in virtue of a norm that is not a fixed, objective standard but is ongoingly engendered within the dynamics of living, perceptual behaviour. This leads to the view that perception is not founded on readymade norms that stand as a past fixed outside living dynamics. Rather, norms are rather a past that ongoingly emerges within living behaviour—they are what I call temporal spandrels of living temporality.

Edward S. Casey’s rich and detailed work on place (now spanning at least seven books) harbors many insights regarding the hermeneutics of place—even though he does not directly address this topic under that heading. So I begin by briefly mapping his work in its relevance to the hermeneutics of place. This lets me descry an underlying methodological and conceptual trajectory that contextualizes the main task of this chapter, namely, articulating two of Casey’s distinctive contributions to the hermeneutics of place, and then drawing out a deeper implication. Casey’s first distinctive contribution is his study of moving, bodily implacement as key to the determinate appearance of things in places, places and place itself —and thereby crucial to the hermeneutics of place. The second contribution arises from Casey’s more recent and highly innovative work on what he calls periphenomena. Periphenomena, such as glances and edges, are peripheral to phenomena, yet guide our moving, bodily implacement; they are thus ingredient in our encountering places, and things in places, as determinate phenomena. Periphenomena though, are beneath direct notice and inherently escape clear determination or delimitation—they are what I call subliminal. These two contributions together imply a third, underlying point that I draw out of Casey, namely that a hermeneutics of place and indeed all hermeneutics turns on a hermeneutics of place, that is, an account of hermeneutical activity as itself arising from and granted by place—yet the place that grants meaning is not some already fully given and determinate foundation, but is subliminal. This has ethical implications.

This chapter aims to give insight into meaning as an inherently temporal phenomenon. It does so to shed light on Merleau-Ponty’s later concept of institution, which names an event that generates meaning without, however, being an act of constitution anchored in an already given subject or concepts. Institution thus undoes any full presence behind meaning. It does so precisely by conceptualizing meaning in temporal terms, as in Merleau-Ponty’s formula that institution designates “those events in an experience which endow the experience with durable dimensions, in relation to which a whole series of other experiences will make sense.” (IP 124) The chapter clarifies these issues by tracing the linkage between temporality and meaning across Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy, to show how meaning eventuates in a peculiar gap between the present and past, in which the past is not present but is nonetheless operative as orienting or weighing down the present so as to enable meaning. The chapter’s strategy is synthetic: it digs behind oft-cited terms and moments across Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy so as to gradually lay bare the concepts and lines of argument that bind them together in relation to temporality and meaning. In Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy there is no simple, linear development from the descriptive to ontological claim about meaning’s temporality: even though the latter is more emphatic in his later philosophy, it percolates behind the Phenomenology’s constant engagement with temporality and we will see that The Structure of Behaviour already anticipates it. Nonetheless, for clarity, this chapter generally moves from the descriptive to the ontological.

In this chapter I suggest how Casey’s work opens some radical implications for phenomenology. Casey does this by showing that place is what first of all grants room for the appearance of things—but only in virtue of a non givenness. That is, place undergirds determinate things only in being something “less” than fully delimited or determinate, something less than space would be as an already given dimension. Place thus echoes Bergson’s durée as openly generative becoming, in contrast to time as already fixed dimension. In showing us how determinate phenomena are conditioned by place as less than given, and in complementary work on “periphenomena” (see, e.g., WG 438-448), such as glances and edges, Casey reveals what I call a subliminal dimension of phenomena: a way in which periphenomena and thence phenomena appear as delimited only by edging out into what is less than delimitable. This subliminal dimension is phenomenologically paradoxical. It cannot appear as such, precisely because it is less than delimitable, vagrant with respect to classical conditions of appearance. Yet this vagrant “less than” precisely appears as subliminal within and to delimited appearances, versus being something ideal or behind appearances.

The distinction between activity and passivity has a deep and fundamental role in scientific and philosophical conceptual frameworks, going back to ancient Greek thinking about society and nature. I briefly indicate the importance of the activity-passivity distinction in the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, in relation to Husserl. I then advance a transcendental phenomenological argument that the distinction is, however, not as simple or obvious as it might appear, specifically that it cannot be wholly and determinately defined via a purely abstract, conceptual-discursive procedure, since specifying which of two interacting terms is the active one entails (I argue) an implicit reference to pre scientific, affective experience. But, as I argue, specifying this distinction is nonetheless conceptually fundamental for scientific thinking about nature, especially in biology, despite scientific efforts to abstract from it. Together these arguments amplify, within science itself, Husserl’s and Merleau-Ponty’s point that life, as intrinsically involving affect, is a transcendental condition of science.

Our sense of space depends on our embodiment, specifically on a topology of the lived body. ;Spatial perception does not recover static spatial dimensions that are specified outside perception, as some traditional theories claim. Chapter one shows this through studies that criticise Descartes's and Berkeley's accounts of depth perception, and trace their continuing influence. A study of The Phenomenology of Perception shows how Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology demands a new account that conceives depth and spatial perception as phenomena motivated by our embodiment. ;Chapter two develops this new account. Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology and results in psychology show that there is a body schema, and that it shapes perception. A study that begins with binocular vision shows how the body schema shapes depth perception, given that perception depends on a place that supports our motor-perceptual relations to things. Another study shows that the body schema is a primordial habit. This means that the body schema--and hence spatial perception--can be labile, developmental, continuous with a world of human meaning, and that exterior places can be incorporated into our lived bodies and into our sense of space. ;Chapter three conceives webs of relations between parts of the lived body, things, others and places as topologies of the lived body that are specified in the body schema, and that give sense to spatial perception. A study of orientation perception in weightlessness reveals a topology that gives sense to orientation perception. Another study suggests a topology that gives sense to distance perception. These studies show how such topologies: are motivated by facts about the lived body that acquire meaning within the body schema, express a perceptual concern for our embodied being in the world, and relate us to place. ;In the conclusion, I suggest that spatial perception crucially reflects our relation to others, since the body schema, and hence the topology of the lived body, are rooted in habit, and develop through our embodiment within a social and cultural world. This suggests a program of future research, and that a phenomenological account of spatial perception is integral to existential understandings of our relations to others