Natalie Depraz

The problem of practice in phenomenology including the political and ethical consequences of phenomenology has long been the focus of my personal interests and my philosophical, that is to say, phenomenological research. The guiding principle is that taking phenomenology as a description of the experiences of a subject rooted within experience is not only concerned with the theorisation of the experience but also necessary with the practices of the subject. In France, the “mainstream”-reading of a phenomenology which orientates itself towards logic, mathematics and transcendental philosophy prevailed for far too long, with the result that the interest in social sciences, psychology and neurobiology (the so called “cognitive sciences”) is often still met with scepticism. Instead I want to understand phenomenology as a practice through exercise which as practice has political and ethical implications.

I won’t here sketch out completely the contentions of all phenomenologists about the question of Europe, what would rather refer to a book-project. By taking over some of the statements, I will rather try to situate Max Scheler’s original contention, while showing, to begin with, how he concurs with some aspects of Husserl’s pionneer-conception, but also strongly disagree on some others. As a second step, the map of the contentions of the different phenomenologists on Europe will allow to draw a fairly enough dividing line between euro-centrists or europeo-centrists on the one side and, on the other side, the promotors of an alternative Europe, of an « alter-Europe », of a euro-excentrism, or again, in more contemporary terms, of a « globalisation » or an « alter-mondialism ». Max Scheler is clearly on this latter side of the line, as we will see. But this dividing line becomes still more complex and generates other distinctions, according to the « valence » that is attributed to Europe, positive (its opening future) or negative (its foreseen decline), or, in other terms, if it is its metaphysical meaning (principle, idea, essence, value) that is underlined, or its social, legal, economic and political historicisation. With such a multifactorial configuration in mind, I will seek to place the author of Politisch-pädagogische Schriften and, namely, of « L’idée de paix et le pacifisme » on the chessboard of Europe.

I would like to show here that Varela, besides being a scientist and a Buddhist practitioner, also has the stature of a philosopher. In order to do so, I chose to illuminate his thought in the light of a concept that he did not use much, at least at the beginning, but which constitutes the cornerstone of his philosophy. It is the concept of surprise. I will show first how surprise is at the core of what I call his 'Valence' article; time, affect, and intersubjectivity being the main coordinates of surprise. Then I will prove how the structural concepts of autopoiesis, enaction, and co-generativity are all supported by surprise as a dynamic model. In parallel, I will indicate how some seemingly side concepts (I call 'operative'), such as creation, novelty, unpredictibility, openness, and otherness, are actually key candidates for demonstrating the relevance of Varela as a philosopher of surprise....the nature of the self is precisely its non-findability. There is nothing to grasp that would make persons and phenomena what they are (Sanscrit: anatman; Tibetan: bdag med gnyis)... The usual translation of anatman is 'non-self', or 'emptiness of self'. However, this is again too close to the original Buddhist language... For the practitioner, anatman is manifest, experienced as superabundant: it is a nonknowledge that holds a host of surprises. (Varela, 2000/2017, p. 134)

Un sujet peu exploré dans la phénoménologie husserlienne est encore à ce jour le champ des émotions, longtemps minoré. Or la publication du volume des Husserliana 'Sentiment et valeur' montre que-les émotions sont un thème qui préoccupa Husserl durant toute sa vie. La raison de cette invisibilité est moins son manque d'importance aux yeux du phénoménologue que la difficulté de lui trouver une place cohérente. Si les actes cognitifs (perceptifs, judicatifs, mémoriels, imaginatifs) représentent souvent le cas d'étude privilégié eu égard à la visée de connaissance qui y apparaît en majeur, les affects (émotions, volitions, valeurs) obéissent à une autre logique ou, du moins, à une logique plus complexe : non seulement descriptive, mais aussi génétique-dynamique. Ce qui se joue avec les émotions est moins la connaissance d'un objet que les tensions, les satisfactions et les déceptions propres aux processus vécus des forces psychiques et de leurs valeurs pour le sujet. Un tel défi est ici relevé. On identifie les lieux où les émotions entrent en scène en esthétique, dans la pragmatique de l'action et en philosophie de l'esprit, en lien avec sciences cognitives et phénoménologie. Dès lors se profile une ligne directrice nouvelle autour de la complexité de la dynamique émotionnelle et de l'obsolescence conséquente du clivage cognition-émotion"--Page 4 of cover.

In this contribution, I examine how Jan Patočka and Simone de Beauvoir provide us with complementary insights in order to unfold a “cosmo-political” phenomenology, following the philosopher Étienne Tassin’s expression. I hypothetize that each of them stress one aspect of it, either according to the revolutionary shaking of the subjects acting during a crisis situation, or following up the differenciated socio-historical of female gendered subjects as they are permeated by their bodily alienation. In that respect, the path both phenomenologists follow is specific: it goes for Patočka through the erasure of the subject for the sake of the deeper belonging to the world, while Beauvoir suggest a subject in assumption at the core of her very finiteness, together with the liberation of her destinal alienation. The question being: if the cosmo-politics favors more links with Patočka’s cosmological phenomenology, isn’t it more in resonance with the beauvoirian search for a pacification of the conflicts?

The general framework of this paper relies on the observation that the practice of science as an experimental research program involves a social network of subjects working together, both as co-researchers and as co-subjects of experiments. We want to take this basic observation seriously in order to explore how the objectivity of scientific results obtained thereby is highly affected and dependent on multifarious ‘intersubjective regulations.’ By intersubjective regulations we mean the different ways in which each subject/ researcher is able to account for his or her experience and share it with other subjects/researchers to the point of giving way to a re-styled objectivity founded on such ruled inter-individual practices : More specifically, ‘third-person’ protocols are not neutral, that is, true independently of the very situatedness of each subject in its own individuated space and time, but must take into consideration ‘first-person’ accounts and furthermore are inherently dependent on specific ‘second-person’ validations.

Porter son attention sur l'attention, voilà l'urgence de notre humanisation contemporaine. Les sciences l'ont compris, qui depuis plus d'un siècle multiplient les travaux en psychologie et en neurosciences sur cette fonction complexe et globale qui forme un réseau intégré transversal où jouent mémoire, perception, veille, émotion et décision ; les techniques méditatives ont aussi leur rôle à jouer, s'adressant moins à notre intellect, comme les sciences, qu'à l'attitude fondamentale face à la vie. Elles nous proposent une clé en matière de pratique de la présence à soi. Devant l'impact croissant des sciences et la visibilité actuelle des techniques méditatives, quel rôle jouera la phénoménologie? Contrairement aux autres approches philosophiques, elle possède ce plus de tenir en un regard ouvert sur le monde : par son retour à l'expérience, elle fait alliance avec la visée expérimentale des sciences et, par sa méthode de suspension, elle entre en contact avec une quête contemplative qui est prise de recul. Elle joue ainsi un rôle-charnière pour repenser l'attention en en faisant une expérience d'ouverture au monde davantage qu'un état mental interne. La phénoménologie apporte quelque chose d'inédit : une éthique de l'attention, qui réforme celle-ci en " vigilance ".

Surprise is treated as an affect in Aristotelian philosophy as well as in Cartesian philosophy. In experimental psychology, surprise is considered to be an emotion. In phenomenology, it is only addressed indirectly (Husserl, Heidegger, Levinas), with the important exception of Ricoeur and Maldiney; it is reduced to a break in cognition by cognitivists (Dennett). Only recently was it broached in linguistics, with a focus on lexico-syntactic categories. As for the expression of surprise, it has been studied in connection with evidentiality in languages that encode surprise morphosyntactically. However, how surprise is encoded in languages that lack an evidential morphosyntactic system has been largely unexplored. This book provides new insights into the dynamics of surprise based on a heuristic hypothesis tested against the investigation of time, language and emotion. It is intended to arouse the interest of a multidisciplinary audience keen on crossing the disciplinary borders of phenomenology, cognitive sciences, and pragmatics. The theoretical approaches adopted in this collection of articles rely on experiments and corpus data. They advance knowledge by building on robust empirical results coming from psychology, microphenomenology, linguistics and physiology.