Anya Daly

Haeusermann et al. (Citation2023) draw three overall conclusions from their study on closed loop neuromodulation and self-perception in clinical treatment of refractory epilepsy. The first is that closed-loop neuromodulation devices did not substantially change epileptic patient’s personalities or self-perception postoperatively. The second is that some patients and caregivers attributed observed changes in personality and self-perception to the epilepsy itself and not to the DBS treatments. The third is that the devices provided participants with novel ways to make sense of their illness. These findings further demonstrate a misalignment between some neuroethicists’ concerns about putative postoperative changes to personality, and the empirical evidence for such changes. Haeusermann et al. nonetheless concede that “neurotechnology directed at persisting rather than episodic clinical phenomena could have greater implications for personality or self-perception, either because they operate more continuously or are directed at clinical phenomena that are more stably integrated into patients’ self-concepts” (41). We acknowledge that the hypothesis that participants did not report changes because they were only episodically and not continually stimulated offers an interesting line for future investigation. Nonetheless, we would like to propose that potential postoperative personality changes might be correlated with the pathophysiology itself, rather than the stimulation effects of the technology. Generally, we advance the view that unintended effects solely induced by the technology cannot be excluded per se. Regardless, this comment aims to highlight that ethicists’ starting premise should be that patients suffering from diverse pathophysiology, or patients who are treated with stimulation in different brain regions and with differing parameters, would likely not react in the same way to treatment.

The world is “already there” before reflection begins and this is the launching place of philosophy; philosophers are driven to understand the hidden structures of experience and the world. This is no mere common curiosity; there is a voracity about this philosophical curiosity. Unlike scientists who also seek to understand hidden structures, such as the biologist with regard to the biosphere, the philosopher aims to explore even below those levels; not just to find causal and mechanistic explanations, but to interrogate ontologies, reasons, meaning, purpose and value underlying and supporting the structures. Importantly, for phenomenologists, there is no pretence that any absolute or objective stance is possible. The “objectivism” of phenomenologists is more one of consensus; that you will see or understand what I see or understand if you are situated where I am. And at the same time the world that is interrogated is not a fixed, closed system – it is dynamic and emergent. Thus, it is an objectivism that is progressive and always up for negotiation. The claim of some philosophers and scientists that they can assure an absolute objectivity is rejected by phenomenologists because it is impossible to eliminate the subject, and all events (including scientific experiments) carry a date and location. There are no disembodied a-cosmic subjects; subjects are always situated temporally, physically and culturally.

The diverse essays in this volume speak to the relevance of phenomenological and psychological questioning regarding perceptions of the human. This designation, human, can be used beyond the mere identification of a species to underwrite exclusion, denigration, dehumanization and demonization, and to set up a pervasive opposition in Othering all deemed inhuman, nonhuman, or posthuman. As alerted to by Merleau-Ponty, one crucial key for a deeper understanding of these issues is consideration of the nature and scope of perception. Perception defines the world of the perceiver, and perceptual capacities are constituted in engagement with the world – there is co-determination. Moreover, the distinct phenomenology of perception in the spectatorial mode in contrast to the reciprocal mode, deepens the intersubjective and ethical dimensions of such investigations. Questions motivating the essays include: Can objectification and an inhuman gaze serve positive ends? If so, under what constraints and conditions? How is an inhuman gaze achieved and at what cost? How might the emerging insights of the role of perception into our interdependencies and essential sociality from various domains challenge not only theoretical frameworks, but also the practices and institutions of science, medicine, psychiatry and justice? What can we learn from atypical social cognition, psychopathology and animal cognition? Could distortions within the gazer’s emotional responsiveness and habituated aspects of social interaction play a role in the emergence of an inhuman gaze? Perception and the Inhuman Gaze will interest scholars and advanced students working in phenomenology, philosophy of mind, psychology, psychiatry, sociology and social cognition. Table of Contents Introduction Part I. The Gaze in Classical Phenomenology: Perspectives on Objectification 1. Defending the Objective Gaze as a Self-transcending Capacity of Human Subjects Dermot Moran 2. Two Orders of Bodily Objectification: The Look and the Touch Sara Heinämaa 3. On Eliminativism’s Transient Gaze Timothy Mooney 4. Not wholly human. Reading Maurice Merleau-Ponty with Jacques Lacan. Dorothée Legrand 5. Disclosure and the Gendered Gaze in Simone de Beauvoir's Ethics Christinia Landry Part II. Vision, Perception and Gazes 6. Inside the gaze Shaun Gallagher 7. Perception and its Objects. Maurita Harney 8. Technological Gaze: Understanding How Technologies Transform Perception Richard Lewis 9. The Inhuman Gaze and Perceptual Gestalts: The Making and Unmaking of Others and Worlds Anya Daly Part III. Psychiatry, Psychopathology and Inhuman Gazes 10. Values and Values-based Practice in Psychopathology: Combining Analytic and Phenomenological Approaches G Stanghellini and K.W.M. (Bill) Fulford 11. The Inhuman and Human Gaze in Psychiatry, Psychopathology and Schizophrenia. Matthew Broome 12. Overcoming the Gaze: Psychopathology, Affect, and Narrative. Anna Bortolan 13. From excess to exhaustion　: The rise of burnout in a post-modern achievement society. Philippe Wuyts 14. Blackout Rages: The Inhibition of Episodic Memory in Extreme Berserker Episodes John Protevi Part IV. Beyond the Human: Divine, Posthuman and Animal Gazes 15. Wondering at the Inhuman Gaze Sean. D. Kelly 16. What Counts as Human/ Inhuman Right Now? 　Rosi Braidotti 17. Beyond Human and Animal: Metamorphosis in Merleau-Ponty　 Dylan Trigg Part V. Sociality and Boundaries of the Human 18. Voice and gaze considered together in ‘languaging’. Fred Cummins 19. Ethics Beyond the Human: Disability and The Inhuman Jonathan Mitchell 20. Social Invisibility and Emotional Blindness James Jardine 21. What are you looking at? Dissonance as a window on the autonomy of participatory sense-making frames. Mark James

This book aims to clarify interdependence as a concept and to reveal the ontological commitments that demonstrate how this notion can help us address a range of contemporary issues in ethics, politics, environmental ethics, and interspecies concerns. The term interdependence is often mentioned in contemporary political and social discourses without a clear appreciation for its conceptual commitments and practical implications. Daly addresses these deficiencies through cogent analyses of phenomenology that interrogate and reconfigure our understandings of the various natural, interpersonal, cultural, and political domains key to our living in a shared world. The book’s conceptual framework is organized around Merleau-Ponty’s non-dualist and relational ontology, which underpins human subjects and other living beings in what he calls an "interworld." Each of the seven chapters outlines a different interworld—natural, perceptual, aesthetic, linguistic, philosophical, ethical, and political—and shows how phenomenology as a philosophy of lived experience is uniquely placed to reveal the significance and background conditions of that world. The book also engages with the commitments and methodologies of other disciplines, notably psychology, neuroscience, and political theory, to shed new light on the vexing issues contained within these interworlds.

This paper addresses the persistent philosophical problem posed by the amoralist—one who eschews moral values—by drawing on complementary resources within phenomenology and care ethics. How is it that the amoralist can reject ethical injunctions that serve the general good and be unpersuaded by ethical intuitions that for most would require neither explanation nor justification? And more generally, what is the basis for ethical motivation? Why is it that we can care for others? What are the underpinning ontological structures that are able to support an ethics of care? To respond to these questions, I draw on the work of Merleau-Ponty, focusing specifically on his analyses of perceptual attention. What is the nature and quality of perceptual attention that underwrite our capacities or incapacities for care? I proceed in dialogue with a range of philosophers attuned to the compelling nature of care, some who have also drawn on Merleau-Ponty and others who have examined the roots of an ethics of care inspired or incited by other thinkers.

This paper takes as its point of departure Merleau-Ponty’s assertion: “everything will have to begin again, in politics as well as in philosophy”. In pursuing his later work, Merleau-Ponty signalled the need for a reconfiguration of his philosophical vision, so it was no longer caught in Cartesianism and the philosophy of consciousness. This required a turn towards ontology through which he consolidated two key ideas: firstly, a pervasive interdependence articulated in his reversibility thesis and the ontology of ‘flesh’; secondly, a radical contingency at the heart of existence. This paper interrogates the political implications of these ideas, and specifically regarding humanism and human progress. Relatedly, I address the question – how might recognitions of ontological interdependence and radical contingency support a flourishing democracy? Merleau-Ponty’s early political work concerned the issues of his day – Nazism, Marxism and the status of humanism – and did not engage extensively with these emerging onto-political concerns. Nonetheless, there are indicative reflections in the writings and interviews; the political implications of his ontological interrogations become more thematic in the later works. There is no rupture between the earlier and later works regarding his philosophical vision, although he later distanced himself from Marxism with revelations of the gulags under Stalin and the Korean War. The overarching claim of this paper – we need to rethink politics from the ground up beginning with ontology; ontology is political and the political is intrinsically ontologically informed. Getting the ontology ‘right’ is a matter of discovery and not theory choice.

This book draws on Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, psychology, neuroscience and Buddhist philosophy to explicate Merleau-Ponty’s unwritten ethics. Daly contends that though Merleau-Ponty never developed an ethics per se, there is significant textual evidence that clearly indicates he had the intention to do so. This book highlights the explicit references to ethics that he offers and proposes that these, allied to his ontological commitments, provide the basis for the development of an ethics. In this work Daly shows how Merleau-Ponty’s relational ontology, in which the interdependence of self, other and world is affirmed, offers an entirely new approach to ethics. In contrast to the ‘top-down’ ethics of norms, obligations and prescriptions, Daly maintains that Merleau-Ponty’s ethics is a ‘bottom-up’ ethics which depends on direct insight into our own intersubjective natures, the ‘I’ within the ‘we’ and the ‘we’ within the ‘I’; insight into the real nature of our relation to others and the particularities of the given situation. Merleau-Ponty and the Ethics of Intersubjectivity is an important contribution to the scholarship on the later Merleau-Ponty which will be of interest to graduate students and scholars. Daly offers informed readings of Merleau-Ponty’s texts and the overall approach is both scholarly and innovative.