David Morris

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.

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 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.

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.

Merleau-Ponty's Developmental Ontology shows how the philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, from its very beginnings, seeks to find sense or meaning within nature, and how this quest calls for and develops into a radically new ontology. David Morris first gives an illuminating analysis of sense, showing how it requires understanding nature as engendering new norms. He then presents innovative studies of Merleau-Ponty's The Structure of Behavior and Phenomenology of Perception, revealing how these early works are oriented by the problem of sense and already lead to difficulties about nature, temporality, and ontology that preoccupy Merleau-Ponty's later work. Morris shows how resolving these difficulties requires seeking sense through its appearance in nature, prior to experience—ultimately leading to radically new concepts of nature, time, and philosophy. Merleau-Ponty's Developmental Ontology makes key issues in Merleau-Ponty's philosophy clear and accessible to a broad audience while also advancing original philosophical conclusions.

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.