La chair ouverte à la portance de l’être

L’être humain est une manière singulière d’être corps, en rapport au monde, en relation avec autrui. Ce style qui constitue sa chair s’exprime dans certaines attitudes typiques marquées par une conjonction, parfois extrême, de passivité et d’activité – dès l’amplitude comme la profondeur de sa perception du monde, dans l’accueil et l’écoute qu’il peut accorder à autrui, dans une posture foncièrement interrogative intriquée avec des dimensions de consentement et de foi. Ces attitudes montrent ..

Introdução à noção de sustentação

We attempt to introduce the necessity, meaning and anthropological issues surrounding anew concept, “lift” [portance]. This thinking stems from both a clinical and philosophicalbackground that explores the carnal (fleshly) foundation of desire. From a phenomenologyin dialogue with psychology, psychoanalysis and philosophy of education, the concept oflift addresses the very foundations of our openness to the world and to others

Carne e Espelho em Merleau-Ponty

Interwoven with natural structurations and personal history, the flesh, in Merleau-Ponty's gradually-forged conception, is nourished by the combined influences of neurology, Gestalt psychology and psychoanalysis. This triple influence undergirds a recurring theme in his later writings: the mirror. "The flesh is a mirror phenomenon," Merleau-Ponty tells us. The unpublished manuscripts reveal that this famous clause refers neither directly to Husserl, nor to Wallon and Lacan, but is driven by contemporary readings of Paul Schilder and Wolfgang Metzger, who study the phenomena of distanciated migrations of the body-image in vision. The mirror mingles objective body with phenomenal body, in an effective community between my lived body and its external image. It shows how the flesh lives both within and outside of itself, animated by an essential incompleteness that engages perception in a process of incorporation and, thus, hints at intercorporeity.   Entrelaçada com estruturações naturais e história pessoal, a carne, na concepção gradualmente  forjada  por  Merleau-Ponty,  é  nutrida  pelas  influências  combinadas  da neurologia, Gestalt psicologia e psicanálise. Essa tripla influência sustenta um tema recorrente em seus últimos escritos: o espelho. "A carne é um fenômeno de espelho", nos diz Merleau-Ponty. Os manuscritos não publicados revelam que esta famosa sentença não se refere diretamente a  Husserl,  nem  a  Wallon  e  Lacan,  mas  é conduzida pelas  leituras contemporâneas  de  Paul  Schilder e Wolfgang Metzger,  que  estudam  o  fenômeno  de migrações distanciadas da imagem corporal na visão.  O espelho mistura corpo objetivo e corpo fenomenal, em uma comunidade efetiva entre meu corpo vivido e sua imagem externa. Ele mostra como a carne vive tanto em si quanto fora de si, animada por uma incompletude essencial que envolve a percepção em um processo de incorporação e, consequentemente, aponta para a intercorporeidade. 

Endurer la surprise

1. Active passivité La surprise, en tant que telle, implique un « dehors », un événement dans notre relation au monde : elle n’est pas purement immanente à notre vie psychique. Il est impossible de se faire à soi-même une véritable surprise, il est bien difficile de simuler mentalement un effet de surprise. Plus transversal qu’un simple sentiment, le phénomène de la surprise peut solliciter l’ensemble de notre être, à commencer par notre institution corporelle la plus élémentaire. La surprise..

Sustentação e reconhecimento

Este artigo é parte de um trabalho em andamento sobre a fenomenologia da sustentação (portance), uma noção no entrecruzamento da antropologia e da ontologia, com inúmeros desafios clínicos e éticos. As principais formas de sustentação associadas ao reconhecimento são consideradas aqui, através dos laços profundos que envolvem reconhecimento e ser sustentado, reconhecer e sustentar, mas também reconhecer e ser reconhecido. Como uma realização da dimensão perceptiva da inteligência, o reconhecimento se abre conjuntamente à existência e ao estilo do ser percebido, discerne e atesta sua singularidade, experimentando assim uma das três grandes qualidades ontológicas da sustentação

On the motivations for Merleau-Ponty’s ontological research

This paper attempts to clarify Merleau-Ponty’s later work by tracing a hitherto overlooked set of concerns that were of key consequence for the formulation of his ontological research. I argue that his ontology can be understood as a response to a set of problems originating in reflections on the intersubjective use of language in dialogue, undertaken in the early 1950s. His study of dialogue disclosed a structure of meaning-formation and pointed towards a theory of truth (both recurring ontological topics) that post-Phenomenology premises could not account for. A study of dialogue shows that speakers’ positions are interchangeable, that speaking subjects are active and passive in varying degrees, and that the intentional roles of subjects and objects are liable to shift or ‘transgress’ themselves. These observations anticipate the concepts of ‘reversibility’ and ‘narcissism’, his later view of activity and passivity, and his later view of intentionality, and sharpened the need to adopt an intersubjective focus in ontological research

Merleau-Ponty and the Measuring Body

In recent years a growing number of scholars in science studies and related fields are developing new ontologies to displace entrenched dualisms. These efforts often go together with a renewed interest in the roles played by symbolisms and tools in knowledge and being. This article brings Maurice Merleau-Ponty into these conversations, positioning him as a precursor of today’s innovative recastings of technoscience. While Merleau-Ponty is often invoked in relation to his early work on the body and embodiment, this article focuses on his later work, where the investigation of perception is integrated with an ontological exploration. The resulting approach revolves around the highly original idea of the body as a standard of measurement. We further develop this idea by coining the term ‘the measuring body’, which to a greater extent than did Merleau-Ponty accentuates the relative autonomy of symbolisms and tools and their capacity to decentre the perceiving body

Merleau-Ponty face à Husserl et Heidegger : illusions et rééquilibrages

 Il a longtemps été habituel, en France plus qu’ailleurs, de présenter Merleau-Ponty comme un philosophe avant tout imprégné de l’œuvre de Husserl et de Heidegger, traçant sa voie dans son rapport aux deux géants de la phénoménologie allemande. La relecture de l’œuvre du philosophe français à la lumière de ses nombreux inédits conduit à relativiser cette représentation commune, en identifiant les illusions d’optique qui la soutenaient et les directions essentielles des rééquilibrages à opérer. Les recherches récentes dessinent ainsi progressivement la carte des influences, philosophiques ou non, mais aussi des oppositions, qui ont soutenu l’émergence et l’évolution continue de l’intention philosophique de Merleau-Ponty, dont les interlocuteurs imaginaires principaux ont de bout en bout été Sartre et Descartes. Cet environnement effectif transforme très souvent son rapport à Husserl et à Heidegger en un rapport indirect et brouillé, voire critique et expéditif – tout particulièrement à l’égard de Heidegger, que Merleau-Ponty a en réalité lu très tard. Il nous faut davantage prendre la mesure du contexte intellectuel français qui était celui d’un homme occupé par les débats de son temps, découvrir l’importance de nombre de sources allemandes et anglaises encore peu étudiées, et mieux comprendre à quel point la pensée de Merleau-Ponty entretenait un rapport étroit constant avec divers champs non-philosophiques, notamment la Gestalttheorie, la psychologie du développement et la psychanalyse. Un rapport jusqu’au bout essentiel à la formation du concept central de cette philosophie, la chair – non substituable au Leib husserlien –, comme à l’élaboration de l’ontologie que cette même conception cherchait à délivrer – dont l’analogie avec l’entreprise heideggérienne reste formelle ou métaphorique.It has long been customary, particularly in France, to present Merleau-Ponty as a philosopher steeped in the work of Husserl and Heidegger, tracing his own path in relation to these two giants of German phenomenology. A re-reading of the French philosopher’s work in the light of his numerous unpublished writings leads to a relativisation of this common representation, by identifying the optical illusions that have supported it and the essential directions of the rectifications to be made. Recent research is thus progressively drawing a map of the influences, philosophical and other, and also the oppositions, which supported the emergence and continual evolution of Merleau-Ponty’s philosophical intention – of which the principle imaginary interlocutors were, from start to finish, Sartre and Descartes. This more veritable account often transforms his relationship with Husserl and Heidegger into something more indirect and troublesome, even critical and cursory – particularly with regard to Heidegger, whom Merleau-Ponty in fact only read at a very late stage. We need to take greater account of the French intellectual context of a man occupied with the debates of his time, discover the importance of the little-studied English and German sources, and better understand the point at which Merleau-Ponty’s thought began to foster a constant and close relationship with diverse non-philosophical fields, notably Gestalt Theory, developmental psychology, and psychoanalysis. This relationship was, to the end, as essential for the formation of the central concept of his philosophy, the flesh – not a substitute for the Husserlian Leib – as it was for the elaboration of the ontology which this same conception sought to deliver – of which the analogy with the Heideggerian enterprise remains formal or metaphorical.Besonders in Frankreich war es lange üblich, Merleau-Ponty als einen hauptsächlich von Husserl und Heidegger beeinflussten Philosophen darzustellen, der seine eigene Bahn im Verhältnis zu den beiden Riesen der deutschen Phänomenologie entwarf. Die Relektüre des französischen Philosophen im Lichte der zahlreichen unveröffentlichten Schriften führt zu einer Relativisierung dieser gängigen Vorstellung, indem die sie stützenden optischen Illusionen und die zu vollziehenden, korrigierenden Umorientierungen identifiziert werden. Neuere Forschungen erstellen somit progressiv die Karte der philosophischen oder nichtphilosophischen Einflüsse, stellen aber auch die Gegensätze heraus, auf welchen die Herausbildung und die Intention Merleau-Pontys philosophischer Intention basieren, dessen wesentliche imaginäre Gesprächspartner durchwegs Descartes und Sartre waren. Unter dem Einfluss dieses effektiven Umfelds wandelt sich sein Verhältnis zu Husserl und Heidegger zu einem indirekten und problematischen, oder gar kritischen und oberflächlichen Verhältnis, insbesondere in Hinsicht auf Heidegger, den Merleau-Ponty tatsächlich sehr spät gelesen hat. Der spezifisch französische Kontext eines Denkers, dem die intellektuellen Debatten seiner Zeit gegenwärtig waren, sowie die zahlreichen deutschen und englischen, noch wenig studierten Quellen, müssten somit in Betracht gezogen werden. Auch müsste das durchgehend enge Verhältnis von Merleau-Pontys Denken zu nichtphilosophischen Disziplinen wie Gestalttheorie, Entwicklungspsychologie und Psychoanalyse besser durchleutet werden. Dieses Verhältnis ist wesentlich für die Bildung des zentralen Begriffs dieser Philosophie, das Fleisch (chair), das mit dem Husserlschen Leib nicht zusammenfällt, sowie für die Ausarbeitung seiner Ontologie, dessen Vergleich mit Heideggers Unternehmen formal oder metaphorisch bleibt

L'empiètement (relire Merleau-Ponty à la lumière des inédits)

MONTPELLIER-BU Lettres (341722103) / SudocSudocFranceF