Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nature and Logos
Nature and Logos
Nature and Logos
PHILOSOPHY
logos
to Merleau-Pont y ’s
Ponty used certain texts by Alfred North Whitehead to develop
an ontology based on nature, and how he could have used other Fundamental Thought
Whitehead texts that he did not know in order to complete his last
ontology. This account is enriched by several of Merleau-Ponty’s
unpublished writings not previously available in English, by the
first detailed treatment of certain works by F. W. J. Schelling in
the course of showing how they exerted a substantial influence
William S. Hamrick
S tat e U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w Y o r k P r e ss
w w w. s u n y p r e s s . e d u
This page intentionally left blank.
NATURE AND LOGOS
This page intentionally left blank.
NATURE AND LOGOS
A Whiteheadian Key to
Merleau-Ponty’s Fundamental Thought
WILLIAM S. HAMRICK
JAN VAN DER VEKEN
Published by
State University of New York Press, Albany
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without
written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the
prior permission in writing of the publisher.
Hamrick, William S.
Nature and logos : a Whiteheadian key to Merleau-Ponty's fundamental thought / William S.
Hamrick and Jan Van der Veken.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 978-1-4384-3617-3 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 1908–1961. 2. Whitehead, Alfred North, 1861–1947.
3. Philosophy of nature. 4. Ontology. I. Veken, Jan van der. II. Title.
B2430.M3764H35 2011
194—dc22 2010032060
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
for Sandy, for her constant patience, encouragement, and love
—William S. Hamrick
and
Abbreviations ix
Introduction 1
Conclusion 235
References 241
Index 253
vii
This page intentionally left blank.
ABBREVIATIONS
MAURICE MERLEAU-PONTY
ix
x ABBREVIATIONS
1. Citations from Merleau-Ponty’s texts will reference the English and then the original pagina-
tion. The original texts will be provided for substantive quotations and for altered translations.
2. “Le Concept de Nature” (January–May 1957), “Le concept de Nature (suite). L’animalité,
le corps humain, passage à la culture” (January–May 1958), and “Nature et Logos: le corps
humain” (January–May 1960).
1
2 NATURE AND LOGOS
first few pages of Eye and Mind to embryology, biological gradients (measures
of the speed with which an organism or cell changes in its physiologi-
cal activity, metabolism, and growth), operational thinking, and cybernet-
ics. In this work, we wish to articulate how the aspects of Whitehead’s
process philosophy that Merleau-Ponty knew helped him to formulate his
“new” fundamental thought—that is, how he found Whitehead’s thought
to be consonant with his own philosophy. We also want to illustrate how
Merleau-Ponty, had he been able to extend his thinking about nature beyond
Eye and Mind, could have found even more assistance in Whitehead’s texts
that he had not yet read.
As we shall see, Merleau-Ponty’s notion of “ontological rehabilitation”
requires a new method that will turn out to be a descriptive generalization
of the body as perceived and as experiencing subject. This general notion,
which he labels “flesh,” encompasses both experience and that which is
experienced. In Merleau-Ponty’s reappraisal of his own earlier thought,
questions about nature and how human experience—earlier termed “sub-
jectivity”—can be related to it require a broadening beyond the limits of
his earlier phenomenology. Interrogating the being of nature and ourselves
placed within it leads him to realize that we would not be here if nature
were not such as it is and if we were not in a way made out of “the same
stuff” (OE 163/19). Therefore, Merleau-Ponty seeks a common notion to
include the experient and that which is experienced, or the world.
Further, Merleau-Ponty is also clear that his “new ontology” requires
a double overcoming. What must first be overcome are those aspects of
his earlier phenomenology that make it still a philosophy of consciousness,
even though he already positions his early phenomenology as an alterna-
tive to Husserl’s view of transcendental subjectivity. It is not that he will
consider consciousness to be irrelevant or avoidable, but rather that it will
be reintegrated into a more inclusive whole.
The second necessary overcoming aims at displacing the
Galilean-Cartesian concept of nature that, as he stated in his first nature
course, “still overhangs contemporary ideas about Nature” (RC 67/97),
even though, as Merleau-Ponty himself pointed out, its presuppositions
had already been undercut by science itself. His earlier writings already seek
to provide a phenomenological rehabilitation of the sensible in counter-
poise to the Cartesian dualism. However, as we shall see, Merleau-Ponty’s
last writings take the earlier phenomenological critique to be not radical
enough.
The Cartesian view is characterized, first, by what Alfred North
Whitehead criticized as “the bifurcation of nature” (CN 30) into “nature
apprehended in awareness and the nature which is the cause of awareness”
INTRODUCTION 3
(Ibid., 31). On this view, what passes into our eyes—light waves—is not
visible, and what is visible—colors and other “secondary” qualities—is not
there. Thus, we have “two systems of reality” (Ibid., 30), nature as scientific
object and nature as perceived, the one being “true and not perceived” and
the other “perceived and not true” (Wahl 2004, 121). This doctrine is “the
original sin of modern [seventeenth- and eighteenth-century] epistemology”
(Van der Veken 2000, 327), and Merleau-Ponty captures well the oddity
of this unsatisfactory bifurcation when he writes, “Nothing is more foreign
to perception . . . than the idea of a universe which would produce in us
representations which are distinct from it by means of a causal action” (SC
188/202–203).
The “bifurcation” took different forms throughout modern philosophy
and science. Some of the principal forms consist of things in themselves,
whether knowable (e.g., Galileo, Descartes) or unknowable (Kant) as against
things as they appear to us; bodies as against minds/souls (e.g., Descartes,
Malebranche, Kant); the realm of facts versus the realm of values (e.g.,
Galileo, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Kant, and Leibniz, who tried to
unite them); and the closely related distinction between the realms of effi-
cient and final causes (e.g., Galileo, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Kant,
and, again, Leibniz, who attempted to unify them).
This unbridgeable split between objects and what we perceive about
them was proposed first by Galileo. This remarkable individual, although not
himself a philosopher, had a tremendous influence on the whole of modern
thought. It was precisely the development, elaboration, and implications of
his view of nature and our place within it that ran from Descartes, passing
through Leibniz to Kant, Baron d’Holbach, La Mettrie, Laplace, and beyond,
and created a philosophical and scientific impact powerful enough to reach
even twentieth-century philosophy and science.
Despite evident differences in their concepts of nature, all these think-
ers agree on three fundamental, interlocking, and mistaken beliefs. The first
is that the externally real—matter, substance—is exclusively quantitative
and therefore known only through mathematics and its practical applica-
tions. The second belief, which flows from the first, consists of the forced
exile of all purposes and values, all “secondary” qualities, from nature.
The third belief—shared by many modern philosophers and scientists—is
that nature is an object standing over against us as subjects, or spectators.
Following Merleau-Ponty, we refer to this doctrine in all its forms as “the
ontology of the object” (TD 11/PC II: 298). This ontology of the object in
a way evacuates human beings from being active participants within nature
and reduces them to onlookers disconnected from it. For Descartes, Leibniz,
and Berkeley, the class of spectators includes God as well. In The Visible
4 NATURE AND LOGOS
3. Kosmotheoros is the name of a late work on cosmology by Huygens (1629–1695) and pub-
lished posthumously (N 181, n. 4 [editor]; note not reproduced in the English translation). In
Phenomenology of Perception, Merleau-Ponty undoubtedly would have spoken of “God” or “the
Absolute,” and in his lectures on “Institution,” the Kosmotheoros is defined as “un observateur
absolu” (IP 120). See also VI 227/280. Yet, in general, the change toward the religiously neutral
term kosmotheoros allows for a greater openness in the late works for the ultimate question of
rationality. In this regard, see Jan Van der Veken (1989, 202–209).
4. Vers le concret does discuss Whitehead’s major exposition of his process metaphysics, Process
and Reality and, indeed, demonstrates an astonishingly accurate grasp of it for the time. (Process
and Reality appeared in 1929, and Wahl’s text in 1932.) However, there is no evidence that
Merleau-Ponty employed, let alone understood, its technical vocabulary. Also, as Franck Robert
states, “In the unpublished course notes [from the Collège de France], Merleau-Ponty specifies
that Whitehead’s ideas are ‘developed freely’ [“développées librement”], not in the terms of a
positive and objective reading” (2008, 363, n.2). However, this is an easy admission because
it is also a fair description of how Merleau-Ponty dealt with most of his sources.
5. The extent of Merleau-Ponty’s reading and appreciation for what he found in Whitehead’s
texts did not become clear until the 1995 publication of recently discovered student notes (La
Nature) from his three nature courses. That book contains a thirteen-page essay titled “L’Idée
de Nature chez Whitehead.”
INTRODUCTION 5
6. Personal correspondence, 13 October 2007. Also worth noting is his statement, “Our expe-
rience of engagement with nature is at once an experience of nature as for human life and
of human life as firmly in nature. We are a constant and reciprocal interdependence with the
natural world.” “Toward a Phenomenological Philosophy of Nature” (2002, 201).
6 NATURE AND LOGOS
But today, when the very rigor of its description forces it [physics]
to recognize as ultimate physical beings and full right relations
between the observer and the observed, such determinations that
only have meaning for a certain situation of the observer, it is the
ontology of the kosmotheoros [contemplator of the world] and its
correlate, the Great Object, which take on the shape of prescientific
prejudice. (VI 15/32)9
7. Tim Eastman, “Our Cosmos, from Substance to Process,” to be published in the World
Futures Journal special issue “Process Philosophy and the Sciences,” ed. Franz Riffert and Tim
Eastman. The cited reference, included in Eastman’s text, is to Ervin Lazlo, Science and the
Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The rise of the Integral Vision of Reality (Rochester, VT: Inner
Traditions Press, 2006).
8. In The Visible and the Invisible, the author states that physicists such as Eddington show the
untenability of the ontology of the object, but they think falsely that this has no bearing on
psychology. They still describe the world in terms of a Cartesian separation of primary and
secondary qualities, as if their work “ceased to be valid at the frontier of our body and did not
call for a revision of our psycho-physiology” (25/45).
9. See also N 103/141. At several places in his texts, Merleau-Ponty identifies Laplace as a
thinker who subscribes to the view of scientist as kosmotheoros. See, for example, N 135/181.
In Causeries 1948, Merleau-Ponty makes an analogy between the way that modern art replaces
classical perspective and the manner in which relativity theory has replaced the standard view
of modern philosophy (C 39/19) that space is a “milieu of simultaneous things” dominated
by “an absolute observer . . . without a point of view, without a body, without a spatial situ-
ation—in sum a pure intelligence” (Ibid., 41/21–22).
INTRODUCTION 7
The fourth reason for undertaking this project is quite different. It con-
sists of the negative practical consequences of a cleavage between nature and
values. There are many illustrations of this unhealthy division. At one level
we lose a deep philosophical justification for ecology at a time at which recent
accelerations in climate change, coupled with the reckless consumption of
natural resources,10 have shown us how crucial a principled ecology really is.
Intercorporeal relations form a crucial part of our linkage with nature
and provide a foundation for a broader than anthropocentric ethic. When
people become desensitized to these relationships, the bodily basis for com-
munity is fractured. This cleft between nature and values, in which the basis
for affectivity has been badly damaged, is more and more apparent today in
the abuse and exploitation of both humans and other animals in a plethora
of depressing phenomena.
In order to accomplish these objectives, this essay is divided as follows.
Chapter I recounts Merleau-Ponty’s early view of nature as phenomenon—
that is, as a correlate of perceptual consciousness. It summarizes his descrip-
tions of the lived body’s perception and behavior in both normal and certain
pathological cases, as well as the origin of meaning, in order to contrast his
views of the body and its interactions with nature with those of several mod-
ern philosophers. Chief among these is Descartes, Merleau-Ponty’s constant
sparring partner. The chapter concludes with an analysis of Merleau-Ponty’s
criticisms of a latter-day Cartesian, his estranged friend, Jean-Paul Sartre.
The second chapter explains why and how Merleau-Ponty thought it
necessary to transcend his earlier phenomenology of nature with his “new
ontology” and how the principal Whiteheadian concepts with which he
felt some consonance can be a help in doing so. The chapter then devel-
ops and articulates the main themes of the “new ontology” by showing how
Merleau-Ponty sought to replace dualisms with a twofold ontology. This in turn
leads to Merleau-Ponty’s concept of flesh, which is the subject of Chapter III.
In developing his “new ontology,” Merleau-Ponty holds that the most
difficult aspect of the chiasmatic reversibility of flesh to understand is “the
bond between the flesh and the idea” (VI 149/195) or between Nature and
Logos. The intelligibility of nature is not imposed on it from the outside.
Rather, meaning is in-[the]visible as its hidden latency and lining. This
notion is the ontological radicalization of his earlier phenomenological
descriptions of perception as a “nascent logos”: “Here again, we grasp . . . a
logos before language, which will perhaps help us to better understand the
expressed logos” (PC II: 29).11 In his later writings, Merleau-Ponty approaches
10. For a rapid summary of the most depressing details of both reckless consumption and
extinction of species, see Edward O. Wilson (2003).
11. “Ici encore, nous saisissons . . . un logos avant le langage, qui nous aidera peut-être à mieux
comprendre le logos proféré.”
8 NATURE AND LOGOS
the relation of ideality and flesh in terms of the Stoics’ notions of a logos endi-
athetos and logos proforikos. The meaning and significance of these notions,
referred to in The Visible and the Invisible, the author’s retrospective sum-
maries of his courses on nature, and in the Nature lectures themselves, have
been latent in the literature until now. So we devote considerable attention
to them in Chapter IV.
Merleau-Ponty’s critical analysis of modern philosophical accounts of
nature and our relationship with it were not cut out of a whole cloth. He
was influenced not only by the Whiteheadian concept of nature, but also by
the work of two other thinkers who reacted negatively to modern rational-
istic philosophy—F. W. J. Schelling and Henri Bergson. It is their heritage
that forms the subject of Chapter V; the examination of Bergson’s views of
life in nature continues in Chapter VI as the context for Merleau-Ponty’s
own reflections on life, animality, and the relationship of mind and nature.
Chapter VII begins by articulating a recent, prominent challenge by
Renaud Barbaras to the tenability of Merleau-Ponty’s “new ontology.” It
indicates how Merleau-Ponty could have responded to these criticisms, and
it then uses Whitehead’s process philosophy to show how it can provide
additional support for Merleau-Ponty’s likely response. That in turn serves as
the point of departure for a demonstration of how Whitehead’s philosophy
can furnish Merleau-Ponty’s last ontology with a firm metaphysical founda-
tion. It is here that we explain how Merleau-Ponty could not only benefit
from the few Whiteheadian texts that he knew, but also could have profited
even more from the texts with which he was unfamiliar. This task requires
the remainder of Chapter VII as well as the final chapter.
In seeking to clarify the intertwining of Merleau-Ponty’s “new ontol-
ogy” and Whitehead’s process philosophy, we are mindful of the fact that
we are writing for two separate audiences that usually do not communicate
with each other, and for which we hope this work will serve as at least a
partial encounter. In process philosophy conferences, it is normal to hear
that Whitehead is the most ecologically sensitive and supportive twenti-
eth-century philosopher, without any mention or perhaps even knowledge
of the work of Merleau-Ponty. Likewise, in meetings dedicated to the latter’s
thought, the same thing is routinely said about him by those who know little
of Whitehead’s philosophy. In this book, we show how these two masterful
thinkers can be conjoined in a novel and enriching unity—what Whitehead
calls, and Merleau-Ponty after him, a “concrescence,” a growing together.
Also, because we are writing for both audiences, who are accustomed to
reading only one of these two thinkers, we have occasionally provided the
required background explanations.
These necessary explanations can easily suggest that this work is simply
a comparison of Merleau-Ponty’s and Whitehead’s conceptions of nature and
INTRODUCTION 9
Leuven
April 2010
This page intentionally left blank.
I
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON
1. “The natural world is the horizon of all horizons . . . which guarantees for my experiences
a given, not a willed unity underlying all the disruptions of my personal and historical life.
Its counterpart within me is the given, general and pre-personal existence of my sensory func-
tions” (PhP 330/381). “Le monde naturel est l’horizon de tous les horizons . . . qui garantit
à mes expériences une unité donnée et non voulue par dessous toutes les ruptures de ma
vie personnelle et historique, et dont le corrélatif est en moi l’existence donnée, générale et
prépersonnelle de mes fonctions sensorielles.”
11
12 NATURE AND LOGOS
2. Merleau-Ponty insisted on this difference. As he told one of us (Van der Veken), the invis-
ible is not like the hidden back side of a chest that could be seen if the back were exposed.
It is also important to keep in mind that, as Janicaud notes, Merleau-Ponty defends, “ ‘not an
absolute invisible . . . but the invisible of this world’ ” (1991, 22, citing VI 151/198).
3. For much more about the treatment of nature in The Structure of Behavior and Phenomenology
of Perception, see Toadvine (2009), Chapters 1 and 2, respectively.
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 13
body and its cultural milieu, and develops with increasing specificity and
sophistication to symbolic systems. At the first and most basic level, Nature
presents itself to us as pre-predicative, anonymous, pre-personal bodily life
out of which personal life develops by means of a “recovery [reprise]” (PhP
254/293). This pre-personal life is characterized by the “on,” i.e., “one per-
ceives” rather than a cogito that intervenes with personal acts. It is a “silent”
or “tacit cogito” (PhP 402/461), “another subject beneath me” that takes up
a preexisting world and that designates my place in it. This “tacit cogito” is
described as a “captive and natural spirit,” as opposed to “the momentary
body” that is deployed in making “personal choices” (PhP 254/294).
For Merleau-Ponty, human existence consists of a continual inter-
change of the pre-personal and the personal (PhP 84/99), the natural aspects
of the lived body, of material things, other people, and the world around
us, and the body’s spiritual dimensions. However, the pre-personal and the
personal are not joined together externally, an in-itself and a for-itself, as
separable “parts.” Rather, they interpenetrate, so to say: personal life finds its
anchorage in Nature because the pre-personal body is already animated by
life. The “physiological” and the “psychic” “gear into each other” (s’engrènent
les uns sur les autres) (Ibid., 77/91) because they are never separated to begin
with.8 Moreover, just as the existential structure of Dasein for Heidegger
consists of being-in-the-world-with-others, so also, for Merleau-Ponty, the
lived body, other people, material things, and the world around us all form
a unitary system. Thus, Merleau-Ponty writes, there is an “ontological world
and body9 which we find at the core of the subject” (Ibid., 408/467).
In its continual oscillation with the personal, the pre-personal life of
the body manifests itself most directly and primarily in perception, behav-
ior, and expression. To describe this pre-personal life, Merleau-Ponty relies
heavily on the experiential and experimental results of Gestalt psychologists.
Indeed, in his 1946 address to the Société française de Philosophie in which he
defended the principal theses of Phenomenology of Perception, his explanation
of “perception as an original modality of consciousness” begins immediately
by referring to “the unprejudiced study of perception by [Gestalt]psycholo-
gists” (Prim.Percp. 12/103).
It has proven convenient for some philosophers during and after
Merleau-Ponty’s lifetime to indict his work as “merely psychology”—a charge
8. The early texts, mainly Phenomenology of Perception, employ a number of dyadic descriptions
of this unity, which shift in meaning from one set of terms to another. As Hass compendiously
lists them, they are “(1) the habit body and the personal body, (2) the impersonal and the
personal, (3) the biological and the individual, (4) the sedimented and the spontaneous, [and]
(5) the organic and the existential” (2008, 87).
9. The English translation conceals the fact that “ontological” modifies both “world” and
“body”: “Le monde et le corps ontologiques. . . .”
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 15
that has been leveled more than once against phenomenology itself. In the
1946 address, he showed that he was aware of this criticism (Ibid., 13/404)
and subsequent discussion indicated that he was correct to anticipate the
objection. As we shall see, his struggle to demonstrate the ontological import
of phenomenology formed one of his main reasons for developing a “new”
ontology.
Merleau-Ponty takes both Gestalt psychology and phenomenology to
have significant ontological import, although the Gestaltists themselves, he
believed, did not grasp how their research results undermined their causal
account of perception.10 Their traditionally mechanistic account of percep-
tion construed it to be the passive effect of prior and separable stimuli,
whereas their research results revealed perception to be an active process of
spontaneously organizing or structuring a given perceptual field. Perception
is, thus, neither passive nor separate and distinct from the stimuli that
purportedly determine it. Instead, in the way that perception selectively
arranges and organizes stimuli according to certain bodily norms, to achieve
equilibrium with its environment, perception helps constitute the stimuli as
such. Therefore, objective properties and subjective intentions are not just
intermixed, but in fact create a new type of unity.
This new type of unity comes about because, as opposed to supposedly
atomistic sensations of pure color, sound, and the like—which are actually
the objects of a very artificially framed consciousness, usually in laboratory
situations11—the simplest perceptual datum forms part of a perceptual field
as a focal point against a background context, and is already “laden with a
meaning”(PhP 4/10). A perceptual field opens itself to us and we to it. We
inhabit this field not as spectators, but as active participants, and it is this
participation that explains the fact that body and world are to be found “at
the core of the subject.”
This participatory structuring of a perceptual field is evident in the
description of a Gestalt structure. Negatively, Merleau-Ponty defines it as a
whole that is irreducible to the sum of its “parts” (VI 204/258). The structure
is neither a thing, a collection of things, nor opposed to them. Positively,
a Gestalt is a whole in which each part is internally related to each other
part. The whole is present in each part, the whole is more than the sum of
10. This was the first of many instances that Merleau-Ponty advanced this critique of science.
Also, as we shall see, he understands the full ontological value of the Gestalt to be disclosed
only in his “new” ontology in which he bluntly states, there is “no other meaning than carnal,
figure and ground” (VI 265/319).
11. Cf. Heidegger’s observation that “[w]hat we ‘first’ hear is never noises or complexes of
sounds, but the creaking waggon, the motor-cycle. We hear the column on the march, the north
wind, the woodpecker tapping, the fire crackling. It requires a very artificial and complicated
frame of mind to ‘hear’ a ‘pure noise’ ” (1962, 207).
16 NATURE AND LOGOS
its parts, and a change in one part does not leave the others undisturbed.
Hence, each part is interdependent rather than independent.
Exactly how such experiences are “laden with meaning” depends on
how values of space and motion and rest are distributed according to the
focal point and background of the phenomenon. To consider only spatial
values, there is the way that a change of the spatial significance of some
part(s) within the whole changes its (their) experiential identity as, for
example, in Edgar Rubin’s famous illustration of the “face or vases” (see, for
instance, Gurwitsch 1964, 118–19), or in the equally familiar “duck/rabbit”
example that Ludwig Wittgenstein discusses in The Philosophical Investigations
(1968, 194). Such examples illustrate the first entry into Merleau-Ponty’s
phenomenology of the celebrated theme of ambiguity—that “what we live
or think always has several meanings” (PhP 269/197). Here, as with bodi-
ly phenomena discussed below, the chief significance of ambiguity is to
stress the active structuring of a perceptual field as opposed to determinis-
tic causal accounts of perception and behavior. Ambiguity also permeates
Merleau-Ponty’s descriptions of social phenomena, as discussed in detail
elsewhere (e.g., Hamrick 1989).
For the same reason, such phenomena also contradict the ontology
of the object. They demonstrate that what is given in perception is not
something purely objective to a spectator-like subject, but rather comes
into being in the way that the lived body participates in the fact that and
how it is given.
This is certainly the case with the well-known Müller-Lyer illusion
(PhP 6/12) in which, when angled lines are attached to horizontal lines of
equal length, the two horizontal lines appear unequal. What is particularly
interesting about this example is that not only does the phenomenon not
correspond to the stimulus, but also one can know theoretically that the
two horizontal lines are parallel before, during, and after the addition of the
auxiliary lines and yet the illusion appears anyway. For Merleau-Ponty, this
is no mere psychological curiosity, but rather something with ontological
weight. Therefore, he will argue against placing the Gestalt in the frame-
work of consciousness and cognition (VI 205–206/258–59). Each “part” has
a functional significance within the whole that is, in turn, “considered as
the equilibrated and balanced coexistence of its functional parts in their
thoroughgoing interdependence” (Gurwitsch 1964, 149).
The selective structuring of a perceptual field is also temporal. A mel-
ody, for instance, does not equal the sum of its notes because each note has
only a functional significance within the whole, and Merleau-Ponty points
out that this fact explains why the melody survives transpositions to a dif-
ferent key. Conversely, one change merely in the relationships between the
notes will suffice to decisively change the melody (SNS 49/87). Similarly,
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 17
12. Hass nicely states that, for Merleau-Ponty, perception consists of “a ‘synergy’ between my
living, embodied self and the transcendent, natural world. It is the site where other embodied
selves emerge, where our perspectives meld, cross, or intertwine (2008, 24–25).”
13. Whitehead also views the body in this way, expressed in identical language (and even
in italics), when he states that “the ‘withness’ of the body is an ever-present, though elusive,
element in our perceptions” (PR 312).
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 19
expressions such as being “on the town,” “on top of the world,” and the like.
Hence, to characterize this lived contact with the world, Merleau-Ponty’s
early works typically use “spatiality” and “temporality” for the lived body
and “space” and “time” for the objects of scientific measurement.14
Third, our bodies present themselves to us as a non-objective “cor-
poreal or postural schema” (UI 5/403).15 This schema orients us spatially
because in the “practical system” (Ibid., 102/119) of perceiver and perceived,
our bodies consist of the “zero point of orientation,” as Ideas II terms it
(1989, 61; cited at N 75/108) or, as the Cartesian Meditations states, “my
animate organism . . . is inseparable from the absolute Here” (1960, 123).
As such, it gives meaning to words such as “on” and “under,” “near” and
“far,” “up” and “down,” “left” and “right,” and “here” and “there.” Since the
“corporeal schema” is how we perceive our bodies with respect to horizontal,
vertical, and other crucial environmental coordinates, the lived body cannot
be a mere object existing “under the gaze of a separated spirit” because that
body is already subjectivized, or in-spirited, so to speak. It consists of our
permanent perspective on the world around us, other people, and perceptual
objects. As such, it consists of “the place where the spirit takes on a certain
physical and historical situation” (UI 5/403).
Finally, the lived body possesses the ability to integrate instruments,
tools, and other objects into its spatiality—for example, the blind person’s
cane, the pianist’s or typist’s keyboard (PhP 154/180). The “body image” is
an openness to the world (Ibid., 143, n. 3/168, n. 1) and provides us with
the “mental and practical space” required to establish a stable equilibrium
between the body and its environment. This equilibrium comes about as a
result of habitual patterns of behavior that obviate the need to think our
way through each new situation (Ibid., 87/103).
14. Merleau-Ponty’s distinction between space as an object of reflection and objective measure-
ment and the spatiality of the lived body owes much to Heidegger’s differentiation of space (der
Raum) and spatiality (die Räumlichkeit). See, for example, Being and Time, ¶ 24 (1962, 145–48).
Nevertheless, it appears that Merleau-Ponty considered the latter’s expression, in-der-Welt-Sein,
insufficient to distinguish the spatiality of the lived body from that of a container-contained
relationship. Hence the substitution of “au” for “dans.”
15. For Merleau-Ponty, a synonym for “corporeal schema,” or at least a very close cognate,
is “body image.” This expression first appeared in Henry Head’s Studies in Neurology (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1920), and was taken up in the notion of the “corporeal schema” by
“Wallon, by certain German psychologists, and has finally been the subject of a study in its own
right by Professor Lhermite in l’Image de notre corps.” Merleau-Ponty, “The Child’s Relations
with Others” (PrP 117). This text was cited from the 1960 Cours de Sorbonne publication. See
also the later publication of these lecture notes in the Bulletin de psychologie, 236 XVIII 3–6
(novembre 1964), 295–336, esp. 298–99. Likewise important in this regard is Paul Schilder’s
classic work, The Image and Appearance of the Human Body (1950), which Merleau-Ponty
certainly knew well before his 1960 course at the Sorbonne. Schilder had published a small
study of the “Körperschema” in 1923, which Merleau-Ponty cites at PhP 77, n. 4/92, n. 2; and
99, n. 1/115, n. 1.
20 NATURE AND LOGOS
16. Sedimentation is a Husserlian concept, though the habitus that he has in mind “pertains
not to the empirical, but to the pure Ego” (Husserl 1989, 118). See also 233, 324, and 344ff.
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 21
17. “qui fait l’unité des sens, celle des sens et de l’intelligence, celle de la sensibilité et de la
motricité. C’est lui qui se ‘détend’ dans la maladie.”
22 NATURE AND LOGOS
18. “derrière les faits et les symptômes dispersés, l’être total du sujet, s’il s’agit d’un normal, le
trouble fondamental, s’il s’agit d’un malade.”
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 23
tion of “opaque and sealed up” sensory data. In normal motor intentionality,
as the Gestaltists showed, the incarnate cogito opens itself to a perceptual
field and, in complicity with it, arrives at meanings that are already sketched
“in outline” (“en pointillé”), as Merleau-Ponty often says, anterior to the
imposition of acts of interpretive judgment. These meanings are open rather
than “sealed up,” available for discernment rather than “opaque.”
Therefore, the potentiality that characterizes normal motility is really
a double and symmetrical one inherent in the system of percipient and
perceived. Both are open to each other, a conception that becomes radical-
ized in Merleau-Ponty’s last ontological writings about Nature. On the one
hand, material things, other people, and the world around us are such that
we can relate to them intelligibly; they are open to all the diverse ways
that we engage them through our motor intentional projects. On the other
hand, what it means to be a lived body is to be open to material things,
other people, and the world at large. Our bodily projects fit them like, to use
again one of Merleau-Ponty’s favorite images, engaging gears (PhP 160/186).
Therefore, on his view, the meaningfulness of the world is neither fully
formed, waiting to be discovered by consciousness, even a bodily one, nor
produced within consciousness to be applied to an inherently meaningless
world. Rather, through bodily motility, meaning is developed in a way that
is analogous to how a photograph is created in the developing fluid.19 The
paradox of the world, as of each perceptual object, is that it is “already there”
(déjà-là) before we take it up in any given situation, but it is also a world
that “only exists as lived by me or by subjects such as me” (PhP 333/384).
A perceptual object is, therefore, a paradoxical “in-itself—for-the-percipient,”
and Merleau-Ponty counts it as “probably the most important achievement of
phenomenology” that it has found a way to unite “extreme subjectivism and
extreme objectivism in its notion of the world or of rationality” (Ibid., xix/xv).
In this context, Schneider’s case contains a crucial epistemological
significance concerning the second mistaken interpretation of normal per-
ception and behavior, namely, that their intelligibility is imposed on mean-
ingless sense data by cognitive acts. Since in a representational theory of
perception, the intelligibility of sense data derives from an “act of under-
standing” (PhP 131/152), on this theory, “perceptual disturbances” could
only be disorders on one side or the other of the experience. However, what
patients such as Schneider show us is that the disturbance is situated at the
intersection of both perception and meaning (Ibid.). As a result, Schneider,
19. The image of photographic development is too simple to express all the richness of
Merleau-Ponty’s conception of sense making. We mention photographic development here
only to underscore his view that sense is not imposed on unintelligible matter, but rather that
meaning is already sketched out in advance. When we come to discuss the logos proforikos in
Merleau-Ponty’s late writings, we will see that there are at least five intertwined images of sense
making throughout his works, images that apply to perception, language, art, politics, and science.
24 NATURE AND LOGOS
20. “vérifie médiatement et précise l’hypothèse par le recoupement des faits, il chemine aveuglé-
ment vers celle qui les coordonne tous.”
21. In the unpublished preparatory notes for the 1953 Collège de France course on “The
Sensible World and the World of Expression,” Merleau-Ponty writes: “[T]here is no matter
without form and inversely.” “[I]l n’y a pas de matière sans forme et inversement.” He then
goes on to discuss “the Gestalt as opposed to matter or to form” (ESA III: 26).
22. One of the strengths of Hass’s overarching summary of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology
consists of its emphasis on the centrality of creative expression throughout Merleau-Ponty’s
accounts of perception, language, art, the construction of geometrical proofs, and in cognition
generally. See particularly Chapters 6 and 7. However, what we discuss here and elsewhere in
this work is, for the most part, missing from Hass’s text. This is especially true with regard to
all the unpublished writings that de Saint Aubert has made available since 2004.
23. Cf. C 63/45, 46: “[T]his malice, this cruelty that I read in the looks of my adversary,
I could not imagine them separated from his gestures, from his speech, from his body. . . .
[F]inally anger inhabits it [his face].” “[C]ette méchanceté, cette cruauté que je lis dans les
regards de mon adversaire, je ne puis les imaginer séparées de ses gestes, de ses paroles, de son
corps. . . . Mais enfin la colère l’habite.”
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 25
which there is an interchange between the ways that the other sees me,
and how “the image of the other can be immediately ‘interpreted’ by my
corporeal schema” (PrP 118).24 And just because we can see, all other visible
bodies can participate in this schema. It thereby becomes, as he describes
it toward the end of his third course on Nature, “a lexicon of corporeity in
general” (RC 129/178).
It is part of this expressivity that motor intentionality constitutes our
“impulse of being in the world” (PhP 75/92), and what puts “the patient’s
being, his power of existing” (Ibid., 134/156) in question. Because reflexes
are meaningful expressions of how we orient ourselves to our situations
rather than passive, determined reactions to “stimuli,” in normal behavior
they “adjust themselves to the ‘direction’ of the situation” (Ibid., 79/94),
in the double senses of “le sens,” meaning and spatial orientation. For
Merleau-Ponty, this orientation and the “impulse of being in the world”
behind it lie primarily in emotional rather than cognitive life, anterior to
the achievements of a Cartesian cogitatio or a transcendental, constituting
consciousness. For a patient with a phantom limb, for example, the emo-
tion involved amounts to being part of a situation that he cannot hon-
estly accept, but from which also he does not want to flee. “The subject,”
Merleau-Ponty says, “caught in this existential dilemma, breaks into pieces
the objective world which stands in his way and seeks symbolical satisfac-
tion in magic acts” (Ibid., 86/101–102).25 One “existential attitude” solicits
another and, in the case of the phantom limb, forms an indivisible unity
with memory and emotion (Ibid., 86/102).
Expressivity is also central to normal motility in more diverse ways,
and Merleau-Ponty usually discusses it in terms of styles of actions. In our
“being at the world” (être-au-monde), styles represent the mélange of matter
and form, third-person physiological processes and first-person psychic acts.
Styles thus become Merleau-Ponty’s version of Hegel’s notion of the Inhalt,
or content, according to which, “Matter contains form locked up within it
and is absolute susceptibility to form only because it has form absolutely
within itself only because form is its implicit determination” (Hegel 1969,
24. The citation is from the 1960 publication of “The Child’s Relations with Others.” In the
1964 French publication, Merleau-Ponty states, “[T]he perception of my body can be transferred
to the other and the image of the other can be immediately ‘interpreted’ by my corporeal
schema” (298). “[L]a perception de mon corps peut être transférée à autrui et l’image d’autrui
peut être immédiatement ‘interprétée’ par mon schéma corporel.”
25. “Plutôt que d’accepter l’échec ou de revenir sur ses pas, le sujet, dans cette impasse exis-
tentielle, fait voler en éclats le monde objectif qui lui barre la route et cherche dans les actes
magiques une satisfaction symbolique.”
26 NATURE AND LOGOS
26. J. N. Findlay observes that Hegel’s notion of Content (Inhalt) “can indifferently be taken
to represent Materialized Form or Formed Matter. . . . The Content of a thing in the sense
used by Hegel is inseparably one with its Form: Romeo and Juliet could not have had the same
Content if produced in prose or some non-verbal medium” (1958, 196).
27. We noted earlier that the body’s motor intentionality is invested in symbolic functions of
increasing complexity. Styles of behavior comprise a fairly minimal level of such functions, and
we shall see later that in the Nature lectures, Merleau-Ponty elaborates on similar behavior for
different animals as well. For human beings he details the upper reaches, so to speak, of these
symbolic activities in terms of language, art, politics, law, and other dimensions of the social
world. For a more detailed study of these subjects with reference to Merleau-Ponty and the
lived body, see Hamrick, 1987, especially Chapters I–IV; and 2002, especially Chapters 1–4.
28. Further details of Claudel’s influence on Merleau-Ponty may be found in ESA I: 234–55.
Among other things, we learn that, in Merleau-Ponty’s own library, “Art poétique is the most
worked over and one of the most annotated volumes. . . . Merleau-Ponty discovers this text
in October 1935, at a time in which his conception of philosophical knowledge [connaissance]
was already forged against the idealism of Léon Brunschvicg” (Ibid., 236). See also the refer-
ence to Claudel at N 97/134.
29. Bernet (1993, 60). For Merleau-Ponty, the primary importance of co-naissance is that it
reinforces the primacy of relationships over the relata. In “The Philosopher and His Shadow,”
he also interprets Husserl in that way (S 177/223–24).
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 27
30. In this relationship of pregnancy and creation, it is possible to hear an echo of Diotima’s
speech in Plato’s Symposium, especially when she says, “All of us are pregnant, Socrates, both
in body and in soul, and, as soon as we come to a certain age, we naturally desire to give
birth” (206C) (1989, 53).
31. Merleau-Ponty acknowledges his debt to Cassirer at several places in Phenomenology of Per-
ception. See especially 127 n.2/148 n.2, 235 and n. 2/272 and n. 1, and 291/337. Merleau-Ponty
appropriates Cassirer’s distinction between “phenomenon of expression (Ausdruck),” “verbal
expression (Darstellung),” and “intellectual significance” (Bedeutung)” (PhP 235/272) to argue for
the mutual pregnancy of “visual and auditory experiences.” He also uses Cassirer’s distinction
to maintain that expressive experiences are “anterior to ‘sense-giving acts’ . . . of theoretical
and positing thought,” that “expressive significance” precedes “sign significance,” and finally
that “the symbolical ‘pregnancy’ of form in content” is prior to “any subsuming of content
under form” (Ibid., /291/337).
28 NATURE AND LOGOS
32. Both symbolic systems as well as the notion of a “surrounding world” (Umwelt) are present
in many forms of (other) animal life as well. See N 168/220 ff.
33. Steinbock also notes (2000, 66) that “this affective force of something prominent is linked
to the discriminating experience of optima” in the sense described above for Merleau-Ponty. It
“summons me” to a more complete perception of the object (Ibid., 65) and its context, and
where “the affective force is strongest, it provides ‘favorable conditions’ and summons privi-
leged comportment in relation to which it can become prominent and optimal” (Ibid., 67).
34. For a more complete discussion of this theme, see Bernet (1993, 64 ff.).
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 29
In the discussion following his 1946 address, Merleau-Ponty states that phe-
nomenology could not have preceded all other philosophies, but rather that
it emerges as a corrective to the “rationalist tradition” and “the construction
of science” (Prim.Percp. 29/137). As noted in the Introduction, on his view
phenomenology functions as a means of restoring or rehabilitating the sen-
sible, which we have followed in the previous section to describe his early
view of Nature. We have traced the ways that he positions phenomenology
as an antidote to a cluster of closely related doctrines associated with “the
rationalist tradition” and “the construction of science” that pervade mod-
ern philosophy from Galileo to Kant. These doctrines include mechanistic
causal accounts of perception and behavior, intellectualist constructions of
their meanings, the form/matter analysis of experience, representational
theories of perception, a dualism of mind and body and, as described in
the Introduction, the bifurcation of Nature and the ontology of the object.
Although a variety of thinkers throughout the seventeenth and eigh-
teenth centuries subscribed to diverse versions of these doctrines, and despite
the fact that Merleau-Ponty comments on almost all of them, Descartes has
a special prominence in his criticisms. As we have seen, it is specifically
Descartes against whom Merleau-Ponty sets himself at the beginning of his
first course on Nature. Moreover, beyond the subject of Nature, Descartes is
present in Merleau-Ponty’s writings from one end to the other. Indeed, the
notes found on his desk the evening of the day he died dealt with Descartes
(ESA II: 23), in all probability because the subject of Merleau-Ponty’s last
course at the Collège de France was “Cartesian Ontology and Ontology
Today” (January-April 1961).
How to explain this Cartesian preeminence in Merleau-Ponty’s
thought? Almost all explanations focus on Merleau-Ponty’s many (justi-
fied) criticisms of Decartes. Hass, for example, is only the latest to express
the view that
30 NATURE AND LOGOS
This is perfectly true, yet despite the usual stress on Merleau-Ponty’s nega-
tive relationship with his precursor, there must be more to Merleau-Ponty’s
continual return to Descartes than obsession or the reiteration of criticism.
If that were the whole story, it would have been much simpler and easier
for him to refer to his earlier critiques.
We believe that this negativity misses at least two key facts. The
first is that Merleau-Ponty was certainly aware of the perennial relevance
of Descartes’ philosophy. Claude Lefort expresses this well when he says
that there is a natural connection between Descartes and us because we
share the same problems that stem from the same source, namely that “it
is always a question of time, space, things, and bodies that are and are not
things, and of what one calls thinking, feeling, desiring, communicating”
(NC 16). Lefort then states that, whereas Merleau-Ponty creates an ontology
to contrast with that of Descartes, we must realize that “the contrast is not
given, and that he takes it upon himself to establish it” (Ibid.).35
The second missing part of the explanation consists of what
Merleau-Ponty finds of positive value in Descartes’ philosophy. He locates
in Descartes both the best and the worst of a philosophy of embodied exis-
tence. In his unpublished La Nature ou le monde du silence (probably in
the autumn of 1957), Merleau-Ponty writes, “Descartes is simultaneously
the most profound and the least satisfying of philosophers” (ESA III: 125,
n. 1). The worst is the strict demarcation of body and soul, which produces
“ontological positivism or ontology of the object, ontological negativism
or ontology of the subject, . . . ontological diplopia, i.e. instability and
35. Perhaps to stress the continuing relevance of Descartes for Merleau-Ponty, Jean Wahl
states, in the discussion following the presentation of “Man and Adversity,” “Descartes, great
precursor of Merleau-Ponty—and there is no irony in my words” (PC II: 326). Lefort notes
that the course on “The Cartesian Ontology and Ontology Today” describes the purpose of the
course as the formation of an ontology “that remains implicit, in the air . . . by contrast with
the Cartesian ontology (Descartes and successors)” (Ibid., 166). In the unpublished “scraps” of
radio interviews with Georges Charbonnier during the spring of 1959, Merleau-Ponty indicated
that the philosophical problem that oriented all of his research ever since his school days was
“the relations of the soul and the body,” and that even as a student he was always struck by
the fact that his teachers, such as Léon Brunschvicg, were Cartesians. ESA II: 17 n. 4. L’Œil
et l’esprit is probably Merleau-Ponty’s best effort to come to grips with Cartesianism despite
the course on Cartesian ontology the following year.
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 31
the connection of mind with the rest—with the body, with society,
with everything social. . . . It’s always the connection of being and
nothingness, or the mélange of being and nothing, that has interested
me. . . . [Sartre’s philosophy] was and remained in large measure
closely tied to the Cartesian position of the Cogito. . . . mind, if
one can think it in itself, [and] liberty, so to speak, face the world,
and not tied to the world. The idea of connection is an idea that
he does not like (ESA I: 111).39
38. This is why Merleau-Ponty much prefers Montaigne to Descartes: “Montaigne’s realm,
on the contrary, is the ‘mixture’ of the soul and body; he is interested only in our factual
condition, and his book endlessly describes this paradoxical fact that we are” (S 201/254).
“Le ‘mélange’ de l’âme et du corps est au contraire le domaine de Montaigne, il ne s’intéresse
qu’à notre condition de fait, et son livre décrit à n’en plus finir ce fait paradoxal que nous
sommes.”
39. “le lien de l’esprit avec le reste—avec le corps, avec la société, avec le tout social. . . . C’est
toujours le lien de l’être et néant, ou le mélange de l’être et néant, qui m’a intéressé . . . [la
philosophie de Sartre] était à ce moment-là, et est restée dans une large mesure dans la suite,
très solidaire de la position cartésienne du Cogito. . . . l’esprit, si on peut la penser en elle-même,
la liberté, sont pour ainsi dire en face du monde, et non pas liés au monde. L’idée de lien est
une idée qu’il n’aime pas.” See also Merleau-Ponty’s comments to Charbonnier that he had
always found “shocking” the idealist contention that thought was complete immanence cut
off from the world and other people, and that he had long since set himself the problem to
make those connections “thinkable” and “comprehensible” (ESA I: 111, n. 2). See also here
Patrick Burke’s “Introduction” to the English translation of UAC, especially p. 17. Still, it is
certainly unfair to Sartre to say that, for him, “mind, if one can think it in itself, liberty, so to
speak face the world, and are not tied to the world.” The for itself is ineluctably tied to the
world from which it is nevertheless radically different. Here Merleau-Ponty appears to conflate
connection with mélange. Also, to say “The idea of connection is an idea that he does not
like” appears to conflate “like” with “accept.” De Saint Aubert repeats all of this uncritically,
and also never takes into account Sartre’s remarks about moral responsibility in, say, Exis-
tentialism is a Humanism. Nor does Merleau-Ponty link his remarks to Charbonnier to that
text.
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 33
For Descartes, the natural light of reason shone most brilliantly in math-
ematics. Like Galileo,40 Descartes also held that “Geometry or abstract
Mathematics” explains “all the phenomena of nature” (The Principles of
Philosophy, Part Two, Principle LXIV) (1967, I: 269) and that, “of all the
sciences known as yet, Arithmetic and Geometry alone are free from any
taint of falsity or uncertainty” (Rules for the Direction of the Mind) (1967, I:
4). In sharp contrast to this intellectual knowledge, imagination, “a certain
application of the faculty of knowledge to the body” (Ibid.), is confused
and unclear. The former takes as its object all of the quantitative aspects of
our experience. The latter concerns sensory qualities, the apprehension of
which are “confused thoughts” (The Principles of Philosophy, Part IV, Principle
CXCVII) (1967, I: 294).
This epistemological distinction is important for Descartes’ ontological
conviction that, as with Galileo, what John Locke (1969, II, 8, § 23, 71)
would call “primary qualities” exist in material objects, whereas (Lockean)
“secondary qualities” “represent nothing to us outside of our mind” (The
Principles of Philosophy, Part I, Principle LXXI) (1967, I: 249–50).41 In
Whiteheadian terms, they are “psychic additions” to nature. In Descartes’
famous example of the melted wax in Meditation II, the reason that he gives
for this conviction is that quantitative factors comprise the only permanent
characteristics of the wax: its spatial extension, flexibility, and mobility.
Those are the objects of intellectio, whereas, he tells us, “nothing of all that
the senses brought to my notice” could reveal its nature (1967, I: 154).42
40. For Galileo, the sensory world consisted of delusory appearances that became intelligible
only through the intervention of mathematics (1964, 271). His universal mathesis of nature
and his view of the relationship of primary and secondary qualities have had momentous
epistemological, moral, and metaphysical consequences for the history of Western philosophy
and societies alike. He reversed the double assumption that human beings and external na-
ture are part of a seamless whole and that human beings comprised its most important part.
In Descartes’ hands, Galileo’s mathematical science of “local motions” became a full-fledged
“mechanistic despiritualization of Nature” (Windelband 1926, 403). Not only that, whereas Galileo
was content to relegate final causes to the spiritual life and to God—his view, as expressed
well by Cardinal Baronius in 1598, was that the Bible shows us “how to go to heaven, not
how the heavens go”—Descartes, in a prefiguration of unknowable Kantian noumena, holds
that God might have purposes, but they likewise cannot be known. Moreover, none of his
descriptions of human mental life ever refer to purposes.
41. Berkeley held the same view in identifying “esse” with “percipi,” but of course linked to
the radically non-Cartesian rejection of matter.
42. Hass rightly points out that Descartes uses the example of the wax to defend a repre-
sentational theory of perception inasmuch as what is perceived (read: conceived) as constant
is an idea of the wax as solid and then as melted (2008: 14–15). Perception for Descartes
becomes judgment. Hass could have added that Descartes had a scientific explanation at hand
to justify, or at least reinforce, his representational theory. As Whitehead points out, with the
development of transmission theories of light and sound, seventeenth- and eighteenth-century
philosophers argued that a secondary quality such as color emerged from the transmitted waves
of light, and so was not itself in the object or the light waves projected from it (CN 26–27).
34 NATURE AND LOGOS
such a contact mean? Descartes never addresses the more basic question of
meaning, but he does consider that of verification, and in a way that is most
enlightening for the relationship of phenomenology and ontology. Elizabeth
wrote to Descartes, June 20, 1643, that she could not understand how the
soul could move the body. “ ‘I must admit,’ she wrote, ‘that it would be
easier for me to attribute matter and extension to the soul, than to attribute
to an immaterial being the capacity to move and be moved by a body’ ”
(1970, 140). His answer, dated June 23, 1643, stated that she should “feel
free to attribute this matter and extension to the soul because that is simply
to conceive it as united to the body” (cited at UAC 34/14).
Descartes goes on to say that pure intellect and/or imagination can
only obscurely express the union of body and soul. For that we need the
senses, and that is the reason that non-philosophers, guided solely by their
senses, have no trouble believing in body-soul interaction and understand
them as a unity. In other words, it is only by avoiding reflective thought that
we can somehow understand the unity of material and immaterial entities.
It is this unsatisfactory state of affairs that drives Merleau-Ponty to conclude
that, if it is a mental confusion to think of the unity of mind and body,
how could we ever arrive at the notion of the cogito, and if we do arrive at
it (through unconfused thought), “how can I be the unreflective subject of
the Sixth Meditation” (UAC 35/16)?
Elizabeth very likely reached a similar conclusion, for she answered
Descartes’ letter of June 28, 1643, as follows: “ ‘The senses teach me that the
soul moves the body . . . but neither they nor the intellect nor the imagina-
tion teaches me how. Perhaps there are properties of the soul unknown to
us which will overturn the conviction of the soul’s non-extension” (1970,
144).43
Doubtless, Elizabeth considered Descartes’ definitions of mind and
body so radically different that their unity would be miraculous. Equally
miraculous in such a dualism is Descartes’ astonishing claim in a letter to
Mersenne (April 1, 1640) that, since the pineal gland is “not at all suitable”
for storing old memories, part of the memory of the lute player is “in his
hands”! The reason is that “the ease of bending and disposing his fingers in
various ways, which he has acquired by practice, helps him to remember the
passages which need these dispositions when they are played” (1970, 71).44
43. It should also be noted here that, in a letter to More dated April 15, 1649, Descartes
distinguished an “extension of substance” (matter) from an “extension of power” that suppos-
edly belongs to the soul (cited in UAC 34/15). However, the latter extension appears to be a
description of body-soul interactions rather than an explanation of them.
44. It is very strange that Merleau-Ponty does not refer to this letter. It is neither obscure
nor difficult to find, to say nothing of the addressee. And it is highly improbable that he did
not know the letters thoroughly.
36 NATURE AND LOGOS
we see the light of a torch and hear the sound of a bell, the sound
and the light . . . [excite] two different movements in some of our
nerves and thereby in the brain, impart to the soul two different
sensations, which we refer to the subjects we suppose to be their causes
in such a way that we think that we see the torch itself and hear
the bell, and not that we only feel the movements proceeding from
them. (1989, 31; emphasis added)
Sartre does not hold a representational theory of perception, but his early
philosophy is nonetheless closely allied with that of Descartes to such an
extent that Merleau-Ponty develops his phenomenology of Nature, as well
as almost everything else in his philosophy, against both of them together.
Moreover, he has an equally complicated relationship with both. Sometimes,
as we have seen, this leads him to quite unfair criticisms of Sartre. Another
instance is his claim that in Sartre’s philosophy there is “no place for a
conception of Nature or for a conception of history” (N 70/101). In fact,
he has both. As regards history, we immediately think of the Critique of
Dialectical Reason, the first volume of which was not published until a year
before Merleau-Ponty’s death. Yet, history as embedded in sociopolitical
phenomena is not absent from Sartre’s early writings, not even from Being
and Nothingness. Inversely, consciousness is not completely absent from the
Critique—though, there, its author is more interested in “the life, the objec-
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 37
45. Not only is Sartre’s philosophy the subject of the longest chapter of The Visible and the
Invisible (“Interrogation and Dialectic”), and amply present in its “Working Notes” as well,
but also this chapter title described their personal lives as well. For instance, Michel Contat
related to one of us (Hamrick) an interesting event shortly before Merleau-Ponty’s death. The
latter told Contat at an exhibition in a Paris art gallery that he had viewed the paintings
once with little comprehension, but that, after having read Sartre’s review of the exhibit, he
now understood it.
38 NATURE AND LOGOS
46. “Le silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m’effraye . . . il y a quelque chose d’horrible, de
repoussant et d’irrécusable dans ces choses qui sont simplement et ne veulent rien dire.” The
English translation, “express nothing,” is too weak for “ne veulent rien dire” because the reason
why, for Sartre, things cannot express anything is, as Merleau-Ponty’s text plainly states, they
“do not mean anything.”
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 41
47. Many years ago, in a source long since forgotten, an unknown philosopher made the point
that Sartre’s argument provides an explanation for an otherwise strange but common experience.
People who feel no disgust or threat in the phlegm in their own throats usually cannot abide
looking at it, let alone touching it, after it has been expectorated, even immediately afterward.
42 NATURE AND LOGOS
Prior to The Visible and the Invisible, Merleau-Ponty made one com-
prehensive objection, elaborated in diverse contexts and for different pur-
poses, to Sartre’s dualism of for-itself and in-itself and to the conceptions
of (ontological) liberty and intersubjectivity that its bifurcation of Nature
from consciousness implies. The objection is that, despite the accuracy of
many of Sartre’s descriptions of the relationships of consciousness and things,
freedom, and myself and the Other,48 Being and Nothingness “remains too
exclusively antithetic” in its treatment of how we see ourselves as opposed
to how others see us, and the fundamental antithesis of the for-itself and the
in-itself in place of “the living bond and communication between one term
and the other” (SNS 72/144). Everywhere in his philosophy Merleau-Ponty
sought an adequate explanation for this “living bond and communication,”
and we will later examine his final attempt in his “new” ontology.
For Merleau-Ponty, there is one basic problem that underlies all these
too exclusive antitheses. It is not that there is no distinction between con-
sciousness and things, or that we should reject negativity and subjectivity
per se. Indeed, subjectivity is one of those ideas “which make it impossible
for us to return to a time prior to their existence, even and especially if we
have moved beyond them” (S 154/194).49 Rather, the fundamental error
is the conception of being (in the sense of the in-itself) as pure positiv-
ity—as noted above, the same problem at the heart of the possibly mythic
Marxist conception of Nature as pure en-soi, “everywhere and nowhere”
(RC 64/93)—and consciousness as pure negativity. It is that conception that
prevents consciousness from emerging from Nature, blocks communication
and any kind of unity or identity between them, makes intersubjectivity
problematic, and finally puts human existence in the “impossible situation”
of being a “useless passion” (N 136/183).
Merleau-Ponty goes on to say that everything is a “failure” (Ibid.) for
Sartre because, unlike Heidegger, his conception of human existence is not
defined as “opening to Nature or to History” (Ibid., 137). Rather, for Sartre
as well as Descartes, the plenum of Being in itself contains no possibilities.
It forms a barrier against and around consciousness. There is no Offenheit for
Sartre, as there is for Heidegger, because the for-itself cannot open itself to
the in-itself, “non-being and being,” which are “notions at bottom Cartesian
and pre-phenomenological” (NC 104). By contrast, both Merleau-Ponty
48. Merleau-Ponty holds that there is a “profound truth” in Sartre’s analysis of the objecti-
vating look—e.g., at the keyhole. “But it is a particular case of a more general relation” (N
280/348). “Sartre himself sets up the example this way,” he continues, “by providing the scene”
(Ibid.). That is, the voyeur has been trapped only because he has attempted “to surprise or to
overtake” the other visually (Ibid.).
49. “une de ces pensées en deçà desquelles on ne revient pas, même et surtout si on les dépasse.”
NATURE AS A PHENOMENON 45
facticity, how, “if the for-itself is only the distance of a gaze without being”
(Ibid., xxiii/xi), could any facticity “weigh at all” (Ibid.), and how could
Sartre distinguish between a facticity that is really mine from any other?
These are all experiences that Sartre, the phenomenologist, acknowledges,
but which his bifurcation of consciousness and things cannot explain.
Though correct, DeWaelhens does not go far enough. This is because
there is a more fundamental difficulty for the early Sartre, which applies to
Descartes as well. It is that they cannot offer any explanation of how the
for-itself exists in the first place—that is, how it came into the world. Since
it is not a part of Nature, no causal explanation can apply to it. Since a
Sartrean for-itself is pure negativity, any explanation that would objectify it
in relation to other things would be equally mistaken. In a certain sense, it
does not even have a presence that can be explained.
Moreover, this criticism can be extended and adapted to Merleau-Ponty
himself. His early phenomenology does not address the question of the origin
of the pre-reflective body. How do intentionality and subjectivity begin to
exist? All this is taken for granted, and it is only in the late ontological
writings, beginning with the Nature lectures, that he begins to address the
question in terms of the emergence of consciousness from Nature. That
is why he thinks it essential to “a valid concept of Nature” that we “find
something at the juncture of Being and nothingness” (N 70/102) and that an
adequate philosophy must find a way to understand “the subjective-objective
that Nature will always be” (Ibid.). What turned out to be his final answer
consisted of “an ontology of the perceived world going beyond sensible
nature” (RC 46/66). It remains now to articulate what he found and how
it can be understood.
II
FROM DUALISM
TO A TWOFOLD ONTOLOGY
In arguing against the bifurcation of nature both in his earlier writings and in
his later systematic process metaphysics, Whitehead advances several closely
47
48 NATURE AND LOGOS
2. Whitehead, if not Merleau-Ponty as well, is typical of those philosophers who reject the
notion of substance because the “emasculated versions . . . were the only ones familiar to
them from classical modern philosophy.” W. Norris Clarke, S.J. (1996, 14). For Clarke, the
emasculation consisted of “three major distortions” that “broke the connection” with Thomistic
and Aristotelian concepts of active and dymanic substance: “(1) the Cartesian notion of the
isolated, unrelated substance, ‘that which needs nothing else but itself (and God) to exist;’ (2)
the Lockean static substance, the inert substratum needed to support accidents but unknow-
able in itself; and (3) the separable substance of Hume, which, if it existed, would have to
be empirically observable as separated from all of its accidents, and hence is an impossible
fiction” (Ibid.).
FROM DUALISM TO A TWOFOLD ONTOLOGY 49
4. Correlative to the ontology of the object, this surveying activity is what Maurice Merleau-Ponty
describes as a “pensée de survol” (OE 160/12, VI 222/276), “overlooking thought” or “high-altitude
thinking.” The latter expression is due to Benita Eisler in her translation of Volume IV of
Jean-Paul Sartre’s Situations (1965, 229). Although Merleau-Ponty used “survoler” earlier on,
the term survol first appears in his 1953 course at the Collège de France, “The Sensible World
and the World of Expression.” He borrows it directly from “survol absolu,” an expression used
by Raymond Ruyer, the fervent admirer of Leibniz (ESA II: 195). See also VI 13/30, 88/121,
and OE 178/59, and Chapter II of VI generally—especially pp. 77–78/108–109—for a critique
of Sartre as being restricted to a pensée de survol.
5. In this regard, Whitehead gives little attention to the Cartesian “confusions” of mind and
body. He generally passes over what most interests Merleau-Ponty in terms of the mind-body
relationship and concentrates instead on the dualism of substances. See also here the discussion
of Whitehead’s view of substances in Chapter I.
FROM DUALISM TO A TWOFOLD ONTOLOGY 51
thing else, but is that to which attributes are given—“e.g., the individual
man or the individual horse” (1963, 5). Also, as Whitehead sees it, the
belief that subject-predicate propositions embody “metaphysically ultimate”
truths underwrites and reinforces the fallacy of simple location insofar as it
stresses “the individual independence of real facts” (PR 137). In contrast,
Whitehead’s own “philosophy of organism” seeks to avoid the incoherence
of the Cartesian dualism by converging more on Spinoza’s thought, except
that he understands Substance as a whole of “dynamic processes” (Ibid.,
7). As noted above, these processes do enter into each other’s constitution
and thus explain the solidarity of nature. There is no togetherness of things
unless in experience, and indeed, “no things are, in any sense of ‘are,’ except
as components in experience or as immediacies of process which are occa-
sions in self-creation” (AI 236).
What gives rise to the subjectivist principle, for Whitehead, is the clar-
ity of sensory experience that therefore has caused sensation to be construed
as the whole of experience. This is the “sensationalist principle” accepted
by Descartes, Locke, and Hume, but not by Kant, that states, “the primary
datum in the act of experience is the bare subjective entertainment of
the datum, devoid of any subjective form of reception” (PR 157)—which
Merleau-Ponty would also have rejected because of his reliance on Gestalt
psychology. For Whitehead, sensations are what is most vivid, clear, precise,
and dominant in consciousness. However, on his view, they are also what
is most superficial about experience, and an exclusive reliance on them as
forming the “basis of all experiential activity” has resulted in a “warping”
of modern philosophy by separating mind from body, as Descartes was the
first to do (AI 209–10). This is a separation that has blocked the real con-
nectedness of instances of process (AI 280). Whitehead, like Merleau-Ponty,
wants to rescue perceptual experience from its oversimplified and therefore
impoverished seventeenth- and eighteenth-century versions (N 118/159).
The subjectivist and sensationalist principles, the representational the-
ory of perception, the substance-attribute ontology, and the concept of time
as a series of atomistic, isolable instants existing in external relations with
each other, all combine to yield an irrefutable scepticism about induction,
memory, personal identity, and the existence of the external world. This
is the last of Whitehead’s arguments about the incoherence of the mod-
ern philosophical views on the bifurcation of nature. The most important
premise of the argument concerns the instantial concept of time that runs
from Descartes through Locke and Newton to Hume. Since each atomistic
instant is self-contained and exists only in external relations with its pre-
decessors, the past is not immediately present to the present. Therefore,
memory, personal identity, and inductive inferences all would have to rest
on constituting acts of consciousness to establish a putatively veridical con-
nection with the past. As Whitehead observes, either we can derive from
52 NATURE AND LOGOS
some occasion of experience itself the grounds of its connection with other
occasions or else the only alternative is scepticism about memory, personal
identity, and induction (SMW 43–44). In short, if a given occasion of
experience has no internal relationships with any others, the only possible
result is “complete ignorance as to it” (Ibid., 25).
The only kind of (weaker) justification available would consist of veri-
fied inductive predictions of consequences, and so verification for any given
act of memory would always be postponed, never accomplished. Whitehead
believed that Hume showed irrefutably that the subjectivist and sensa-
tionalist principles are inconsistent with such proofs. Absent a Cartesian
reliance on the veracity of God to underwrite certain of our perceptions,
there remains the insoluble problem of verifying the double correspondence
between the sensation and the external object, and between the sensation
and the idea that copies it. The result is inevitably what Santayana termed
“solipsism of the present moment” (1955, 15; cf. PR 81).
To escape that solipsism, modern philosophers would have to make
the subjectivist principle surreptitiously inconsistent (PR 158). Hence,
Whitehead holds that the entirety of modern philosophy turns on the prob-
lematic attempt to use the concepts of “subject and predicate, substance and
quality, particular and universal” to describe the world and our experience
of it (Ibid., 49). Our efforts to do so inevitably distort our “immediate
experience which we express in our actions, our hopes, our sympathies, our
purposes, and which we enjoy in spite of our lack of phrases for its verbal
analysis” (Ibid., 49–50). By contrast, the best that Cartesianism can give
us is “solitary substances, each enjoying an illusory experience” (Ibid., 50).
Likewise, the abstraction of subject-predicate language, together with
the form that the subjectivist principle took with the distinction between
primary and secondary qualities in Galileo, Descartes, and Locke, show that
the mechanistic theory of nature also commits the “fallacy of misplaced con-
creteness” because it is likewise an abstraction from the richness of nature
and our experience of it (SMW 58). For the mechanistic view generates the
highly abstract view that nature is “vacuous reality” (PR 29): “a dull affair,
soundless, scentless, colourless; merely the hurrying of material, endlessly,
meaninglessly” (SMW 54).
Certainly, as Whitehead points out, the mechanistic view of nature
has been enormously successful in transforming social and individual life (AI
114), yet it is impossible to believe and can be supported only by substi-
tuting abstractions for the concrete reality of daily experience (SMW 54).
Given the rigorous distinction between primary and secondary qualities that
mechanism asks us to accept, we are asked to believe that the abstraction is
the truth and the concrete reality a mental construction. Among the absurd
consequences is that “nature gets credit which should in truth be reserved
for ourselves”: we possess the scent, not the rose; we constitute the song, not
FROM DUALISM TO A TWOFOLD ONTOLOGY 53
the bird. Therefore, the poets are eluded. They should really praise them-
selves and turn their verses into “odes of self-congratulation on the excel-
lency of the human mind” (Ibid.).6
The mechanistic view of nature is also, for Whitehead, an example of
Bergson’s claim that “the human intellect ‘spatializes the universe’; that it is
to say, that it tends to ignore the fluency, and to analyse the world in terms
of static categories” (PR 209). However, as we shall see, although Whitehead
endorses Bergson’s claim, he declined to follow his contemporary’s belief that
this distortion is a necessary consequence of “the intellectual apprehension
of nature” (SMW 50). What is needed, rather, is a more adequate “intel-
lectual apprehension” of it.
High abstraction is likewise present in modern philosophy to the degree
that, relying on the clarity and dominance of sense data, it interprets those
sense data as the most important ingredient in experience. Experience gets
explained in an upside-down way by trying to explain experiences that are
“emotional and purposive” on the basis of something like Humean sensory
impressions (PR 162). On Whitehead’s view, sense-perception itself is “the
triumph of abstraction in animal experience” (MT 100) and “a neglect of
essential connections” (Ibid., 101). This is so because sense-perception is the
product of conscious attention that excludes more than it includes, and not
merely other sense-data. Modern philosophers, especially Hume, changed
the ancient philosophers’ question of “What do we experience” to “What
can we experience” (AI 224). This shift produced an attitude of “strained
attention” to sense data that obscures the base of experience from which it
originates and abstracts (Ibid., 155).
For Whitehead, philosophy must criticize such abstractions and, by
overcoming the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness,” re-establish our con-
nections with nature and our moral, emotional, and purposive experience
(Ibid., 280). It is through this deeper sense of experience that we are rooted
in nature because the “individual, real facts of the past lie at the base of
our immediate experience in the present” (Ibid.). These “individual, real
facts” enter into each new occasion of experience as both its source and,
therefore, what contributes forcefully to its emotions, purposes, and that to
which it “directs its passions” (AI 280).
To sum up, what aligns Merleau-Ponty’s “new” ontology to Whitehead’s
critique of scientific materialism consists of the latter’s view that nature is
process made up of “brute facts,” its insistence on thinking within nature
as against a pensée de survol and the ontology of the object, its defense of
6. In commenting on Descartes, but with no reference to Whitehead’s Science and the Modern
World that he unknowingly but very closely duplicates, Hass states, “. . . without the reduc-
tion of perceptual experience to ‘subjective appearances before the mind,’ the sparse, colorless
world of ‘physical objects’ in mechanistic motion and causality would stand revealed as a total
abstraction” (2008, 23).
54 NATURE AND LOGOS
ism” (Ibid., 41/152). Accordingly, the “new” ontology rejects that vocabulary
and the primacy of subjectivity. Hence, in the “Working Notes” for complet-
ing what became The Visible and the Invisible, Merleau-Ponty writes, “I must
show that what one could consider as ‘psychology’ (Ph. de la Perception) is in
reality ontology” (VI 176/230) and “Results of Ph.P.—Necessity of bringing
them to ontological explicitation” (Ibid. 183/237).7
The third reason for Merleau-Ponty’s new ontological grounding of
phenomenology is his growing appreciation for the importance of Nature,8
in the light of which he came to see the opposition of lived and objec-
tive bodies as philosophically inadequate. Still dependent on the (bodily)
consciousness-object distinction, the phenomenological description displays
its deficiency by its inability to explain the relationship between the two
bodies. On the basis of the distinction between consciousness and object,
he concludes that we can never comprehend how “a given fact of the
‘objective’ order (a given cerebral lesion) could entail a given disturbance,
which seems to prove that the whole ‘consciousness’ is a function of the
objective body” (VI 200/253).9
7. “Je dois montrer que ce qu’on pourrait considérer comme ‘psychologie’ (Ph. de la Perception) est
en réalité ontologie.” “Résultats de Ph.P.—Nécessité de les amener à explicitation ontologique.”
Ted Toadvine argues in effect that more than an “ontological explicitation” is necessary and
that it is only “by pushing phenomenology to its limit that we can overcome the bifurcation
of mind and nature” (2009, 118). This is actually what Merleau-Ponty’s “explicitation” led to.
8. Preparatory remarks for the “new” ontology appear in Merleau-Ponty’s first Nature course,
but its extensive development did not begin until the autumn of 1958. During September and
October of that year, he began to write an introduction to ontology based on, among other
things, some themes from the first Nature course. His efforts eventually became “one of three
dossiers of the project soon titled Être et Monde” (ESA III: 167). These unpublished pages
plus others—it was probably in the autumn of 1957 that he began La Nature ou le monde du
silence, which was later placed in the volume, Être et Monde (ESA III: 11)—the author took
up again in March 1959, and titled the ensemble Introduction à l’ontologie. In turn, certain
aspects of this group were developed further and eventually became the first two chapters of
Le Visible et l’invisible (Ibid., 168). The unpublished texts from Merleau-Ponty’s last years and
the “original pages from the Visible itself” show the seamless continuity of Être et Monde and
Le Visible et l’invisible (Ibid.). In fact, Merleau-Ponty placed “Être et Monde” at the top of the
manuscript for the latter, and the entire manuscript was placed in a folder titled “Le Visible
et l’invisible—I. Être et Monde” (Ibid., 169 n.). (See also the working note, “Être et monde,
chap. III” at VI 198/251.)
9. “On ne comprendra jamais, à partir de cette distinction que tel fait de l’ordre ‘objectif’ (telle
lésion cérébrale) puisse entraîner tel trouble de la relation avec le monde,—trouble massif, qui
semble démontrer que la ‘conscience’ entière est fonction du corps objectif.” Elsewhere in The
Visible and the Invisible, the author expresses the inadequacy of consciousness as a foundation
for philosophy by referring to its “blindness (punctum caecum).” By analogy with the “blind
spot” of the retina where “the fibers that will permit the vision spread out into it,” he writes,
“What it [consciousness] does not see is what in it prepares the vision of the rest . . . its tie
to Being” (VI 248/301). “Ce qu’elle ne voit pas, c’est ce qui en elle prépare la vision du
reste . . . son attache à l’Être.”
56 NATURE AND LOGOS
This “new” ontology does not hold that the concepts of subject, object,
cause—and, for that matter, consciousness—are meaningless. Nor, in fact,
are they avoidable. In the case of subjectivity, for example, as the last chapter
pointed out, Merleau-Ponty holds that we cannot go back to a philosophical
era before the concept emerged because, even if we try to think of such
a time, it would always be conditioned by our consciousness of our own
subjectivity. Rather, to use one of Merleau-Ponty’s images of how sense is
made, those concepts must be decentered and recentered (RC 44/64) as
expressions of something more origin-al. Therefore, Merleau-Ponty’s “new”
10. “ce qu’on manque assurément à commencer par la subjectivité, le cogito ou la liberté: à
savoir l’être primordial, contre lequel toute réflexion s’institue, et sans lequel il n’y a plus de
philosophie.”
FROM DUALISM TO A TWOFOLD ONTOLOGY 57
ontology will have to include not only a revised notion of subjectivity, but
of objectivity as well.
That original source anterior to distinctions between the subjective
and the objective (NC 77) is Being that he calls, evidently alluding to
Lévi-Strauss, a “brute,” “wild,” (uncivilized, uncultivated) and pre-objective
Being (VI 253/307). This “wild” Being, The Visible and the Invisible tells us, is
to be recovered before “the reflexive cleavage” (95/130) of subject and object
that abstractly separates them, and even before the distinction between
perceiving and perceived.11 We become Nature and Nature becomes us (VI
185/239). “Nature in us must have some relationship with Nature outside us,
and Nature outside us must be disclosed to us by the Nature that we are”
(N 206/267).12 This disclosure occurs in a world that is an open field—in
fact, multiple intersecting fields in which “subjectivities are integrated” (VI
227/281)—for example, those that are “imaginary,” “ideological,” “mythical,”
and “linguistic” (IP 167).13
Merleau-Ponty expresses this “brute” Being as the fundamental “il y
a,” the being that lies at the intersection of the internal and the external
and therefore neither one nor the other. Brute Being and Savage Spirit are
what is truly fundamental and final; they make possible the constructa of
consciousness and their meanings (VI 97/133). Therefore, on Merleau-Ponty’s
view, we must dig beneath the sedimentation of meaning that limits us to
thinking in terms of the in-itself and for-itself, “natural being” in opposition
to “psychic being” (IP 164; italics removed).
Brute Being has some similarities to the way that Leibniz describes
expressive relationships that monads have with each other and how they dif-
fer from each other and the world as “perspectives” (VI 223/276). However,
given the ontological primacy of brute Being and the abstractness of the sub-
ject-object relationship, Merleau-Ponty interprets those expressive relation-
ships as derivative from the brute Being of which we, Nature, and everything
else comprise differential expressions. He also clearly distinguishes his view
from Leibniz’s interpretations of monads as substances in a pre-established
harmony established by God. Merleau-Ponty’s conception of brute Being is
inconsistent with a Leibnizian God furnishing the perspectives of monads
11. The unpublished notes for Merleau-Ponty’s second course on Nature state a desire to
substitute “brute or savage being and ‘foundation’ (Stiftung)” for “perceived being and percep-
tion” (de Saint Aubert 2005a, 40).
12. “Il faut . . . que la Nature en nous ait quelque rapport avec la Nature hors de nous, il
faut même que la Nature hors de nous nous soit dévoilée par la nature que nous sommes.”
13. With regard to opening up these various fields of Being, de Saint Aubert states, “From his
first articles, Merleau-Ponty wants to reopen to philosophy all sectors of life, as against Léon
Brunschvicg, and under the joint influence of Gabriel Marcel and Max Scheler” (ESA II: 49).
It is a question of opening up philosophy to nonphilosophy.
58 NATURE AND LOGOS
14. “The best formulation of the reduction is probably that given by Eugen Fink, Husserl’s as-
sistant, when he spoke of ‘astonishment’ in the face of the world” (PhP xiii/viii). “La meilleure
formule de la réduction est sans doute celle qu’en donnait Eugen Fink, l’assistant de Husserl,
quand il parlait d’un ‘étonnement’ devant le monde.” See also Sartre’s warm remembrance of
Merleau-Ponty’s astonishment in the face of “everything,” even as a child (1964, 282).
FROM DUALISM TO A TWOFOLD ONTOLOGY 59
and rocks. Only human beings are able to have this vision that extends
“right to the roots [of Being], at the basis of constituted humanity” (SNS
16/30).15 Later, in the beginning of his first Nature course at the Collège
de France, Merleau-Ponty says more about this second sense. He notes that
“Nature” in Greek derives “from the verb, phuo, that alludes to the vegetal;
the Latin word comes from nascor, to be born, to live”; it is derivative from
phuo, “the more fundamental sense” (N 3/19).16 That is because Nature is
“the autoproduction of meaning,” and
15. It is instructive to compare Cézanne’s landscapes to those of, say, Pissaro, Renoir, or Sisley’s
depictions of the surfaces of placid, bucolic spring days. One of Merleau-Ponty’s criticisms
of Sartre is that, for him, Being has no depths. See, for example, VI 68/97, and we should
remember M. Roquentin in La Nausée who, mentally plunging to the roots of the tree did
react with nausea. By contrast, Merleau-Ponty appreciates and often employs the Bergsonian
image of “plunging to the roots of Being.”
16. “En grec, le mot ‘Nature’ vient du verbe phuo, qui fait allusion au végétal; le mot latin
vient de nascor, naître, vivre . . . il est prélevé sur le premier sens, plus fondamental.”
17. Merleau-Ponty argues against Auguste Comte’s picture of Nature as eternal and self-identical.
Instead, we have “the emergence of a history—or, as Whitehead said, of a ‘process’ of Nature”
(RC 66/96).”
18. “Il y a nature partout où il y a une vie qui a un sens, mais où, cependant, il n’y a pas
de pensée. . . . Est Nature le primordial, c’est-à-dire le non-construit, le non-institué; d’où
l’idée d’une éternité de la Nature . . . d’une solidité. La Nature est un objet énigmatique, un
objet qui n’est pas tout à fait objet; elle n’est pas tout à fait devant nous. Elle est notre sol,
non pas ce qui est devant, mais ce qui nous porte.” Although these are auditors’s notes, this
passage is a good example of others written by Merleau-Ponty in which he uses “nature” and
“Nature” interchangeably.
60 NATURE AND LOGOS
words naturalism, humanism, and theism have been emptied of all plain mean-
ing because they continually blend with each other (N 135/180–181). The
task of contemporary philosophers is, therefore, according to the first dossier
of Être et Monde, “to remake philosophical speech touching Nature, man,
and God, on condition of being truly radical” (ESA III: 172).19
Third, to achieve this fundamental clarification, we must articulate a
concept of Being from within the process of Nature that we inhabit because
we cannot possess the visible without being possessed by it. That is, we are
“of it” (VI 134–35/177–78). It is a question of a Being in which we are
“encompassed [englobé]” (OE 178/59; cf. 182/71–72), and which, therefore,
contrary to Descartes, Kant, and Sartre, neither is arrayed before us nor
can our experience of it be formed outside it. Hence, Merleau-Ponty rejects
explanations as Descartes would conceive them and the ontology of the
understanding based on attempts to purify our ideas to rid them of their
“confusions.” This philosophy of pure ideas, as Merleau-Ponty points out, is
necessarily doubt-ridden and afflicted with a “certain strabism” (N 127/171),
a squinting designed to shield the cogito from the “confusions.”
Merleau-Ponty’s position on this matter is thus identical to Whitehead’s
rejection of matter and “psychic additions.” Since thinking takes place “from
the midst of Being” (VI 114/154), ontology becomes “Intra-ontology” (Ibid.,
227/280), and “the ontological problem” becomes “the problem of the rela-
tionship between object and subject” (N 135/182). There is, in fact, nothing
more Whiteheadian than saying, “Even the action of thinking is caught
up in the push and shove of being. . . . Time and thought are entangled
with each other” (S 14/21).20 As such, it demands “a sort of hyper-reflection
(sur-réflexion) that also includes itself and the ways that it influences the
perceived. In this inclusiveness, Merleau-Ponty holds, it would continue to
keep in view “the brute thing and the brute perception” (VIV 38/61; cf.
S 161/204).
Since Being is the source of both consciousness and its objects, the
world, or Nature, does not produce consciousness or the other way around.
Both are “total parts of the same Being” (OE 162/17), and so Nature and
consciousness do not stand outside each other in causal relations. Rather,
they emerge simultaneously (VI 250/304). To express this simultaneity,
Merleau-Ponty again makes use of Claudel’s concept of “co-naissance” in
which the concepts of birth (naissance) and knowledge (connaissance) are
joined together. However, now he applies the concept more widely to the
19. “. . . refaire une parole philosophique touchant la Nature, l’homme et Dieu à condition
d’être vraiment radical.”
20. “Même l’action de penser est prise dans la poussée de l’être. . . . Temps et pensée sont
enchevêtrées l’un dans l’autre.”
62 NATURE AND LOGOS
itself all these different environing worlds with their modifications and
their pasts.” It is “the life-world of humanity, the all-embracing community
wherein mutual understanding is possible” (Husserl 1973, 163).
The Earth in this primordial sense is not the object of science, an
object conceived as being at rest or in motion,23 because it has not yet been
“converted into a thing and object” (Tilliette, 166/227). It can only be an
object from the perspective of some observer (IP 173–74), a relativization
that would make us forget our “terrestrial roots that nevertheless nourish
everything else” (RC 122/169). And since it is not primordially a relativized
planet conceived from the point of view of a pensée de survol, for Husserl
(1973, 163), its Offenheit must also differ from the Unendlichkeit attributed
to the universe in seventeenth-century science (Tilliette 167/230).24 Earth,
Husserl states, is “pre-object” (Ibid.), the world of pre-scientific experience,
the pre-Copernican Earth of our “primordial contact, the ground of experi-
ence,” “pure fact, the cradle, the basis, and the ground of all experience”
(McCormick and Elliston 1982, 230).
Offenheit, as Merleau-Ponty sees it, does not amount to a posture or
a thetic attitude, as in one sense of the “natural attitude.” Nor is it an
ensemble of meanings constituted in consciousness, or the result of any
acts. Rather, it follows “analytically,” in Kant’s sense of the term, from the
fact that someone is “of” Being—“il en est” (VI 135/178)—and belongs to
it.25 Therefore, no action has to take place to establish our openness to
Being. To think otherwise would presuppose an original separation between
us and Nature, and therefore the return of the objectifying perception of a
spectator. Rather, this openness is an ontological condition of carnal being.
Offenheit is in fact a bilateral relationship in which we are open to
the world because the world is open to us. On the one hand, within Being
perception bears within itself its own transcendence inasmuch as the look
incorporates the sentient in the sensible and searches for itself in the visible”
(VI 131, n. 1/173n.). Yet on the other hand, this can be so only because
perceptual objects and their fields are complicit in our experience. Their
“can be experienced”—what makes them sensible—makes them available to
us, and on Merleau-Ponty’s view, philosophers such as Descartes and Sartre
offer us no way to understand this original availability of the world to us
and our corresponding openness to it (NC 233).
26. “Il faut reprendre et développer l’intentionnalité fungierende ou latente qui est l’intentionnalité
intérieure à l’être.”
27. It would be interesting to know whether Merleau-Ponty knew George Santayana’s Scepticism
and Animal Faith and, if so, whether he borrowed the last two words of its title.
28. “Nous voyons les choses mêmes, le monde est cela que nous voyons . . . elles [ces formules]
renvoient à une assise profonde d’‘opinions’ muettes impliquées dans notre vie.”
29. “la Nature dont nous avons parlé (ce ne peut être évidemment que la Nature perçue par
nous)”; “nulle forme d’être ne peut être posée sans référence à la subjectivité”; and “la vie
perceptive de mon corps . . . est présupposée dans toute notion d’objet et c’est elle qui ac-
complit l’ouverture première au monde.”
FROM DUALISM TO A TWOFOLD ONTOLOGY 65
30. “ ‘To perceive is to question,’ writes Merleau-Ponty in the spring of 1959, speaking of an
“interrogation that is faith (instead of nihilating the in itself),” and adding, symmetrically,
that “faith is interrogation” (ESA III: 56, citing the unpublished Notes pour choses faites
[March-April 1959]). However, it should be noted that interrogation is hardly a new theme
for Merleau-Ponty. In fact, the last paragraph of the Preface of Phenomenology of Perception
states clearly that philosophy must “interrogate itself in the same way that it does all areas of
knowledge” (PhP xxi/xvi).
66 NATURE AND LOGOS
“confusions” and breaks through to clear and distinct thought, but what
appears in and through those “confusions”—the world that we inhabit.
Merleau-Ponty further objects to idealistic systems because they also
snuff out philosophical astonishment, and because they smother “metaphysi-
cal consciousness” (SNS 94/166). They do this by affirming an absolute that
would destroy contingency and negate our own opinions and communica-
tions with others, whereas the truth is that it is exactly those opinions and
communications that form the basis for diverse beliefs in an absolute to
begin with. And finally, he states, regardless of appearances, a metaphysical
system has only ever been “a language (and in this respect it has been pre-
cious) for translating a Cartesian, Spinozist, or Leibnizian way of situating
oneself in relation to being” (S 158/199).31
Standing over against systematic thought, perceptual faith, inextricably
rooted in contingency like the Offenheit that it modulates, is pre-positional.
Therefore, it also cannot be reflectively constituted by consciousness. This
fact raises the issue of the relationship of perception and intellection that
appears in Merleau-Ponty’s earlier phenomenology. In particular, what is
the connection between perception and concepts in the “new” ontology?
A full answer to this crucial question cannot take shape without a detailed
examination of his interpretation of the Stoics’ logos endiathetos and logos
proforikos, but provisionally the following points can be made.
First, references to a conceptless perceptual faith and its Offenheit are
not difficult to find. For example, in Eye and Mind, Merleau-Ponty states
that since color is not, as Descartes thought, merely an ornament, it provides
us with “a deeper opening upon things . . . a conceptless universality and a
conceptless opening upon things (OE 172/43). Further, he also tells us that,
if “Nature is an all-encompassing something, one cannot think it by starting
with concepts” (N 87/122). This does not rule out ending with them, but
they cannot be the point of departure for the “new” ontology. In addition,
given the rejection of the ontology of the object, Being itself cannot be an
object captured in a concept in the way that tables and chairs can be; hence,
one value of modern painting is that it gives us a “conceptless presentation
of universal Being” (OE 182/71).
That said, however, it is still not the case that Merleau-Ponty sought
to develop a conceptless ontology. After all, at several places, and not least
in his course titles, he speaks of “the concept of Nature.” Rather, the key to
understanding his negative remarks about concepts is that his target is almost
31. “. . . un langage (et il était précieux à ce titre) pour traduire une manière cartésienne,
spinoziste ou leibnizienne de se situer par rapport à l’être.” This view is quite similar to William
James’s argument (1928), that philosophical thinking is a personal expression of the thinker.
See especially Chapter I, “The Types of Thinking.”
68 NATURE AND LOGOS
always classical rationalism, from Descartes passing through Kant and Hegel,
to Brunschvicg. They employ concepts in the attempt at an intellectual pos-
session of Being, which is to say by turning it into an object distinct from
the subject as knower—as with Kantian Begriffe, whether a priori or empirical
(RC 73/104). Both presuppose an inner-outer distinction and function by
being applied to the manifold of sensory intuition in such a way as to produce
determinative judgments about objects of sense experience. In other words,
this type of concept is in the service of the ontology of the object (N 83/117).
This is why Merleau-Ponty writes in the unpublished “Notes de
Travail” for what ended up being Le Visible et l’invisible, “Replace the
notions of concept, idea, mind, [and] representation by the notions of dimen-
sions, articulation, level, hinges, pivots, [and] configuration” (ESA III: 247,
n. 2).32 All of the notions that he sees as replacements stress our chiasmatic
unity with the flesh as opposed to separation. In that regard, Merleau-Ponty
perceives a convergence between his “new” ontology and contemporary sci-
ence, and in that context also he rejects Kantian concepts as inapplicable
to both relativity theory and quantum mechanics because these theories
are inconsistent with a constituting consciousness, the observer, standing
apart from and unifying a separate manifold of sensory data (N 96–97/134).
We can also note that, at the beginning of his second course on “The
Concept of Nature,” Merleau-Ponty writes that he sees his studies of Nature
as “an introduction to the definition of being” (RC 88/125), and defini-
tions obviously require concepts. Further, in “Everywhere and Nowhere,”
in the course of discussing relationships between philosophy and history, he
expresses the need for “a theory of concepts or significations” for interpreting
philosophical ideas (S 130/163). And later in the same essay, he observes
appreciatively that “Husserl had understood: our philosophical problem is
to open up the concept without destroying it. There is something irre-
placeable in Western thought. The attempt to conceive and the rigor of
the concept remain exemplary, even if they never exhaust what exists” (S
138/174).33 Finally, although perceptual faith might be conceptless, ontol-
ogy cannot do without concepts because, for Merleau-Ponty, it has to be
“indirect, not going straight to being, but to it through beings” (RC 88/125;
cf. N 134/180), and the account of beings requires concepts.34 Thus, for
32. “Remplacer les notions de concept, idée, esprit, représentation par les notions de dimensions,
articulation, niveau, charnières, pivots, configuration.”
33. “Husserl l’avait compris: notre problème philosophique est d’ouvrir le concept sans le
détruire. Il y a quelque chose d’irremplaçable dans la pensée occidentale: l’effort de concevoir,
la rigueur du concept restent exemplaires, même s’ils n’épuisent jamais ce qui existe.”
34. In this respect, Luca Van Zago has nicely written, “It has to be an ontology that takes
seriously into account the fact that the body ‘is of’ the world, and therefore calls for concepts
which, rather than emphasising the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, try to
uncover a more primordial realm in which such a distinction is not (yet) operative” (2003, 66).
FROM DUALISM TO A TWOFOLD ONTOLOGY 69
example, he admits that it is difficult to think the unity of mind and body,
the sensory life and the perceptible, but he has only managed to formulate
his “first concepts” to express that unity (VI 137/180). As we shall see, the
utility of Whitehead’s process metaphysics in this context is precisely its
ability to open up concepts without destroying them in order to develop
an indirect ontology.
The phrase “indirect ontology” comes from Maurice Blondel’s L’Être et
les êtres. Its subtitle, which could not have failed to attract Merleau-Ponty’s
interest, is Essai d’ontologie concrète et intégrale.35 Merleau-Ponty uses Blondel’s
distinction between Being and beings to criticize what he characterizes
as Heidegger’s “direct” ontology that seeks to go directly to Being, to an
undifferentiated phusis before it is particularized in individuals.36 This is a
critique that appears at several places in Merleau-Ponty’s published and
unpublished writings, and even at the very end of his lectures on Heidegger
in the course titled “Philosophy Today” (NC 148). According to his own
understanding, “expression must be indirect, i.e., that we must show Being
through the Winke de la vie, de la science, etc.” (NC 148).37 Failing to do
this, Merleau-Ponty holds, quickly leads to silence (RC 111/156) and, as
he states in La Nature et le monde du silence, one “does not write books to
teach silence” (ESA III: 116).
Merleau-Ponty, by contrast, wants to keep attention focused on the
fundamental while “in contact with beings and in the exploration of regions
of Being,” science and art included (RC 112/156). His “indirect ontology,”
which is “alone conformed with being” (VI 179/233), amounts to “recogni-
tion . . . of a being that always flees when one wants to press it: and which
gives itself when one does not look for it. . . . [O]ne cannot say anything of
it directly, as of an object—It is grasped only indirectly, starting with beings”
(ESA III: 114, n. 3, citing Être et monde).38 And it is Nature that includes
35. Both philosophers wanted to “pry out the ontological cipher of each experience” because
“the access to ‘Being’ must pass through beings and ceaselessly lead back to them” (ESA III:
122). In addition, Merleau-Ponty’s unpublished preparatory notes for his second Nature course
show that both thinkers sought a relationship between Being and beings that neither identi-
fied the two nor placed them in external relationships apart from each other (ESA III: 129).
36. Heidegger claims that “[t]he Greeks did not learn what physis is through natural phenomena,
but the other way around: it was through a fundamental poetic and intellectual experience of
being that they discovered what they had to call physis” (1959, 14).
37. “. . . il [Heidegger] cherche une expression directe de l’être dont il montre par ailleurs qu’il
n’est pas susceptible d’expression directe. Il faudrait tenter l’expression indirecte, i.e. faire voir
l’Être à travers les Winke de la vie, de la science, etc.” See also his discussion at RC 112/156
about Heidegger’s search for “a direct expression of the fundamental at the very moment that he
was in the act of demonstrating that it was impossible” “une expression directe du fondamental,
au moment même où il était en train de montrer qu’elle est impossible.”
38. “L’ontologie: reconnaissance . . . d’un être qui fuit toujours quand on veut le presser: et
qui se donne quand on ne le cherche pas . . . on ne peut rien dire directement, comme d’un
objet—Il n’est saisi qu’indirectement, à partir des étants.”
70 NATURE AND LOGOS
39. La Nature “est plus qu’une préface à l’ontologie . . . [car] elle nous apprend que ce qui est
au-delà des étants n’est pas d’un autre ordre, n’en est pas la négation.” The passage is from the
unpublished notes for La Nature, Spring 1957.
40. “Aussi l’opposition radicale, tracée par Heidegger, entre la science ontique et la philosophie
ontologique n’est-elle valable que dans le cas de la science cartésienne, qui pose la Nature
comme un objet étalé devant nous et non dans le cas d’une science moderne, qui met en
question son propre objet, et sa relation à l’objet.”
41. De Saint Aubert shows that, from 1945 to1958, Merleau-Ponty did not read much of
Heidegger, toward whose philosophy he displayed a “superficial knowledge” and a “generally
favorable but vague appreciation” (ESA III, 103). In 1958, though, a considerable change in
attitude occurred. With a reduction of his teaching obligations at the Collège de France, he
FROM DUALISM TO A TWOFOLD ONTOLOGY 71
was able to face directly the ontological implications of his work on Nature. For this project,
he had to read Heidegger seriously. He purchased a copy of Sein und Zeit in 1957 or 1958,
and this copy (from his personal library) shows that he read the first fourteen sections and
then sections 25–27. His other personal copies of Heidegger’s works show some indications of
passages read, but virtually no annotation (ESA III, 108–109). For a list of all those copies,
see ESA III, 108 n. 8. In fact, 80 percent of Merleau-Ponty’s references to his thought occur
in texts from 1958–1961 (Ibid., 104). However, by this time the main themes of his ontol-
ogy of Nature were well formulated, and he read Heidegger too late and too hurriedly (Ibid.,
108–109). Further, in the 1959 course at the Collège de France, he subjected Heidegger to
severe criticism and from 1959 to 1961, he reviewed Heidegger’s writings “with no real analysis
of precise texts” (ESA III: 112). The most prominent of very few exceptions of Heideggerean
texts read seems to have been Merleau-Ponty’s much-annotated copy of Identität und Differenz,
but those notes were not made until the beginning of 1961—after the course on Heidegger
(Ibid., 141). For more details, see ESA III: 105ff.
42. The text, written in September or October 1958, is from Introduction à l’ontologie, which
became part of Être et monde.
43. The poem, cited by Heidegger in Satz vom Grund (Pfullingen: Verlag Günther Neske,
1957), 68, runs as follows:
Die Ros ist ohne warum; sie blühet, weil sie blühet,
Sie acht nicht ihrer selbst, fragt nicht, ob man sie siehet.
Merleau-Ponty quotes the poem at NC 107 and then adds: “For Heidegger, being is its own
possible, i.e. there is a continuous auto-creation of the rose and that is the Rose-sein—the
perseverance, the redeployment of the rose” (Ibid., 107–108). “Chez Heidegger, l’être est son
propre possible, i.e. il y a une auto-création continuée de la rose et c’est là le Rose-sein—la
persévérance, le redéploiement de la rose.”
72 NATURE AND LOGOS
44. Heidegger’s description of returning to his high school building is a clear case cited by
Merleau-Ponty (VI 115, n. 2/154, n. 1; cf. 174/228 and NC 105–106). Heidegger records how
the building did not appear as an object so much as it did in terms of its odors and touching
sensations. “You can, as it were, smell the being of this building in your nostrils” (1959, 33).
In other words, the individual style of the building, the unity of the visible and the invis-
ible, expresses its essence. Essences for Merleau-Ponty are verbal; they consist of the styles of
things, the manner in which they exist, rather than “the irreducible kernel of everything that
we experience” (Robert 2005, 359). Essences are “the Sosein and not the Sein” (VI 109/148).
45. Carnality lacks ontological significance for the early Heidegger, as it is apparently “only
a modality of the In-der-Welt-Sein” (ESA III: 198). De Saint Aubert also points out that
Merleau-Ponty’s three years of courses at the Collège de France on Nature “confirmed his
feeling that Heidegger passed by the specificity of modern science” (Ibid., 96) because of the
latter’s equation of science with “calculability and measurability” (Ibid., 97–98).
III
*With apologies to Samuel Butler, whose autobiographical novel of the same title eloquently
illustrated for the nineteenth century what Merleau-Ponty claimed of the early twentieth,
namely that it was an epoch of absolutes, including the “moral gold standard” of “family and
marriage [that] were the good, even if they secreted hatred and rebellion” (S 226/287).
1. Elsewhere, Merleau-Ponty speaks of “the pre-existence of natural being, always already
there, which is the very problem of the philosophy of Nature” (RC 79/111). “la préexistence
de l’être naturel, toujours déjà-là, qui est le problème même de la philosophie de la Nature.”
The English translation of “le problème même” is “the proper concern.” We have changed it
back to Merleau-Ponty’s own wording.
73
74 NATURE AND LOGOS
2. See ESA I: 172, n. 3 for many references to unpublished writings, and also his “Préface”
to A. Hesnard, L’oeuvre et l’esprit de Freud (Paris: Payot, 1960), reprinted and cited in PC II:
280: “[T]he other, who is born by taking from me or by expansion of me, as Eve is born from
the side of Adam.” “[A]utrui, qui naît par prélèvement sur moi ou par expansion de moi,
comme Ève naquit d’une côte d’Adam.” After discussing Merleau-Ponty’s references to the
“glorious” and “eternal” body, de Saint Aubert remarks, “Merleau-Ponty’s preference seems to
go toward the Johannite flesh, that of remaining one in the other, of transubstantial consumption
[manducation]” (ESA I: 172).
3. We owe this reference to Jocelyn Dunphy-Blomfield. At VI 131, n.1/173n, Merleau-Ponty
states that the body and things are both models for each other, and at 255/309 he describes
the flesh of the world as “indivision of this sensible Being that I am.”
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH 75
4. Hass provides a rapid summary and word counts of these three meanings in an appendix
titled “The Multiple Meanings of Flesh in Merleau-Ponty’s Late Writings” (2008, 201–202).
On his reading, they are “carnality,” “reversibility,” and “an element of Being.” As explained
below, we construe the second meaning a bit differently and, in considerably greater detail
because our main interest, unlike his, is Nature.
5. “Relation to the other = coupling of a body to a body . . . = projection-introjection,” says
the unpublished Notes de lecture pour Le visible et l’invisible (Autumn 1960) (ESA I: 249n.).
Elsewhere, Merleau-Ponty argues for the necessity of “a theory of the libidinal body” (RC
129/178). See also N 210/272–73 where he states, “the corporeal schema, the esthesiological
body, the flesh” shows us that “the body as the power of Einfühlung is already desire, libido,
projection-introjection.” Although Merleau-Ponty holds that sexuality is “relationship with the
other, and not only with another body” (230/292), it is a serious deficiency in his account
that he does not make any conceptual distinction between desire and love. See, for example,
PhP 154/180, 166/194, and IP 216–22. He sees sexuality as “a dimension outside of which
nothing remains” (N 282/350–51). For further discussion of this point, see ESA I: 180 and
Hass (2008, 197–98).
6. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, On Historical Principles, 1684. Cf. VI 253/307: the
“integration” of the in-itself and the for-itself “takes place not in absolute consciousness, but
in Being in promiscuity.” See also N 279/346–47.
76 NATURE AND LOGOS
7. “des computeurs du monde, qui ont le don du visible comme on dit que l’homme inspiré
a le don des langues.”
8. Merleau-Ponty finds his inspiration for this second meaning in Bachelard’s psychoanalysis
of elements. See VI 267/320 and, for a full explication of this connection, ESA I: 255–70.
The unpublished papers written a bit before and during the writing of the last chapter of The
Visible and the Invisible expressly acknowledge Bachelard as the source (ESA I: 258).
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH 77
the old term “element,” in the sense it was used to speak of water,
air, earth, and fire, that is, in the sense of a general thing, midway
between the spatio-temporal individual and the idea, a sort of
incarnate principle that brings a style of being wherever there is a
fragment of being. (Ibid.)10
9. “C’est cette Visibilité, cette généralité du Sensible en soi, cet anonymat inné de
Moi-même . . . il n’y a pas de nom en philosophie traditionelle pour designer cela.” See also
IP 164.
10. “. . . le vieux terme d’ «élément», au sens où on l’employait pour parler de l’eau, de
l’air, de la terre et du feu, c’est-à-dire au sens d’une chose générale, à mi-chemin de l’individu
spatio-temporel et de l’idée, sorte de principe incarné qui importe un style d’être partout où
il s’en trouve une parcelle.”
78 NATURE AND LOGOS
11. These “lower degrees of constitution” are what precede and form a basis for idealizing acts
that, for Merleau-Ponty, are all that Kant is really interested in, particularly those “idealiza-
tions that are science and philosophy” (N 71/103; cf. IP 209). Husserl does pay attention to
these “lower degrees of constitution.” See, among other places, Formal and Transcendental Logic,
316–17). For the substantial differences between Kant and Husserl on synthesis and constitu-
tion, see Gurwitsch (1966, 154f.).
12. Merleau-Ponty distinguishes four different senses of the invisible: (1) what is not now
seen, but could be “hidden things” or hidden “aspects of the thing”; (2) that “relative to the
visible” that does not itself appear as a thing—“the existentials of the visible, its dimensions,
its non-figurative inner framework”; (3) “what exists only as tactile or kinesthetically, etc.”;
and (4) “the lekta, the Cogito” (VI 257/311).
80 NATURE AND LOGOS
nancy” of Being to emphasize its role as ultimate ground for the possibilities
of things. Such language transcends the perceptual meaning of depth and
invokes its ontological meaning. It is what he means when he states that
the painter seeks the internal animation of the visible “under the name of
depth, of space, of color” (OE 182/71), and when he endorses Giacometti’s
claim that “Cézanne looked for depth all his life” (OE 179/64; SNS 16/28).
This is a search for far more than an accurate pictorial representation of
depth perception. It is a search for “l’être brut” or, as noted above, “the
depth of inhuman nature on which man is installed.” In other words, “the
ontological rehabilitation of the sensible” (S 167/211) amounts to restoring
the depths of Being concealed by the “horizontal world” (Être et monde), the
flat projection of geometrical space in Renaissance art (ESA I: 222). In L’Œil
et l’esprit, he goes on to add that, even at this distance from Renaissance
art and Descartes, “depth is always new,” and it is something for which
we, like Cézanne, must search all our lives (179/64). And certainly, in the
phrase “always new,” we can hear an echo of Lucien Herr’s description of
nature’s being there “from the first day”—“brute” or “wild” Nature before
distinctions of subject and object, culture and nature.
Merleau-Ponty finds his greatest inspiration for this search with certain
writers and modern painters, and it is easy to see why he quotes approv-
ingly Paul Klee’s remark from his 1924 Conférence de Iéna, “. . . our heart
throbs to bring us closer to the depths” (OE 187/85).13 Likewise, in his
1961 lecture course on “Cartesian Ontology and Ontology Today,” in the
section on “Fundamental Thought in Art,” he cites Cézanne’s statement,
“What I am trying to translate for you is more mysterious, and is entangled
with the very roots of being, with the impalpable source of sensations” (NC
167).14 Perceptual overlapping, depth, and envelopment make up the prin-
cipal contours of visibility and tangibility in and through which our flesh
is self-configuring in all of its activities and projects.
13. “Quant à nous, notre coeur bat pour nous amener vers les profondeurs.” A slightly fuller
citation occurs at NC 57 n.: “Quant à nous, notre coeur bat pour nous emmener vers les pro-
fondeurs, les insondables profondeurs du Souffle primordial” (“to the depths, the unfathomable
depths of the primordial Breath”). Here, Klee sounds remarkably like Schelling, as we shall
see below, and Merleau-Ponty refers to the latter on the same page.
14. “Ce que j’essaie de vous traduire est plus mystérieux, s’enchevêtre aux racines mêmes de
l’être, à la source impalpable des sensations.” The sentence appears in J. Gasquet’s Cézanne.
This notion of entanglement is also called “overlapping,” of which we will see much more in
terms of the third definition of flesh. Merleau-Ponty takes the English word overlapping from
two sources. The first is p. 59 of Whitehead’s The Concept of Nature (cited at N 115/157).
The second source is Rudolf Arnheim’s Art and Visual Perception, A Psychology of the Creative
Eye. Merleau-Ponty’s unpublished papers show that he took “almost 120 pages of notes” on
this text as he prepared to write L’Œil et l’esprit (ESA III: 146).
82 NATURE AND LOGOS
Another way to say this is to recur to the concept of the Gestalt, the
ontological importance of which is that it replaces the Sartrean dichotomy of
Being and nothingness. In an ontology of flesh, they become “its two abstract
properties.” The ontological Gestalt of flesh implies that we form part of
“humanity as a horizon of Being, a surrounding horizon just as things sur-
round us” (VI 237/290–91). The ontological meaning of a Gestalt therefore
transcends the way that it describes the perceptual constitution of a visual,
behavioral field and is anterior to consciousness and cognition (VI 206/259).
To put it another way, Being is the invisible background of the visible, like
a Gestalt of a figure perceived against “a ground that is not visible in the
sense the figure is” (VI 246/300), but which nonetheless encompasses and
permeates the visible. This ground, as we have seen, is depth and latency
of meaning, a “lining of invisibility” that pertains to every visible thing
(OE 187/85) and results in there being, as noted in Chapter I, “no other
meaning than carnal, figure and ground” (VI 265/319).
In addition to art, imagination and desire are also dimensions of
experience in which Merleau-Ponty discusses the ontological significance
of depth. Much of his thought in this regard derives from Bachelard (see
ESA I: 259ff.), as when he speaks of the “imaginary texture of the real” (OE
165/24). Or, as he states it in Être et monde, “The imaginary = the unfelt
stuff of the senses, the ontological milieu that conditions them (Bachelard)”
(ESA I: 258).15 Desire is also, like the imaginary, an important dimension
of latency in experience, and an example of the invisible. Since desire, like
perception and feeling generally, is one of the “confusions” through which
our flesh is implicated in that of others, it also possesses depths well known
and much discussed ever since Nietzsche and Freud. Dreams, desire, and
Eros are closely interwoven, and they have an obvious close connection
with the imaginary. This is a connection elaborated through much literature,
especially by Proust, who had such a profound impact on Merleau-Ponty, in
painting that displays “its oneiric universe of carnal essences” (OE 169/35),
and perhaps especially in psychoanalysis.
For example, and one that ties together the preceding paragraph with
earlier remarks on dimensionality, Freud’s case of the Wolf Man concerns
the triple signification of yellow present in “the memory screen of a yel-
low-striped butterfly,” “yellow-streaked pears,” and which, in turn, bring to
mind a young maid because “Grusha” is both her name and the Russian
name for “pear” (VI 240/293–94). For Merleau-Ponty, this connection shows
that psychoanalytic “associations” are in reality “ ‘rays’ of time and of the
15. “L’imaginaire = l’étoffe insensible des sens, le milieu ontologique qui les conditionne
(Bachelard).”
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH 83
16. “un certain jeu du papillon dans le champ coloré, un certain Wesen (verbal) du papillon
et de la poire,—qui communique avec le Wesen langagier Grouscha (en vertu de la force
d’incarnation du langage).”
17. “The analysis shows in addition that the maid spread open her legs like the butterfly its
wings. Hence there is an overdetermination of the association” (VI 240/294). “L’analyse montre
en outre que la bonne a ouvert ses jambes comme le papillon ses ailes. Donc il y a surdéter-
mination de l’association.”
84 NATURE AND LOGOS
relationship with his own mother for understanding this text. However, the
subject is more complicated than that, as de Saint Aubert shows.18
Just after defining flesh as an element, Merleau-Ponty adds that it is
not “a fact or a sum of facts [simple location], and yet adherent to location
and to the now” (Ibid., 139–40/184). This statement is both an echo of
Claudel’s influence and an index to the fact that depth has a temporal as
well as spatial meaning. In Art poétique, the latter states, “From time to
time, a man lifts his head, sniffs, listens, considers, recognizes his position:
he thinks, he sighs, and, drawing his watch from the pocket lodged against
his chest, looks at the time. Where am I? and What time is it?—such is the
inexhaustible question from us to the world” (cited at VI 121/161; transla-
tion altered).19
Claude Lefort, editor of Le Visible et l’invisible, observes that this pas-
sage appears earlier (VI 103/140), and states that this is “evidence of the
unfinished state of the manuscript” (VI 121, n. 5/161, n. 1). It is obvious
that the manuscript is unfinished; however, the explanation of the repetition
is more complicated and ontologically important than that. The Claudel text
is reproduced in the Passivity lectures (IP 256) and many times throughout
various unpublished writings—including at least thirteen in the preparation
of The Visible and the Invisible (ESA III: 54, n. 5). Clearly the text is sig-
nificant for Merleau-Ponty, and it invites us to pursue further the theme of
temporal depth, which is connected with the meaning of verticality.
Verticality, like depth, is an equivocal term. One meaning is the literal
physical sense. Here Merleau-Ponty stresses the importance of the upright
body for perception, as when he says, in reference to Paul Klee, that vision
brings us not only what is face to face, directly in front of us, but also what
is below and above us—(OE 187/85–86; cf. VI 138/182 and S 20/28–29). It
also brings us others, and the upright body is therefore crucial for intercorpo-
reity. The other is implicated in the same flesh, revealed in “the fungierende
body, flesh, esthesiology” (ESA II: 153, n. 1), as Être et monde puts it. The
experience of the vertical body is “the experience of the other,” and this
18. Sartre’s memorial article for Merleau-Ponty makes two well known and frequently cited
claims: “Merleau told me one day, in 1947, that he was never cured of an incomparable child-
hood” (1964, 190) and that “he suffered from his relationships with others: everything had
been too beautiful too soon; the Nature that first enveloped him was the Goddess Mother, his
mother, whose eyes gave him to see what he saw; she was the alter ego” (Ibid., 197). However,
despite this incontestable influence, Claudel’s Cinq grandes Odes is equally important here: “Your
sources are not sources at all. The same element!/Primary matter! It is the mother, I say, that
I have to have!” (ESA I: 263).
19. “De moment à autre, un homme redresse la tête, renifle, écoute, considère, reconnaît sa
position: il pense, il soupire, et, tirant sa montre de la poche logée contre sa côte, regarde
l’heure. Où suis-je? et Quelle heure est-il? telle est de nous au monde la question inépuisable.”
The English translation for the last part of this citation runs, “such is the inexhaustible question
turning from us to the world.” “Turning” (tournant) does not appear in the French.
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH 85
is inconsistent with the “bifurcation of the I think and the body considered
as mechanical” (Ibid.).
The second meaning of verticality is a contrast with “horizontal”
being, interpreted in the ontology of the object as the flat projection of
perspectives by a consciousness as spectator. Vertical being is that which we
inhabit, and this sense is equivalent to flesh understood as an element of
Being. Therefore, Merleau-Ponty’s unpublished lecture notes on Descartes,
found on his desk the evening of the day he died, refer to Descartes’s “phi-
losophy of objective, horizontal being, the contrary of our philosophy of
vertical Being” (ESA II: 23).
The third meaning of verticality is temporal depth that has, for
Merleau-Ponty, both an experiential significance as well as deeper ontologi-
cal import. Experientially, much of Merleau-Ponty’s inspiration comes from
Proust who, he thinks, demonstrates that “[t]ime is always lost” (NC 197),
that time cannot be mere succession because it is “simultaneously absence,
dispossession, and by the same token, possession, each man seated on his
own pyramid of time” (Ibid., 49).20
Any given upsurge of time in the present contributes to the temporal
depth of this pyramid, but not by pushing off into the past “the whole pre-
ceding series” conceived as passive. Rather, time is self-constituting—always
to be construed from the perspective of someone who belongs to it. The
present encompasses us. It cannot be grasped “in the forceps of attention”
(VI 195/249),21 and Merleau-Ponty asserts the same paradox with respect
to time as he did with Being: it is “already there,” without us, but cannot
be understood apart from our experience of it. If time were completely
objective, something external always present to us, it would not account
for the experience of time passing. On the other hand, if time were purely
subjective, it would cut off the percipient from the world to which he is
open and in which he is implicated.
Since time encompasses us, the “intentional threads” of a retentive and
protentive consciousness diagrammed by Husserl (1964, 49) are now seen
as the “emanations and idealizations of one fabric, differentiations of the
fabric” of flesh (VI 231/284). Moreover, as noted in the previous chapter,
since they are differentiations, the present consists not of an absolute, but
only partial, coincidence with Being, as Merleau-Ponty likes to cite Bergson.
The deeper ontological import of temporal depth consists of its con-
nection with brute being. The latter is termed “the vertical world” (VI
20. “à la fois absence, dépossession, et par là même, possession, chaque homme assis sur une
pyramide de temps qui est à lui.” The same thought appears at PhP 393/450 and S 14/21.
21. This text, written a little over a year before L’Œil et l’esprit, contains an echo of that later
text’s reference to Paul Klee’s journal entry, later written on his tombstone: “I am ungraspable
in immanence” (OE 188/87).
86 NATURE AND LOGOS
200/254), and this verticality is described as “extended into the past, exis-
tential eternity, savage mind [esprit sauvage]” (Ibid., 175/229). An ontology
of flesh, as against that of the object, articulates that vertical world in terms
of “horizons, dimensionality, Inscription, [and] epochal Memory” (NC 392).
THE CHIASM
So far, we have been examining two of the three meanings (at least) of flesh
in Merleau-Ponty’s “new” ontology. The first was carnality—my flesh and
the flesh of the world—and the second was flesh as an element of Being—
which he understands principally through the overlapping notions of depth
and verticality, both spatially and temporally. The third meaning is flesh as
chiasm, and it is under this broad and complex notion that Merleau-Ponty
attempts to explain the functionings of flesh—that is, how all that has been
discussed thus far actually occurs.
The original meanings of chiasm are two and well known: the rhe-
torical figure according to which the word order in the first part of some
coupling is reversed in the second part, and the physiological meaning of
bodily structures that intersect and cross over. For the literary meaning,
Merleau-Ponty is indebted principally to Paul Valéry, and it is in the course
of discussing the latter, in “L’homme et l’adversité” (1951) (S 231/294),22 that
he first uses the word chiasm (ESA II: 169). However, Valéry himself extends
the chiasm to the perceptual life and intercorporeity as the crossing over of
self and other, as Merleau-Ponty will later.23
The most obvious example of the physiological meaning of the chiasm
is the optic chiasm—the brain structure in which the two optic nerves inter-
sect and at which half of the fibers of each nerve cross over to the other
hemisphere. Merleau-Ponty was much taken by this structure, and used it
as an analogue for feeling-felt (sentant-sensible) relationships. Perhaps it is
also reflected in the title of the last chapter of The Visible and the Invisible,
“Intertwining—the Chiasm” (“L’entrelacs—le chiasme”).24
22. The term also appears in the unpublished notes for his 1953 course on “L’usage littéraire
du langage” and again at RC 14/25, where there is only a brief reference to the passage cited
from Valéry cited in full at S 231–32/293–94.
23. Valéry’s text appears in his Choses tues, VI, Tel Quel, I, in Œuvres, II, Bibliothèque de la
Pléiade (Paris: Gallimard, 1960), 490–91 (ESA II: 170, n. 1). In Être et monde, Merleau-Ponty
refers again to Valéry as follows: “Thought = ‘to mix oneself up with some object’ and to be
astonished at this confusion (Mon Faust).” “La pensée = ‘se confondre à quelque objet’ et
s’étonner de cette confusion (Mon Faust).”
24. Another chiasmatic example of human physiology that Merleau-Ponty does not discuss
concerns the transmission of life. There is a chiasmatic structure where pairs of chromosomes
stay connected during the second stage of meiosis—cell division that produces two cells each
of which has half the number of chromosomes of the parent cell (e.g., the production of
gametes). At this contact “point,” genetic material crosses over and gets exchanged between
the strands of chromosomes.
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH 87
25. Merleau-Ponty links these first two sources by intertwining the Husserlian concept of
Ineinander with sexual desire. De Saint Aubert points out (III: 218–19) that Merleau-Ponty’s
last manuscripts articulate the notion of Ineinander and that of implication in Being according
to “a topology of enveloping and enveloped” as expressed in the figures of pregnancy and
coupling. He goes on to observe (219) that these figures and sexuality in general, though
central to “being-with” (Mitsein), are ontic rather than ontological, and thus not included in
Heidegger’s Dasein analytics.
26. The English translator of Le Visible et l’invisible renders “enjambement” as “overlapping” and
“empiétement” as “encroachment.” However, “empiétement” in Marcel’s sense is usually rendered
as “overlapping,” and Stéphanie Ménasé, the editor of Merleau-Ponty’s Notes de cours 1959–1961,
translates Rudolf Arnheim’s “overlapping” as “empiétement.” We will follow Ménasé, though
enjambement and empiétement are used synonymously in several published and unpublished texts
(ESA I: 43, n. 1). “Empiéter” appears for the first time in “Autour du Marxisme” written in
August 1945 (SNS 103/180) (ESA I: 37).
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH 89
between the two sets is that Merleau-Ponty treats the second set as deriva-
tive from the first in the sense that because, say, touching and being touched
are reversible, they can overlap or metamorphose into each other. In any
event, all of these words describe how the unity present in flesh as carnality
and as “an element of Being” comes about, and for which Merleau-Ponty’s
last ontology has to account. However, there are two other terms of signal
importance, “dehiscence” and the “écart,” which will provide much of the
complementary principle of difference.
Merleau-Ponty begins to articulate the chiasmatic nature of the human
body in terms of its self-sensing abilities before taking up its relationships
with the flesh of others and of the world. The point of departure is the
Husserlian Art von Reflexion, the reversible relations of sentant and sensible
that paradoxically make the body both object and non-object. What makes
this reversibility possible is the process of the body’s divisions into sentant
and sensible. Merleau-Ponty calls this process “dehiscence” (VI 123/165),
a biological term for separating into divergent parts, such as a seed pod
opening, and he also refers to it as “a fission of Being from the inside” (OE
186/81). This “dehiscence of the seeing into the visible and of the visible
into the seeing” (VI 153/201), the touching into the touched and of the
touched into the touching, and so on, is, as noted above, one of his two
main principles of differentiation that avert a fusion or coincidence with
the flesh of others, things, the world/Nature, and the immediate present or
past (Ibid., 123/164–65). Between fusion and disconnection, there is unity
conjugated with difference, indivisibility but not identity. Perception insti-
tutes an exchange of the sentant and the sensible that overlap and envelop
each other (VI 123/165).
Moreover, overlapping and enveloping relationships between the
senses (VI 134/177) appear to be Merleau-Ponty’s late ontological equiva-
lent of the earlier descriptions of synesthesia. For example, both seeing
and touching are inscribed in each other, although touch is primary. That
is why Merleau-Ponty often describes perception as “a palpation with the
look” (Ibid., 134/177).
There is also a chiasm in speaking and being heard that Merleau-Ponty
describes in the unpublished preparatory notes for The Visible and the Invisible
as a “carnal structure of speech” (ESA II: 162). This “carnal structure” is
only a late reference to a predominant theme throughout Merleau-Ponty’s
work, at least since Phenomenology of Perception, particularly the chap-
ter, “The Body as Expression and Speech.” Thus, it is not difficult to
understand why he conjoins the linguistic and physiological meanings of
the chiasm. Even so, references to the physiological meaning of the chiasm
are a comparatively late addition to both his unpublished and published
90 NATURE AND LOGOS
27. De Saint Aubert’s computer scans of both published and unpublished texts show no refer-
ences to the physiological meaning until 1959 (ESA II: 165). He also discovered that, in VI
alone, “chiasm” occurs almost 180 times, with approximately 70 percent of those in November
1960—precisely when “L’entrelacs et le chiasme” was written (ESA II: 160). In addition, “strictly
speaking, the corrected version of the last chapter of The Visible and the Invisible makes no
mention of the chiasm beyond its title, as against 87 mentions in the preparatory manuscripts
for the same chapter (dated in November [1960]), and 30 mentions in the whole of the work-
ing notes (including those that are unpublished) from the same month” (ESA II: 161, n. 1).
28. An interesting literary example of this same problem, with which Merleau-Ponty was surely
familiar, is Diderot’s Le rêve de d’Alembert (1965). The central question is how to account for
bodily unity, that the body is “one system, possessing a consciousness of its own unity” (69)
when all of the parts of the body have their own “private sensations” (71)? How is it possible
that there be “one consciousness in an animal [when] here is an infinity of wills; each organ
to its own” (132)? In short, “we [are] very complicated, but one” (157).
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH 91
The “synergic body” organizes these dispersed feelings such that each indi-
vidual sensing activity and its particular visible, touchable, or audible,
becomes joined to the others to create “the experience of one sole body
before one sole world” (Ibid., 142/186). This is but another way to describe
the unity, or “confusion,” of body and soul that Merleau-Ponty insists we
must be able to think and, as we shall see, Whitehead’s process metaphysics
provides an explanation of this unity while maintaining the “confusions.”
The process of dehiscence is analogous to Spinozistic attributes par-
ticularizing themselves in the modes of individual minds and bodies. And
just as Spinoza does not offer an explanation of why attributes of the one
substance must take the form of modes, so also does Merleau-Ponty not offer
us an explanation of why dehiscence takes place. Rather, it is a question of
“brute” or “wild Being,” the basic fact that there is something—the “il y a.”
Nevertheless, there is one crucial difference between Merleau-Ponty
and Spinoza on this point. For the latter, mind and body, qua modes of dif-
ferent attributes of substance, can be thought correctly only as distinct, even
though they cannot exist without each other. By contrast, for Merleau-Ponty,
the dehiscence and chiasm of flesh mean that mind and body cannot even be
thought rightly as distinct. In this regard, as we shall see, he was influenced
by Schelling’s critique of Spinoza.
Similarly, Merleau-Ponty’s conception of mind and body is at variance
with the Sartrean dualism of a for-itself in the face of an external in-itself
because the for-itself exists in an internal unity with an otherness that is part
of its definition. This is a much stronger claim than Sartre’s contention that
consciousness always exists in relation to the in-itself. Since mind and body
are both expressions of flesh, the mind is defined as a new reversibility: the
body is “the natural face of mind” (S 229/290), and the mind “overflows”
the body in which it is “anchored” (VI 259/313). Therefore, “the ‘modes of
consciousness’ are inscribed as structurations of Being” and vice versa (Ibid.,
253/307). What Merleau-Ponty expresses in such terms, and what he thinks
Sartre always sought, is a way to think the unity of mind and body from
“within Being” (Ibid., 215/268; cf. 193/246).
The chiasmatic structure of flesh provides the principle for not only
our intrapersonal coherence, but also intercorporeal cohesion. For these rela-
tionships also involve, first, the same reversibilities of seeing and being seen,
touching and being touched, speaking and listening, and these reversibilities
open to us intercorporeity beyond the range of my present vision and touch.
Using language in an almost identical way as does Valéry, Merleau-Ponty
writes in his unpublished papers for the 1953 course on “L’usage littéraire
du langage,” “my relationship with my own body passes through the other:
what I do not see of my body, he sees, [and] what he does not see of
his, I see. It is in me that the other completes himself and in him that I
92 NATURE AND LOGOS
complete myself” (ESA II: 171).29 The other thus has an “inherence” in
our existence and vice versa (OE 163/18). Moreover, because the way that
we experience our own bodies and the manner in which we experience
the bodies of others “are themselves the two sides of the same Being” (VI
225/278), there can be “co-functioning” with the other in which mutual
antagonism is neither the whole story of intercorporeity nor what is essential
to it. This “co-functioning” stems from the fact that our corporeal schemas
“all end up at one sole Einfühlung” (N 225/287–88), a position that aligns
Merleau-Ponty, as we have seen, more with Heidegger than with Sartre.
Sartre might respond that an “abyss” still intervenes between
the in-itself and the for-itself, the sensible and the sentient body, and
Merleau-Ponty does admit that how to think “the sensible sentient” is a
problem. However, he also points out that he is forming his “first concepts so
as to avoid classical impasses,” to get beyond “the bifurcation of subject and
object” (Ibid., 137/180), and to be able to think the body as both a thing
and not a thing, belonging simultaneously to both objective and subjective
reality, each of which is an aspect of flesh.
These reversibilities in self-other relationships also characterize the
Cartesian “confusions” of feeling and desire. With feelings such as love and
hate, joy and sorrow, we cross over into the other as object of those feelings,
and the other similarly becomes part of us as the object of our feelings. In
that way, the feelings we express to the other return to us through, say,
the beloved, and vice versa. With regard to the dynamics of desiring and
desired studied in psychoanalysis, there are multiple reversibilities of flesh
in the ballet of the erotic exchange of seeing and being seen, touching and
being touched (the caress), activity and passivity, the inside and the outside.
For Merleau-Ponty, whatever the mode of intercorporeity, the revers-
ibility of the chiasm is essentially the idea that experience is always circular
because “every perception is doubled with a counter-perception. . . . Activity
= passivity” (VI 264–265/318). This circularity of activity and passivity
applies to all possible perceptions: of other people, our own bodies, and
perceptual objects. In every case, experience consists of a dehiscence into
le sentant and le sensible.
With respect to perceptual objects, we have already seen that they
are implicated in our flesh, that we are invested in them and vice versa in
the co-naissance that characterizes our and their ontogenesis. They prolong
our bodies, and vice versa, because they call for(th) certain behaviors (C
48/28). This mutual investment Merleau-Ponty often refers to in terms of
29. “. . . mon rapport à mon corps passe par autrui: ce que je ne vois pas de mon corps, il
le voit, ce qu’il ne voit pas du sien, je le vois. C’est en moi qu’autrui se complète et en lui
que je me complète.”
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH 93
30. “C’est en prêtant son corps au monde que le peintre change le monde en peinture.”
94 NATURE AND LOGOS
a magical theory of vision” (OE 166/27–28) because the painter effects the
reversal of his or her flesh and that of the world by turning the latter into
painting and the painting into world.
This reversibility is such that artists such as Klee report that things
look at them (OE 167/31). Hence, Merleau-Ponty concludes, there is liter-
ally inspiration: “inspiration and expiration of Being, respiration in Being,
action and passion so little discernible that one no longer knows who sees
and who is seen” (Ibid., 167/31–32).31 Therefore, Sartre comments accu-
rately on this text that, for its author, “The painter is the privileged artisan,
the best witness of this mediated reciprocity” (1964, 272). This is also why,
for Merleau-Ponty, painters are so taken with mirrors: they illustrate the
reversibility of the flesh in their enactment of “the metamorphosis of the
seeing and of the visible” (OE 168/34), and which characterizes both our
flesh and their vocation (Ibid.).
This reversibility between the painter’s vision and the visible also
serves as a model of co-naissance. The painter’s vision is a “continued birth”
(Ibid., 167/32), but the importance of this fact sweeps wider than a claim
about artists. The essential point is that the painter’s vision is simply a more
dramatic case of what is true for everyone. All share in the same structures
of visibility and ontogenesis. Thus, the difference between painters and
non-painters is one of degree rather than of kind.
31. “. . . inspiration et expiration de l’Être, respiration dans l’Être, action et passion si peu
discernables qu’on ne sait plus qui voit et qui est vu.” As we shall see, this passage evidences
a palpable influence of Schelling’s notion of Konspiration.
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH 95
It also follows from the fact that space is not a thing in itself that, if we
hold that space is not Euclidean, this does not imply that it is Riemannian or
anything else. The reason is that “Being is polymorphic” (OE 174/48), and
thus “different geometries are metrics, and metrics are neither true nor false
and, therefore, the results of these different metrics are not alternatives” (N
103/141).32 As Merleau-Ponty sees it, “Renaissance perspective,” rather than
revealing an infallible truth about Nature,33 is only a momentary revelation
of the world, a “particular case” of “poetic information of the world” that
persists long after it (OE 175/48).
On the other hand, Merleau-Ponty does not leave it at that, as if we
should choose whatever metric we find most appropriate in a particular situ-
ation. For it is also clear that he favors an account of curved space, which
soon becomes synonymous, or at least closely linked, with “topological
space,” and this for three reasons. First, its employment in relativity theory
demonstrates, pace Euclid, the impossibility of making any strict separation
between space and spatial objects (C 41–42/18–19), to say nothing of the
observer. Second, space as curved answers better to our experience of space.
“Primordial space” is topological because it best describes the “total volumi-
nosity which surrounds me, in which I am” (VI 213/267).
The third reason is that his ontology is more hospitable to topological
space because of the enveloping activity of flesh. Almost all of the words
used to express the chiasm are topological: enveloping, overlapping, encroaching,
coiling over, the fold, and intertwining. It is entirely understandable, therefore,
why Merleau-Ponty writes, “Take topological space as a model of being”34
(VI 210/264). In addition, his unpublished writings make plain that he
32. “Les différentes géométries sont des métriques, et les métriques ne sont ni vraies ni fausses
et, par conséqent, les résultats de ces différentes métriques ne sont pas des alternatives.” White-
head reaches the same conclusion (PANW 669–70).
33. Renaissance perspective is not infallible for another reason. In the lectures on Institution
(IP 80) as well as in Eye and Mind (174/49–50), Merleau-Ponty points out that “the men of
the Renaissance” dishonestly stuck to artificial perspectives required by Euclidean geometry
instead of the natural perspectives that painters knew. But their adherence to Euclid “was
not without bad faith” (OE 174/49) because they disregarded Euclid’s Eighth Theorem. That
theorem disproves the commonly held belief that an object will appear twice as small at twice
the distance. This is true only on a very small scale, as Euclid knew, but the “men of the
Renaissance” discarded that inconvenient fact in order to maintain the “myth” of an “exact
[proportional] construction” (Ibid.).
34. “Prendre pour modèle de l’être l’espace topologique.” In all of Merleau-Ponty’s unpublished
writings from October 1959 to September 1960, there are almost eighty references to “la topolo-
gie” or to “la topologique.” They refer to “first, the body,” to the corporeal schema or corporeity,
then to the world, to beings and to being (or Being) (ESA III: 231). In addition, Merleau-Ponty’s
reflections on topological space, that of the chiasmatic reversibility of flesh, have their roots
in his early descriptions of the lived body’s spatiality, body image, and the corporeal schema.
96 NATURE AND LOGOS
39. The unpublished notes for Merleau-Ponty’s course on “L’ontologie cartésienne” state,
“Overlapping = belonging to the same being, to the same time, cohesion” (ESA II: 52, n. 1).
98 NATURE AND LOGOS
seeing. When we make the attempt, we can almost do so, but there is always
a “divergence” (écart) that turns the eyes into the seen rather than seeing.
Seeing and the seen are never exactly the same (VI 254/307; cf. 9/24 and
147/194). The écart produced by dehiscence thus consists of another dimen-
sion of “the fecund negative that is instituted by the flesh” (VI 263/316) that
breaks up the plenum of Being as envisaged in modern philosophy.
What, then, Merleau-Ponty asks, does “this strange adhesion of the
seer and the visible” (VI 139/183) teach us? Since total coincidence in
relationships of touching and touched, seeing and being seen, and so on, is
impossible, the reversibility of the chiasm is “always imminent and never
realized in fact” (Ibid., 147/194). Therefore, this bedrock metaphysical prin-
ciple (chiasm, reversibility) is never fully instantiated and remains always
on the horizon of fulfillment.
We might then be tempted to think that the écart shipwrecks
Merleau-Ponty’s emergent ontology, or at least a considerable part of it.
However, he asserts the contrary (VI 148/194), and correctly, because diver-
gence does not mean disconnection, or—his own particular concern—a relapse
into a Sartrean relationship of nothingness and a plenum of Being. There is
no disconnection because, even though there is a gap between the sentant and
the sensible that prevents perfect reversibility between them, we can experi-
ence “the transition and the metamorphosis of the one experience into the
other” whenever we wish (VI 148/195). This means that the écart does not
constitute “an ontological void, a non-being” (Ibid.); rather, the inclusive
totality of body and world includes it as part of their hidden structure.
This is yet another way of expressing unity that is not identity, and dif-
ference that is not disconnection. Therefore, the negativity instantiated by
the écart establishes a fecund natural negativity that contrasts with Sartre’s
contradictory negativity. The écart that separates the sentant and the sensible
is therefore not a nothingness, but instead an essential feature of the dual-
ity of activity and passivity that makes up the cohesive process of Nature.
For Merleau-Ponty, it is an essential feature of the duality of activ-
ity and passivity that, since perceivers are implicated in the perceived, in
some sense they see themselves seeing. Therefore, “there is a fundamental
narcissism of all vision” (VI 139/183). Likewise, the vision that seers direct
toward things returns to themselves as the seers. This is why, as painters
such as Klee have remarked, they feel things looking at themselves, their
activity is in counterpoise to passivity, and this reciprocity between seer and
seen forms “the second and more profound sense of the narcissism” (Ibid.;
cf. OE 167/31).
For the most part, Merleau-Ponty describes dehiscence in terms of the
body’s reaching out to particular things and other people. However, he also
refers to a dehiscence that makes possible a reciprocity with a generalized
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH 99
40. See especially La représentation de l’espace chez l’enfant (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,
1948). For the importance of this work in Merleau-Ponty’s thinking about topological space and
empiétement, see ESA III: 231–35. In Être et monde, Merleau-Ponty refers to Piaget “not less
than one hundred times” (ESA III: 231). Cf. Rudolf Arnheim: “As Piaget and Inhelder put it,
early shapes are topological rather than geometrical, i.e., they aim at such general, nonmetric
properties as roundness, closedness, straightness, not at specific, ideal embodiments” (1974, 175).
100 NATURE AND LOGOS
LOGOS ENDIATHETOS
AND LOGOS PROFORIKOS
To speak of a bond between the idea and the flesh is to imply that mean-
ing, although invisible, cannot be its contradictory; rather it is its “invis-
ible inner framework (membrure)” (VI 215/269). Ideas, for Merleau-Ponty,
as Proust showed us, make up the “lining and depth” of the visible (Ibid.,
149/195). This implies also that every speech act becomes an incarnation,
words made flesh,1 and by the same token, in the expression of the ideas,
flesh is made words. In slightly different terms, “life becomes ideas and the
ideas return to life” (Ibid., 119/159).
We have already seen in Chapter II that, in Merleau-Ponty’s late
ontology, Nature is inherently intelligible anterior to the contributions of
consciousness (N 3/19), and it is intelligible in a stronger way than a mean-
ing sketched in outline (en pointillé) that can be solicited and actualized
through a motor-intentional body. In the later writings, beginning with his
first Nature course, Merleau-Ponty begins to refer to this stronger sense of
natural meaningfulness in terms of the Stoics’ concepts of the logos endiath-
etos and its articulations in the logos proforikos (RC 74/105–106). Nothing
apparently prepares for this adoption of the Stoics’ conceptuality, either
in his published texts or in the unpublished writings cited in de Saint
Aubert’s four volumes. Nonetheless, he does refer to the logos endiathetos
in his own summary of the first Nature course, and to the twofold logos in
the Nature lectures as well as in the “Working Notes” for completing what
would become The Visible and the Invisible.
Notwithstanding the important epistemological consequences that
Merleau-Ponty draws from the two logoi, there has been virtually no discus-
1. For Whitehead, “Expression is the one fundamental sacrament. It is the outward and visible
sign of an inward and spiritual grace” (RM 127).
103
104 NATURE AND LOGOS
Merleau-Ponty’s earlier view can best be explained with one of his own
examples. In Phenomenology of Perception, the philosopher states that, when
I construct a triangle, that act of construction makes clear the possibilities
of the figure while guided not by “its definition and as idea,” but rather by
“its configuration” as the latter becomes the objective “pole of my move-
ments” (386/442). However, these are not simple mechanical movements.
They are guided by a certain “intention”: as I regard the triangle, it is for my
body “a system of oriented lines” that give sense to “words such as ‘angle”
or ‘direction’ ” (Ibid.). Further, those words and others in the geometrical
lexicon, such as hypotenuse and secant, take on meaning to the degree that
I have a concrete spatial situation and can orient myself to move from one
point to another. In that way, “the system of spatial positions is for me a
field of possible movements” (Ibid.). It is in this fashion that “I grasp the
concrete essence of the triangle, which is not an ensemble of objective
‘characters,’ but the formula of an attitude, a certain modality of my hold
on the world, a structure” (Ibid.).3
It is not otherwise with geometers themselves. They study relation-
ships between points, lines, curves, and angles, which they can only know
by a motor intentionality. Since the geometer’s thought does not disengage
itself from perceptual consciousness, it follows for Merleau-Ponty that the
essence of triangles or any other object of consciousness is derived from the
perceptual world (Ibid., 388/444). Moreover, since essences do emerge from
2. Toadvine (2009) does not mention them, and two typical examples of those who do are
Martin Dillon (1997) and Douglas Low (2000). Dillon discusses “the logos” at some length,
but always in relation to language, in effect the logos proforikos. He does briefly refer to the
logos endiathetos and the logos proforikos (240–41), but without inquiring into the meaning or
significance of the former. Low devotes an entire chapter to “The Invisible and Logos,” but
never mentions the logos endiathetos or the logos proforikos. The chapter is largely given over
to a discussion of language, and when he describes “the logos,” he states, “broadly speaking,
what Merleau-Ponty means by . . . logos is expression, at first as mute perception, then as
spoken gesture, then as abstract literature” (72). This is not wrong, but submerges and ignores
the logos endiathetos.
3. “. . . je saisis l’essence concrète du triangle, qui n’est pas un ensemble de ‘caractères’ objectifs,
mais la formule d’une attitude, une certaine modalité de ma prise sur le monde, une structure.”
LOGOS ENDIATHETOS AND LOGOS PROFORIKOS 105
4. See also here Hass (2008), Chapter 6, “Expression and the Origin of Geometry.”
5. “Ce qu’on appelle idée est nécessairement lié à un acte d’expression et lui doit son apparence
d’autonomie. C’est un objet culturel, comme l’église, la rue, le crayon ou la IXe Symphonie.”
6. “. . . la prégnance des formes géométriques est intrinsèquement fondée (non pas culturelle-
ment) en ce qu’elles permettent mieux que d’autres une ontogénèse (elles stabilisent l’être).”
106 NATURE AND LOGOS
possession (Ibid., 274/328). Hence the last line of the “Working Notes”
for completing The Visible and the Invisible: “Worked-over-matter-men =
chiasm” (Matière-ouvrée-hommes = chiasm) (Ibid., 275/328). It suggests the
Heraclitean “hidden principle of harmony within the universe and the active
principle of its development, accounting thus not only for unity and stability
of Being, but for multiplicity, diversity, and change as well” (Burke 1999,
188–89). These sentences also strongly suggest the Natura naturans that, as
noted above, is consonant with Whiteheadian creativity.
The experience of the logos endiathetos is that of a “dialectic without
synthesis” (VI 94–95/129; cf. IP 163) of activity and passivity: emergence
from the flesh of sound, color, the texture of the tactile (VI 114/152) by
means of “a sort of coiling up or redoubling,” a feeling that one is “funda-
mentally homogeneous with them,” a perception of being “the sensible itself
coming to itself” and, inversely, a feeling that derives from the perception
of the “j’en suis” that the sensible is a “double or extension” of one’s own
flesh (VI 114/153).
The logos endiathetos is silent because it is the “Logos of the natu-
ral, aesthetic world, on which the Logos of language [the logos proforikos]
rests” (Ibid.).7 Parallel to this, Merleau-Ponty says of Giraudoux’s “caryatid
of nothingness” that, whereas the playwright stresses the nothingness, he
will emphasize the caryatid (Ibid., 227/290–91)—the logos endiathetos that
grounds perceptual faith. It is that structure to which Merleau-Ponty appeals
in his first Nature lectures for preferring, as against Kant, the Stoics’s con-
ception of “a brute unity by means of which the universe ‘holds’ and of
which the human understanding is the expression rather than the interior
condition” (RC 74/105–106).8 It is also a “caryatid” that stands over against
Sartre’s in-itself in which there could not possibly be a logos endiathetos.
This logos is buried in things, close to passivity and institution, because
perception is the sharing of my flesh in the world’s flesh. As noted above,
it is the intelligibility of “primordial being that is not yet subject-being nor
object-being” (RC 65/95).
What is the meaning of this “world of silence” (VI 179/233), and
what is its content? To the latter question, Merleau-Ponty does not give a
direct answer, but since it is a question of a logos of l’être sauvage, a logos
of the natural, aesthetic world, its content must be nothing other than all
that has been elaborated so far about the structures of flesh: its visibility
and tangibility, carnality, elemental nature conjugated in terms of depth
7. Merleau-Ponty’s terminology here owes much to Husserl’s phrases, “logic of the aesthetic
world” and “analytic logos” (1969a, 292). See also Tilliette (1992, 167/229–30).
8. “. . . une unité brute par laquelle l’univers ‘tient’ et dont celle de l’entendement humain
est l’expression encore plutôt que la condition intérieure.”
LOGOS ENDIATHETOS AND LOGOS PROFORIKOS 107
9. “. . . un ordre où il y a des significations non langagières . . . mais elles ne sont pas pour
autant positives. . . . [I]l y a des champs et un champ des champs, avec un style et une typique.”
108 NATURE AND LOGOS
the universal can only be known through the particular, it is also the case
that the particular takes on universal significance. This is why in Freud’s
case of the Wolf Man, the color yellow can become a dimension of Being,
which is “universal dimensionality” (VI 236/289). As Merleau-Ponty states
in Signs, “each thing exists beyond itself, when each fact can be a dimen-
sion. . . . Colors, sounds, and things—like Van Gogh’s stars—are the focal
points and radiance of being” (15/22).10
Therefore, the same relationship of invisible meaning and its visible
expression exists in nonhuman flesh as well. To cite the well-known example
from The Visible and the Invisible:
As the vein bears the leaf from within, from the depths of its flesh,
ideas are the texture of experience, its style, first mute [the logos
endiathetos] and then uttered [the logos proforikos]. Like every style,
they are elaborated within the thickness of being. (VI 119/159–60)11
This is also the case, as Proust showed, for musical and literary ideas, for they
likewise present themselves according to a certain style before they are clari-
fied conceptually (NC 193). For example, when we hear the beginning notes
of a Mozart concerto, we are suddenly transported into the world of Mozart
without being able to conceptualize this style. We cannot define what makes
the music that of Mozart, but our bodies resonate to that invisible latency
pregnant in that particular musical “flesh.” In such cases, comprehension
becomes apprehension, which is why Merleau-Ponty states that perception
and understanding are such that comprehension is not constitution “in intel-
lectual immanence,” but instead apprehension by “coexistence, laterally, by
the style” (VI 188/242).
Since meanings are carnal and organic, bound to flesh, it follows that
there is no pure ideality. Pure ideality would be a product of the pensée de
survol and the forgetfulness of thinking in the flesh (VI 97/132). The use
of language, Merleau-Ponty says, is an activity that is always “the other side
of passivity” and a recovery of it (RC 119/165). Ideality is bound to history,
though he also repudiates historicism (RC 116–17/163). That is, meanings,
truths, and values are always of local origin, but are not circumscribed by
a certain time and place.
10. “. . . chaque chose est plus loin qu’elle-même, quand chaque fait peut être dimen-
sion. . . . Les couleurs, les sons, les choses comme les étoiles de Van Gogh, sont des foyers,
des rayonnements d’être.”
11. “Comme la nervure porte la feuille du dedans, du fond de sa chair, les idées sont la texture
de l’expérience; son style, muet d’abord, proféré ensuite. Comme tout style, elles s’élaborent
dans l’épaisseur de l’être.”
110 NATURE AND LOGOS
12. “Toute perception, toute action qui la suppose, bref tout usage humain du corps est déjà
expression primordiale.”
13. It is beyond the scope of this work to explore more than the major outcroppings of those
descriptions. For much greater detail, see Hamrick (1987, 40–61).
14. Merleau-Ponty’s view that execution precedes conception is best taken as an empirical
generalization that allows for exceptions. For instance, Michelangelo purportedly claimed that
he simply eliminated from the marble what was not David. However, if generalized, such an
account would raise serious difficulties for accounting for novelty and creativity, for the work
would be created before it is created.
LOGOS ENDIATHETOS AND LOGOS PROFORIKOS 111
15. “Le temps est le modèle même de l’institution: passivité-activité, il continue, parce qu’il
a été institué.” Cf. IP 37: “Constitution . . . is almost the contrary of institution: the insti-
tuted has meaning without me, the constituted has meaning only for me and for the me of
this instant. . . . The instituted encroaches on its future, has its future, its temporality, [but]
the constituted has everything to do with me.” “Constituer . . . est presque le contraire
d’instituer: l’institué a sens sans moi, le constitué n’a sens que pour moi et pour le moi de
cet instant. . . . L’institué enjambe son avenir, a son avenir, sa temporalité, le constitué tient
tout de moi qui constitue.”
16. “Il y a rationalité, c’est-à-dire: les perspectives se recoupent, les perceptions se confirment,
un sens apparaît.”
112 NATURE AND LOGOS
17. “. . . des significations disponibles qui les ordonne à un sens nouveau et fait franchir aux
auditeurs, mais aussi au sujet parlant, un pas décisif.”
18. “Non-Euclidean geometries contain Euclid’s geometry as a particular case but not the inverse.
What is essential to mathematical thought, therefore, lies in the moment where a structure
is decentered, opens up to questioning, and reorganizes itself according to a new meaning
which is nevertheless the meaning of this same structure” (PM 127/178). “Les géométries non
euclidiennes contiennent celle d’Euclide comme cas particulier, mais non l’inverse. L’essentiel
de la pensée mathématique est donc à ce moment où une structure se décentre, s’ouvre à
une interrogation, et se réorganise selon un sens neuf qui pourtant est le sens de cette même
structure.” See also RC 44/64–65.
19. “On les reconnaît à ceci que personne ne les prend à la lettre, et que pourtant les faits
nouveaux ne sont jamais absolument hors de leur compétence, qu’ils tirent d’eux de nouveaux
échos, qu’ils révèlent en eux de nouveaux reliefs.”
LOGOS ENDIATHETOS AND LOGOS PROFORIKOS 113
20. “Cette expérience d’un événement qui soudain se creuse, perd son opacité, révèle une
transparence et se fait sens pour toujours, elle est constante dans la culture et dans la parole,
et, si l’on voulait la contester, on ne saurait plus même ce que l’on cherche.”
21. “. . . ni en peinture, ni même ailleurs, nous ne pouvons établir une hiérarchie des ci-
vilisations ni parler de progrès . . . nulle peinture n’achève la peinture . . . nulle œuvre ne
s’achève absolument.”
22. “. . . chaque création change, altère, éclaire, approfondit, confirme, exalte, recrée ou crée
d’avance toutes les autres.”
23. “Il circule plus de vérité qu’il y a vingt ans dans le capitalisme mondial et dans le com-
munisme mondial et entre eux. L’histoire n’avoue jamais, et pas même ses illusions perdues,
mais elle ne les recommence pas.”
114 NATURE AND LOGOS
AMBIGUITIES
To conclude, there are two puzzles about Merleau-Ponty’s view of the twofold
logos that should be brought to light. The first one concerns achieving more
clarity about how for Merleau-Ponty the logos proforikos takes up and cre-
atively elaborates the logos endiathetos. For example, in the Nature lectures,
he asks whether the symbolism of language can shed light on the natural
symbolism of the body, since they appear to be of two different orders.
His answer is yes, because perception is a “language before language,” and
the “silent language of perception” is also interrogation and response. He
does not put it this way, but he could have phrased the same view as one
of chiasmatic reversibility: spoken language can take up and modulate the
“silent language of perception” because the latter’s structure of interrogation
and response lends itself to that articulation. What he does go on to say
is that “[i]t is in this sense and with these reservations that we can speak
of a logos of the natural world,” of which language is “a resumption . . . in
another architectonic. And all of historicity also” (N 219/282).25 However,
if language is indeed simply a resumption of the “silent language of percep-
tion” because they have similar structures of interrogation and response,
how can they belong to two separate orders? More clarity is needed about
their organic connection through their differences.
The author himself recognized this need. For instance, the penultimate
sentence of his retrospective summary of the third Nature course asks the
question, “What could indeed be the relationship of this tacit symbolism or
that of indivision, and the artificial or conventional symbolism that appears
to have the privilege of opening us to ideality, to truth?” To this question
he adds the final sentence, “The relationships of the explicit logos and the
logos of the sensible world will be the object of another series of courses”
(RC 131/180; translation altered).26
24. Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London: Hutchinson: 1959). See, for example,
N 86/120: “Certainly we do not ask science for a new, ready-made conception of Nature, but
we find in it what [we need] to eliminate false conceptions of Nature.” “Certes, il n’y a pas à
demander à la science une nouvelle conception de la Nature, toute faite, mais nous trouvons
en elle de quoi éliminer de fausses conceptions de la Nature.”
25. “C’est en ce sens et sous ces réserves qu’on peut parler d’un logos du monde naturel. . . . Le
langage comme reprise de ce logos du monde sensible dans une architectonique autre. Et toute
l’historicité aussi.”
26. “Quel peut bien être le rapport de ce symbolisme tacite ou d’indivision, et du symbolisme
artificiel ou conventionnel qui paraît avoir le privilège de nous ouvrir à l’idéalité, à la vérité?
Les rapports du logos explicite et du logos du monde sensible feront l’objet d’une autre série
de cours.” The English translation of the last sentence mangles it as follows: “The relation
between the explicit logos of the sensible world will form the topic of another series of courses.”
LOGOS ENDIATHETOS AND LOGOS PROFORIKOS 115
27. “. . . de décrire précisément le passage de la foi perceptive à la vérité explicite telle qu’on
la rencontre au niveau du langage, du concept et du monde culturel.”
28. “. . . ce rapport à double sens que la phénoménologie a appelé Fundierung: le terme fon-
dant,—le temps, l’irréfléchi, le fait, le langage, la perception—est premier en ce sens que le
fondé se donne comme une détermination ou une explicitation du fondant, ce qui lui interdit
de le résorber jamais, et cependant le fondant n’est pas premier au sens empiriste et le fondé
n’en est pas simplement dérivé, puisque c’est à travers le fondé que le fondant se manifeste.”
The English translation inserts words not in the original text. E.g., “Fundierung: the founding
term, or originator.” The translation also never employs “founded” for “le fondé,” substituting
“the originated,” and uses “originator” for the “le fondant.”
116 NATURE AND LOGOS
29. “L’idée [que] l’être mathématique avait ces propriétés avant même qu’on les découvrît, [le]
passage au monde des essences, c’est l’illusion rétrospective” (bracketed words in the original).
The reference here is to Bergson’s notion of “the retrograde movement of the true,” which we
will take up in Chapter VI, and which Bergson rejected.
30. “. . . le langage réalise en brisant le silence ce que le silence voulait et n’obtenait pas.”
31. “D’une certaine manière tous les triangles qui existeront jamais par les rencontres de la
causalité physique auront une somme d’angles égale à deux droits, même si les hommes ont
désappris la géométrie et s’il n’en reste pas un qui sache.”
LOGOS ENDIATHETOS AND LOGOS PROFORIKOS 117
and could have been a world without us, “a primordial being that is not
yet subject-being nor object-being” (RC 65–66/95; cf. IP172–73). There
is, on his view, a “primordial being” and, “as Schelling said, something
in Nature that makes it impose itself on God himself as an independent
condition of his operation. Such is our problem” (RC 65–66/95–96).32 The
flesh of the world produces us, and not the other way around. The preced-
ing discussion has also shown that, on Merleau-Ponty’s view, meanings are
objectively grounded—they are articulated culturally, but they emerge from
Nature. Therefore, the intelligibility of Nature is not a “psychic addition”
in Whitehead’s sense, and Nature pushes us to recognize its intelligibility
and to develop it creatively.
These facts point to the conclusion that, in the absence of human
beings as we know them, Nature for Merleau-Ponty would retain its inherent
intelligibility. Further, the likelihood that this would be his considered view
increases by way of a contrast with his earlier phenomenology. From the per-
spective of a philosophy of consciousness, a “world without consciousness”
would be either a world-with-subject-removed—that is, an abstraction—or
else a world as intentional correlate of consciousness without a consciousness
to sustain it, which is to say, a self-contradiction.
However, this line of reasoning does not settle the question of a logos
endiathetos without human beings because support for the opposite position
can also be mustered. It revolves around the facts that Merleau-Ponty fre-
quently says that the only Being of which it makes sense to speak is the
Being that we experience (l’Être perçu), and that he consistently seeks a
path between realism and idealism. Therefore, to say that an logos endiath-
etos could exist without any subject for whom it is there, seems to be a
too-realistic interpretation of meaning for him to endorse.
Attacking the problem indirectly can provide us at least with a pos-
sible solution, and supports the conclusion that, for Merleau-Ponty, the logos
endiathetos could exist “without us.” The solution turns on reinterpreting the
“us” from his earlier view of a transcendental, constituting consciousness, to
that of beings rooted in a long cosmological and biological history which
brought us about. For the question of the objective existence of Nature’s
intelligibility, the changed meaning of “us” emphasizes the interrelatedness
of everything in Nature, including ourselves. In turn, that interrelatedness
implies that this universe, this Nature, could not exist in its present form
without us as woven into it. Indeed, the capacity of Nature to generate
human life is one crucial part of the logos endiathetos that pushes for fulfill-
ment. On the other hand, this argument does not reach to possible universes
32. “Comme disait Schelling, il y a dans la Nature quelque chose qui fait qu’elle s’imposerait
à Dieu même comme condition indépendante de son opération. Tel est notre problème.” The
English translation does not capitalize “Nature.”
118 NATURE AND LOGOS
without sapient life forms. Whether Merleau-Ponty would hold that they
are also informed by a logos endiathetos is an open question.
However, we do know that Merleau-Ponty rejects one way of account-
ing for the objective intelligibility of Nature. This view consists of a God
as external spectator, “un penseur absolu du monde” (SNS 96/168), imposing
meaning on the world, including the finalism of a pre-formed teleology. It
is true that Merleau-Ponty, like Descartes or, very differently, Pascal, “finds
himself with the idea of God” (Bannon 1967, 169), but even though it is
“proper” for human beings to “think of God,” this “is not the same thing
as to say that God exists” (Prim. Percp. 41/151). Moreover, Merleau-Ponty
does not have the idea of God because of a lumen naturale, but because of
his academic context and personal history of growing up in Catholicism. His
personal history, including his reasons for breaking with the church, are not
relevant here. What is pertinent are his philosophical reasons for rejecting
the God of traditional (Christian) theism and what, if anything, he wished
to substitute for it. (His arguments do not extend to non-Western religions.)
Across Merleau-Ponty’s frequent references to God in both published
and unpublished writings, he gives three main reasons for rejecting the tra-
ditional concept of God as ens realissimum. First, as mentioned in passing
in Chapter II, the view of God as the absolute, eternal Spectator of the
universe is the ultimate form of the ontology of the object. To say that the
invisible is in the visible as its “lining and depth” is to reject an invisible
that would be wholly transcendent. Here, Merleau-Ponty sides more with
the view of the Logos as immanent, as in Stoic philosophy, than with the
traditional understanding of God as transcendent Creator of the Universe.
So his usage of the logos endiathetos and the logos proforikos does not per se
involve a theistic interpretation, though the distinction between the two
logoi was important in early Christian theology.33 As we have seen, on his
view Leibniz’s philosophy is on the one hand the most extreme example of
the ontology of the object, and an unpublished note written a few weeks
before his death criticized Leibniz for being trapped in an ontology of the
object that prevented him from understanding the lived world, “the carnal
world,” “the chiasm and the Ineinander” (ESA II: 192). Yet, Merleau-Ponty
does admit that something changes with Leibniz when God is linked to the
system of monads and is bound to choose the best possible world. However,
33. “Logos” for the Stoics “designates as much the faculty of thought, interior to a man
(endiathetos), as the exterior expression (proforikos) of this thought through words and reason-
ing. Christian thinkers, such as Irenaeus or Tertullien, had perfectly grasped the Greek idea”
(Spanneut 1957, 310–11). Spanneut then cites scholarly disagreement about whether for the
Stoics there was “a religious resonance of this distinction between the interior logos and the
manifested logos.” Regardless, “the Fathers of the Church” made use of “these two steps of the
human logos and applied them, more or less easily, to the divine logos in order to explain the
generation of the Verb to pagan philosophy” (Ibid., 311). Theophilus was “the first to appeal
explicitly to the Stoic terms in his trinitarian theory” (Ibid., 314).
LOGOS ENDIATHETOS AND LOGOS PROFORIKOS 119
34. “Une telle métaphysique n’est pas conciliable avec le contenu manifeste de la religion et
avec la position d’un penseur absolu du monde.”
35. “. . . qui consacrerait tout le mal comme tout le bien du monde, qui justifierait l’esclavage,
l’iniquité, les larmes des enfants, l’agonie des innocents par des nécessités sacrées, qui, enfin,
sacrifierait l’homme au cosmos, et serait ‘l’absurde Empereur du monde.’ ”
36. “On doit se demander si le concept naturel et rationnel de Dieu comme Être nécessaire
n’est pas inévitablement celui de l’Empereur du monde, si sans lui le Dieu chrétien ne cesserait
pas d’être l’auteur du monde.”
120 NATURE AND LOGOS
37. As regards the “best of all possible worlds,” Merleau-Ponty argues in the unpublished
preparatory pages for his second Nature course that Descartes, unlike Leibniz, initially thought
this world to be the most perfect but changed his mind in the face of error. Descartes’ God
“is not the monarch of the best possible world” (ESA II: 222, n. 4).
38. “Le Dieu d’Aristote se pense. Le Dieu de Leibniz pense le monde . . . pour faire con-
naissance avec l’Être, il faut cesser de penser à partir de l’ens realissimum . . . montrer toute la
faiblesse des Théodicées.”
39. “. . . l’existence de ce monde-ci comme un fait insurpassable qui attire dès l’origine le
devenir créateur,—et donc . . . [récuse] le point de vue d’un Dieu sans monde.”
40. “Je n’ai jamais écrit noir sur blanc: ‘Je suis athée.’ Mais l’époque est telle que l’on est
considéré comme croyant jusqu’à preuve du contraire. . . . La notion d’athée a quantité de
connotations historiques, qu’elle entraîne avec elle, c’est pourquoi je n’en parle pas.” Later in
the discussion, Merleau-Ponty adds, “For me, philosophy consists in giving another name to
that which has long been crystallized under this name of God” (PC II: 371). “Pour moi, la
philosophie consiste à donner un autre nom à ce qui a été longtemps cristallisé sous ce nom
de Dieu.”
LOGOS ENDIATHETOS AND LOGOS PROFORIKOS 121
bifurcation of God and the world. For example, Être et monde states explicitly
that he prefers Pascal’s “hidden God” to that of Leibniz (ESA II: 225, nn.
4–5), and it is equally clear that, for Merleau-Ponty, this must be a “God”
hidden in the world, the Invisible dimension of the visible. It is also true
that Christianity continued to attract him to some degree because it was
uniquely about the Word made flesh and His death. This deity who assumed
the human condition stands over against the God of the philosophers as a
God who is on our side—the God for whom Bergson was searching, “the
God who is hidden in the suffering of the persecuted” (E 31/45), such that
“transcendence no longer hangs over man: he becomes, strangely, its privi-
leged bearer” (S 71/88).41
In his 1958 interview with Madeleine Chapsal, Merleau-Ponty also
stated his belief that, although Catholicism is “closely tied to the ontology
of the object” and that he could not see how any other ontology would be
“compatible with the traditional forms of theology,” it remained true that
their best students in those days knew to reject traditional theology along
with other forms of absolute thought guided by ontologies of the object: they
recognized that “neither the philosophy of the Enlightenment, nor Marxism,
nor the philosophy of the ens realissimum is the truth” (TD 11/PC II: 298).42
However, he also believed that in practice, Catholicism, for example, is a
compromise between these traditional forms and a recognition of contin-
gency and facticity. Thus, he writes in La Nature, ou le monde du silence,
“The debate here is not between theology and non-theology . . . there are
theologians who see facticity [and] non-theologians who do not see it” (ESA
III: 157, n. 2).43
From all of this we can conclude that Merleau-Ponty rejected the
traditional God—Emperor of the World, Cosmic Spectator—but also that
he was not totally closed off to a new conception of God.44 In other words,
our Offenheit extends even to the notion of God as a subject for interroga-
tion. As Sartre reports in his memorial article, Merleau-Ponty “dreams of
this All-Powerful [Being] who would need men, who would be in question
in the depths of each of them and would remain total Being, the one that
intersubjectivity does not cease to institute infinitely, the only one that
we would lead to the end of his being and who would share with us all
the insecurity of the human adventure” (1964, 274–75). That sounds very
much like what attracts Merleau-Ponty to Bergson, but then Sartre adds,
“It is only a question, evidently, of a metaphorical indication” (Ibid., 275).
This addendum raises more questions than it answers. Does it mean
that the “Tout-Puissant” is a metaphor? That a God of any kind can be
on our side? That intersubjectivity—or, in the language of the later texts,
intercorporeity—can “institute infinitely” this God? And whatever “meta-
phorical” does denote here, is it true? There are no ready answers, but there
is one tantalizing clue. In the “Annexe” to The Visible and the Invisible,
Merleau-Ponty indicates that he examines human experience in order to
determine how “it opens us to what is not ourselves” (VI 159/211). Then he
says, “this does not even exclude the possibility that we find in our experience a
movement toward what could not in any event be present to us in the original and
whose irremediable absence would thus count among our originating experiences”
(Ibid.; italics in the original),45 although we should first “fix our vision on
what is apparently given to us” (Ibid.). Perhaps in the end we can get no
farther in understanding his openness to religious meanings than his remarks
in Eye and Mind, “the being of God is for us [the] abyss” (OE 177/56) and
“unfathomable God” (Dieu insondable) (Ibid., 177/57).
Whitehead does try to fathom the nature of God, but we will not
enter into that discussion here because it requires an explanation of his
process metaphysics. Instead, we now turn to two thinkers who have already
entered our reflections, substantially influenced both Merleau-Ponty’s and
Whitehead’s views of Nature, and form a bridge between them: F. W. J.
Schelling and Henri Bergson.
45. “Il n’est pas même exclu par là que nous trouvions en elle un mouvement vers ce qui ne saurait
en aucun cas nous être présent en original et dont l’absence irrémédiable compterait ainsi au nombre
de nos expériences originaires.”
V
THE SCHELLINGIAN
AND BERGSONIAN HERITAGE
SCHELLING
Almost all of Merleau-Ponty’s discussions of Schelling occur in his retrospec-
tive summary of the Collège de France course on “The Concept of Nature”
(January–May 1957) and in its much longer exposition in Chapter IV of La
Nature, “The Romantic Conception of Nature.” How much he was able to
consult Schelling’s original texts (1856–1861) is not clear, but he does make
frequent use of Karl Jaspers’s Schelling, which appeared two years before the
course, and Karl Löwith’s Nietzsche, Philosophy of the Eternal Recurrence of the
Same, which links the title figure’s thought to Kant, Hegel, and Schelling,
and which appeared the year before the course. Merleau-Ponty also had at
his disposal S. Jankélévitch’s Schelling. Essais (Paris: Aubier, 1946). This col-
lection comprised the sole French translations of Schelling’s writings that he
could access, and contained excerpts from several works from different periods
of Schelling’s life.1
1. These works include: “The System of Transcendental Idealism . . . Ideas for a Philosophy of
Nature . . . Von der Weltseele . . . Darstellung des Philosophischen Empirismus . . . and Philosophical
Investigations Concerning the Essence of Human Freedom. . . . In addition, Jankélévitch prepared
a partial translation of the 1811 version of Schelling’s Die Weltalter. These translations are
generally acknowledged to be inadequate” (N 290, n. 5 [translator]). This listing is mostly
correct. Von der Weltseele appeared in 1798 and was later combined with an 1806 essay titled
“On the Relation of the Real and the Ideal in Nature.” Of the two works, only the latter
article is included in Jankélévitch’s book (Marquet 1992, 2087a).
123
124 NATURE AND LOGOS
2. Roughly speaking, Schelling’s Naturphilosophie spanned the years 1797–1800, which then led
to his system of transcendental idealism (1801–1809), which then developed into his “identity
philosophy” (1809–), and ended with The Ages of the World of 1811, 1813, and 1815, which
then turned into his late philosophy. One key example of the differences is that, in the early
texts, the transcendental Fichtean perspective is combined with the Naturphilosophie as two
sides of the same project. The productive force of the I reflects the productive activity of
Natura naturans. Yet, in the Ages of the World, within the period of the Identity philosophy,
transcendental and natural philosophies are combined in one single perspective. (We are
indebted to Antoon Braeckman for this information.) The Identity philosophy was developed
to provide a foundation for the earlier Naturphilosophie.
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 125
3. “Finalement, par le biais de la morale, Kant laisse subsister la vieille ontologie.” “Way” is
too nondescript a translation of “biais.” “Expedient” or “device” would have been much closer
to Merleau-Ponty’s meaning.
4. “Par sa définition, comme Abgrund, il appelle le terme contradictoire qu’il va produire. Le
naturé n’est pas un effet mort, et la Nature n’est pas un produit.”
126 NATURE AND LOGOS
(N 38/61),5 which finally ends only with death. Here, then, we have a rich
source for Merleau-Ponty’s concepts of l’être brut,6 reversibility, activity =
passivity, and the inspiration and expiration of Being.
Much after the period of the Naturphilosophie, in the 1809 Freedom
essay, Schelling’s own word for this movement of inspiration and expiration
is “Konspiration.” He describes it as a “unity and conspiracy.” He compares
the feeling of being “out of accord with the whole” to being “inflamed
by inner heat of sickness” (2006, 70). Drawing on its etymological root,
“spiritus”—“spirit” or “breath”—or Geist, is the “breathing out of the dark
abyss of nature into form and the simultaneous inhaling of this ground, the
retraction of things away from themselves. The conspiracy is a simultaneous
expiration and inspiration, and each thing of nature is both inspired yet
expiring” (Wirth 2003, 2).
The third reason why Schelling rejects Spinoza’s interpretation
of the Natura naturans-Natura naturata relationship is also resumed in
Merleau-Ponty’s late ontology. Whereas for Spinoza all particular modes
of substance are manifestations of the distinct attributes of either matter
or spirit, for Schelling, any given phenomenon of Nature contains both
“reality” and “ideality”: “The circulation between the corporeal and the
spiritual . . . is one and the same substance. . . . An image or inner spirit
of life constantly emerges out of the corporeal and it always again becomes
embodied through a reverse process” (2000, 62).7
In this light, the detachment from Nature that is characteristic of the
“pensée de survol” and the resulting ontology of the object is unhealthy for
both ourselves and for the Nature that gets degraded into mere objectivity.
Hence, the title of the present work is meant to reflect both the subjectivity
of Nature as well as caring for it in order to avoid that unhealthy detach-
5. Merleau Ponty refers to the French translation of Löwith’s text. Compare also Merleau
Ponty’s description of falling asleep: “I am breathing deeply and slowly in order to summon
sleep, and suddenly it is as if my mouth were connected to some great lung outside myself
which alternately calls forth and forces back my breath. A certain rhythm of respiration, which
a moment ago I voluntarily maintained, now becomes my very being” (PhP 211–12/245). “Je
respirais lentement et profondément pour appeler le sommeil et soudain on dirait que ma
bouche communique avec quelque immense poumon extérieur qui appelle et refoule mon
souffle, un certain rythme respiratoire, tout à l’heure voulu par moi, devient mon être même.”
6. Schelling’s recognition of “l’être brut,” that “primordial being” in which we are enveloped
antecedent to distinctions between subject and object, is one of many subjects on which
Merleau-Ponty felt a strong affinity with his predecessor. This theme, discussed early in the
first Nature course, reflects Merleau-Ponty’s belief that Nature is a necessary and privileged
access to ontology.
7. An extremely important consequence of Schelling’s reinterpretation of Spinoza consists
of “the revelation of deep ecology, of the absolute subjectivity of nature. Schelling sought to
replace ‘dead, blind substance’ with ‘living substance’ ” (Wirth 2003, 93). Elsewhere, he adds
that “Nature, the infinite complication of bodies,” consists of “an endlessly creative expres-
sion” (Ibid., p. 151).
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 127
9. Merleau-Ponty cites Löwith (1997,146) for this description. However, Schelling himself
writes, “Nature is an abyss of the past. This is what is oldest in nature, the deepest of what
remains if everything accidental and everything that has become is removed” (2000, 31).
10. Jaspers (1955, 380), cited at N 38/62 (but the reference is missing in the English transla-
tion). Schelling himself discusses God’s “devouring fire” (e.g., at Exodus 24:17 and Deuteronomy
4: 24) in The Ages of the World (2000, 21).
11. It is remarkable that neither thinker qualifies his claim with any discussion of, or even
reference to, the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 or the terror following the French Revolution—
and this in spite of the fact that, as seminary students in Tübingen, Schelling, Hegel, and
Hölderlin had a keen interest in the French Revolution and its repercussions. See Schelling,
Sämmtliche Werke (1856) I: 243.
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 129
How does this intuition of erste Natur apply to the Natura naturata
that we find before us? Schelling uses §76 of the Critique of Judgment as
the point of departure for his answer. In that text Kant argues that the
phenomenon of life could not be explained mechanistically because the
whole organism has a priority over its parts. What can be explained, natu-
ral (mechanical) causality, applies only to relationships between the parts
and cannot be added from the exterior to the interior of the organism to
make its development intelligible. For Kant, such knowledge would be but
a “dream,” as Schelling notes.
Schelling, by contrast, “wants to think this blind production, the
result of which has the air of being built with concepts [that is, as if it
were externally designed]” (N 39/63).12 Merleau-Ponty then notes that, for
Schelling, although this natural production may seem teleological, it is actu-
ally a “blind mechanism” (Ibid.).13 Likewise, Merleau-Ponty adds, Bergson
holds the same idea in Creative Evolution when he rejects “both mechanism
and finalism equally” (Ibid.).
Merleau-Ponty does not spend much time discussing this aspect of
Schelling’s thought, but we should note that the kind of teleology that
Schelling and Merleau-Ponty reject—and Bergson as well—consists of what
Merleau-Ponty usually refers to as “finalism.” That view holds that the end
of the whole of Nature is already contained in the beginning and/or that
particular fixed ends already exist before the observable stages of the natural
processes that lead up to them. It is the view that “the concept of this pur-
posiveness must have preceded [natural] production itself” (Schelling 1978,
216).14 Refusing to accept this doctrine is not inconsistent with holding that
there is purpose operating in Nature—for instance, that certain animals
would develop hands or a certain color of skin or feathers because of their
survival use value. Moreover, Schelling’s portrayal of the “deduction of the
dynamic series of stages” of Nature shows it to be far more tentative and
open, so to say, than finalist explanations would allow:
12. “Schelling, au contraire, veut penser cette production aveugle dont le résultat a pourtant
l’air d’être bâti avec des concepts.”
13. Schelling’s own text runs as follows: “For the peculiarity of nature rests upon this, that in
its mechanism, and although itself nothing but a blind mechanism, it is nonetheless purposive”
(1978, 215). The earlier Naturphilosophie puts it this way: “[Y]ou destroy all idea of Nature from
the very bottom, as soon as you allow the purposiveness to enter her from without, through
a transfer from the intelligence of any being whatever . . . the unity of things . . . can have
become teleological in your own understanding” (1988, 34).
14. For Merleau-Ponty, the conception of teleology as finalism “shares the fate of mechanism:
these are two artificial ideas [that is, by purpose or by chance]. Natural production remains
to be understood otherwise” (RC 83/117). “partage le sort du mécanisme: ce sont deux idées
artificialistes. La production naturelle reste à comprendre autrement.”
130 NATURE AND LOGOS
It is true that Schelling tries to show how an earlier stage of life is a pre-
liminary one for the stages following, and he interprets natural forces as
ultimately leading to organic life, but this is quite different from, and does
not imply, finalism.
Second, in a parallel way, Schelling rejects mechanism as a complete
account of Nature, yet he also holds that Nature is a “blind mechanism.”
That is, mechanism as a doctrine is not entirely false, but since all of Nature
is both real and ideal, material and spiritual, mechanism is an abstraction
from the whole. For Schelling, as Jason Wirth states, “mechanical movement
is a special case of life itself. . . . [I]f one begins with the Organism, with
the idea of nature as a Whole, then the illusion of mechanical life is just
a special case of the conspiracy of life” (2003, 95).15 As a result, Schelling
reversed the eighteenth-century view that, if one begins with some type of
mechanical motion, life can be best understood as a supplemental animat-
ing principle added on. Merleau-Ponty also rejects this view because adding
life to matter is inconsistent with his conception of mind and body as dual
expressions of flesh.16
Schelling then states that, in a passage that sounds very like
Merleau-Ponty’s concept of empiétement, it would be equally difficult to
comprehend how we could ever realize our purposes freely and consciously
in the external world, “unless a susceptibility to such action were already
established in the world, even before it becomes the object of a conscious
act, by virtue of that original identity of the unconscious [necessity] with
the conscious activity [freedom]” (Ibid., 214).
15. Compare Merleau-Ponty’s comment that “Mechanism affirms a natural artificial, and final-
ism affirms an artificial natural” (N 85/119). “Le mécanisme affirme un artificiel naturel, et le
finalisme affirme un naturel artificiel.”
16. There is a echo of Schelling’s view in some contemporary attempts to avoid “additive”
theories of mind, as well as in Henri Bergson’s protest against privileging “inert” matter to which
“life” would be added. For the former, see, for example, John McDowell (1998). Schelling also
rejects mechanism on a divine scale as well. He adds that “God is not a god of the dead but
of the living. It is not comprehensible how the most perfect being could find pleasure even
in [producing] the most perfect machine possible. . . . The procession [Folge] of things from
God is a self-revelation of God” (2006, 18). Bergson also argued against the primacy of inert
matter to which life would be added. See, for example, La pensée et le mouvant (2005, 101).
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 131
17. J.-F. Marquet points out that Schelling copies “rather clumsily [gauchement] the dialectic
of ‘observed self’ and ‘observing self’ so characteristic of the Wissenschaftslehre [of Fichte], and
which, here, badly recovers the dynamic schema of ‘powers’ (Potenzen) where the philosopher
recognizes more and more the nerve of his own method” (1992, 2087a).
132 NATURE AND LOGOS
to intellect lay at the origin of the ontology of the object. By itself, for
Schelling, the intellect cannot penetrate the external shell of reality to
its terrible core; to do so requires a bit of madness to experience. A gap
opens up between explanation and understanding (2003, 103).18 Therefore,
Merleau-Ponty concludes that, despite his claim that Schelling sought a way
to think our connection with erste Natur, Schelling’s alternative to explain-
ing the erste Natur was to “live and feel” this Being—“Il faut la vivre et
l’éprouver” (N 39/63).
Commenting on this passage, Robert Vallier asks, “How can a reflexive
philosophy of consciousness ever secure a purchase on it [Nature]?” Does
not such an enterprise transmute living Nature into a “dead product” of
thought? He then praises Schelling “as a true phenomenologist” because
“for him, the question is not to think this activity . . . but rather ‘to live
[leben] and to experience [erleben] it’ ” (2000, 92).
There are two basic problems with this way of conceiving the rela-
tionship of reflection and Nature. First, to ask how reflection can “secure a
purchase” on Nature already implies a fundamental separation, establishing
external relations between them. The second problem is that living and
experiencing Nature may be the first thing a phenomenologist does, but
it is certainly not the last, because the phenomenologist is a philosopher.
As Merleau-Ponty himself puts it, philosophy “is the invitation to re-see
the visible, to re-speak speech, to re-think thought.” Adhering “simply to
each visible, to each namable, to each thinkable,—that would not be to
philosophize, but to live”19 (NC 376).
It is true that, anterior to all reflection and conceptual explication,
Schelling wants to reach “ ‘the non-known,’ the Ungewusste, not a science
of Nature, but a phenomenology of prereflexive Being” (N 41/66).20 He also
does not wish to take refuge in some “mystical faculty” because we have
already seen that he wanted to preserve rather than emasculate reason.
He holds that, as Merleau-Ponty phrases it, we “rediscover” Nature in our
18. In The Visible and the Invisible, there is an echo of Schelling’s belief when Merleau-Ponty
states that reflection is no longer perception, but the thought of perception. As noted earlier,
reflection converts our “perceptual faith” that we reach the things themselves into thought
about this connection, thought that eliminates all perceptual incompossibilities, enigmas,
paradoxes, and obscurities (30/51). Nonetheless, for the reasons given above, Merleau-Ponty
takes a more generous view of concepts than Schelling does. His considered view here would
be that Schelling has at least the merit of pointing out the dangers of reflection abstracted
from the constructions of experience.
19. “C’est l’invitation a re-voir le visible, a re-parler la parole, a re-penser le penser”; “simple-
ment à chaque visible, à chaque nommable, à chaque pensable,—ce qui ne serait pas philoso-
pher, mais vivre.”
20. “. . . le ‘non-su,’ l’ ‘Ungewusste,’ non pas une science de la Nature, mais une phénomé-
nologie de l’Etre pré-réflexif.”
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 133
21. “Tant que je suis identique à la Nature, je la comprends aussi bien que ma propre vie.”
Merleau-Ponty cites Schelling’s Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature. In the English translation, the
passage is on p. 36.
22. Cf. N 46/72: “The philosophy of Schelling seeks to restore a sort of indivision between us
and Nature considered as an organism, indivision conditioned by [the] indivision of subject-object.
But it admits that this indivision is inevitably broken by reflection, and that it is a question
of ‘re-establishing’ this unity.” “La philosophie de Schelling cherche à restituer une sorte
d’indivision entre nous et la Nature considérée comme un organisme, indivision conditionnée
par indivision subjet-objet. Mais elle [la philosophy de Schelling] admet que cette indivision
est inévitablement rompue par la réflexion, et qu’il s’agit de ‘rétablir’ cette unité.”
134 NATURE AND LOGOS
25. This is another dimension of Merleau-Ponty’s critique of Husserl’s analyses of time conscious-
ness. The “Working Notes” for The Visible and the Invisible state, “The problem of forgetting:
lies essentially in the fact that it is discontinuous” (VI 194/248). “Problème de l’oubli: tient
essentiellement à ce qu’il est discontinu.”
26. Much later, in the Freedom essay of 1809, Schelling will argue that we cannot pass from
the non-living to the living because, as noted above, all of Nature is alive. Both the organic
and the inorganic are dual aspects of the same Konspiration of life.
136 NATURE AND LOGOS
27. This statement shows from another angle Schelling’s claim, discussed above, that we can
freely, consciously, realize our purposes in the external world only because “a susceptibility
to such action were already established in the world, even before it becomes an object of a
conscious act” (1978, 214).
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 137
28. “. . . la perception même avant qu’elle ait été réduite en idées; la perception . . . où
toutes choses sont moi parce que je ne suis pas encore le sujet de la réflexion.” The English
translation renders “la perception même” as simply “perception” instead of “perception itself.”
29. Compare Heidegger’s claim that the “essence of truth reveals itself as freedom. The latter is
ek-sistent, disclosive letting beings be” (1977, 128). This disclosure means “to bring the clearing
of the truth of Being before thinking” (1977a, 251). And in turn, the “name of this clearing
[Lichtung] is aletheia” (1977, 138). Merleau-Ponty makes similar comments about “natural Light
and cry of light” in connection with the “Ontology of painting” and “communication with
Being through vision” (NC 180).
138 NATURE AND LOGOS
30. “la Nature est empruntée à notre perception (cf. l’intuition pure chez Bergson). Nous
sommes les parents d’une Nature dont nous sommes les enfants.”
31. “La Nature chemine, par une série de déséquilibres, vers la réalisation de l’homme qui en
devient le terme dialectique.”
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 139
This intuition “is the descent into the dark night of the soul, the abyss
of freedom. . . . Schelling therefore called the intuition ein nicht denkendes
Denken, a thinking that does not think. . . . The intellectual intuition does
not produce a concept although it intuits the dark ground of any possible
concept” (Wirth 2003, 110, 111).
However, Merleau-Ponty states, if intuition is sleep, then it is “reflec-
tion’s appreciation of intuition” (N 45/70) that serves as the organ of phi-
losophy. In that case, intuition would not just be empty but also blind, and
it would be left to reflection to explain this blind contact with Nature.
Reflection would become a “necessary evil” and Schelling’s philosophy would
consist of “reflection on what is not reflection” (Jaspers 1955, 83; cited
at N 45/71). As a result, Schelling, like Merleau-Ponty, needs a language
for the philosophy of Nature that can engage Nature “in its least human
aspects” (N 45/71), and for this, also like Merleau-Ponty, he turns to art.
Just as philosophy finds an arrangement of things with an open meaning,
art is the “objective realization of a contact with the world, which cannot
be objectivated” (Ibid.). Given this fact, Schelling claims that art is the
true “document” and “organ” of philosophy (1978, 219).
For both Merleau-Ponty and Schelling, albeit for different reasons,
neither art and philosophy nor the experiences of philosophers and art-
ists are identical. For Merleau-Ponty, philosophy32 begins with what cannot
be known and comes to a conscious conclusion. By contrast, art begins
with conscious thought processes and ends in something that can always
be resumed. Art reaches the Absolute “because at that moment conscious-
ness attains the unconscious” (N 45–46/71). For Schelling, art can assist
the reconciliation of understanding and imagination. The presence of the
Absolute in art is our experience of a “higher Nature,” and thinking appears
to be something “natural.” Art provides the experience of “the identity of
subject and object,” a mélange of idea and fact, and in this experience, as
Merleau-Ponty expresses it in Bergsonian imagery, “things arrange them-
selves as if it were said in advance that the locks should open. Art is this
experience of the identity of subject and object” (N 46/71).33
Nevertheless, Schelling distinguishes between philosophy and art in
that the philosopher wants to express the dark, hidden pre-being of erste
Natur anterior to the intervention of knowing, whereas the artist wants to
re-create the world. Philosophy does not vanish into art. Rather, they are
32. The student notes say “Nature” instead of “philosophy,” but this makes no sense for the
following contrast. Therefore, we have substituted “Philosophy” for “Nature.”
33. “Les choses s’arrangent comme s’il était dit d’avance que les serrures devaient s’ouvrir. L’art
est cette expérience de l’identité du sujet et de l’objet.”
140 NATURE AND LOGOS
only related in the mutual openness to the world embodied in the experi-
ences of the philosopher and the artist. Both philosophy and art can reach
the Absolute, though in different ways. Philosophy can learn from art with-
out losing its independence. As Patrick Burke indicates for painting, though
Schelling’s preferred artistic medium was poetry, it is a question of “the vis-
ible and the invisible dimensions of presence which the hand of the painter
practices and which the philosopher wants to bring to word” (1999, 187).
For Schelling, poetry is the origin of philosophy. Poetic consciousness
acknowledges that it is not in complete possession of its object, and that the
only way that it can really comprehend it is to create it. Artistic exertion is
the best “document” that testifies to the encounter of “passivity and spon-
taneity” through which Schelling searches for, in Merleau-Ponty’s idiom,
“a Reason that is not prose and a poetry that is not irrational” (N 50/77).
Poets, therefore, just as painters for Merleau-Ponty, are uniquely placed to
understand the creativity of Nature in and through their own creativity that
exemplifies and mirrors it. Perhaps Merleau-Ponty was thinking of this when
writing, “Being is what requires creation of us for us to experience it. Make
an analysis of literature in this sense: as inscription of Being” (VI 197/251).34
As part of our life within Nature to which poetry testifies, Schelling
holds that, as Merleau-Ponty observes, with the creation of humanity Nature
becomes re-created as vision. Conversely, human beings become Nature
through their vision (N 47/73). Further, their reversible relationship amounts
to the transcendence of the dichotomy of subject and object. Similarly, just
as the intuition is the medium of our attempts to place ourselves within the
Absolute, the Absolute itself becomes world and a relationship with us. As
Merleau-Ponty expresses Schelling’s view, “God is an empirical fact” and, in
Whitehead’s view as well, “at the base of every experience” (Ibid.). We do
not know God except through experience, and we only grasp God in the
finite: the movement from finite to infinite and vice versa is part of “the
very fabric of things” (Ibid.).
Moreover, for Schelling, as part of this dialectic God’s freedom is made
known in us, and it is in us that God’s powers are exercised. What makes
this reciprocity possible is that Schelling’s philosophy is not a philosophy
of Being that separates the Absolute from the finite, but a “philosophy
of time” according to which “nothing exists merely, but rather everything
becomes” (N 48/74). For Merleau-Ponty, this turning to temporality is, on
the other hand, but another way of reinforcing the notion that “there is
no separated Absolute” (Ibid.).
As Merleau-Ponty sees it, Fichte had a certain “hatred of Nature” (N
48/74), but Schelling, in a way analogous to Husserl’s notion of “affective
35. The French editor of La Nature notes (74, n. 3) that this expression is “Without doubt an
allusion to Schelling’s expression, ‘Nature is unconscious Spirit,’ cited by Jaspers’ ” (1955, 297).
36. Schelling, however, did not think of “Konspiration” as an analogy, but as an exact description.
142 NATURE AND LOGOS
37. For a spirited defense of Schelling against Hegel, see Wirth (2003, 11–24, 106–107, and
202–206).
38. “Ce qui résiste en nous à la phénoménologie,—l’être naturel, le principe ‘barbare’ dont parlait
Schelling,—ne peut pas demeurer hors de la phénoménologie et doit avoir sa place en elle.”
39. “Ce qui est donné ce n’est pas un monde massif et opaque, ou un univers de pensée
adéquate, c’est une réflexion qui se retourne sur l’épaisseur du monde pour l’éclairer, mais qui
ne lui renvoie après coup que sa propre lumière.”
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 143
our entire distinction between the merely possible and the actual
rests on this: in saying that a thing is possible we are positing
only the presentation of it with respect to our concept and to our
thinking ability in general; but in saying that a thing is actual we
are positing the thing itself [an sich selbst] (apart from that concept).
(1987, 284, 285; brackets and parentheses in the original)
40. This claim sounds very Whiteheadian. Science and the Modern World employs almost
identical language.
144 NATURE AND LOGOS
necessary, there stands contrasted, under the name of chemistry, the special
dynamics, which in its principles is utterly contingent” (Ibid., 200, 201).
It is not clear whether, for Schelling, conceptual knowledge is limited
to the contingent or whether, particularly within the natural sciences, it can
also embrace necessity. In any event, for him it cannot substitute for, or
displace, the epistemological and even ontological primacy of intuition. Nor
could it for Bergson, influenced as he was by Schelling through Ravaisson.41
However, for Merleau-Ponty, as we have seen, the knowledge expressed in
the logos proforikos is conceptual in a way that Schelling’s notion of intui-
tive understanding is not.
BERGSON
Intuition and its relation to concepts forms only a small part of Bergson’s
substantial and complex influence on Merleau-Ponty. From his earliest to
his last works, he refers often to his predecessor’s writings, in which he finds
much to praise and also much to criticize.
In “The Philosophy of Existence,”42 written two years before his death,
Merleau-Ponty regrets that his student curriculum had been dominated by
Léon Brunschvicg’s idealism. Had this not been the case, he writes, and if
he and his fellow students had read Bergson carefully during the 1930s, they
would have discovered much that they later learned through philosophies
of existence—i.e., through thinkers such as Husserl, Heidegger, Jaspers, and
Marcel. He then goes on to say that what they could have learned included
the importance of perception, temporality, consciousness, and the reality
of the body as mine as opposed to an object constructed by science. In
short, they had to wait to read those authors to understand the meaning
of the idea of incarnation that they might have obtained from Bergson.
Merleau-Ponty also states in “Bergson in the Making” that his predecessor
was the first to have established the perceptual circuit between the body
and things to which the Phenomenology of Perception gives so much atten-
tion. Not mentioned, however, is Bergson’s reliance on the traditional causal
model of perception and behavior that Merleau-Ponty rejects in the light
of Gestalt psychology.
Merleau-Ponty also states that Bergson was the first to reveal the
“brute being of the perceived world” as “duration a-borning,” and in so
46. For Bergson, this question rests on the mistake of assuming the priority of non-being
over being and then trying to account for why anything at all came to be (1937, 327). The
problem is thus dissolved rather than solved. Deleuze points out that, for Bergson, assuming
the priority of non-being over being amounts to mistaking “the more for the less,” “as though
being came to fill in a void” (1991, 18). Merleau-Ponty appears to agree: “[T]here is not
something rather than nothing, the nothing could not take the place of something or of being”
(VI 64/92). “[I]l n’y a pas quelque choses plutôt que rien, le rien ne saurait prendre la place du
quelque chose ou de l’être.”
47. Deleuze puts it this way: “The concrete will never be attained by combining the inadequacy
of one concept with the inadequacy of its opposite. The singular will never be attained by
correcting a generality with another generality” (1991, 44).
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 147
Merleau-Ponty does not say so, but he could also have added that Bergson’s
metaphysics, like that of Schelling, is typical of the “Romantic Reaction”
that perhaps finds its best expression in Wordsworth’s famous dictum, “We
murder to dissect.”
For Merleau-Ponty, Bergson’s philosophy is also close to that of
Schelling in terms of negativity. This is a complex topic that we will revis-
it in the following chapter. Here, though, the essential point as regards
Schelling is that, in also rejecting the Spinozistic account of Nature, Bergson
avows its contingency. For Merleau-Ponty, this is enough to show that his
predecessor, despite contradictory claims, incorporates negativity “in the idea
of Being” (N 52/79) after all. This is because what is contingent may have
been different or not have been at all. Moreover, Bergson states that one
question philosophers hardly ever trouble themselves to ask concerns the
idea of nothingness, which is, nonetheless, “the hidden spring, the invisible
motor of philosophical thought” (1937, 275).
Merleau-Ponty would likely agree because of the importance of natural
negativity—from the concealed horizons of sensible things to the negativ-
ity instituted by dehiscence and the écart, to the hidden depths of Being.
Moreover, negativity is his most important vehicle for comparing and con-
trasting Bergson and Sartre and for contrasting his own ontology with both.
48. For Bergson’s rejection of Hegelian dialectic, see 38 ff. Creative Evolution also speaks of
symbolic knowledge as “an artificial imitation of the internal life, a static equivalent which will
lend itself better to the requirements of logic and language, just because we have eliminated
from it the element of real time” (1937, 4). Hegel’s response to this distinction was already
fashioned in his criticisms of Schellingian intuition, namely, that Kant was correct that percepts
without concepts are blind—“the night in which all cows are black.”
148 NATURE AND LOGOS
This is why Merleau-Ponty says that Bergson often terms this “true
thought” of Being “fusion” or an “inscription” of things in our conscious-
ness: Bergsonian intuition amounts to “a massive grip on being, without
exploration, without interior movement of meaning” (E 12/21).50
These last words conclusively distinguish the “massive grip on being”
that Merleau-Ponty ascribes to Bergsonian intuition from his own “massive
adhesion” to Being as flesh. The latter notion, as we have seen, is anything
but an intuitive grasp “without interior movement of meaning.” As we have
49. Thus The Visible and the Invisible: “All that is partial is to be reintegrated, every negation is
in reality a determination, the being-self and the being-other and the being in itself are frag-
ments of one sole being” (64/92). “Tout ce qui est partiel est a réintégrer, toute négation est en
réalité détermination, et l’être-soi, et l’être-autre, et l’être en soi sont fragments d’un seul être.”
50. “ ‘Acte simple,’ ‘vue sans point de vue,’ accès direct et sans symboles interposés à l’intérieur
des choses, toutes ces formules célèbres de l’intuition en font une prise massive sur l’être, sans
exploration, sans mouvement intérieur du sens.”
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 149
51. Cf. E 28/41: the internal development of Bergson’s thought proceeds “from a philosophy
of impression to a philosophy of expression. What Bergson said against language has caused
us to forget what he said in its favor.” “d’une philosophie de l’impression à une philosophie
de l’expression. Ce que Bergson a dit contre le langage fait oublier ce qu’il a dit en sa faveur.”
52. The English translation renders “Ce petit fait est gros d’enseignements” as “This little fact
is big with meaning.”
53. Merleau-Ponty expresses this theme nicely when he writes, “When we are at the source of
the durée, we are also at the heart of things” because we do not confront Being as a spectator,
but rather by “a kind of complicity, an oblique and clandestine relationship” (E 15/24–25).
“Quand nous sommes à la source de la durée, nous sommes aussi au cœur des choses . . . c’est
comme une complicité, un rapport oblique et clandestin.”
54. It would be interesting to know to what degree, if any, Bergson influenced Claudel’s for-
mulation of his neologism, “co-naissance.”
150 NATURE AND LOGOS
vital, active sense of the term” (S 184/232).55 Duration is the way that the
passing moment “maintains itself, conserves itself, undivided in the present,
and grows” (E 10/18); it is “a kind of flowing thing which remains while
it melts away” (Ibid.). Time does not substitute for Being; rather, it is the
coming into being of Being itself, such that all of Being “must be approached
from the side of time” (S 184/232).
Duration is, as Edward S. Casey has noted, a “nonlinear dissolving
time” that stands opposed to Cartesian duration because, as in the above
example, it is neither purely on the “side” of consciousness nor on that
of external things. Rather, “its very existence deconstructs the Cartesian
bifurcation” (1993, 11).56 For Bergson, therefore, on Merleau-Ponty’s view,
“duration is the milieu in which soul and body find their articulation because
the present and the body, the past and the mind, although different in
nature, nevertheless pass into one another” (S 185/232).57 In addition,
Casey’s statement is true as far as it goes, but there is another, equally
important reason why Bergson opposes his notion of duration to that of
Descartes. The Cartesian notion cannot account for evolution, “the very
essence of life” (1937, 22). Since Cartesian duration is about discrete, math-
ematically measured temporal quanta, it is “a world that dies and is reborn at
every instant—the world Descartes was thinking of when he spoke of continued
creation” (Ibid., italics in the original). Evolution, on the contrary, requires
“a real persistence of the past in the present, a duration which is, as it were,
a hyphen, a connecting link” (Ibid.).
As we have seen, Merleau-Ponty’s own description of duration in per-
ceptual experience rejects the Cartesian analysis of temporal instants, but
it also rebuffs Bergson’s alternative of an unbroken continuity of duration.
The latter, he says, was right to stress temporal continuity, but he was wrong
to employ continuity as the explanation of temporal unity (PhP 420/481).
Unbroken continuity is really inconsistent with time because, if the past
and present already belong to each other, then the difference between past
and present is effaced. An adequate phenomenology of temporality must
account for both continuity and differentiation. Therefore, “if consciousness
55. “La durée n’est pas seulement changement, devenir, mobilité, elle est l’être au sens vif
et actif du mot.”
56. In The Creative Mind, Bergson himself describes the duration that makes up this “non-
linear dissolving time” as a “succession which is not juxtaposition, a growth from within,
the uninterrupted prolongation of the past into a present which is already blending into the
future” (1999, 35).
57. “. . . la durée est le milieu où l’âme et le corps trouvent leur articulation parce que le
présent et le corps, le passé et l’esprit, différents en nature, passent pourtant l’un dans l’autre.”
THE SCHELLINGIAN AND THE BERGSONIAN HERITAGE 151
snowballs upon itself, it is, like the snowball and everything else, wholly in
the present” (PhP 276n./319n1).58
As noted above, temporal continuity is also important for Bergson in
order to account for the evolution of life. Accordingly, we will continue our
discussion of duration and intuition in the context of Bergson’s influence
on Merleau-Ponty’s view of life in Nature.
58. “. . . si la conscience fait boule de neige avec elle-même, elle est, comme la boule de neige
et comme toutes les choses, tout entière dans le présent.” Merleau-Ponty is referring to the
following passage in Creative Evolution: “My mental state, as it advanced on the road of time,
is continually swelling with the duration which it accumulates: it goes on increasing—rolling
upon itself, as a snowball on the snow” (1937, 2).
This page intentionally left blank.
VI
153
154 NATURE AND LOGOS
For this reason, finalism is “only inverted mechanism” (1937, 39). Bergson
also holds that the principal error of mechanism and finalism is to overex-
tend the use of certain concepts that are “natural to our intellect” (Ibid.,
44). Since our intellect, like perception, is shaped by and for the necessity
for action, it is conceptual thinking that functions by means of instrumen-
tal rationality—forming and testing plans and fitting means to ends. In
such planning, no matter whether we think of Nature as a giant machine
governed by scientific laws or as the unfolding of a preestablished plan,
both ways of conceptualizing Nature have their roots in the same critical
requirements of preparation for action.
Rejecting an externally imposed end to the creative process, Bergson
substitutes “internal finality,” which he thinks recovers Kantian thinking
from the Third Critique. But, Merleau-Ponty holds, he misunderstands Kant,
for whom there is “an immanence between the end and the means”—e.g.,
in the resemblance between a mother and her daughter—but not a finality
“internal to the organism” for which there can be, on Kant’s grounds, no
conceptual knowledge (N 59/87). For Merleau-Ponty, what Bergson adds to
Kant is an understanding of life as history: “the living organism is ‘a unique
series of acts constituting the true history’ ”1 (Ibid., 59/88). In the absence
of such finality, organisms and life itself are to be understood—as in Matter
and Memory—in terms of a temporality in which an organism continues its
past while differentiating itself from it. In other words, its internal unity is
duration. Thus, Bergson says, “every cell, considered separately, evolves in
a specific way. Wherever anything lives, there is, open somewhere, a register in
which time is being inscribed” (1937, 16).2 For Merleau-Ponty, this “register”
is neither human consciousness nor our “notation of time” (N 59/88), but
rather “an institution, a Stiftung,” to use the Husserlian term, an act that
launches “a becoming without being exterior to this becoming” (Ibid.).
This notion of the institution of life draws together several strands of
thought in Creative Evolution, particularly where, as Merleau-Ponty points
out, Bergson supposes an original unity of life at the beginning and then its
differentiation among “animals, vegetables, [and] microbes,” the balancing
functions inherent in life “in the state of reciprocal implication” (N 59/88).
“Complex mechanisms on divergent lines of evolution” (Ibid.) led Bergson
1. This is a misreading of the text. Bergson does not describe the organism this way. Rather,
he says, as against those who want to produce a living organism chemically, “histologists and
embryogenists on the one hand, and naturalists on the other” who are concerned with the
“minute structure of living tissues” see what happens in the chemical retort as a “unique series
of acts that really constitute a history” rather than just a series of physico-chemical reactions
(1937, 36).
2. Bergson italicizes this entire sentence, but neither Merleau-Ponty nor the English transla-
tion of La Nature does so.
NATURE AND LIFE 155
3. Bergson’s interest in evolution was never in Tennyson’s perception of “Nature red in tooth
and claw,” but rather (like Schelling) in the creative productivity of Nature, the profusion of
a stupendous number of different life forms. Duration, he says, “means invention, the creation
of forms, the continual elaboration of the absolutely new” (1937, 11). Feeling a part of this
“single impulsion” of life (Ibid., 271) has the ecologically important consequence that “we feel
ourselves no longer isolated in humanity, humanity no longer seems isolated in the Nature
that it dominates” (Ibid., 270).
156 NATURE AND LOGOS
5. Cf. 87–88: “And qualities belong to matter as much as to ourselves: They belong to matter,
they are in matter, by virtue of the vibrations and numbers that punctuated them internally.”
6. Deleuze also notes that, for Bergson, “The present is only the most contracted degree of the
past, matter the most relaxed (détendu) degree of the present (mens momentanea)” (1991, 75).
7. “Maintenant, Bergson admet, à la fois, un dualisme et un émanatisme qui en est la négation:
la matière est issue du premier élément, par détente de celui-ci, elle en est tirée par inversion.”
8. “. . . il faut donc poser une unité au-delà de la durée, une ‘supraconscience,’ un maximum
d’intériorité symétrique au maximum d’exteriorité totale qu’est la matière. Le concept de Nature
doit éclater et céder la place à Dieu.”
158 NATURE AND LOGOS
9. The editor of La Nature notes that this citation is from “a passage dedicated to the Report
on French Philosophy” written by Ravaisson and discussed by Bergson in the last chapter of
La Pensée et le mouvant, “The Life and Work of Ravaisson” (N 94, n. 1). However, the only
sentence in that chapter that even faintly resembles what Merleau-Ponty says is the following
passage in which Bergson quotes Ravaisson: “Infinite thought ‘has annulled something of the
plenitude of its being, in order to draw from it, by a kind of awakening and resurrection, all
that exists’ ” (1999, 239).
10. Cf. E 25–26/38 where Merleau-Ponty discusses Bergson’s God “as the principle of the
good.” “Everything happens, according to Bergson, as if man encountered at the roots of his
constituted being a generosity which is not a compromise with the adversity of the world and
which is on his side against it.” “Tout se passe, à lire Bergson, comme si l’homme rencontrait,
à la racine de son être constitué, une générosité qui n’est pas compromise avec l’adversité du
monde et qui est d’accord avec lui contre elle.” This is as close as Merleau-Ponty comes to
expressing his own sense of God. It is also very close to William James’s view in The Varieties
of Religious Experience (1904a, 517).
11. Nor are Merleau-Ponty’s own retrospective summaries of his courses, Résumés de Cours,
Collège de France 1952–1960, of any help. The total amount of space dedicated to Bergson in
dealing with the Romantic conception of Nature is only three pages (109–11).
NATURE AND LIFE 159
12. In Creative Evolution, intuition is a type of instinct, and instinct is “sympathy.” Intuition
is “instinct that has become disinterested, self-conscious, capable of reflecting upon its object
and of enlarging it indefinitely” (1937, 176).
13. Merleau-Ponty holds that criticism of the conceptual spatialization of time is neither neces-
sary nor sufficient for recovering “authentic time” (PhP 415n./474–75 n. 1). It is not necessary
because time is disengaged from space only on condition that space is something “objectified
in advance,” and if we disregard “primordial [bodily] spatiality” (Ibid.). And protests against
spatialization are insufficient because, when the conceptually static terms used to describe time
have been fully criticized, it is still possible to misdescribe “an authentic intuition of time” (Ibid.).
160 NATURE AND LOGOS
and the more I “pursue this quite negative direction of relaxation, the more
extension and complexity I shall create” (Ibid.). Bergson then states that
this comparison will at least help us to comprehend “how the same sup-
pression of positive reality, the same inversion of a certain original move-
ment, can create at once extension in space and the admirable order which
mathematics finds there” (1937, 210). This is to say that the flux of life,
for Bergson, is purely positive, while Negativity is the product of intellect.
There is no natural negativity, except in the weak sense of contingency.
The same reasoning also applies to space, which “arises automatically,
as the remainder of a subtraction arises once the two numbers are posited”
(Ibid.).14 Thus, as the sounds of the poet’s voice materialize for me when I
“relax my attention” to its meaning, in a comparable fashion spatial exten-
sion materializes when the efforts of the vital impulse are interrupted. As
noted above, matter and spatial extension simply are that interruption to
which intellect corresponds. Intellect and matter are both cut out of the flux
of life in the same movement, just as intellect cuts out bodies from matter.
“Yet,” Bergson he still maintains, “it is undeniable that matter lends itself
to this sub-division” (Ibid., 203).
It is very difficult to make Bergson’s two views of the relationship of
life/consciousness and matter consistent with each other, a conclusion that
Merleau-Ponty reaches at the end of his analysis of Creative Evolution in the
Nature lectures. What intervenes is his all-important critique of negativity
and positivity in that work.
14. Another reason that Merleau-Ponty might have described Bergson’s view in Chapter III of
Creative Evolution as “emanatism” is a note appended to this statement about space. Bergson
writes, “Our comparison does no more than develop the content of the term logos, as Plotinus
understands it. . . . More generally, the relation that we establish in the present chapter between
‘extension’ and ‘detension’ resembles in some aspects that which Plotinus supposes . . . when he
makes extension not indeed an inversion of original Being, but an enfeeblement of its essence,
one of the last states of the procession” (1937, 210, n. 1). In terms of Bergson’s conception of
space, Deleuze notes helpfully, “Space, in effect, is not matter or extension, but the ‘schema’
of matter, that is, the representation of the limit where the movement of expansion (détente)
would come to an end as the external envelope of all possible extensions” (1991, 87).
NATURE AND LIFE 161
15. “. . . de s’apercevoir que, dans cette réalité, il y a une négation, d’où la traduction de
cette négation en termes positifs (ici le physique et le psychique) et d’où, finalement, afin
de conserver malgré tout l’unité positive, l’incorporation de cette nouvelle négation dans les
concepts d’être et de positif.”
16. Merleau-Ponty does not say so, but this argument derives from Kant. A phenomenal ap-
pearance of total chaos would be self-contradictory because of the implicit ordering activities
of consciousness through which the manifold of sensory intuition would achieve intelligibility
as chaos.
17. On its face, this sentence appears to contradict Bergson’s rejection of one of the Kantian
alternatives mentioned earlier, that “between mind and things we must suppose a mysterious
agreement.” Bergson does not seem to recognize a tension between the two sentences, and
perhaps he would reply that the key difference is the word mysterious. Kant was referring to
the problem of how the categories of the understanding can “connect” with those data—in
his technical language, be “schematized.” Bergson’s second sentence is about the intellectual
measurement of matter, not how mind and matter come together in the first place.
162 NATURE AND LOGOS
and presupposes the regularities of cause and effect: given the same condi-
tions, the same results will obtain. The vital order, however, yields the same
results under different circumstances, as we have seen with the example of
the same structures of matter appearing in diverging lines of evolution. The
two forms of order also differ in terms of temporal emphasis. Permanence in
the vital order comes from the success of future results, whereas permanence
for nonliving entities is explained by past-looking considerations.
Merleau-Ponty claims that, for Bergson, these two forms of order are
“not only contrary, but contradictory” (N 65/95). Bergson clearly sees them
as contrary in that the first type of order, “the vital,” is that in which cre-
ativity is unforeseeable (Ibid., 224), while the second type of order, “the
mathematical,” is “automatic and . . . foreseeable” (Ibid.). Yet, Bergson
never claims that these two types of order are contradictory, and for him
both are in fact true. This is because the mathematical order of Nature is
simply the way that intellect conceptualizes matter.
Merleau-Ponty also finds it difficult to believe in the positivity of
the “physico-mathematical order” in Bergson’s philosophy, particularly in
light of the latter’s claim that the capacity to disintegrate is an essential
characteristic of matter. Yet, even though Bergson does not hold that the
“physico-mathematical order” is positive, this is still an odd claim to make.
For, the disintegration of material configurations would ipso facto amount
to the disintegration of the “physico-mathematical order” as concerns the
matter affected.
However, Merleau-Ponty does not consider that objection. Instead, he
pursues the subject of negativity in terms of the conflicting views of mat-
ter in Creative Evolution. He concludes that Bergson’s positivism makes the
double demand on us that we believe that “life is a positive reality from
which matter derives, by a simple arrest [par simple arrêt]” (N 66/96) of the
vital impulse and that, given the supposed contradictions sketched above,
life and matter are “two positive orders” (Ibid.). The first belief stresses
continuity from one order to another. The second, he says, if taken literally,
would destroy Bergson’s idea of Nature, which teaches us that life amounts
to “the resumption of the arrested creative movement, and from which the
arrest produces matter, the latter being a reality that makes itself in a world
which undoes itself” (N 66/96, 97).18 This “bipolar” movement “interior to
Nature” must be presupposed: the “negation operating in Nature” (Ibid.) in
the continual interplay of life and matter is essential to prevent Bergson’s
concept of Nature from breaking up.
18. “. . . la vie est la reprise du mouvement créateur arrêté, et dont l’arrêt donne la matière,
celle-ci étant une réalité qui se fait dans un monde que se défait.” There is no explanation
of “un monde que se défait,” without which it is difficult to determine what Merleau-Ponty
means here.
NATURE AND LIFE 163
19. “Pour lui [Bergson], c’est la même chose de dire que quelque chose n’est pas et de dire que
quelque chose est. Toute négation est dénégation, Verneinung, comme dirait Freud.” It would
be an accurate portrayal of Bergson’s view if the end of the first sentence were “que quelque
chose d’autre est” (“that something else is”).
20. Bergson’s own explanation is much clearer than Merleau-Ponty’s commentary. Negation is
“affirmation of the second degree” (1937, 288) because it affirms something of an affirmation
that itself affirms something of an object. For example (Bergson’s), I say that a table is black.
This is an affirmative proposition about something that I’ve seen. But “The table is not white”
is not an affirmation of what I have seen, so it is not a judgment about the table. Rather, it
is a judgment about the (implied) “judgment that would declare the table white. I judge a
judgment and not the table” (Ibid., 287–88). Whenever we say, “This is not X,” it expresses
the perceptual appearance “in the language of my expectation and attention” (Ibid.). This,
therefore, is another case of relative disorder, “the disappointment of a mind that finds before
it an order different from what it wants” (Ibid., 222). Bergson could well have responded to
Merleau-Ponty’s criticism of implied negativity as he did in terms of negative judgments di-
rected at unexpected (positive) forms of order. Deleuze is right to say that the core of Bergson’s
philosophy is “to think differences in kind independently of all forms of negation: There are
differences in being and yet nothing negative” (1991, 46). These dualisms include those of dura-
tion and space, memory and matter, perception and recollection, and perception and affectivity.
164 NATURE AND LOGOS
21. “C’est vraiment une question de savoir pourquoi il n’a pas pensé l’histoire du dedans
comme il avait pensé la vie du dedans, pourquoi il ne s’est pas mis, là aussi, à la recherche
des actes simples et indivis qui, pour chaque période ou chaque événement, font l’agencement
des faits parcellaires.” The answer to Merleau-Ponty’s question is that Bergson, at least in
Creative Evolution, considered history in terms of the evolutionary development of life. See,
for example, 65–66 and 264–69.
NATURE AND LIFE 165
A WHITEHEADIAN RESPONSE
We have seen that Schelling holds that, in some way, all of Nature is alive,
and Bergson explains the presence of life in Nature through his famous
élan vital. Merleau-Ponty offers a different explanation through his stud-
ies of biology. The last “Working Note” for the completion of his “new”
ontology, written two months before his death, specifies that Part I of the
entire project would deal with “The visible,” and what came to be The
Visible and the Invisible formed an unfinished beginning of it. Part II, which
included Eye and Mind, would treat the subject of Nature, and Part III,
unwritten, would deal with the Logos (VI 274/328). About “Nature,” the
philosopher writes that he does not intend to interpret it as “Nature in
itself” as Scholastics might have conceived it, but rather as the “intertwining”
of animality and human beings. It would be “Nature as the other side of
man (as flesh—nowise as ‘matter’)” (Ibid.). There is an Ineinander between
human beings and “animality and Nature,” just as there is “an Ineinander
of life and physicochemistry” (N 208/269).
Merleau-Ponty’s three Nature courses articulate this “intertwining” in
great detail in order to argue against Cartesian dualism and other forms
of the bifurcation of Nature. The first course focuses on the phusis, the
second on animality, and the third on the human body and the Logos. We
have also seen that, for Merleau-Ponty, our flesh explains the flesh of the
world and vice versa, and we have followed his generalization of the body’s
reversible, chiasmatic structure to all flesh. In the three Nature lectures, he
wants to show through the evolutionary process, embryology, phylogenesis,
168 NATURE AND LOGOS
22. But see RC 126/173: “Embryology since Driesch seems to us to have been moving in this
direction in refusing to opt either for preformation or epigenesis, rather taking both notions
as ‘complementary’ and describing embryogenesis as a ‘flux of determination.” “l’embryologie
depuis Driesch, quand elle refuse d’opter entre préformation et épigenèse, prend ces notions
comme ‘complémentaires’ et décrit l’embryogenèse comme un ‘flux de détermination.’ ” What-
ever the evidence for this statement in the spring of 1960, biologists now generally accept that
epigenesis is the correct theory.
23. “L’avenir de l’organisme n’est pas replié en puissance dans le début de sa vie organique,
comme en raccourci dans son début.”
NATURE AND LIFE 169
24. “La vie n’est pas une sorte de quasi-intériorité . . . la réalité d’un passage, comme dirait
Whitehead, inobservable de près mais qui assurément se fait, et qui est une réalité.”
25. “Le comportement embrasse l’organisation élémentaire (embryologie), l’organisation physi-
ologique, instinctive ou de comportement proprement dit.”
170 NATURE AND LOGOS
(Moyle 2007, 168). The plan has a dimensionality according to which the
various stages of the organism’s temporal and spatial growth get organized.
In addition, our bodies, unlike those of lower and most higher animals, can
actually project a world (Ibid., 222/284).
Even lower animals, then, have a Bauplan, but only in a “descrip-
tive sense” (Ibid.)—that is, as a heuristic device to conceptualize a unity.
Uexküll considers them “incomplete organisms” (N 222/284). On the other
hand, as Whitehead also held, there are degrees of organization and life in
nature, and thus there are other lower animals that are more complex and
are fully organisms. For example, the sea anemone has “three separate neural
networks, but . . . only one behavior” (Ibid., 170/224).
The Umwelt of a higher animal is marked by another novelty: the
construction of “a Gegenwelt” (“monde opposé”) (N 170/224).26 Lower life
forms have unified functioning, but no ability to reply to their world. The
Umwelt has them closed off and insulated from most external influences.
Such animals “constitute a sort of cohesion with their world, a closed unity”
(Ibid, 170–71/224). For example, the urchin, Uexküll tells us, adapts itself
so thoroughly to its world that is full of dangers, but with which it does not
have to struggle for existence, that it lives as though it were alone in the
world (Ibid., 171/224). Therefore, Uexküll rejects, as will Merleau-Ponty,
the Darwinian explanation of natural selection based on life “endlessly men-
aced by death.” The urchin, for instance, lives in tolerance of other animals
and shows that, pace Darwin, not all animals exhibit “more and more perfect
solutions to the same problem” (Ibid.). Uexküll substitutes for Darwin’s
threatened-by-death explanation the view that the external world has the
ability to determine a unique solution in any given situation (N 178/233).
This is a recurring theme throughout Merleau-Ponty’s Nature lectures, and
it is central to his alternative to the bifurcation of Nature in terms of
bodies and the emergence of mentality. This theme is particularly visible
in his third Nature course when he discusses the problems of phylogenesis
that “put the very fabric of being in question” (N 243/309). Merleau-Ponty
points out that morphology was Darwin’s chief concern, and the “theory
of descendance” from an identified origin became key to understanding the
exceptional “identity . . . between the hand, the clawed animal foot, the
horse’s hoof, the turtle’s flipper, [and] the bat’s wing” (Ibid.). For Darwin,
26. Uexküll adds further specifics to his concept of a Gegenwelt. “He distinguishes the Welt
(the objective world), the Umwelt (the milieu tailored to the animal), and the Gegenwelt,
which is the Umwelt of higher animals; the interiorized Umwelt is in its turn made up of two
systems: the Merkwelt and the Wirkwelt”—the worlds of perception and action, respectively (N
172/226). “Il distingue le Welt: c’est le monde objectif, l’Umwelt: c’est le milieu que se taille
l’animal, et le Gegenwelt, qui est l’Umwelt des animaux supérieurs, l’Umwelt intériorisé est, à
son tour, fait de deux systèmes: le Merkwelt et le Wirkwelt.”
NATURE AND LIFE 171
27. “C’est pour donner cette profondeur au corps humain, cette archéologie, ce passé natal, cette
référence phylogénétique, c’est pour le restituer dans un tissu d’être pré-objectif, enveloppant,
d’où il émerge et que nous rappelle à chaque instant son identité comme sentant et sensible,
que nous avons donné une si grande place à la théorie de l’évolution.”
NATURE AND LIFE 173
28. “C’est une sorte de vérification expérimentale de l’aristotélisme: il y a une cause formelle
par-delà le mécanisme, une planification victorieuse dans chaque morceau de planaire.”
29. For example, with regard to human beings, Merleau-Ponty writes that the fact that the
libidinal body illustrates a “natural rooting of the for-other” can be compared to Portmann’s
demonstration that “mimicry is understood as identification, and that the species is already
inscribed in generativity and is also inscribed in this intercorporeity” (N 210/272). “il faudrait
une étude du corps libidinal, et montrer qu’il y a un enracinement naturel du pour autrui (nous
avons vu Portmann: le corps animal comme organe du pour autrui, le mimétisme comme iden-
tification, l’espèce, déjà inscrite dans la générativité, inscrite aussi dans cette intercorporéité).”
174 NATURE AND LOGOS
leaves, falls in front of them in a sort of ecstasy, then executes the behavioral
stratagem of accumulation of leaves for the nest, and then falls back into
calm” (Ibid., 191/250).32 The instinct is not yet fully realized, but is only
there as sketched in outline. “Then it is as if this behavior is erased” (Ibid.).
In the pre-nest-building activities, the heron also uses non-instinctive bodily
abilities such as motility and perception. Unlike objektlos instinct, these
activities are “oriented toward ends, which Lorenz calls ‘taxes’ ” (Ibid.). “A
taxis is an oriented and finalized movement of the body” (Ibid.).33 Instinct,
therefore, manifests another kind of natural negativity because it contains
“a sort of reference to the non-actual, an oneiric life” (Ibid., 192/251).
One interesting example of this natural negativity in instinctive behav-
ior is how it gets filled with what Lorenz terms a “Prägung,” an “imprinting”
that targets the animal’s “innate stimulus triggers” (N 193/252) and “fills it
with a being not foreseen by Nature” (Ibid., 194/253–54). There are many
examples of such imprinting, as when the young of one species take as
their mother an adult of another species that they first see, even of species
normally hostile to it. Instinct is therefore not purely internal, but rather
incarnates an intertwining of the internal and the external (Ibid., 195/254).
When there are weak external stimuli, the organism’s activity can
seem to be empty. In that case, instinct can be disrupted or become “sym-
bolic activity” that functions for animals as a way to communicate with
each other, and the behavior traced in outline “easily becomes significa-
tion” (N 195/254, 255). Instinct and symbolism are closely linked, for
Merleau-Ponty—for example, by the transformation of instinctive behavior
into mimicry. Symbolic behavior, on his view, emerges whenever “behav-
ior establishes a resonance” (Ibid., 195/255). Furthermore, when symbolism
develops and institutes certain behaviors, those behaviors take on “a new
value as social evocation” (Ibid., 197/256–57). For example, sexuality is
not about mere acts of copulation, but also a ceremony of “monstration”
(Ibid., 196/256) in which instincts can assume the form of rituals. For this
reason, Merleau-Ponty holds that “we can speak in a valid way of an animal
culture” (Ibid., 198/259).
Merleau-Ponty’s second Nature course ends with his dissatisfaction
with all of the biologists mentioned above on the relationship of body and
consciousness. He says of Lorenz, for example, that he declines to express
any opinion about whether animals have a consciousness, though he vir-
tually states that no one with any experience with animals “would deny
32. “Le héron aperçoit un jour des feuilles, tombe devant elles en une sorte d’exstase, puis
exécute le manège comportemental d’accumulation des feuilles pour le nid, et, retombe ensuite
dans le calme.”
33. “Ce qui est taxie c’est un mouvement du corps, orienté et finalisé.”
176 NATURE AND LOGOS
34. The sense of “root” (la racine) here is unclear. It cannot mean “source” or “first appear-
ance.” It would also be too finalist and conflict with Merleau-Ponty’s rejection of a hierarchy
of species to say that “root” means that toward which other animal symbolisms aim for their
fulfillment. It might also designate the first fully explicit, elaborated symbolism, or the primary
means of knowing about symbolic behavior in (other) animals.
35. “ ‘Operationalism’ of Bridgman: ‘The true definition of a concept is not made in terms
of properties, but in terms of effective operations’ ” (N 203/263). “ ‘Opérationalisme’ de Bridg-
man: ‘La vraie définition d’un concept ne se fait pas en termes de propriétés, mais en termes
d’opérations effectives.’ ” Merleau-Ponty cites here Percy W. Bridgman, The Logic of Modern
Physics (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 6.
36. “. . . une référence à l’Umwelt et au Welt qui ne peut être reconstitué à partir des bloße
Sachen: c’est l’univers de la physique qui est enveloppé dans celui de la vie et non l’inverse.”
37. “La science manipule les choses et renonce à les habiter.” Eye and Mind, which Merleau-Ponty
wrote in the summer of 1960, begins by continuing the third Nature course that he had just
completed. The influence of the latter on the former is considerable and explains references
in the first few pages of Eye and Mind to embryology, biological gradients (measures of the
speed with which an organism or cell changes in its physiological activity, metabolism, and
growth), operational thinking, and cybernetics. This is why his organizational scheme for
completing what came to be The Visible and the Invisible specifies that Part II, which includes
Eye and Mind, will deal with Nature.
NATURE AND LIFE 177
38. “Il est apparu que toute zoölogie suppose de notre part une Einfühlung méthodique du
comportement animal, avec participation de l’animal à notre vie perceptive et participation de
notre vie perceptive à l’animalité.” Merleau-Ponty translates and comments on Husserl’s Beilage
XXIII of the Krisis, which concerns biology (NC 383–92). He agrees with Husserl that biology
is just as universally true as is physics (NC 386), and that “the Ineinander of intersubjectivity
extends to our relationship with our body, with animals, [and] plants—[a] universal Ontology”
(Ibid., 89). “L’Ineinander de l’intersubjectivité s’étend à notre rapport avec notre corps, avec
animaux, plantes—[une] Ontologie universelle.” Biology approximates philosophy because the
“animal variant of Einfühlung opens up an ontology to us” (NC 387).
39. “. . . une somme d’événements microscopiques instantanés et ponctuels; il est phénomène-en-
veloppe, il a une allure d’ensemble, macroscopique. Entre les faits microscopiques se dessine
la réalité globale en filigrane.”
40. This sentence as well as the one immediately preceding it display clearly Merleau-Ponty’s
habitual equation of causation and mechanistic determinism. Similarly, he writes, “In ontogenesis,
in evolution, everything is physicochemistry in conformity with thermodynamics, but it is neither
physicochemistry nor thermodynamics that demands the constitution of these ‘singular points’
that are organisms, these structures, this architectonic in which physicochemical events will
play” (N 213/276). “Dans l’ontogenèse, dans l’évolution, tout est physicochimie en conformité
à la thermodynamique, mais ce n’est pas la physicochimie ou le thermodynamique qui exige
la constitution de ces ‘points singuliers’ qui sont les organismes, de ces structures, de cette
architectonique où joueront les événements physicochimiques.” For the same conception of
causality in the very different context of the relationship of puberty and adult life, see RC 41/61.
178 NATURE AND LOGOS
41. “. . . l’homme ne peut apparaître dans sa différence par l’addition de la raison à l’animal
(corps).” The aim of the last part of the third Nature course is “to describe the animation of
the human body, not as descent into it of a pure consciousness or pure reflection, but as meta-
morphosis of life, and the body as ‘body of mind’ (Valéry)” (RC 128/177). “Décrire l’animation
du corps humain, non comme descente en lui d’une conscience ou d’une réflexion pures, mais
comme métamorphose de la vie, et le corps comme ‘corps de l’esprit’ (Valéry).” See also the
same discussion at VI 233–34/287.
42. Wolfgang Köhler, Intelligenzprüfungen An Menschenaffen (Berlin: Julius Springer, 1921);
L’Intelligence des singes supérieurs (Paris: Alcan, 1927).
43. The interweaving of humanity and animality, which evidences “a strange kinship” be-
tween them, is also attested in mythic presentations such as Eskimo masks studied by Evelyne
Lot-Falck. Both the animal and its “human double . . . are inscribed on the same face”
(N 214/277). For Merleau-Ponty, the lesson for human corporeity of “our ‘strange kinship’ with
the animals (and thus the theory of evolution)” is “our projection-introjection, our Ineinander
with Sensible Being and with other corporeities” (Ibid., 271/339).
NATURE AND LIFE 179
44. “. . . interrogation (mouvement) et une réponse (perception comme Erfüllung d’un projet),
parler et comprendre.”
45. Teilhard de Chardin, Le phénomène humain in Oeuvres (Paris: Editions de Seuil, 1955), I:
203. “L’homme est entré sans bruit.” Translated into English as The Phenomenon of Man (New
York: Harper and Row, 1965), 184.
46. “On ne le voit pas plus qu’on ne voit le moment où elle [la conscience] apparaît dans
l’ontogenèse.”
This page intentionally left blank.
VII
181
182 NATURE AND LOGOS
§36 of Ideas II. When things are given to us leibhaft, “in the flesh” (en chair),
the sensibility required for this reversibility is not added to the body con-
ceived as a physical object. Rather, it is “constitutive of corporeity” (Barbaras
2008, 20). As Husserl himself pointed out, we reach the conception of the
body as physical object only through abstraction (Ibid., 21). Therefore, the
meaning of “ontic” flesh, revealed in phenomenology, is reversibility.
Husserl, though, is concerned only with the ontic sense of flesh rather
than a Merleau-Pontian ontological generalization about “the flesh,” and
Barbaras argues that Merleau-Ponty’s “passage” or “transcendence” (dépasse-
ment) from my own ontic flesh to flesh as its ontological “foundation” cannot
be as simple or direct as he thinks it is.
As we have seen, the ontological generalization begins with the fact
that the subject-object distinction is “blurred” (brouillée) both in the lived
body as well as in the perceptual object that, for Husserl as well as for
Merleau-Ponty, forms “the pole of my body’s operations . . . the terminus in
which its exploration ends” (S 167/211). Sensibility, as in the preeminent
touching-touched relationship, is thus characterized by “a sort of fundamen-
tal iteration: sensibility only makes the world appear because it is already on
the side of the world” (Barbaras 2008, 21). As a result, it only seems to be
a paradox to say that “sensibility already belongs to that which it nonethe-
less constitutes” (Ibid.). As a result, the lived body cannot be solely a body
in the sense of a material object (the touched), nor can any experience of
touching be conceived apart from a philosophy of incarnation (Ibid.).
In arriving at this conclusion, Barbaras interprets Merleau-Ponty as
holding that “we have to renounce the very usage of the categories of subject
and object” (2008, 21). It is true, as we have seen in Chapter III, that the
latter’s ontology of flesh seeks a “brute Being” anterior to the subject-object
distinction. However, Barbaras’s claim does not follow from the fact that
the subject-object distinction is “blurred” in my flesh. All that follows is
that certain conceptions of the subject—e.g., that of Descartes—must be
given up. What really follows is that the problem of the subject must be
reconfigured to arrive at a non-Cartesian concept because “we must admit
that what appears appears to . . . [the subject, which] is, so to say, engaged
in what it sees” (Ibid.). Further, we should remember Merleau-Ponty’s com-
ment that we cannot go back before subjectivity even in moving beyond it
(S 154/194) and that he gives us a great many descriptions of the subjective
and objective aspects of flesh that are, after all, presupposed in the notion
of co-naissance.
Barbaras then notes, correctly, that, on the traditional—that is,
Cartesian—view, reversibility is only a “psychological curiosity” (Ibid., 22),
and therefore we must choose between taking reversibility seriously or not.
If we do, we must follow Merleau-Ponty in concluding that, if the sub-
BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PHENOMENOLOGY 183
3. What is left out here is the whole problem of emergence. Merleau-Ponty points to the mo-
ment that an organism starts to see—“un organisme se met à voir.” When language occurs, the
Spirit moves to a more subtle body—“une nouvelle forme de réversibilité.”
BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PHENOMENOLOGY 187
In addition, after citing the passage from The Visible and the Invisible
about the flesh of the world not being self-sensing (VI /304), Barbaras states
that it seems that Merleau-Ponty is giving up at one fell swoop his “univocal
sense of flesh” all that he had tried to acquire thereby. His concept of flesh
becomes “inconsistent” because “The flesh is suddenly doubled—there is the
flesh of the world and there is the sensing flesh” (Ibid., 27).
Barbaras concludes that it seems as though Merleau-Ponty is “trapped
by what he wanted to flee and that because he wanted to flee it too fast”
(Ibid.). He thinks that the latter is too hasty in ascribing to the flesh of
the world the reversibility of touching-touched relationships in order to
escape from “the philosophy of consciousness” (Ibid.). However, in that
way, Barbaras argues, Merleau-Ponty prevents himself from acknowledging
“the sensing, active pole in its difference, and ends by affirming anew the
specificity of my flesh in relation to that of the world,” and once again,
“Merleau-Ponty oscillates between a certain form of realism and a certain
form of idealism” (Ibid.).
For Barbaras, rather than follow Merleau-Ponty’s “confused phenom-
enological monism” that flows from the attempt to “ontologize one’s own
flesh” (Ibid., 27), the most helpful way to appreciate the nature of flesh and
“to transcend the philosophy of consciousness” is, first, to distinguish what
is basic about consciousness, “in what ultimate phenomenological truth it
is rooted” (Ibid.). Merleau-Ponty, Barbaras thinks, expresses that clearly—
namely, that we cannot completely eliminate “the distinction between sens-
ing and sensed in my flesh and, in a more general way, the distinction of
subject and world . . . without resolutely ignoring that there is only appear-
ing as appear to” (Ibid.). Hence, we do not have to transcend “the polarity
of sensing and sensed for the sake of a third genus of being,” but rather
question “the meaning of being of sense experience and the sensed world
(of which my body forms a part) in the light of their original intertwining,
such as it attests itself in the experience of one’s own flesh” (Ibid., 27–28).
A MERLEAU-PONTIAN REPLY
On the other hand, Barbaras is quite right to say that “the subject
of sense experience or of the appearing . . . disappears” (2008, 26), if by
“subject” we are to understand a reference to Kantian, Husserlian or other
similar conceptions of it, or even Merleau-Ponty’s earlier defense of the
“tacit cogito.” However, it does not follow that Merleau-Ponty “forgets phe-
nomenology” (Ibid., 24, 25). We think that it is more accurate to say that, as
discussed in Chapter II, his method of descriptive generalization takes up his
earlier phenomenology and drives it beyond its limits. This transcendence is
why, as we pointed out there, Merleau-Ponty sought a way to escape from
a philosophy of consciousness and why he jettisoned all the bric-à-brac of
modern philosophy and its heritage.
Barbaras is also indisputably correct to say that the “blurring of the
dualities in the flesh invites [us] also to interrogate the meaning of being
of that to which it belongs” (2008, 25). And it is precisely in responding to
this invitation that Whitehead’s process philosophy provides both another
way of responding to Barbaras’s criticisms of Merleau-Ponty as well as a firm
metaphysical foundation for the latter’s late ontology.
A WHITEHEADIAN RESPONSE
that the course of Nature cannot be “ ‘the history of matter’ . . . like ‘the
fortunes of matter in the adventure of nature’ ” (N 116/157, citing CN 16).4
Parallel to the way that Chapter II explicated Merleau-Ponty’s concep-
tions of ontology and philosophical method before turning to the discussion
of flesh, here we must also discuss briefly Whitehead’s view of philosophical
method. This is necessary because any claim that his process metaphysics
could have furnished additional insight and precision for Merleau-Ponty’s
last ontology will inevitably meet with a certain amount of scepticism.
Indeed, readers familiar with Merleau-Ponty’s writings who come to Process
and Reality for the first time can easily believe that these claims are highly
implausible.
Doubts begin to emerge in the very first two paragraphs of the book
insofar as they describe the “essay” to follow as one of “speculative philoso-
phy” that aims “to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general
ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be inter-
preted” (PR 3). Seemingly worse, two pages later Whitehead claims that
“true method of [philosophical] discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane.
It starts from the ground of particular observation; it makes a flight in the
thin air of imaginative generalization; and it again lands for renewed obser-
vation rendered acute by rational interpretation” (Ibid., 5). Systems and a
pensée de survol after all?
Despite the fact that all of Whitehead’s other texts are much less sys-
tematic than Process and Reality—including those that follow it, Adventures
of Ideas and Modes of Thought—it is true that these two thinkers had very dif-
ferent conceptions of philosophy. As a result, as noted in the Introduction,
it would be simply wrong to claim that Merleau-Ponty is a speculative
metaphysician malgré lui or that Whitehead is a phenomenological ontolo-
gist manqué.
However, despite these differences, or even because of them, Franck
Robert is correct to say that Merleau-Ponty would have found Process and
Reality valuable because Whitehead’s “thought leads us to the very limits of
phenomenology, and perhaps beyond its limits, there where phenomenology
stands while it seeks to think radically the things themselves, the concrete-
ness of experience, appearing” (2007, 342). And Robert is also correct that
the “very possibility of phenomenology within its limits is . . . the major
stake in the dialogue between Whitehead and phenomenology” (Ibid., 343).
On the other hand, the search for an adequate philosophical method
aside, comparing and contrasting Whitehead and Merleau-Ponty is some-
4. The editor of La Nature notes here that this quotation is “doubtless a paraphrase of [CN]
p. 20: [In scientific materialism,] ‘The course of nature is conceived as being merely the fortunes
of matter in its adventure through space’ ” (N 157, n. 5).
192 NATURE AND LOGOS
5. Cf. SMW 179: “He [God] has been conceived as the foundation of the metaphysical situation
with its ultimate activity. If this conception be adhered to, there can be no alternative except
to discern in Him the origin of all evil as well as of all good. He is then the supreme author
of the play, and to Him must therefore be ascribed its shortcomings as well as its successes.”
BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PHENOMENOLOGY 193
sally. Therefore, his system attempts to explain what makes “the givenness
in the flesh” intelligible in a way that does not depend on the lived body,
and which, on the contrary, provides “the meaning of its [the lived body’s]
belonging” to the flesh of the world (Barbaras 2008, 28). In this context,
Whitehead would certainly have appreciated Merleau-Ponty’s remarks in the
last paragraph of his essay, “The Idea of Nature for Whitehead”:
6. “La tâche d’une philosophie de la Nature serait de décrire tous les modes de passage, sans
les grouper sous certains titres empruntés à la pensée substantialiste. L’homme est mode aussi
bien que les cellules animales. Il n’y a pas de limite au foisonnement des catégories, mais il y
a des types de ‘concrescence’ qui passent par dégradation de l’un à l’autre.”
BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PHENOMENOLOGY 195
It follows from the fact that every actual occasion begins by taking up
all past occasions, that their successors will also incorporate them into their
own concrescences. Since, as we saw in Chapter I, the “historic character
of the universe” belongs to the essence of every actual occasion (MT 123),
the “completed fact is only to be understood as taking its place among the
active data [present concrescences] forming the future” (Ibid.). More techni-
cally, the “principle of relativity” states that “the potentiality for being an
element in a real concrescence of many entities into one actuality is the
one general metaphysical character attaching to all entities. . . . In other
words, it belongs to the nature of a ‘being’ that it is a potential for every
‘becoming’ ” (PR 22).
Further, since actual occasions are intertwined rather than indepen-
dent, they overlap each other in internal rather than external relationships.
Whitehead, influenced here by William James, describes them as “drops of
experience, complex and interdependent” (Ibid., 18). Therefore, in its con-
crescence, any given actual entity implicates others “among its components”
(Ibid., 7). That is to say, the initial phase of an actual occasion incorporates
its past actual world into its own becoming in a chiasmatic relation of
sentant and sensible. The sensible is integral to the sentant and vice versa. As
a result, there are “no brute, self-contained matters of fact” (Ibid., 14). As
opposed to scientific materialism, “the notion of a mere fact is the triumph
of the abstractive intellect” (MT 12). Instead of “simple location,” there is
a chiasmatic empiétement in which the solidarity and coherence of Nature
are preserved. Our entire existence, Whitehead holds, is made up of both
past relationships and “the formation of new relationships constitutive of
things to come” (Ibid., 43). Interdependent actual occasions thus provide a
metaphysical foundation for what Merleau-Ponty means by the structure of
visibility and tangibility through which we belong to the flesh of the world,
and therefore the “perceptual faith” “in a system of natural facts rigorously
bound together and continuous” (VI 26/46–47).7
Whitehead, like Merleau-Ponty, rejects representative theories of per-
ception. Past actual occasions really are present to the presently concrescing
occasion by forming the content of its own birth. Correlatively, Whitehead
also rejects Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena. There are
no actual entities behind those that appear to us, and our appearances are
not re-presentations of “brute facts” standing somehow behind them. Rather,
they are the brute facts themselves.
In addition, because an occasion ends by transmitting itself as a datum
to future occasions, the concrescence must involve a decision about how
to relate both to its past and future. These decisions are guided by the
occasion’s “subjective aim” (PR 224), and when the decisions are made,
the occasion reaches satisfaction and perishes. Whitehead’s view is that
each actual occasion is self-determining, for which reason he ascribes to
it the Spinozistic definition of substance, “causa sui” (PR 7). However,
not too much should be read into this attribution. For it is obvious that
Whitehead does not use the phrase in Spinoza’s sense.8 No actual entity can
be self-sufficient—even God, as we shall see in the following chapter—and
actual occasions come into being and perish. Therefore, no actual entity is
the analogue of Spinoza’s Substance. Yet, the very expressive phrase, “sub-
stantial activity,” clearly points to such a Substance, conceived dynamically.
Further, unlike Spinoza, Whitehead defends indeterminism. On his
view, the “subjective aim” embodies purpose, or final causation, and “one
task of a sound metaphysics is to exhibit final and efficient causes in their
proper relation to each other” (Ibid., 84). The “proper relation” is that, in
whatever way an actual occasion responds to its past, all that is necessary is
that it react in some fashion or other. The “brute facts” of the past actual
world entail that, as Merleau-Ponty and Schelling both held, “the weight
of the natural world is already a weight of the past” (VI 123/164),9 but it
is a weight that conditions rather than determines the occasion’s becoming.
The “proper relation” of efficient and final causes also leads Whitehead
to distinguish their respective processes as “two species” (PR 214). There is
only one process, but there is a rhythmic, overlapping reversibility between
them. One species, also termed a “kind of fluency” (Ibid., 210), is “concres-
cence,” which is internal to the act of becoming (Ibid.). The other aspect
of process is “transition,” that whereby a past actual occasion is an element
of the conformal phase of a new concrescence (Ibid.). Transition is “the
vehicle of the efficient cause, which is the immortal past” (Ibid).
Prehensions that have as their objects past actual occasions are termed
“physical prehensions” (PR 23), which is what is most prominent in the
first phase of the becoming occasion. Yet, not the whole past is positively
prehended by the new occasion. Whitehead’s commitment to indeterminism
leads him to describe these prehensions as both negative as well as positive.
Negative prehensions are those that exclude data, and positive prehensions,
termed “feelings,” are those that include data. Because of the necessity to
respond to the past actual world, Whitehead also calls these physical pre-
hensions “conformal feelings” (Ibid., 165). These feelings also imply that
the “initial situation with its creativity can be termed the initial phase of
the new occasion. It can equally well be termed the actual world relative
10. With regard to Merleau-Ponty, it is worth noting that Whitehead also takes science to
be an abstraction from experience. A case in point for the discussion above is his statement,
“The notion of physical energy, which is at the base of physics, must then be conceived as
an abstraction from the complex energy, emotional and purposeful, inherent in the subjective
form of the final synthesis in which each occasion completes itself” (AI 186). He then goes
on to say that philosophy should “describe the more concrete fact from which that abstraction
[“physical science”] is derivable” (Ibid.).
BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PHENOMENOLOGY 199
1. For a more extensive discussion of these parallels, see Van der Veken (2000).
205
206 NATURE AND LOGOS
the occasion takes up its past actual world into its own becoming. The first
matter to clarify consists of what it is, exactly, that gets taken up. That is,
in the process of transition from a past occasion to a present concrescence,
what is inherited from the past and, in turn, transmitted to the future? It
cannot be the active processes themselves of concrescence because those
processes have perished. This means that “the throbbing emotion of the
past hurling itself into a new transcendent fact” refers both to past actual
occasions when they were in the act of concrescing and to the transition
to new occurrences.
It cannot be objective form alone that is transmitted because that
would entail a representative theory of perception and render Whitehead’s
account of experience vulnerable to all of Hume’s sceptical arguments.
Rather, what is transmitted is form as embedded in past actual occasions that
are no longer active. It is this complex relational role of form that creates
and maintains the solidarity of Nature and accounts for the structure of vis-
ibility and tangibility (PR 62). Each presently concrescing actual occasion
becomes both a “subject” of the active concrescence and a “superject” (Ibid.,
29)—the objective form that remains when the concrescence is complete,
and in turn, that actual occasion in its superjective aspect becomes a real
part of a new concrescence. The objective record of past processes, their
remaining form, is what Whitehead calls the actual occasion’s “objective
immortality” (Ibid., 347).
The unity of “subject” and “superject” in a single concrescence is also
how Whitehead would interpret Merleau-Ponty’s notion of the unity of the
inside and the outside, activity and passivity, but in a double sense. The
first sense is the unity of the nascent subject and the superjective aspects
of past actual occasions that comprise the data of its own first phase of
concrescence. And the second sense is the subject’s own superjective record
of what it became. In both cases, the superjective aspect of the concres-
cence is not something added from the outside to the subject that emerges
from prehensive unification. Rather, it is an “outside” that is already the
“envelope,” so to speak, of the inside, and cannot be defined apart from it.
The initial phase of concrescence, insofar as it is receptive to its past,
suggests passivity, but “the word ‘recipient’ suggests a passivity that is erro-
neous” (AI 176). Since the prehensions that make up the first phase are
both positive (feelings) and negative (those that exclude data), a natural
negativity exists that puts some rudimentary interpretation in play. To some
degree, it is not unlike the Gestalt-structuring of perceptual fields. Therefore,
“active receptivity” or, more simply, what Merleau-Ponty, following Husserl,
terms “Offenheit,” is a better description.
The next subject that requires clarification is the nature of the objective
forms embedded in past actual occasions that are transmitted over a historic
COM-PREHENDING THE FLESH 207
I can rest my eyes on one stone of the Tuileries wall, the Square
disappears and there is then nothing but this stone entirely without
history: I can, furthermore, allow my gaze to be absorbed by this
yellowish, gritty surface, and then there is no longer even a stone
there, but merely the play of light upon an indefinite substance.
(293/339)
Different types of prehensions also form the basis for the way that Whitehead
shapes his views of life, consciousness, and mind, and how they emerge from
Nature instead of being inserted into it. Life, like feelings of causal efficacy,
has something to do with form taken up from previous acts of concrescence,
but at the same time it is also about novelty. “Life,” for Whitehead, “is
a bid for freedom. The doctrine of the enduring soul with its permanent
characteristics is exactly the irrelevant answer to the problem which life
presents, [which is] How can there be originality” (PR 104)? Subsequent
to the phase of conformal feelings, in which eternal objects are immanent
but vague and inchoate, other (positive) prehensions, called “conceptual
feelings,” pry out the forms (eternal objects) of conformal feelings and refer
to the previous occasions in which they were ingredient, or had achieved
“ingression” (Ibid., 243). These conceptual feelings merely reiterate the pat-
tern of eternal objects immanent in the data of conformal feelings, and such
“conceptual reproduction” (Ibid., 249) occurs in all acts of concrescence.
Such conceptual feelings are “hybrid” prehensions because their data consist
of both past actual occasions and eternal objects, and for Whitehead, most
conceptual prehensions are “hybrid.” “Hybrid” prehensions combine in a way
le sensible and le sentant. By contrast, “pure” conceptual feelings are those
whose objects are eternal objects alone.
However, there are other conceptual feelings in some occasions of
experience among higher organisms that introduce novelty into the occa-
210 NATURE AND LOGOS
sion. (Occasions that cannot achieve any type of novelty belong to inor-
ganic entities.) One type of such feelings is called “feelings of conceptual
reversion” (Ibid., 249). These feelings consist of “the positive conceptual
prehension of relevant alternatives” (Ibid.). This is to say that the eternal
objects that are prehended in such feelings are relevant to the set of actual
entities prehended in conformal feelings. Hume’s famous example of the
missing shade of blue3 is a classic case.
More advanced novelties emerge in more complex feelings among
higher organisms, which increases the richness and depth of their mentality.
Whitehead calls these “propositional feelings” (PR 214). Their objects are
“propositions,” which is to say a “contrast” (by which Whitehead means a
comparison) between the physical feeling of the set of actual entities that
are the source of the occasion’s conformal feelings—the “logical subjects” of
the proposition (Ibid., 257)—and a “predicative pattern” (Ibid.) of eternal
objects that could apply to the logical subjects.
For example, hundreds of people daily may pass an abandoned building
on a certain street and think nothing of it (literally). However, one day
an entrepreneur might get the idea of converting the space to lofts. In this
case, the proposition would be “apartments in that building,” and the “logi-
cal subjects” would be all of the actual occasions that make up the complex
network of the structure and its spatiotemporal location. Whitehead insists
that “the primary function of a proposition is to be relevant as a lure for
feeling” (PR 25) and that its truth value is secondary. (Before the apart-
ments are built, the proposition “These are lofts” is false, and if they are
built, it will be true.)
However, it should be pointed out that propositional feelings may or
may not rise to the level of consciousness. In the above instance, perhaps
because of sleepiness, jet lag, or too much drink, the entrepreneur will
only half-recognize the lure. In this case, the idea does not rise above a
vague recognition. “Consciousness,” on the other hand, “is how we feel
the affirmation-negation contrast” (PR 241), which Whitehead explains
as follows. The object of feelings always possesses “a unity as felt.” When
the datum at issue is complex, “this unity is a ‘contrast’ of entities.” The
“affirmation-negation” contrast, the most significant of such contrasts, is that
in which “a proposition and a nexus [of actual occasions] obtain synthesis
in one datum, the members of the nexus being the ‘logical subjects’ of the
proposition” (Ibid.).
A number of important consequences follow. As with Merleau-Ponty,
mentality and ideation emerge from a natural process rather than being
imposed on it. Further, the ideas here, conceptual feelings, are likewise
“the lining and depth” of the visible (VI 149/195), the in-visible of the
visible. In addition, the formation of feelings of conceptual reversion and
propositional feelings also institute potentiality and a natural negativity in
the process of Nature, what Merleau-Ponty refers to as a latency of meaning
in the flesh. As noted in the previous chapter, consciousness is the highest
development of mentality, and hence comes last in experience rather than
first. It emerges from the awareness of contrasts of contrasts. In human expe-
rience, consciousness often involves multiple levels of contrasts. Therefore,
it is “the crown of experience, only occasionally attained, not its necessary
base” (PR 267).
Recurring to what Merleau-Ponty refers to as the depth and latency
of meaning, Whitehead goes on to say that this view of consciousness is
underwritten by “the plain facts of our conscious experience” (Ibid.). The
transient flickering of consciousness at best reveals in Gestalt-like fashion
something that Merleau-Ponty appreciated in Freud’s work, namely “a small
focal region of clear illumination, and a large penumbral region of experi-
ence which tells of intense experience in dim apprehension” (Ibid.; cf. IP
214–23 and 279–94). And finally, this process of originating mentality shows
why, on Whitehead’s view, reflective acts can interfere with the flux of our
experience, but they cannot threaten our indivisibility from it.
However, on Merleau-Ponty’s view, the latency or pregnancy of mean-
ing in the flesh is always a matter of ideation as the “lining and depth” of that
flesh, and this raises serious questions about the nature of the eternal objects
that are the data for conceptual feelings—either by themselves or as held in
a contrast (comparison) with a set of past actual entities that most relevantly
fund the new concrescence. So far, we have stated merely that eternal
objects are possible forms of order and definiteness in Nature, but much
more clarity is needed to see whether a consonance with Merleau-Ponty’s
notion of ideation is possible. What, then, are eternal objects?
Whitehead chooses the phrase as a substitute for “universals” that, on
his view, is burdened with too many interpretations and distortions in the
history of philosophy (SMW 159). The ideal aspect of reality needs to be
completely reinterpreted. That is because each eternal object is only real
when ingressed as a particular of some sort: only in this way does it become
universally available to all its successors (PR 48). This is why he holds that,
as noted in Chapter II, it is problematic to use the concepts of “particular
and universal,” along with those of “subject and predicate” and “substance
and quality,” to describe the world and our experience of it (Ibid., 49).
Whitehead’s view that the concepts of universal and particular need
to be revised coheres well with Merleau-Ponty’s analyses of how the uni-
versal can only be known through the particular and how, reciprocally, a
particular color can take on universal significance. Chapter III discussed this
212 NATURE AND LOGOS
4. Toward the end of his life, Paul Ricoeur (2007) endorsed just such a view of human
immortality—i.e., preservation in the divine memory.
COM-PREHENDING THE FLESH 215
contingent. The best possible aim can be bad, yet, “if the best be bad, then
the ruthlessness of God can be personified as Atè, the goddess of mischief.
The chaff is burnt” (PR 244).
As a result, two important implications follow. First, “the best pos-
sible world” for Whitehead does not mean a perfect world, but only that
all others are worse. And second, the possibility of a less than perfect
world affecting God’s consequent nature is a dark consequence first noted
by Schelling, and also accepted by Whitehead: “He does not create the
world, he saves it: or more accurately, he is the poet of the world, with
tender patience leading it by his vision of truth, beauty, and goodness”
(PR 346). Or, as he had expressed it in Religion in the Making, “He is the
ideal companion who transmutes what has been lost into a living fact
within his own nature. He is the mirror which discloses to every creature
its own greatness” (154–55). This description makes one think of Bergson’s
conception of God, “hidden in the sufferings of the persecuted” (E 31/45)
and Merleau-Ponty’s description of Bergson’s view, cited in Chapter VI, of
“a generosity which is not a compromise with the adversity of the world
and which is on his side against it” (E 25–26/38).5
In addition, although Merleau-Ponty thinks that pure ideality presup-
poses a pensée de survol, as we have seen, Whitehead’s conception of God
offers an alternative view. God’s conceptual vision of eternal possibilities is
always and necessarily tied to his physical relationship with the universe. To
adapt Merleau-Ponty’s statement cited earlier from “Faith and Good Faith,”
incarnation “changes everything.”
In the reversible mirror relation that God has with the world, it would
also follow that “the sufferings of the persecuted” would be hidden in God.
That is, since God does not control the physical universe, the latter can
and does contain evil. And since evil is embedded within it, not only can
God not escape it, but rather he must bear it. This makes God “the great
companion—the fellow sufferer who understands” (PR 351), as the penul-
timate paragraph of Process and Reality phrases it.
Whitehead has three additional arguments for the metaphysical neces-
sity of God that concern his primordial rather than consequent nature.
George Allan nicely summarizes them as follows: “(1) God as a receptacle
for the ordered system of all possibilities, on which cosmic order depends;
5. Merleau-Ponty joins Bergson in rejecting classical theodicies that make evil into partial
good. Even if the philosopher can believe this “in the silence of his office,” Bergson holds,
how could he maintain such a belief “before a mother who has just seen her child die?” (E
25/38). In Whitehead’s elaboration of the relation of such a God who is “on our side” and
the world with its “adversité” and evil, we see in which direction Merleau-Ponty could have
developed his own view about God, humanity, and the world. It certainly would be a theology
that would have taken an impressive step “after Leibniz.”
216 NATURE AND LOGOS
(2) God as the source of novelty in the initial aims of actual occasions;
and (3) God as a constraint on that novelty needed for the stability that
undergirds the creative advance” (2008, 329). It is worth noting in passing
that (3) does have an unexplored relevance to Merleau-Ponty. As Allan
points out, the order and stability of nature previously construed in the rig-
orous determinism of Newtonian theory “is loosened in a quantum universe
to statistical probabilities” (Ibid., 329), something that Merleau-Ponty also
discusses in the Nature lectures. For Whitehead, the range of possibilities in
quantum theory is too vast to explain the actual stability of the universe.
Therefore, such order requires an orderer (Ibid., 330, 332–33).
On the other hand, as Allan immediately adds, Whitehead does not
argue for the existence of an orderer merely on statistical grounds. We
have, Process and Reality states, “an intuition of an intrinsic suitability of
some definite outcome from a presupposed situation” (207), a result beyond
the explanatory power of statistical explanations (Allan, 2008, 330). This
suitability, which Merleau-Ponty would interpret in terms of the ontologi-
cal structures of visibility and tangibility, transcends statistics. As Allan
notes (Ibid.), Process and Reality claims that the suitability “depends upon
the fundamental graduation of appetitions which lies at the base of things,
and which solves all indeterminations of transition” (207). And it is God’s
conceptual vision and valuation of eternal objects provided partially and
according to relevance to temporal acts of concrescence that makes up the
necessary source of these “appetitions.”
God is the necessary source because of Whitehead’s commitment to
both the “ontological principle” and his insistence that an eternal object is a
self-contained, timeless, “unchanging relationless entity” (Allan 2008, 332),
unlike temporal actual occasions that are composed entirely of relationships.
Therefore, for an eternal object to serve as “a possibility for an actuality,”
God as mediator between the eternal and the temporal is necessary in order
to propose it as relevant to a presently concrescing actual occasion.
Whitehead scholars are divided among themselves about whether his
notion of God as a nontemporal actual entity makes sense. Whitehead’s
aim, as noted above, is to understand God in terms of the same metaphysi-
cal categories applicable to all actual entities in order to achieve a coher-
ent system with greater explanatory power. And yet, the effect has been a
substantial amount of confusion for his commentators. As Allan phrases it,
“Actual entities are events, but God in its primordial nature does not come
to be and in its consequent nature does not perish—God is an event, but
one that does not actually occur” (2008, 334).
Whitehead scholars also disagree whether God is really necessary for
emergence of the subjective aim of an actual occasion, or whether the latter
possesses within itself the capacity to envisage its own possibilities in such
COM-PREHENDING THE FLESH 217
6. See, for example, in PANW, the essays by Victor Lowe, Charles Hartshorne, Bertram Mor-
ris, and Wilbur Marshall Urban.
7. During a 1953 interview with Merleau-Ponty, one of these commentators, Herbert Spie-
gelberg, asked whether he had read Dewey. Merleau-Ponty replied that he had not (personal
communication, to Hamrick).
218 NATURE AND LOGOS
logos endiathetos that accounts for the hidden intelligibility of the universe
and the logos proforikos that brings it to the fore. This expressive activity
requires no external, divine agent.
Whitehead declined Dewey’s invitation because he considered that the
“genetic-functional” interpretation was incapable of expressing “insight into
those ultimate principles of existence which express the necessary connec-
tions within the flux” (Ibid.).8 Nonetheless, Allan—correctly, in our view—
declines to follow Whitehead’s insistence on possibilities being timeless. He
states that “the past that determines the fundamental conditions, the shape
and content, of the world we inhabit, is also a source of possibilities that
allow us to alter these conditions in novel and incrementally fundamental
ways” (2008, 346). And if this is true, qualified creativity embodied in pres-
ent acts of concrescence that exist in internal relations with both past and
future actual occasions of experience suffices “for articulating a coherent and
adequate philosophy of organism” (Ibid.).
Therefore, there is no “ontological need” for God’s primordial nature to
serve as the “eternal repository” of such possibilities (Ibid.). In this respect,
it is significant that, as Victor Lowe points out, the chapter of Adventures of
Ideas titled “Objects and Subjects,” Whitehead’s 1931 Presidential Address
to the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, and
which forms “the locus classicus for Whitehead’s conception of experi-
ence . . . manages to summarize Whitehead’s metaphysical position quite
well, without once mentioning either these entities [eternal objects] or God”
(“Whitehead’s Philosophical Development,” in PANW 119).
Whitehead would have done better to accept Dewey’s invitation. In
actual fact, it is difficult to see how eternal objects can be eternal or objects.
They are not eternal because, even if resident in the divine vision in some
fashion or other, they are not objects or entities of any kind. The reason
that they are not objects is not because they are abstract—numbers form
the classic example of why “abstract entities” is not self-contradictory—but
because they are “pure potentials.” Therefore, eternal objects are at most
potential objects with a potential existence. Hence, it is also difficult to see
why Whitehead lists eternal objects as one of “The Categories of Existence”
(PR 22). If this interpretation is adopted,9 it is clear that it would move
Merleau-Ponty’s position on the logos endiathetos very much in the direction
of that of Whitehead, understood in this way.
8. Whitehead’s reply appeared originally as “Remarks,” Philosophical Review 46, no. 2 (March
1937): 179; reprinted as “Analysis of Meaning” in ESP 94 (cited by Allan 2008, 328, n. 6).
9. Even Allan states without comment, “Eternal objects are existences” (2008, 332). It is not
clear whether he is simply repeating Whitehead’s interpretation of them or is himself untroubled
by ascribing existence to pure potentialities.
COM-PREHENDING THE FLESH 219
11. “Enfin, ce rouge ne serait à la lettre pas le même s’il n’était le ‘rouge laineux’ d’un tapis.”
222 NATURE AND LOGOS
you start from “the immediate facts of our psychological experience, as surely
an empiricist should begin, you are at once led to the organic conception
of nature” (Ibid.). How we conceive of the order of nature is tied to a view
of nature as the “the locus of organisms in process of development.” (Ibid).
Earlier on, Whitehead titled this conception “organic mechanism”
(SMW 80) and in Process and Reality, he terms it “the philosophy of
organism” (18). Regardless of the label, what Whitehead recognizes here
is Merleau-Ponty’s conception of chiasmatic reversibility between body and
soul, and between the body and the world. This comes out very clearly in
Modes of Thought when he states that “the world is in the soul” and “the
soul itself . . . [is] one of the components within the world” (224). Thus,
our conception of the world has to be framed with reference to “the bodily
society,” and, conversely, we must construe the “bodily society” in the same
way that we do the “general functionings of the world” (225). By contrast,
the essential flaw in dualisms of mind and body is that, as we saw in Chapter
II, “in between there lie the concepts of life, organism . . . interaction, [and]
order of nature” (SMW 57). There is a “bodily life of the incarnate mind”
(CN 107), as Descartes’s “confusions” in the Sixth Meditation demonstrate.
Whitehead perceives that any adequate account of mind or soul must
explain personal identity over time and the pervasive feelings of personal
unity that we have at any moment of self-awareness. Personal identity
amounts to a continuity of an identifiable pattern in “a genetic relation
between occasions of human experience” (AI 186). Our awareness of “the
self-identity pervading our life-thread of occasions, is nothing other than
knowledge of a special strand of unity within the general unity of nature”
(Ibid., 187), and the “general principle” that guides it is the same causal
efficacy that binds together all of Nature. It is “the doctrine of the imma-
nence of the past energizing in the present” (Ibid.). The “vector relation of
particular to particular” creates “an analogy” between the way that energy
is transferred from one occasion to another throughout Nature and “the
transference of affective tone, with its emotional energy, from one occasion
to another in any human personality” (Ibid.). As Merleau-Ponty notes in a
different language, the flesh of the body coheres with the flesh of the world
and vice versa.
However, the enormously complex structure and functioning of the
human body prevent personal identity from being a temporally thin, direct
line of inherited patterns. Whitehead takes note of this fact in language
highly congenial to Merleau-Ponty’s pensée fondamentale:
12.
In Modes of Thought, Whitehead refers to different modes of being that we discussed in con-
nection with Barbaras’s arguments, and to which Merleau-Ponty refers at the end of his essay
on Whitehead: “There is, however, every gradation of transition between animals and men.
In animals we can see emotional feeling, dominantly derived from bodily functions, and yet
tinged with purposes, hopes, and expression derived from conceptual functioning. . . . And yet
the life of a human being receives its worth, its importance, from the way in which unrealized
ideals shape its purposes and tinge its actions. The distinction between men and animals is in
one sense only a difference in degree. But the extent of the degree makes all the difference.
The Rubicon has been crossed” (37–38).
13. In Religion in the Making, Whitehead connects this thought with what became the later
notion of propositions being lures for feeling. He writes, “It is not true, however, that we ob-
serve best when we are entirely devoid of emotion. Unless there is a direction of interest, we
do not observe at all” (124). One important moral and legal implication of this claim is that
the ideal of the objective observer is at least sometimes wrongly cast in terms of disinterest
and disengagement.
COM-PREHENDING THE FLESH 225
14. Coleridge considered that Fichte’s philosophy of the act instead of Substance undermined
Spinoza, but apart from this “dynamic philosophy,” Coleridge rejected all other aspects of
Fichte’s thinking (Braeckman 1985, 267).
15. See Gabriel Marcel (1971, 39), for the discussion of Kant’s and Schelling’s aesthetics, and
p. 70 for the misunderstanding of transcendental philosophy. Cited in Braeckman (1985, 267).
COM-PREHENDING THE FLESH 229
16. See Wordsworth’s autobiographical poem, The Prelude, for its emphasis on creativity in
nature and the poetic process through which the poet’s mind grows. “This growth of the
poet’s mind ends with the ‘Imagination’ as its last and most fundamental creative power”
(Braeckman 1985, 276).
COM-PREHENDING THE FLESH 231
become one, a synthesis from which “finite products” emerge, and every
finite product is a “concretum.”17
Since the active process of creative imagination is the most basic
activity of Nature, it grounds all physical/mental activity, even to its highest
levels in artistic production. Furthermore, since this basic creative activity
does not exist in abstraction from its concrete instantiations, Nature can be
conceived as a “relational whole.” It is a synthesis from which finite products
emerge because it unites “subject and object, the mental and the physical,
the organic and the inorganic. This is the ultimate reason why Schelling
defines this activity as the ‘Copula,’ ‘the Bond’ ” (Braeckman 1985, 278).
For the most part, Schelling’s view of the productive power of Nature
is very close to Whitehead’s notion of Creativity. Both are principles of
individuation, processes that do not exist apart from the concrete instances
that incarnate it, and that guarantee the solidarity of Nature through an
organic synthesis in every concretum of physical and mental feelings, those
of the actual world and of conceptual possibilities. However, there is one
significant difference in the way that these two thinkers conceive of the
active unity of the mental and the physical as the fundamental essence of
Nature. For Schelling, the most basic example of this unity is to be found
in “the self-conscious Ego, whereas Whitehead’s paradigm is an unconscious
experience” (Ibid.)—although for Whitehead, unconscious experience does
not mean without subjectivity. Schelling’s view is that, when we understand
ourselves as self-conscious examples of creative imagination, then we achieve
an awareness of “the (dynamic) unity of subjectivity and objectivity that can
generally be ascribed to reality as a whole and to its constituent parts” (Ibid.).18
On this basis, Braeckman concludes insightfully that Schelling and
Whitehead share three concepts implied in the general nature of imagina-
tion. In Whitehead’s language they are the “Reformed Subjectivist Principle,”
the “creative advance” of Nature, and a “philosophy of organism.” Because
of their allegiance to the first of these concepts, both thinkers take Nature
to be “the visible Mind and Mind, the invisible Nature,” and, as we have
seen, both reject a mechanistic worldview (Ibid., 280).19
Whitehead’s notion of “the creative advance” of Nature, as described
above, concerns a natural progression toward the production of actual occa-
sions of experience that are increasingly complex unities of physical and
17. For the notion of “concretum,” see George L. Kline (1983, 104–46) and (1986, 144ff.).
18. Ibid. Much of Native American thought exemplifies the same view of Nature. See, for
example, John G. Neihardt (1961, 20–48).
19. Interestingly, Braeckman states that both Schelling and Whitehead advance the “Revised
Subjectivist Principle” as an alternative to the “so-called ‘bifurcation of nature,’ ” a qualifier that
he does not explain. Perhaps, however, he means to express only the fact that, for Schelling,
Nature never really is bifurcated.
232 NATURE AND LOGOS
would hold. For Creativity is also a metaphysical category, and only achieves
realization through its instantiations in actual entities.
Perhaps because Whitehead was mostly unknowingly influenced by
Schelling, unlike Merleau-Ponty, he never offers direct criticisms of his
“ancestor,” again unlike Merleau-Ponty. Nonetheless, despite common con-
cerns and congruent views of the organicity of Nature, the unity of the
mental and the physical, and imaginative creativity, Whitehead almost cer-
tainly would have advanced the same criticisms as did Merleau-Ponty in
regard to conceptual understanding. Furthermore, Whitehead clearly agreed
with Kant, although he does not cite him in doing so, that concepts are
just as necessary for understanding what is given in intuition. Whitehead
and Merleau-Ponty in their own ways had the merit of demonstrating the
necessity of broader yet empirically adequate concepts for the enterprise of
overcoming the various forms of the bifurcation of Nature embedded in
modern philosophy, for escaping its heritage of dualisms, deterministic cau-
sality, the valueless matter of scientific materialism, and superficial accounts
of experience, and for disclosing our inextricable involvement with Nature
and our deepest connections with Being.
This page intentionally left blank.
CONCLUSION
235
236 NATURE AND LOGOS
of Nature. Those descriptions focused on the lived body and its incarnate
freedom, expression and language, the body’s relationship with nature and
culture, and the body’s perceptual/behavioral circuit with things, other peo-
ple, the circumambient world (Umwelt), and Earth as our primordial Boden.
We also explicated the ways in which Merleau-Ponty mobilized his phenom-
enology of the lived body to continue his long struggle against Cartesianism
that, for him, also included Sartre’s early writings.
This struggle persisted throughout Merleau-Ponty’s life and informed
a substantial part of his late writings, both published and unpublished.
Accordingly, we have followed his criticisms of his estranged friend in the
course of gaining some understanding of the objectives and principal con-
cepts of his final ontology of Nature. We have shown why Merleau-Ponty
thought it necessary to develop a “new” ontology, and why he thought that
it would eventually have more explanatory power than the earlier phe-
nomenology. This led in turn to detailed consideration of the chiasmatic
reversibility of the to-feel and to-be-felt, which is realized in “the flesh,” his
primordial ontological concept.
Neither Merleau-Ponty nor Whitehead formulated their criticisms of
the bifurcations of Nature out of a whole cloth. Both were significantly
influenced by the thought of Schelling and Bergson, though not uncritically.
As a result, we have given a great deal of attention to that influence. In the
case of Schelling, this is particularly important because this relationship is
hardly mentioned by other commentators, such as Dillon (1997) and Hass
(2008); others—for example, Toadvine (2009)—do discuss it briefly, but
without making contact with Schelling’s texts. The reference to Schelling’s
work is important because it forms a bridge between Merleau-Ponty and
Whitehead since both of their reactions against the bifurcation of Nature
were influenced by Schelling’s Naturphilosophie. As regards Bergson, we have
also shown that both Whitehead and Merleau-Ponty took seriously his views
of duration, temporality, the process of Nature, its intellectual spatialization,
evolution, and perception. On the other hand, they rejected his conten-
tions that concepts were necessarily inadequate to express the interior life
of organisms and that the intellect must always in some sense falsify the
life of Nature.
Merleau-Ponty’s and Whitehead’s views of life in Nature contrast with
both those of Schelling and Bergson, and this in turn opened the way to
considering some criticisms of Merleau-Ponty’s ontology, how Merleau-Ponty
might have responded to them, and finally how Whitehead’s process philoso-
phy—even with just the few texts that Merleau-Ponty knew—could have
supported and supplemented his likely response. That discussion in turn
led to an articulation of the major concepts of Whitehead’s mature process
metaphysics in order to demonstrate how the texts that Merleau-Ponty did
CONCLUSION 237
241
242 REFERENCES
Coghill, George E. 1929. Anatomy and the Problem of Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Compton, John J. 2001. “The Persistence of the Problem of Freedom.” The Review
of Metaphysics 55 (September): 95–115.
———. 2002. “Toward a Phenomenological Philosophy of Nature.” In B. E. Babich,
195–202.
Dastur, Françoise. 1993. “Merleau-Ponty and Thinking from Within.” Trans. Paul
B. Milan. In Burke and Van der Veken, 25–35.
Deleuze, Gilles. 1991. Bergsonism. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam.
New York: Zone Books. Originally published in 1966 as Le Bergsonisme. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France.
Descartes, René. 1967. The Philosophical Works of Descartes. Trans. Elizabeth S.
Haldane and G. R. T. Ross. Cambridge: At the University Press.
———. 1970. Philosophical Letters. Trans. and ed. Anthony Kenny. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press.
———. 1976. Descartes’ Conversation with Burman. Trans. with Introduction and
Commentary by John Cottingham. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
———. 1989 [1649]. The Passions of the Soul. Trans. and Annotated by Stephen
Voss. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Devettere, Raymond J. 1976. “The Human Body as Philosophical Paradigm in
Whitehead and Merleau-Ponty.” Philosophy Today 20: 4/4: 317–326.
Diderot, Denis. 1965. Entretien entre d’Alembert et Diderot, Le rêve de d’Alembert,
Suite de l’entretien, Chronologie et Introduction par Jacques Roger. Paris:
Garnier-Flammarion.
Dillon, M. C. 1988. Merleau-Ponty’s Ontology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press. Second Ed., 1997. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Doud, Robert E. 1977. “Whitehead and Merleau-Ponty: Commitment as a Context
for Comparison.” Process Studies 7, no. 3 (Fall): 145–160.
Driesch, Hans A. E. 1929. The Science and Philosophy of the Organism. London:
A. and C. Black.
Edie, James M. 1984. “Merleau-Ponty: The Triumph of Dialectics over Structuralism.”
Man and World 17: 299–312.
Emmet, Dorothy. 1990. “Creativity and the Passage of Nature.” in Rapp and Wiehl,
59–69.
Epperson, Michael. 2004. Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Alfred North
Whitehead. New York: Fordham University Press.
Ewing, A. C. 1938. A Short Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Findlay, J. N. 1958. Hegel: A Re-Examination. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.
Fisher, Alden L., Editor. 1969. The Essential Writings of Merleau-Ponty. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Ford, Lewis S. and Kline, George L., eds. 1983. Explorations in Whitehead’s Philosophy.
New York: Fordham University Press.
Galilei, Galileo. 1950 [1638]. Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. Trans. Henry
Crew and Alfonso de Salvio, with an Introduction by Antonio Favaro.
Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
———. 1960. ON MOTION [ca. 1590] and ON MECHANICS [ca. 1600]. On
Motion trans. with Introduction and Notes by I. E. Drabkin. On Mechanics
244 REFERENCES
———. 1977b. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Trans. with an
Introduction by William Lovitt. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Holmes, Richard. 2008. The Age of Wonder, How the Romantic Generation Discovered
the Beauty and Terror of Science. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hume, David. 1967 [1739]. A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. with an Analytical
Index by L. A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
Husserl, Edmund. 1960. Cartesian Meditations. Trans. Dorion Cairns. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff. Written in 1931 and originally published in 1950 as
Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge. Herausgegeben und Eingeleitet
von Prof. Dr. S. Strasser. Husserliana I. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
———. 1964. The Phenomenology of Inner Time Consciousness. Ed. Martin Heidegger
and trans. James S. Churchill, with an Introduction by Calvin O. Schrag.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Originally published in 1928 as
Vorlesungen zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewussteins/Edmund Husserls.
Herausgegeben von Martin Heidegger. 1966. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Zur
Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewussteins (1892–1917). Herausgegeben von
Rudolf Boehm. Husserliana X. The Hague Martinus Nijhoff.
———. 1969. Ideas I, General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Trans. W. R. Boyce
Gibson. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. Originally published in 1913 as
Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes
Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie, in the Jahrbuch für
Phänomenologie und phänomenologische Forschung. Re-published in Husserliana
III/1. 1976. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
———. 1969a. Formal and Transcendental Logic. Trans. Dorion Cairns. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff. Originally published in 1929 as Formale und transzendentale
Logik, Versuch einer Kritik der logischen Vernunft von Edmund Husserl. Halle:
Max Niemeyer.
———. 1970. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, An
Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Trans. with an Introduction, by
David Carr. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. All extant parts
originally published in 1954 as Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und
die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Husserliana VI, Herausgegeben von Walter
Biemel. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
———. 1973. Experience and Judgment, Investigations in a Genealogy of Logic. Revised
and ed. by Ludwig Landgrebe. Trans. James M. Churchill and Karl Ameriks.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Originally published in 1954 as
Erfahrung und Urteil. Untersuchungen zur Genealogie der Logik. Ausgearbeitet
und herausgegeben von Ludwig Landgrebe. Hamburg: Claasen.
———. 1982. “Foundational Investigations of the Phenomenological Origin of
the Spatiality of Nature.” Trans. Fred Kersten in Peter McCormick and
Frederick Elliston, 222–233. Unpublished 1934 manuscript, “Umsturz der
Kopernikanischen Lehre in der gewöhnlichen weltanschaulichen Interpretation. Die
Erde als Ur-Arche bewegt sich nicht.”
———. 1989. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological
Philosophy, Second Book, Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution. Trans.
with an Introduction by Richard Rojecwicz and André Schuwer. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers. Originally published in 1952 as Ideen zu einer
246 REFERENCES
Low, Douglas. 2000. Merleau-Ponty’s Last Vision, A Proposal for the Completion of
The Visible and the Invisible. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Lowe, Victor. 1951. “The Development of Whitehead’s Philosophy.” In Schillp,
15–124.
———. 1966. Understanding Whitehead. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Löwith, Karl. 1997. Nietzsche, Philosophy of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. Trans.
J. Harvey Lomax. Berkeley: University of California Press. Originally pub-
lished in 1956 as Nietzsches Philosophie der ewigen Wiederkehr des Gleichen.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Lucas Jr., George R., ed., 1986. Hegel and Whitehead, Contemporary Perspectives on
Systematic Philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
———. 1989. The Rehabilitation of Whitehead, An Analytic and Historical
Assessment of Process Philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Madison, Gary Brent. 1981. The Phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty. Athens, Ohio:
The Ohio University Press.
Malebranche, Nicolas. 1962. Œuvres complètes. Ed. Geneviève Rodis-Lewis. Paris:
Libraire Philosophique J. Vrin.
Marcel, Gabriel. 1971. Coleridge et Schelling. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne.
Marquet, J.-F. 1992. “Schelling.” Encyclopédie Philosophique Universelle, Publiée sous
la direction d’André Jacob, Part III: Les Oeuvres philosophiques, Tome 1,
2085–2093. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
McCormick, Peter and Frederick Elliston, eds. 1982. Husserl: Shorter Works. South
Bend, IN: Notre Dame Press.
McDowell, John. 1998. Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1956. Les philosophes célèbres. Publié sous la direction de
Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Paris: Éditions d’Art Lucien Mazenod.
———. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul and
New York: Humanities Press. Trans. Colin Smith. Originally published in
1945 as Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.
———. 1963. The Structure of Behavior. Trans. Alden Fisher. Boston: Beacon Press.
Originally published in 1942 as La Structure du comportement. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
———. 1964. The Primary of Perception and Other Essays on Phenomenological
Psychology, the Philosophy of Art, History and Politics. Ed. James M. Edie.
Evanston: Northwestern University Press.;
———. 1964. “Eye and Mind” in The Primacy of Perception and Other Essays, 159–
190. Trans. Carleton Dallery. Published in 1964 as L’Œil et l’esprit. Paris:
Gallimard.
———. 1964. “The Primacy of Perception and its Philosophical Consequences.”
Trans. James M. Edie as in The Primacy of Perception and Other Essays, 12–42.
Originally published in 1947 as “Le Primat de la perception et ses con-
séquences philosophiques,” Bulletin de la Société française de philosophie, XLI,
(reporting on the meeting of 23 November 1946): 119–153.
———. 1964. Sense and Non-Sense. Trans. Hubert L Dreyfus and Patricia Allen
Dreyfus. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Originally published in
1948 as Sens et non-sens. Paris: Nagel. Reprinted in 1996. Paris: Gallimard.
248 REFERENCES
———. 2003. Nature: Course Notes from the Collège de France. Trans. Robert Vallier.
Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Originally published in 1994 as
La Nature, Notes, Cours du Collège de France. Ed. Dominique Séglard. Paris:
Éditions de Seuil.
———. 2004. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The World of Perception. Trans. Oliver Davis.
London and New York: Routledge. Originally published in 2002 as Causeries
1948. Établies et annotées par Stéphanie Ménasé. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Morris, David. 2004. The Sense of Space. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Moyle, Tristan. 2007. “Re-enchanting Nature: Human and Animal Life in the
Later Merleau-Ponty.” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 38, no.
2 (May): 164–180.
Neihardt, John G. 1961. Black Elk Speaks. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1974. The Gay Science, With a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of
Songs. Trans. with Commentary by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books.
Originally published in 1882 as Die fröhliche Wissenschaft. See Sämtliche Werke:
kritische Studienausgabe Friedrich Nietzsche, 1999. Herausgegeben von Giorgio
Colli und Mazzino Montinari. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
Pickstock, Catherine. 1998. After Writing: on the liturgical consummation of philosophy.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers.
Plato. The Republic. 1945. Trans. with Introduction and Notes by Francis Macdonald
Cornford. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
———. 1989. The Symposium. Trans. with Introduction and Notes by Alexander
Nehamas and Paul Woodruff. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Polanowski, Janusz A. and Donald W. Sherburne, eds. 2004. Whitehead’s Philosophy,
Points of Connection. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Popkin, Richard H. 1964. The History of Scepticism. Revised ed. New York: Harper
& Row.
Portmann, Adolf. 1960. Die Tiergestalt, Studien über die Bedeutung der Tierschen
Erscheinung. Second ed. Basel: F. Reinhardt.
Rapp, Friedrich, and Reiner, Wiehl, eds. 1990. Whitehead’s Metaphysics of Creativity.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 2007. Vivant jusqu’à la mort, suivi de Fragments. Paris: Éditions de Seuil.
Robert, Franck. 2007. “Whitehead et la phénoménologie, Une lecture croisée du
dernier Merleau-Ponty et du Whitehead de Process and Reality.” Chiasmi
International 7: 341–366.
———. 2008. “Science et ontologie, Pour un concept renouvelé de nature.” In
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, ed. Emmanuel de Saint Aubert, 359–398. Paris:
Hermann Éditeurs. Originally published in 2006 in the Archives de philoso-
phie, tome 69, cahier I (printemps), 101–121.
Rockmore, Tom. 1986. “Realism, Idealism, and Speculative Philosophy.” In Lucas,
29–38.
Ross, Stephen David. 1983. Perspective in Whitehead’s Metaphysics. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Royce, Josiah. 1892. The Spirit of Modern Philosophy. Boston and New York: Houghton,
Mifflin and Company.
250 REFERENCES
Schilder, Paul. 1950. The Image and Appearance of the Human Body. New York:
International Universities Press, Inc.
Schilpp, Paul A., Editor. 1951. The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. New York:
Tudor.
Scotus, John Duns. 1986. Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality. Selected and Trans.
with an Introduction by Allan B. Wolter, O.F.M. Catholic University of
America Press.
———. 1998. Opera Omnia, Volume I. Castellana Grotte (Bari): Centro Studi
Personalisti Editrice, Editrice AGA Alberobello.
———. 1998. Questions on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Trans. Girard J. Etzkorn
and Allan B. Wolter, O.F.M., Volume II. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan
Institute Publications.
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1963. Science, Perception and Reality. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul; New York: The Humanities Press.
Sheldrake, Rupert. 1990. The Rebirth of Nature, The Greening of Science and God.
London: Random Century Group, Ltd.
Silverman, Hugh J., and Barry Jr., James. 1992. Texts and Dialogues. Atlantic
Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International, Inc.
Spanneut, Michel. 1957. Le Stoïcisme des pères de l’église. Paris: Éditions de Seuil.
Spiegelberg, Herbert. 1982. The Phenomenological Movement, A Historical Introduction.
Third Revised and Enlarged Ed., with the Collaboration of Karl Schuhmann.
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Spinoza, Benedict de. 1914. Opera Quotquot Reperta Sunt. Recognoverunt J. Van
Vloten et J. P. N. Land, Editio Tertia, Tomus Prinus. The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff.
———. 1951. The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza. Trans. with an Introduction
by R. H. M. Elwes. New York: Dover.
Steinbock, Anthony J. 2000. “Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, and Saturated Intentionality.”
In Hass and Olkowski, 53–74.
Thomas, Sandra P. and Howard W. Pollio. 2002. Listening to Patients, A Phenomenological
Approach to Nursing Research and Practice. New York: Springer.
Tilliette, Xavier. 1965. “Notes prises au cours de Maurice Merleau-Ponty.” Revue de
Métaphysique et de Morale, 70e année, no 3, 259–269. Reprinted in 2000 and
cited in Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Parcours deux 1951–1961, 215–234. Publié
avec le concours du Centre National du Livre. Paris: Verdier. Trans. Drew
Leder in Hugh J. Silverman and James Barry Jr., 162–168.
Toadvine, Ted. 2000. “Nature and Negation: Merleau-Ponty’s Reading of Bergson.”
Chiasmi International 2, 107–117.
———. 2009. Merleau-Ponty’s Philosophy of Nature. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press.
Vallier, Robert. 2000. “Être Sauvage and the Barbaric Principle: Merleau-Ponty’s
Reading of Schelling.” Chiasmi International 2: 83–105.
Van Breda, H. L.,O.F.M., 1962. “Maurice Merleau-Ponty et les Archives-Husserl à
Louvain,” Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 4: 410–430. Trans. Stephen
Michelman as “Merleau-Ponty and the Husserl Archives at Louvain” in
Silverman and Barry, 150–161.
252 REFERENCES
——— and Jacques Taminiaux, eds. 1959. Edmund Husserl 1859–1959. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Van der Veken, Jan. 1978. “Zien-Spreken-Denken.” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 1
(March): 3–33.
———. “A Plea for an Open, Humble Hegelianism.” In Lucas, 109–120.
———. 1989. “Merleau-Ponty on the Ultimate Problems of Rationality.” In Ultimate
Reality and Meaning: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Philosophy of Understanding
12, no. 3: 202–209.
———. 2000. “Merleau-Ponty and Whitehead on the Concept of Nature.”
Interchange 31, nos. 2/3: 319–334.
Vanzago, Luca. 2003. “Relations and the Irrelative, A Relationist Interpretation of
Merleau-Ponty’s Ontology of Flesh.” Chiasmi International 5: 65–83.
———. “Creativity as Universal Activity.” in Rapp and Wiehl, 178–188.
Von Uexküll, Jacob. 1909. Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.
———. 1932. Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen—Ein Bilderbuch
unsichtbarer Welten. Berlin: Springer.
Wahl, Jean. 1932. Vers le concret. Études d’histoire de la philosophie contemporaine,
William James, Whitehead, Gabriel Marcel. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J.
Vrin. Deuxième édition augmentée, Avant-propos de Mathias Girel. 2004.
Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.
Whitehead, Alfred North. 1920. The Concept of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
———. 1947. Essays in Science and Philosophy. New York: Philosophical Library.
———. 1958 [1929]. The Function of Reason. Boston: The Beacon Press.
———. 1961. The Interpretation of Science. Ed. A. H. Johnson. Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill.
———. 1967 [1933]. Adventures of Ideas. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1967 [1925]. Science and the Modern World New York: The Free Press.
———. 1968 [1938]. Modes of Thought. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1978 [1929]. Process and Reality. Corrected Edition. Ed. David Ray Griffin
and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1996 [1926]. Religion in the Making. New York: Fordham University Press.
Wilson, Edward O. 2003. The Future of Life. New York: Vintage Books.
Wirth, Jason M. 2003. The Conspiracy of Life, Meditations on Shelling and His Time.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1968 [1953]. Philosophical Investigations. Revised ed. Trans.
G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
INDEX
253
254 INDEX
Blondel, Maurice: 69, 75; and indirect 81, 88, 89, 93, 95, 101, 130; and
ontology, 69–70 metamorphosis, 88; as pre-established
bodily esthesiology: 78, 79, 84, 110 harmony, 119; as process, 87; and
body: as bearer of symbolic systems, reversibility, 88, 90, 93, 98, 99, 102,
28, 107, 114, 176, 179; and bodily 182, 193, 223, 236
symbolism in higher animals, 174, Claudel, Paul: 26, 84; and
175; and the corporeal schema, 19– “co-naissance,” 26, 61, 87, 92; 94,
21, 75, n.5; 78, 88, 92, 108; and 97, 102, 149, n. 54; 182, 189
fungierende intentionality, 64; human Cloots, André: 9, 197, n. 8
body as emergent from evolution, Coghill, George E.: and studies of the
178; as “lexicon of corporeity,” 26, axolotl lizard, 168
78; as libidinal, 75, n. 5; 88, 92, cogito: 12, 23, 32, 35, 56, 61, 73, 79, n.
173, n. 29; as lived, 12–29, 203, 12; as silent, 14, 190
224, 236; and motor-intentionality, Coleridge, Samuel Taylor: 228; and
17–29, 103; and pathological appropriation of Kant and Schelling,
motility, 21–24; as phenomenal and 228–229
objective, 90. See also space and time Compton, John: 5
Braeckman, Antoon: 124, n. 2; 228, concepts: 7, 8, 20, n. 16; 26, 27, 46,
229, 230, 231, 232 47, 48, 52, 108, 109, 129, 132, 142,
Bridgman, Percy W: 176; contrasted 176, 182; and Husserlian Offenheit,
with Einfühlung, 176–177 68; as necessary for contingency,
Brunschvicg, Léon: 26, n. 28; 30, n. 143; in the “new” ontology, 56,
35; 54, 57, n. 13; 67, 144 61, 67–69, 92, 100, 115, 119; and
brute facts: 4, 53, 102, 190, 196, 235; the ontology of the object, 68; as
and Schelling, 197 required for understanding data of
Burtt, E.A.: 34 intuition, 234. See also Bergson and
Schelling
Cassirer, Paul: and symbolic pregnance, concrescence: 8, 194, 167, 195–199,
27–28, 80 200, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 211,
causality: 3, 17, 21, 22, 26, 34, 36, 37, 213, 214, 216, 218, 219, 226, 227,
42, 48, 49, 56, 71, 116, 143, 144, 232, 239
162, 171; and efficient and final consciousness: 13, 16, 23, 31, n. 37;
causes, 3, 33, 197–198, 223, 235; 66, 79, 104, 117, 131, 136, 200;
and embryonic development, 177 and the affirmation-negation
Cézanne, Paul: 80, 93; and the depths contrast, 210; as the highest
of inhuman nature, 58, 59, n. 15; development of mentality, 211;
76, 81; and topological space, 96 the history of, 232; and life, 132,
Chardin, Teilhard de: 179 145, 200–201; and motility, 17ff.;
chiasm: 86–94; and dehiscence, 88, as perceptual, 7, 12, 14; and the
98; and the écart, 89, 97, 98, philosophy of, 2, 117, 156, 187, 189;
107, 134, 147, 195, 214, 226, and presentational immediacy, 207;
227, 239; as the fold, 88, 95; and and its punctum caecum, 55, n. 9;
Ineinander relationships, 87; and 133; as result of the creative power
intercorporeity, 90–91, 173, n. 29; as of nature, 61, 73, 230; and Sartre,
intertwining, 88, 95; and Offenheit, 36–46, 65, 91, 101. See also body
87, and overlapping, envelopment, and constitution
INDEX 255
constitution: 17, 25, 38, 43, 51, 57, 79, descriptive generalization: 2, 4, 66, 99,
82, 93, 109, 111, n. 15; 177, n. 40; 108, 167, 182, 185, 190, 193, 199,
189, 199, 200 203, 229, 238
contingency: 40, 67, 71, 101, 119, De Waelhens, Alphonse: 45, 46
120, 141, 143, 147, 160, 192, 212, Dewey, John: 217–218, 220
220; and goodness, 214–215. See also Diderot, Denis: 90, n. 28
concepts Driesch, Hans: 168, 177
creativity: 49, 60 106, 220; and the Dunphy-Blomfield, Jocelyn: 9, 74, n. 3
advance of nature, 49, 231; as
Category of the Ultimate, 232; and écart: See chiasm
expression in animal life, 168–179; Einfühlung: 75, n. 5, 76, 92, 107
and freedom in Bergson’s élan vital, emotions: 24–25, 224; and form/matter
155; and human cultural expression, analysis of experience, 25–26
14, 24, 26, 27, 50, n. 4, 56, 57, eternal objects: 207, 209, 220; and
66, 69, 76, 90, 103, 104, 105, 109, divine agency, 212, 216; and feelings
110, 112, 115, 116, 193, 205, 209, of conceptual reversion, 210; and
214, 224, 239; and imagination, ingression, 209, 212, 217, 221; as
230–231; as inexhaustible in nature, necessary for contingency, 212; and
232; as metaphysical category, 233; universals and particulars, 211
and propositional feelings, 210, 224; Euclid: 94–95, 112
and Schelling’s “barbaric principle,” evolution: 150, 153, 154, 155, n.
127; and Schelling’s influence on 3; 156; and Darwin’s eliminative
Whitehead, 229–230; and sense explanation of, 170–171
making, 220; as Universal of
Universals, 195, 198, 238. See also finalism: 118, 129–130, 146
meaning flesh: 2, 4, 7; as carnality, 74–76;
chiasmatic unity with, 68, 86–94; as
Deleuze, Gilles: 146, nn. 46, 47; 157, element of Being, 76–79; and depth,
160, n. 14; 163, n. 20 79–84; as human and worldly, 187;
depth: 79–84, 211; and art, 80, 81; as the new irrelative, 78, 99; as
and dimensionality, 80; and ontic and ontological, 187–188, 203;
geometrical perspectives, 80, 95, and reversibility, 28–29, 187–188;
n. 33; and imagination and desire, and topological space and time,
82–88; and the ontology of the 94–100; and verticality, 84–86. See
object, 80; as temporal and spatial, also chiasm
84 freedom: 20, 37, 38, 39, 42–43,
Descartes, René: 3, 7, 29–36, 46, 49, 56, 111, 127, 130, 131, 136; and
50, 51, 52, 53, n. 6; 61, 67, 217; expressive animal behavior, 173; and
and activity and passivity, 100; and intuition in Schelling, 138. See also
Cartesian mind-body “confusions,” creativity, Kant, and Sartre
31–32, 41, 45, 50, n. 5; 54, 60, Freud, Sigmund: 82, 87, 211; and case
61, 66, 67, 87, 90, 92, 182, 223; of the Wolfman, 82–83, 109; 163,
and horizontal being, 85; and 212
idea of God, 118; and mind/body
interaction, 34–36, 49, 157; and the Galilei, Galileo: 3, 29, 33, 34, 49, n. 3;
Dioptrics, 80 52, 102, 235
256 INDEX
Gestalt psychology: 14–17, 27, 51, 144; Hume, David: 24, 48, n. 2; 51, 52, 53,
and Gestalt structures, 15, 16, 18, 101, 143, 206, 210, 212, 220, 230
24, 82, 111, 198, 201, 206, 211, 222, Husserl, Edmund: 12, 20, n. 16; 28, 38,
224 42, 43, 54, 60, 62, 65, 66, 74; and
God: 3, 52, 57, 58, 60–61, 104, 117, aesthetic logos, 28, 106, n. 7; and
118, 119; as abyss, 124–125; as affective force, 28, 39, 140–141; and
actual entity, 212; as empirical fact, consciousness, 66, 78, 87, 140; and
140; and erste Natur, 128; and evil, the Earth, 62–63, 70; and Einfühlung
119–121, 122, 192, n. 5; 215; as as underlying zoology, 176–177; and
fellow sufferer, 215; as Kosmotheoros, intentionality, 17, 42; and Offenheit,
4, 6, 94; as metaphysically necessary, 62, 64; and time-consciousness, 85,
215–217; as origin of subjective aims, 135, n. 25; and touching-touched
216–217; primordial and consequent relationships, 27, 43, 87, 89, 97,
nature of, 212–213; and processive 181–182; and transcendental
nature as écart and dehiscence of subjectivity, 2, 12, 39, 43. See also
universe, 214; as source of novelty, Ineinander
216
ideas: and bond with flesh, 8, 90, 103;
Hass, Lawrence: 12, 14, n. 8; 18, n. 12; and conceptual feelings, 210–211;
24, n. 22; 29, 33, n. 42; 53, n. 6; 75, as lining and depth of the visible,
n. 4; 105, n. 4; 110 103, 210–211, 217; as musical and
Hegel, G.W.F.: 22, 25, 26, n. 26; 67, literary, 109; and no pure ideality,
78, 123, 128, n. 11; 135, 147; and 109, 111
Schelling on intuition and concepts, Ineinander: 62, 74, 76, 78, 87, 88, 97,
141–142 107, 118, 167, 177, n. 38. See also
Heidegger, Martin: 14, 15, n. 11; animality and body
19, n. 14; 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, inspiration and expiration of Being:
54, 60, 70, 92, 107, 142, 207; and 94, 126
Being speaking in us, 105; and institution: 20, 43, 106, 110–111, 154,
direct ontology and Merleau-Ponty’s 200
critique of, 69–72; and medieval intentionality: 42, 46, 201; and without
concept of truth, 136; on Nature consciousness, 201. See also body and
as Bestand, 127; and Offenheit, 62, consciousness
71; on pure sensations, 15, n. 11; intersubjectivity: 121, 122, 177, n.
207; on truth and freedom, 137, 38; and contrast of Heidegger and
n. 29; and verbal meaning of Wesen, Sartre, 43–44
72; 88, n. 25; 219
Herr, Lucien: 78, 81 James, William: 22, 40, 68, n. 31; 158,
history: 13, 36, 44, 45, 48, 54, 56, 58, n. 10; 196, 207
59, n. 16; 66, 68, 87, 97, 108, 109,
110, 111–112, 113, 114, 117, 145, Kant, Immanuel: 29, 61, 63, 201;
191, 214, 239; of consciousness, 232; and bifurcation of nature, 3, 102;
and eternal objects, 217; and ideas, and Bergson’s critique of, 146–147,
219–220; and life, 154, 163–164, 154, 159; and concepts, 67–68;
171, 176 and consciousness, 38, 78; and
INDEX 257
constitution, 79, 200; and eternal 27, 45, 59, 80; and mechanism
objects as possibilities, 212–213, and organisms, 130, 229, 236; and
220; and the form/matter analysis mechanism and vitalism, 168; and
of experience, 29; and freedom as metamorphosis, 78; and the natural
antiphysis, 20, 42, 134, 138, 171; world, 6, n. 6; 13, 56, 125, 140,
and God, 124–125; and knowledge 145–146; and openness to the world,
as conceptual, 143, 154, 273; and 18, 64; as perceptual, 18, 26, 64, 66,
imagination, 136–137, 230, 233; 69, 86, 88, 99, 132, 177; as personal,
and knowledge of organisms, 232; 11, n. 1; 14; and the physico-
and no pure disorder, 161, n. 16; chemical, 130, 167, 177, 178; as pre-
and phenomena and noumena, 33, personal, 14; as pre-reflective, 142.
n. 40; 59, 99, 102, 196; and the See also evolution and nature
sensationalist principle, 51, 101; and Locke, John: 33, 48, n. 2; 51, 52, 199, 230;
Schelling’s critique of, 124, 125, 128, and time as perpetual perishing, 194
129, 131, 137; and the Stoics, 106; Lorenz, Konrad: 174–176; and animal
and transcendental subjectivity, 12, consciousness, 175–176; and instinct
34, 190 and mechanistic explanations,
Kierkegaard, Søren: 54 174–175
Klee, Paul: 81, 84, 85, n. 21; 94, 98;
and topological space, 96 Malebranche, Nicolas: 3, 100, 235
Köhler, Wolfgang: 178 Marcel, Gabriel: 57, n. 13; 88, 96, 144,
228, n. 15
Lefort, Claude: 30, 84, 174, n. 30 Maritain, Jacques: 119, 192
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm: 3, 27, 67, Marx, Karl: 13, 44, 54, 59, 112, 239
73, 127, 146, 171, 189, 192, 194, mathematics: 3, 33, 34, 36, 47, 94,
213, 215, n. 5; 237; and activity 112, 116, 150, 237; and natural
and passivity, 101; and explicative order, 160–162; and topology, 96
theology, 119, 120, 121; and pre- Matisse, Henri: 96, 110
established harmony, 57, 101, 119; meaning: 16, 13, 15–16, 66; and
and the nature of God, 213; and the ambiguity, 16; as anterior to
ontology of the object, 58, 118 consciousness, 103; and bodily
life: 151, 153–179; and animals, 13, motility, 23–26; and essences, 104;
28, n. 32; 167–179; and Bergson’s and the form/matter analysis of,
account of, 148, 153–162; as 23–24, 29; and geometry, 104–105,
cognitive, 21, 24, 25, 33, n. 40; 118, 107, 115, 116; as ideals expressed in
133, 135; and conceptual feelings, language, 45; as the in-[the]visible,
209; as emergent from nature, 54, 7, 79, 109, 219, 220; and nature,
117, 119, 126, 168, 200, 235; of 58–59, 105; and openness, 45; and
flesh, 167ff.; as freedom and mental sedimentation, 20, 57, 110, 111,
originality, 166, 209, 214, 225; and 112; and sense making, 110–113; as
God as ground of, 127; and ideas, sketched in outline, 23, 103, 116;
103; and immediate flux of, 134–135, and the verbal meaning of Wesen,
160; and Ineinander relationships 72, 83, 87, 107, 219, 220. See also
with physico-chemistry, 167, 177; creativity, ideas, institution, and the
as institution, 154; and meaning, logos endiathetos and logos proforikos
258 INDEX
mechanism: 5, 15, 22, 26, 29, 30, 33, 47–54; as process, 48, 53, 59, n. 17;
n. 40; 48, 49–50, 52, 53, 129, 130; 60, 61, 77, 87, 98, 107, 146, 153,
and organism, 231–232. See also 161, 190, 193, 194, 210, 229, 231,
Bergson and Schelling 232; solidarity of, 49, 51, 195, 196,
metamorphosis: 41, 78, 88, 93, 94, 97, 202, 206, 221, 231. See also Bergson
98, 100, 101, 156, 172, 179, 200 and Schelling
metaphysics: 4, 54, 73; and Bergson, negativity: in instinctive behavior, 175;
147; as generalization from human as instituted by dehiscence and the
experience, 199; and rapprochement écart, 98, 147; and Bergson, 147–148,
with science, 237; and Sartre, 45; 153, 160–165; in nature, 79, 98, 147,
and systems, 67, 191, 192, 193–194; 206, 211; in organisms, 169; and
and theories of causation, 197; Sartre, 30, 39, 44, 46, 147, 148, 153
and theories of painting, 93; and Nietzsche, Friedrich: 40, 54, 82, 123,
Whitehead’s philosophy of organism, 127, 166, 201
167, 191, 226, 228, 229. See also
descriptive generalization objects and subjects: 3, 5, 18, 27, 38,
mind-body relationships: 49–50, 54, 69, 46, 56, 57, 59, 61, 65, 66, 67, 73,
90, 91, 235; and Whitehead’s theory 76, 77, 81, 92, 102, 182, 184, 185,
of mind, 222–226; and personal 198–203, 218; and concern, 198; and
identity, 225–226 Schelling, 126, n. 6; 131, 133, 134,
misplaced concreteness, fallacy of: 48, 138, 139, 140, 141
52, 53, 176 Offenheit: 44, 62–64, 67, 71, 87, 121,
Moyle, Tristan: 169, 170 171, 206, 228
ontology: 54, 58; and Bergson, 145,
natural order, forms of: 194, 221–224; 164, 165; and biology, 176–177;
as enduring objects, 222; as nexūs, and indivision from nature, 133; of
221; as persons, 222; as societies, meaning, 54; and Merleau-Ponty’s
221–222; as structured societies, “new,” 1, 2, 7, 11, 47, 53, 54–56,
222 58, 60, 67, 77; of the object, 3, 29,
nature: 1–9; as autoproduction of 30, 49, 50, n. 4; 53, 67, 68, 69, 71,
meaning, 59, 60; as basis for 73, 79, 85, 93, 94, 126, 132; and
Merleau-Ponty’s “new” ontology, ontological rehabilitation, 2; and
54–72; bifurcation of, 2–3, 29, 31, relativity and quantum theories,
40, 43, 47–54, 58, 73, 74, 100, 104, 68; and Sartre, 37; of substances
142, 165, 167, 170; and Galilean- and attributes, 51; and Whitehead’s
Cartesian concept and Merleau- conceptual innovations, 167. See also
Ponty’s criticisms, 2, 29–36, 47–54, flesh and nature
102; indivision from, 39, 74, n. 3; organisms: 2, 17, 19, 50, 129, 130, 131,
80, 90, 133, 134, 142, 148; and 133, n. 22; 154, 156, n. 4; 168–177,
Marx, 13, 59; meanings of, 58–60; 186, n. 3; 223, 224, 225, 229, 232,
and Merleau-Ponty’s fundamental 236; and higher, 207, 209, 210
thought, 2, 239; and Natura naturans organism, philosophy of: 51, 167, 213,
and Natura naturata, 60, 101, 106, 218, 228, 231, 232
116, 124, 125, 126, 229, 230; as
phenomenon, 11–29; as privileged Pascal, Blaise: 40, 118, 121
access to Being, 70; and Sartre, pensée de survol: 50, n. 4; 53, 58, 63,
36–45, 59; and scientific materialism, 80, 96, 109, 126, 181, 191, 205, 215
INDEX 259
perception: 14–17; as nascent logos, 27, 179; and finalism and mechanism,
108; and modes of causal efficacy 129–130, 153–154; and genesis of
and presentational immediacy, mentality, 210–211; and imagination,
207, 208; realist theory of, 50; 230–231; and intellectual
representational theory of, 22, 29, spatialization, 166; and prehensive
36, 50, 51, 79, 93, 101, 196; as unification, 205–206; and transition,
symbolic reference, 207. See also 206; and temporalization, 38, 110;
Gestalts and Gestalt psychology and two species, 197. See also chiasm
perceptual faith: 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, and concrescence
78, 115, 205; and actual entities, Proust, Marcel: 20, 63, n. 25; 82, 85,
196; and Husserl, 65; and the logos 103, 109, 217, 219; and Locke, 194
endiathetos, 106; and presentational psychoanalysis: 82, 87, 92; and
immediacy, 208–209; and Sartre, 65; Bachelard, 76, n. 8; ontological vs.
and tangibility and visibility, 208 existential, 83
phenomenology: 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13,
15, 16, 23, 24, n. 22; 27, 29, 31, n. rationalism: 67, 192–193
37; 45, 67, 105, 117, 132, 165, and rationality: 4, n. 3; 23, 111–112, 142,
Bachelard, 42; and Barbaras’s critique 154, 193, 237
of Merleau-Ponty, 182, 184, 188, realism and idealism: 64, 117, 127,
190, 191; and Bergson, 50, 165; and 135–136; 187, 205, 229, 237
flesh, 74, 77; and ontology, 35, 54, reformed subjectivist principle: 231
64, 134; and Sartre, 36, 37, 45–46; Ricoeur, Paul: 142, 143, 214, n. 4
and Schelling’s “barbaric” Nature, Robert, Franck: 4, n. 4; 72, n. 44; 100,
127, 142; and the twofold logoi, 105, 191, 217, 219
115, 117 Russell, Edward S.: and purposive
Piaget, Jean: 99–100; and reversibility, behavior in flatworms, 172–173
100
Plato: 27, n. 30; 108, 136 Santayana, George: 52, 64, n. 27
Portmann, Adolf: and studies of Sartre, Jean-Paul: 7, 13, 32, 50, n.
mimicry and expressive animal 4; 58, n. 14; 59, 61, 65, 71, 79,
behavior, 173–174 84, n. 18; 91, 122; and concrete
prehensions: 195, 205ff.; and conformal universals, 221; and consciousness
feelings, 197; and feelings of causal as source of meaning, 101; and
efficacy, 205–206; as hybrid, 209; dehiscence, 90; and Kant, 38;
as negative and positive, 197, 198, and logos endiathetos, 106; and
206; and past emotions, 206; as metamorphosis, 93, 101; and natural
unconscious, 199 production of subjectivity, 200; and
primary and secondary qualities: 2, 3, nausea, 40–43, 127; nothingness,
6, n. 8; 33, 34, 49, n. 3; 50, 52, 54, 82, 199; and Offenheit, 62; and the
56, 190 painter, 94. See also negativity and
process: 4, 6, 15, 17, 18, 40, 66; and phenomenology
actual occasions of experience, Scheler, Max: 57, n. 13
194–195, 200, 201; and animal Schelling, F.W.J.: 8, 13, n. 6; 22, 43,
development and genesis, 173, 58, 91, 117, 123–144; and concepts
177–178; continuity/discontinuity of, and explanations, 131–132, 135, 141;
167, 190, 230, 235; and dehiscence, and concepts and intuition, 138,
89–91, 200; and evolution, 155, 167, 139, 144; and concepts and
260 INDEX
and Kant, 101; and life, 154; and universals and particulars: 50, 52, 110,
Locke and Proust, 194; as objective, 166, 195, 211, 220, 232, 238; and
18–19, 30, 201; and personal concrete universals, 107, 108–109,
identity, 223; and prehensive 220, 221; universals as dimensions,
unification, 201; as sedimented 83, 212
in the corporeal schema, 20; and
thinking Being, 149–150
vacuous actuality, fallacy of: 4, 52, 201,
Toadvine, Ted: 12, n. 3; 55, n. 7; 104,
229
n. 2; 134, 236
Valéry, Paul: 78, 86, 91, 93, 178, n. 4
Van Zago, Luca: 68, n. 34
Uexküll, Jakob von: 169–170; and
animals’ Umwelt, 173; as critic of
Descartes, 178; and criticisms of Wahl, Jean: 3, 4, 30, n. 35
Kant and Schelling, 171–172; and Wordsworth, William: vi, 147, 198,
Husserlian Offenheit, 171 201, 228, 229, 230
nature
PHILOSOPHY
logos
to Merleau-Pont y ’s
Ponty used certain texts by Alfred North Whitehead to develop
an ontology based on nature, and how he could have used other Fundamental Thought
Whitehead texts that he did not know in order to complete his last
ontology. This account is enriched by several of Merleau-Ponty’s
unpublished writings not previously available in English, by the
first detailed treatment of certain works by F. W. J. Schelling in
the course of showing how they exerted a substantial influence
William S. Hamrick
S tat e U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w Y o r k P r e ss
w w w. s u n y p r e s s . e d u