*Contents* 02:33 SECOND MEANING OF VISION: IDEA (1) 09:46 FLESH 10:02 Revision: The Intertwining 10:51 Revision: Relation between me as seer and thing as seen 14:55 Revision: Flesh as element 16:37 New idea: The reversibility of the touching and touched as unexperienceable 20:42 SECOND MEANING OF VISION: IDEA (2) 21:04 The “hinge” between touching and touched 22:46 The “hinge” as the unexperienceable total being of my body and that of the world 26:30 Second visibility 32:21 The bond between flesh and idea 33:54 The visible (flesh) and the invisible (idea) 40:04 E.g. Swann’s “little phrase” 48:30 Different kinds of ideas 53:49 Ideas in detail 55:43 Ideas as invisible 56:43 Importance of the “screen” (the carnal experience) 01:00:51 The inexplicability of ideas 01:07:29 Summary
Hey Nate, got the book in the mail!! I am so happy. I’m already about a quarter of the way through it. I can hear your voice in my head when I’m reading it. Man it’s a huge tome! - makes being and time look like a coffee table book…
Haha - Yeah, I wanted to put together something with a bit of meat on its bones. Great to hear you're churning through it, and funny you hear my voice while reading it... although also kinda cool!
@@absurdbeing2219 you should do videos on (some of) the original concepts found in that book, concepts which are unique to your philosophizing! cheers!
Ah ok I nailed it down. The flesh of the world is the ontological being of the Umwelt as first described by Uexküll. The flesh of the body is the “a priori of the species” which is essentially the body schema. The flesh of the world is the schema of sensibility which connects all possible Umwelten, which is time in its broadest sense.
You can gain intuition into quantum mechanics even though you have no sense experience of it, nor can you. After years of working with QM equations, you get a sense of what would happen in an experiemental situation. You kinda think classically but then say things like "but quantum effects would ..." and then add some intuition coming from the math. I'm not sure how to fit this into Merleau-Ponty's theory of ideas as the depth to experience. There is something of the physics community coming to play here because we all talk this way. Maybe MP is missing the intersubjectivity provided by rich language that makes "experience of the non-experienciable" possible?
Adding to my own comment, mathematics is an even better example. There are mathematical objects in abstract algebra or topology that have no real world equivalents, even sensible or in a derivative fashion. These are arrived at by "mathematical reasoning" which you can understand as the "rich language" of my previous example. Husserl's phenomology is better equipped to deal with such "objects" which are not available in a fleshy way.
@@physics1518 Yes, that is a good point, one which I am going to address in the next video. MP calls these (highly abstract and conceptual or mathematical) kinds of ideas "pure ideality", as opposed to the more sensible "strict ideality" I discussed in this video. Nevertheless, even pure ideality will still ultimately be grounded in flesh, although MP does acknowledge a "less heavy, more transparent body" in the form of language (or more broadly, I think, symbols).
Discovered evidence that Merleau-Ponty did consider the flesh of the world to be a radical reinterpretation of the principle of sufficient reason, which was for Schopenhauer the principle which the will implemented to give rise / existence to the phenomenal world (world as representation) & the subject as individual person in the world! Merleau-Ponty was acquainted with Heidegger's 1957 lecture, "The Principle of Reason" in which Heidegger gave his own radical interpretation of the PSR. On pages 31-32 of that lecture/writing, Heidegger states: "Let us pause for a bit, if we may: the principle of reason-the ground/reason of the principle. *Here something turns in on itself* *Here something coils in on itself* but does not close itself, for it uncoils itself at the same time. Here is a coil, a living coil, like a snake. Here something catches [fangt] itself at [an] its own end. Here is a commencement [Anfang] that is already completion. *The principle of reason as the ground/reason of the principle--this odd relationship confuses our ordinary cognition* This should not surprise us, given that the confusion now surfacing has a genuine origin. One could of course doubt this and suggest that the confusion springs from our playing with the words Grund [ground, reason] and Satz [principle ] which make up the title: the Grundsatz [fundamental principle] of reason. Yet the word game immediately comes to an end if we refer to the Latin formulation of the principle of reason. It reads: *Nihil est sine ratione* But how does the corresponding Latin title read? Leibniz names the principle of reason the principium rationis. What **principium** means here can best be learned through the succinct definition that the most industrious student of Leibniz, Christian Wolff, gives in his Ontology. There he says: *principium dicitur id, quod in se continet rationem alterius* According to this, a principium is what contains in itself the *ratio* for something else. Hence the principium is nothing other than the ratio rationis: the reason of reason. The Latin title of the principle of reason also plunges us into the same *confused tangle* (Verflechtung, intertwiting) the reason of reason; reason *turns back upon itself* just as it did when the principle of reason declared itself the ground/reason of the principle." It's a kind of primal co-constituting, self-grounding of body/world.
@@Haveuseenmyjetpack Nice. Putting the pieces together... I never spent much time thinking about Schopenhauer's PSR, so it's interesting to see how/where it fits in with Heidegger and MP.
Ah ok I nailed it down. The flesh of the world is the ontological being of the Umwelt as first described by Uexküll. The flesh of the body is the “a priori of the species” which is essentially the body schema. The flesh of the world is the schema of sensibility which connects all possible Umwelten, which is time in its broadest sense.
*Contents*
02:33 SECOND MEANING OF VISION: IDEA (1)
09:46 FLESH
10:02 Revision: The Intertwining
10:51 Revision: Relation between me as seer and thing as seen
14:55 Revision: Flesh as element
16:37 New idea: The reversibility of the touching and touched as unexperienceable
20:42 SECOND MEANING OF VISION: IDEA (2)
21:04 The “hinge” between touching and touched
22:46 The “hinge” as the unexperienceable total being of my body and that of the world
26:30 Second visibility
32:21 The bond between flesh and idea
33:54 The visible (flesh) and the invisible (idea)
40:04 E.g. Swann’s “little phrase”
48:30 Different kinds of ideas
53:49 Ideas in detail
55:43 Ideas as invisible
56:43 Importance of the “screen” (the carnal experience)
01:00:51 The inexplicability of ideas
01:07:29 Summary
🎉thanks 🎉🤓
Hey Nate, got the book in the mail!! I am so happy. I’m already about a quarter of the way through it. I can hear your voice in my head when I’m reading it. Man it’s a huge tome! - makes being and time look like a coffee table book…
Haha - Yeah, I wanted to put together something with a bit of meat on its bones. Great to hear you're churning through it, and funny you hear my voice while reading it... although also kinda cool!
@@absurdbeing2219 you should do videos on (some of) the original concepts found in that book, concepts which are unique to your philosophizing! cheers!
@@Haveuseenmyjetpack Oh yeah, that's a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion.
Ah ok I nailed it down. The flesh of the world is the ontological being of the Umwelt as first described by Uexküll. The flesh of the body is the “a priori of the species” which is essentially the body schema. The flesh of the world is the schema of sensibility which connects all possible Umwelten, which is time in its broadest sense.
You can gain intuition into quantum mechanics even though you have no sense experience of it, nor can you. After years of working with QM equations, you get a sense of what would happen in an experiemental situation. You kinda think classically but then say things like "but quantum effects would ..." and then add some intuition coming from the math. I'm not sure how to fit this into Merleau-Ponty's theory of ideas as the depth to experience. There is something of the physics community coming to play here because we all talk this way. Maybe MP is missing the intersubjectivity provided by rich language that makes "experience of the non-experienciable" possible?
Adding to my own comment, mathematics is an even better example. There are mathematical objects in abstract algebra or topology that have no real world equivalents, even sensible or in a derivative fashion. These are arrived at by "mathematical reasoning" which you can understand as the "rich language" of my previous example. Husserl's phenomology is better equipped to deal with such "objects" which are not available in a fleshy way.
@@physics1518 Yes, that is a good point, one which I am going to address in the next video. MP calls these (highly abstract and conceptual or mathematical) kinds of ideas "pure ideality", as opposed to the more sensible "strict ideality" I discussed in this video.
Nevertheless, even pure ideality will still ultimately be grounded in flesh, although MP does acknowledge a "less heavy, more transparent body" in the form of language (or more broadly, I think, symbols).
@@absurdbeing2219exactly, Nathan you nailed it🎉
Discovered evidence that Merleau-Ponty did consider the flesh of the world to be a radical reinterpretation of the principle of sufficient reason, which was for Schopenhauer the principle which the will implemented to give rise / existence to the phenomenal world (world as representation) & the subject as individual person in the world! Merleau-Ponty was acquainted with Heidegger's 1957 lecture, "The Principle of Reason" in which Heidegger gave his own radical interpretation of the PSR. On pages 31-32 of that lecture/writing, Heidegger states:
"Let us pause for a bit, if we may: the principle of reason-the ground/reason
of the principle. *Here something turns in on itself* *Here something coils in on
itself* but does not close itself, for it uncoils itself at the same time. Here is
a coil, a living coil, like a snake. Here something catches [fangt] itself at [an]
its own end. Here is a commencement [Anfang] that is already completion.
*The principle of reason as the ground/reason of the principle--this odd relationship
confuses our ordinary cognition* This should not surprise us, given
that the confusion now surfacing has a genuine origin. One could of course
doubt this and suggest that the confusion springs from our playing with the
words Grund [ground, reason] and Satz [principle ] which make up the title:
the Grundsatz [fundamental principle] of reason. Yet the word game immediately
comes to an end if we refer to the Latin formulation of the principle of reason.
It reads: *Nihil est sine ratione* But how does the corresponding Latin title read?
Leibniz names the principle of reason the principium rationis. What **principium**
means here can best be learned through the succinct definition that the most
industrious student of Leibniz, Christian Wolff, gives in his Ontology. There he
says: *principium dicitur id, quod in se continet rationem alterius* According to
this, a principium is what contains in itself the *ratio* for something else. Hence
the principium is nothing other than the ratio rationis: the reason of reason. The
Latin title of the principle of reason also plunges us into the same *confused
tangle* (Verflechtung, intertwiting) the reason of reason; reason *turns back upon itself* just as it did when
the principle of reason declared itself the ground/reason of the principle."
It's a kind of primal co-constituting, self-grounding of body/world.
@@Haveuseenmyjetpack Nice. Putting the pieces together... I never spent much time thinking about Schopenhauer's PSR, so it's interesting to see how/where it fits in with Heidegger and MP.
Ah ok I nailed it down. The flesh of the world is the ontological being of the Umwelt as first described by Uexküll. The flesh of the body is the “a priori of the species” which is essentially the body schema. The flesh of the world is the schema of sensibility which connects all possible Umwelten, which is time in its broadest sense.