Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Implications of ImmanenceToward a New Concept of Life$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Leonard Lawlor

Print publication date: 2006

Print ISBN-13: 9780823226535

Published to Fordham Scholarship Online: March 2011

DOI: 10.5422/fso/9780823226535.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM FORDHAM SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.fordham.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Fordham University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in FSO for personal use (for details see www.fordham.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 17 December 2018

Un écart infime (Part II)

Un écart infime (Part II)

Merleau-Ponty's “Mixturism”

(p.70) 6 Un écart infime (Part II)
The Implications of Immanence

Leonard Lawlor

Fordham University Press

The early thought of Merleau–Ponty, the thought of the “good equivocity,” as Merleau–Ponty would say, is a “mixturism.” This raises the question of whether this sameness, this “mixturism,” applies to all of Merleau–Ponty's thought, and to his later thought in particular as presented in “Eye and Mind” (OE 87 / 148) and The Visible and the Invisible (VI 328 / 274-75). If we want to be conceptually rigorous, what is called the thought of the same, which defines mixturism, is not, in fact, a thought of immanence, but rather a thought of transcendence. Here, a distinction is made between transcendent and transcendence, where transcendence remains an anti-Platonism. But the main idea is that wherever there is resemblance, analogy, and equivocity, there is transcendence. This change in terminology from immanence to transcendence is more consistent with Merleau–Ponty's own usage. This chapter shows that we must conceive the relation of immanence as a relation between memory and life, in which the and in the phrase refers to vision. Vision is in the middle of memory and life. But in the middle of vision is an impotence of vision, a blind spot. We find the blind spot most clearly in Foucault's analysis, in Words and Things, of Velázquez's painting Las Meninas. Now, it can be argued that we can find a blind spot in Merleau–Ponty himself. It appears, however, that there is a subtle shift in emphasis from Merleau–Ponty to Foucault concerning blindness, a subtle shift that makes all the difference.

Keywords:   Merleau–Ponty, mixturism, equivocity, Foucault, transcendence, immanence, vision

Fordham Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .