Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty: Immanence, univocity and phenomenology

Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 228-251

  Reynolds, Jack ^a   Roffe, Jon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60950308146     PISSN: 00071773     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00071773.2006.11006589     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Agamben, G. Potentialities: Collected Essays in Philosophy, trans. Heller-Roazen Stanford: Stanford University Press,1999, p. 239
2. and Smith, D. W. 'Deleuze and Derrida, Immanence and Transcendence' in Between Deleuze and Derrida, eds. R Patton and J. Protevi, p. 46, London: Continuum 2004. We are indebted to the Australian Research Council for providing support for this research in the form of a Discovery Grant awarded to Jack Reynolds. We would also like to thank James Williams, John Mullarkey and others at the University of Dundee for their valuable feedback on an earlier version of this paper
3. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., What is Philosophy? trans. H. Tomlinson and G. Burchell, Columbia: Columbia University Press 1994, p. 59 (hereafter referred to as WP)
4. Exceptions to this include the following essays: Lawlor, L. 'The end of phenomenology: Expressionism in Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty', Continental Philosophy Review, 31 (1998): pp. 15-34
5. Weiss, G. 'Ecart: The Space of Corporeal Difference' in Chiasms: MerleauPonty 's Notion of Flesh, eds. F. Evans, and L. Lawlor, Albany: State University of New York Press 1995
6. Bell, J. 'Phenomenology, Poststructuralism, and the Cinema of Time', Film and Philosophy, ed. A. Casebier (Vol 2, 1994)
7. and D. Taylor, 'Phantasmatic Genealogy' in Merleau-Ponty, Hermeneutics and Postmodernism, eds. Thomas Busch and Simon Gallagher, AIbany: State University of New York Press 1992
8. Deleuze, G. The Logic of Sense, ed. C. Boundas, trans. M. Lester and C. Stivale, London: Continuum 1993, p. 66. (Hereafter referred to as LS)
9. Merleau-Ponty, M., The Visible and the Invisible, ed. C. Lefort, trans. A. Lingis, Evanston: Northwestern University Press 1968, p. 94 (hereafter referred to as VI)
10. Merleau-Ponty, M., The Phenomenology of Perception, trans. C. Smith, London: Routledge 1962 (hereafter referred to as PP)
11. Deleuze, G. The Fold - Leibniz and the Baroque, London: Athlone Press 1993, p. 146 n28. This note begins by discussing Heidegger, but goes on to describe very briefly Merleau-Ponty's philosophical concern with the theme of the fold, including references to the chiasm or intertwining (entrelac) between the seen and the seer that, as is well-known, Merleau-Ponty deals with in The Visible and the Invisible
12. Deleuze, G. Pure Immanence, ed. Rachman, J., New York : Zone Books 2000, p. 26-7 (Hereafter referred to as PI)
13. Lévinas, E. 'Philosophy and the Idea of Infinity', Collected Philosophical Papers, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,1977
14. Deleuze, G. Bergsonism, trans. H. Tomlinson and B. Habberjam, New York: Zone Books 1988, p. 20
15. Badiou, A. Deleuze - The Clamour of Being, trans. L. Burchill, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press 2000. In this text, Badiou argues that Deleuze's emphasis on difference remains merely secondary, and that his thought remains a form of metaphysics of the One
16. trans. H. Silverman, Philosophy and Non-Philosophy Since Merleau-Ponty, New York: Routledge 1989, p. 52
17. Flynn, B. 'The Question of Ontology: Sartre and Merleau-Ponty' in The Horizons of the Flesh: Critical Perspectives on the Thought of Merleau-Ponty, ed. T. Gillian, Urbana: Southern Illinois University Press 1973
18. Dews, P. The Logics of Disintegration, London: Verso 1987, p. 134
19. For a detailed discussion of this, see Reynolds, J. 'Merleau-Ponty, Levinas and the Alterity of the Other', Symposium 6, no. 1 (2002), pp. 63-78, where it is argued that it is partly Merleau-Ponty's preoccupation with refuting the Sartrean model of conflict that is responsible for the affectionate tenor of the former's work - in other words, it is not something endemic to the ontology itself