The phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (Venue B:Starbucks)

THE VENUE: Starbucks

It's winter so we will meet indoors for the next few months

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Starbucks location.

We meet upstairs at Starbucks. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: The phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty

My thanks to Chiara for suggesting his week's topic and providing the introduction.

Here is a brief summary of phenomenology to orientate the discussion:

"Phenomenology is a philosophical study and movement largely associated with the early 20th century that seeks to objectively investigate the nature of subjective, conscious experience and world-disclosure. It attempts to describe the universal features of consciousness while avoiding assumptions about the external world, aiming to describe phenomena as they appear, and to explore the meaning and significance of lived experience."

Maurice Merleau-Ponty was a French philosopher and a leading exponent of twentieth-century French phenomenology. He attempted to demonstrate that perception is not at all the result of causal physical sensations. He was a contemporary of and collaborator with Sartre and de Beauvoir.

According to Merleau-Ponty, perception has rather an active dimension as a primordial, innate, and structural openness to the world of life.

Starting from the study of perception, he concludes that the body is not just a thing, a potential object of scientific study, but is also the necessary condition of experience: the body constitutes the perceptual openness to the world. In a way, the supremacy of perception means a supremacy of experience, when “perception” plays an active and constitutive role.

The development of his work thus establishes an analysis that recognizes both a corporeal dimension of consciousness and a kind of intentionality of the body.

Starting from these assumptions, then, that the body is a means not only to explore what surrounds us but also the medium through which we "feel" what surrounds us. We experience it from a personal perspective, which influences us, each of us differently.

Some people are shocked by certain things that leave others indifferent; a vegan doesn't want to eat what he calls a "corpse," while a carnivore doesn't feel this problem, to give a simple example.

As if our body allowed us to perceive not only the matter around us but also something invisible around it.

According to Maurice Merleau-Ponty, language and art are, in fact, the core of culture, linking the development of thought and meaning, unifying them in a unique, subjective way.

And so the first questions arise spontaneously:

What is more important: the visible world or the invisible world we perceive through it?

Let's define both.

Human beings belong to the material world, and are they anchored to it or do they transcend it?

So, do our bodies, also based on society and the reality that surrounds them, give us meaning or impose limits on us?

Are these limits real or just in our minds?

What about Paralympians who were able and had to accept their new bodies, with which they set themselves challenges, and new limits.
Is their spiritual perception of their surroundings different from before ?

Do experiences change us? There are some people who claim to have greater sensitivity after surviving an accident or a coma.

So there's a world of perceptions beyond religion, one that hasn't yet been identified.

And of which we only perceive something based on individual sensitivity or the experiences we encounter?

Every action we take is an individual choice, but how much is it influenced by the reality that surrounds us? Or by what we're told about it?
Are we truly independent in our choices? Many studies have shown that the human mind is actually very susceptible to our surroundings.
This society tells us that being "good" is a positive thing for instance.

Are we sure of that?

Is it better to be good or fair when we act in the best interest of our community ?

Starting from the above considerations,
when every time a man considers himself a self-made man, can this affirmation be considered 100% true?

Or is it also based on the place, the situations, the occasions, and the people around him?

But above all, how much did his personal perception of what surrounds him, even from a spiritual, immaterial perspective, influence him?
How much did this aspect play in his success?

So can we consider it all a question of point of view?

According to Merleau-Ponty, even science is to be criticized because, in its claim to objectivity, it ignores a fundamental fact:
point of view, the inherence of man to an irreducible spatiality and temporality, according to him.

Even in Heisenberg's (German physicist and scientist) uncertainty principle, a fundamental truth is already expressed: the observer conditions the experiment.
Do you agree with this thought?

Wanting to make some final considerations on mental perception:
To quote John Milton he wrote: “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.” — Paradise Lost.
So, apart from in some cases, is suffering mainly in our mind and in how we perceive things?

Or do they also depend on the stage of life we're going through? On the people we've become? On the experiences that have transformed us?
At this point, how much suffering could be avoided? How much could be resolved or prevented?