[Andrzej_Wiercinski_(ed ... - WordPress.com

there is a limit to metaphysics. Since vision is thought united with a body, I can live itbut not conceive. As Merleau-Ponty says, “The truth is that it is absurd to submit the mixture[le mélange, of course] of the understanding and the body to the pure understanding.”(OE 55/137) For Descartes, by being positioned (by being finite, in other words), we aredisqualified from looking into both God’s being and the corporeal space of the soul.Repeating a formula of “Everywhere and Nowhere,” Merleau-Ponty in “Eye and Mind”calls this limit to metaphysics “the secret of the Cartesian equilibrium.” (OE 56/137) Ofcourse, just as we cannot return to large rationalism, this secret has been lost forever. Yet,as Merleau-Ponty stresses, since we are the composite of body and soul, there must be athought of that composite. The thought of the composite would be as much opposed tosmall rationalism (operationalism or today’s science) as to large rationalism (Cartesianism).As expressed in the lecture course from 1960-61, we can enter into this fundamentalthought, into this philosophy “still to be made,” only through art, only through thepainter’s vision. (OE 61/138-39)Thinking in PaintingThe painter’s vision, for Merleau-Ponty, goes beyond “profane” (OE 27/127) or “ordinary”vision (OE 70/142) to “the enigma of vision.” (OE 64-65/140) Like Descartes’s conceptionof vision, profane vision, according to Part Four of “Eye and Mind” (which isprobably the most famous part), consists in two extreme views. On the one hand, thereis the view from the airplane, which allows us to see an interval, without any mystery,between the trees nearby and those far away. Yet, on the other hand, there is “the sleightof hand,” by means of which one thing is replaced by another, as in a perspectivedrawing. (OE 64/140) With these two views, once again, we have the proximity of fusion(the contact through the hand) and the infinite distance of surveying thought (the distancefrom the airplane). Yet, the phrase “sleight of hand” translates Merleau-Ponty’s“escamotage,” which means to make something disappear by a skillful maneuver;“maneuver” literally means using the hand, which is why I rendered “escamotage”as “sleight of hand.” But, “escamotage” is also etymologically connected to the Frenchword “effilocher,” which means to unthread or untie something that has been woven together.We can see now that both the sleight of the hand and the view from the airplaneseparate things and make them be partes extra partes. This maneuver and view are theopposite of the interweaving in which the enigma of vision consists.Here is Merleau-Ponty’s definition of the enigma of vision:The enigma is that I see things, each in its place, precisely because they eclipse oneanother; it is that they are rivals before my sight precisely because each one is in itsown place. The enigma is their known exteriority in their envelopment, and theirmutual dependence in their autonomy. Once depth is understood in this way, we canno longer call it a third dimension. (OE 64-65/139)We can see the oxymoronic formulas by means of which Merleau-Ponty is defining theenigma: exterior -- known, they are partes extra partes -- and yet in envelopment --dependent in autonomy. But we can see as well the reversibility. Each thing is in its ownplace -- exterior to one another -- because they hide one another -- envelopment; they arerivals -- mutually dependent -- because each is in its own place -- autonomous. While forDescartes depth was a false problem, for Merleau-Ponty, as this quote indicates, depth isthe whole question. As is well known, for Merleau-Ponty, depth is the first dimension orthe source of all dimensions, “dimensionality,” (OE 48/134) “voluminosity,” (OE 27/127)133