Merleau-Ponty’s article, “La guerre a eu lieu”, contains, as has been said, a kind of new phenomenology of perception. Its research question could be formulated as follows. What prevented German-occupied France from perceiving the enemy as an enemy for so many months or years of alienating cohabitation? The “drôle de guerre” would, among other things, be linked to this singular perceptual impasse. An impasse that is as dramatic as instructive, since it shows that war and politics have nothing to do with handling the friend/enemy dialectical opposition Carl Schmitt situated at the center of his philosophy. Rather, they have to do with handling an adialectical field in which that opposition is not yet delineated and perceptible, but is rather evolving in a continuity and ambiguity that constitute the real (and in this sense immoral) matter of politics and war.

Staging, writing, editing – war. In the sequence of these three acts, the path of this essay unfolds. From the play La guerre de Troie n’aura pas lieu we get the idea that war is a spectral presence hovering everywhere. As difficult as it is to see, it appears inescapable. Its ambivalence questions the human gaze itself in its in-ability to see war coming, even when the signs are more than evident. The analysis of the regimes of visibility that, yesterday as today, superintend the event of a conflict constitutes the point of arrival of this interrogation.

While Merleau-Ponty’s political positions evolved over the course of his career, they are grounded in and guided by a remarkably consistent account of historicity. Praxis requires authentic historical engagement; and Merleau-Ponty was critical of inauthentic a-historical approaches throughout his career. I chart a trajectory of Merleau-Ponty’s position from The War Has Taken Place (1945), through some of the newly published material from the mid to late 1940’s Michel Dalissier’s monumental two volume collection of inédits, and the Introduction to Signs (1960). This results in two surprising and admittedly controversial observations that contradict dominant narratives. I argue that: (1) Merleau-Ponty’s account of historicity precludes the claim that he abandoned Marxism altogether with the writing of Adventures of the Dialectic (1955); and (2) Merleau-Ponty’s account of historicity reveals the dominant Western narrative about the war in Ukraine to be inauthentic.

Is it possible to conceptualize universality in a way that does not exclude particularity, difference, and change? In his approach to universality, Merleau-Ponty distinguishes between acquired universality, which is supposedly objective and non-temporal, and the lateral differentiation of universals, which is temporal and changing. My suggestion, in this article, is that he does not assert that there is a specific kind of unchanging universal norm to which all different styles of experience should be anchored; instead, there is a never-finished diversification through which universal dimensions are instituted. However, I will also present a critical examination of the concept of change as it can also mean oppressive transformation. Ultimately, Merleau-Ponty’s political view of colonial situation seems to contradict his concept of open universality.

In contemporary art, a growing number of artists experiment with non-humans in their actual artworks. This paper examines the issues related to such practices with reference to Jakob von Uexküll’s analyses of the configuration of meaningful worlds by non-human animals, as well as Merleau-Ponty’s and Deleuze-Guattari’s interpretations of Uexküll’s ideas. Uexküll maintained that every living being lives in a world with meaning; Merleau-Ponty understood this claim as situating the beginning of culture in the creativity of non-humans; Deleuze and Guattari emphasized the melodic and rhythmic dimension of this creativity, mainly interpreted as territorialization processes. These elements are paramount to understanding what is at stake with artworks featuring non-humans: considering projects proposals from Agnes Meyer-Brandis, Tomas Saraceno, Ana Maria Lopez Gomez and other contemporary artists, the conclusion is that an artwork featuring an encounter between two territorializing movements has the potential to transform the human range of perception.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961) discusses the living body through the concept of intentionality. Later, Merleau-Ponty comes up with a theory of ontology based on the reversibility of the flesh. Zhuangzi (375-300 BCE) also speaks of the significant role played by our bodies in shaping our knowledge and experience. However, Zhuangzi relates the body to yi 意presented, referring to the creative coordination of bodily organs of perception and movement 眼-手-伸-通(such as eyes and hands), developed by constantly and persistently engaging with an object. The presence of yi dictates a manifestation of walking-where-all-things-have-been-walking which is Dao.

In the Phenomenology of Perception, Merleau-Ponty dedicates many pages to the analysis of pathological cases, which seem to be assessed as merely negative phenomena that reinforce an extrinsic opposition with normal ones. This paper aims to clarify that Merleau-Ponty in effect challenges the able–disabled dichotomy by articulating an intentional analysis based on the perspective of being-in-the-world and proposing a differential understanding of embodiment. Such an analysis demonstrates that ability and disability exist as material and situational events and, simultaneously, form an existential continuum—one that rejects the identification of disability with a disruption (ontological claim) or a degradation (normative claim).