claims#indirect-ontology-obliqueness-entailed-by-less-than-determinacy

Indirect ontology's obliqueness is entailed by Being's less-than-determinacy — the form-convergence Chouraqui, Saint Aubert, and MP's own register jointly force but none states

ID: indirect-ontology-obliqueness-entailed-by-less-than-determinacy Title: Indirect ontology's obliqueness is entailed by Being's less-than-determinacy — the form-convergence Chouraqui, Saint Aubert, and MP's own register jointly force but none states Status: candidate Confidence: medium Claim type: interpretive Created: 2026-06-08 Updated: 2026-06-08 Sources: merleau-ponty-1968-visible-and-invisible, chouraqui-2014-ambiguity-and-absolute, chouraqui-2016-circulus-vitiosus-deus, saintaubert-2006-vers-une-ontologie-indirecte, saintaubert-2021-etre-et-chair-ii, merleau-ponty-1961-eye-and-mind, merleau-ponty-2002-husserl-limits Wiki homes: indirect-ontology, circulus-vitiosus-deus, self-falsification

Claim

The three wiki-housed readings of MP's indirect ontology — Chouraqui's structural-figural, Saint Aubert's philological-carnal, and MP's own scattered self-namings — converge on a thesis none states alone: the obliqueness of indirect ontology's self-presentation is entailed by its content. Because Being is less-than-determinate (reachable only through the beings, never as a separable term behind them), any direct statement of the method overdetermines the indeterminate and so falsifies it; therefore the method can only be figured (Chouraqui's circulus / membrure register), scattered and scare-quoted (MP's own undefined self-namings), or carnally approached se faisant (Saint Aubert's binocular-Blondelian route). What no reading states is that the sameness of this single constraint across three mutually non-citing grounding registers — cross-corpus figural geometry, MP's own typography, BNF archival provenance — is itself the evidence that the constraint is structural to the ontology, not an artifact of any one reading's method. The convergence is at the level of form (shown-not-stated), not content; a real figural-genealogical divergence (Nietzschean circulus vs Blondelian circularité vraie) survives beneath it as a coordinate, not a rival, axis.

Evidence

chouraqui-2014-ambiguity-and-absolute — the entailment mechanism, verbatim: .extraction-chouraqui-2014 Pass-2a #47 (l.147) — "Saying 'Being is self-differentiation' overdetermines Being, which contradicts less-than-determinacy… Philosophy calls for its own overcoming"; paired with self-falsification l.51 — "Being is the movement from less-than-determinacy to overdetermination." The figural modality: circulus-vitiosus-deus l.62–73 ("This very circle itself is sedimentation"; circle = sedimentation = self-falsification, "three names for one structure") and l.143 (the circulus "names the structural form of this self-inclusion").
saintaubert-2006-vers-une-ontologie-indirecte — the carnal-binocular modality + the cardinal non-citation anchor: .extraction-saintaubert-2006 l.80 (verbatim) — "circulus vitiosus deus: not named as such in this volume; the Feb 1959 V&I working note on indirect method IS discussed but Saint Aubert does not cite the Nietzschean signature"; the se faisant texture and diplopie binocular form (Ch III §2a–b). Cf. indirect-ontology l.68 (the Feb 1959 note read "in a Blondelian-not-Heideggerian context").
merleau-ponty-1968-visible-and-invisible — MP's own scattered/typographic modality: V&I 179/231 (Feb 1959), the scare-quoted "My 'indirect' method (being in the beings) … 'negative philosophy' like 'negative theology'" (indirect-ontology l.34, l.40). Companion undefined self-namings: merleau-ponty-1961-eye-and-mind §1 (the science secrète question-triplet, single attestation) and merleau-ponty-2002-husserl-limits BN 3/13/37 ("indirect language" for the Abgrund; "to think is not to possess the objects of thought").
Negative corroboration (Lawlor/Madison control): indirect-ontology l.145–153 (Lawlor — the method fails) vs l.100–113 (Madison — it succeeds); both read "negative philosophy like negative theology" as the literal name of a non-frontal method. The form-agreement is upstream of the success-disagreement — which is what a structural (not artifactual) constraint predicts.

Counterpressure / Limits

The load-bearing inference is the triangulation, and it is the contestable step. The form-thesis taken alone is largely the supported claims#circulus-vitiosus-deus-mp-ontology-of-ontology payoff restated as a constraint and generalized; the genuine novelty is "same constraint across three non-citing registers ⟹ structural, not artifactual." Each register's obliqueness has a local explanation (Chouraqui's deliberate figural lift; Saint Aubert's archival scope; MP's working-note brevity), so a skeptic can read the convergence as three contingent obliquenesses rather than one structural necessity. Hence candidate, not live.
The pre-adjudication matrix favored coordinate-complement (0.78) over convergent (0.62). The CONVERGENT verdict (medium confidence) flipped only because the form-thesis survived both adversarial defense rounds; the honest fallback is the indirect-ontology page's prior register-distribution reading.
The bolder "performative corollary" is NOT part of this claim. The reading that the three readers' own non-citation enacts the obliqueness was wounded by a genetic-fallacy / scope deflation (Saint Aubert's non-citation is over-determined by his 2006 book being the "Heidegger scenario") and is routed as a false-friend caution on indirect-ontology, not folded in.
Compatible with — and dependent on — three supported claims, contradicting none. It rides claims#circulus-vitiosus-deus-mp-ontology-of-ontology (the entailment machinery), uses claims#indirect-ontology-blondel-not-heidegger (the Saint Aubert modality; the Nietzsche non-citation is its consequence, not a tension), and stays at the witness-level of claims#mp-painter-as-primary-witness-for-indirect-ontology without reviving the contested four-element science-secrete-stiftung-chiasm synthesis.

Payoff

Converts the indirect-ontology page's defensive "coordinate complements, not rivals" gloss into a positive convergence that explains why the readings are complements — the shared less-than-determinacy constraint — and lets the page's "irreducibly distinct" disjunct be closed. Names what the three Positions cannot show on their own: that they are not three rival accounts but three modalities of one form-constraint, and that their mutual non-citation is the cross-register triangulation that makes the constraint legible as structural.

Status History

2026-06-08 — created at candidate by the custom convergence workflow indirect-ontology-convergence (run wf_16a7f80f-636: four isolated reading-reconstructions → rejection/substitute/grounding triple-test alignment → adversarial convergence-vs-distinctness fork + mandatory defense → fresh-context adjudication; verdict CONVERGENT, medium). Held at candidate: the triangulation-⟹-structural inference is the contestable novelty and the pre-defense matrix favored coordinate-complement. Promotion to live would need (a) an independent corroboration that the cross-register sameness is not an artifact (e.g. a fourth reading on a fourth register reproducing the same obliqueness), and (b) discharge of the genetic-fallacy worry on the performative corollary. Adjudication report: .audit/indirect-ontology-convergence-2026-06-08.md.