claims#mp-1955-three-coordinated-mutations

1955 produces three coordinated terminological mutations in MP that together respond to Lachièze-Rey and Alquié objections

ID: mp-1955-three-coordinated-mutations Title: 1955 produces three coordinated terminological mutations in MP that together respond to Lachièze-Rey and Alquié objections Status: live Confidence: medium Claim type: philological / structural-parallel Created: 2026-05-05 Updated: 2026-07-27 Sources: saintaubert-2006-vers-une-ontologie-indirecte, merleau-ponty-2010-institution-and-passivity Wiki homes: institution, indirect-ontology

Claim

In 1955 MP produces three coordinated (not coincidental) terminological mutations that together respond to the Lachièze-Rey and Alquié objections (Alquié's Fontaine article dated 1947 per SA's own bibliography and fn 28, raw 1708/2140 — dating corrected 2026-07-27 from "1948–49"; SA dates no Lachièze-Rey publication, anchoring that reproach in MP's own notes of 1953–1960, fnn 25–27): (i) "primat de la perception" → "priorité ontologique" (in the Problème de la passivité course); (ii) first declared name "ontologie du monde perçu" (in Résumés de cours 1955); (iii) the protest "ce que je fais n'est pas une anthropologie mais une ontologie" — born in the 1955 PbPassiv passages, which SA says "en constituent, chronologiquement, les deux premiers exemples" (raw 635), recurring as a litany from late 1958 through March 1961 (leg restated 2026-07-27: the former parenthesis dated it only to the litany, placing it outside the claim's own cardinal year). The responses are graded in SA's text — mutation (i) "directement introduite" in reaction to the two readings (raw 625), mutation (ii) an implicit reaction (raw 617), mutation (iii) with a protest-soil SA says the interpretation cannot be reduced to (raw 661/667) — grading recorded 2026-07-27; the former "All three are explicit responses" flattened it. The standard reading that dates MP's late ontology to the 1957 Nature course alone misses the 1955 cardinal year.

Evidence

saintaubert-2006-vers-une-ontologie-indirecte — Ch. I §1c, raw lines 623–664 (§1c mutation anchor): "Ce que je proposais, différent de Ruyer, et que Lachièze-Rey ne voit pas c'est: priorité ontologique du monde perçu (et du corps phénoménal) i.e. tout l'être qui a sens pour nous est à concevoir d'après monde perçu" (PbPassiv 1955, raw 627). Two further quotes re-labelled 2026-07-27 — they sit in Ch. I §2 (opens raw 665), and the extraction note anchors both to Argument 3 (the anthropologisme≠anthropologie claim), so they attest the later protest register, not a 1955 mutation: "Tous nos concepts sont anthropocentriques" (note inédite 1958–59, raw 667); "Le sujet percevant, l'univers de la perception, quand il est vraiment pris pour premier, n'est pas un univers 'anthropologique' à la surface de l'en soi inconnaissable" (note inédite 1958, raw 681). Anchor: extraction-note Pass 2a Argument 2.
saintaubert-2006-vers-une-ontologie-indirecte — Ch. I §1c, raw line 627. The PbPassiv (1955) explicitly answers Lachièze-Rey ("priorité ontologique du monde perçu... tout l'être qui a sens pour nous est à concevoir d'après monde perçu") and Alquié; the Philosophe et son ombre (achieved end-1958) and the V&I working notes carry the new vocabulary forward.
saintaubert-2006-vers-une-ontologie-indirecte — Ch. I §1, raw lines 547–664. The four-objection structure that motivates the mutations: Hyppolite at SFP discussion (PPCP 23 Nov 1946); Beaufret at the same session ("not radical enough"); Lachièze-Rey (Aristotelian-finalist-pantheist — SA dates no publication; the reproach anchors in MP's own notes, MSME 1953 / PbPassiv 1955 / N-Corps early 1960, SA fnn 25–27; the former "1948–55" range dropped 2026-07-27 as unanchored); Alquié Fontaine 1947 (crypto-idealist, "philosophie de l'ambiguïté"; dating corrected 2026-07-27 from "1948–49" per SA raw 1708/2140). MP "ruminates" through 1953 (Le monde sensible et le monde de l'expression), 1955 (Le problème de la passivité), and into the V&I working notes. Anchor: extraction-note Pass 2a Argument 1.
merleau-ponty-2010-institution-and-passivity — anchored 2026-07-27 (the bullet formerly carried no locator): MP's own Passivity feuillets carry mutation (i) and the objection-structure verbatim in English — "What I proposed [is] different from Ruyer; what Lachièze-Rey does not see is [the] ontological priority of the perceived world (and the phenomenal body), i.e., all being that has a meaning for us is to be conceived on the basis of the perceived world" (raw l. 2332, folio 118; cite that folio, not the extraction note's drifted 218 — the volume's fn 27, raw 4003, explains pages 109–118 were replaced by an alternate introduction paginated 211–218, the source of the two-series confusion; extraction-note Recurring Motifs l. 263 records the phrase) — with the Alquié objection at raw 2282 (folio 216), the Lachièze-Rey objection at raw 2292 ([216 verso]), and "Ontological priority of the perceived: it is not a matter of reducing all being to a 'sector' of this being… This would be anthropomorphism" at raw 2354, under the heading "[FOR AN ONTOLOGY OF THE PERCEIVED WORLD]". The second source is thereby an independent primary-text attestation of mutation (i) and the objection-structure, not same-period prose.

Counterpressure / Limits

Single-source dependency. The "three coordinated mutations" framing is Saint Aubert's reconstruction; the wiki has no other secondary source that articulates the exact triad. A reader could argue that the three mutations are loosely coordinated rather than tightly coordinated — that "priorité ontologique," "ontologie du monde perçu," and "pas une anthropologie mais une ontologie" are stages of a single drift rather than three coordinated moves. (Scope sharpened 2026-07-27: mutation (i) and the objection-structure are now independently attested in MP's own course notes — the single-source dependency lands specifically on the coordination thesis and the 1955-cardinality framing, which are Saint Aubert's.)
The genuinely archive-bound residue is the coordination thesis and the leg-(iii) litany, not mutation (i). (Rewritten 2026-07-27 — the former bullet stated "Saint Aubert's archival anchors are not in raw/; the mutations claim can be cited but not independently verified within the audit," which is false for the claim's central mutation: the published Passivity course has been in raw/ since the I&P ingest and independently attests mutation (i) and the Alquié/Lachièze-Rey objection-structure at raw 2332/2282/2292, main-thread re-verified this run.) What remains BNF-dependent and Saint-Aubert-only: the 1958–61 litany fragments (quoted from notes inédites) and the coordination thesis itself, which no amount of raw-checking in the present corpus can corroborate.
The dating-to-1957 alternative reading is not unanimously dominant. Lefort's editorial work on MP places the late ontology emergence in 1957 (the first Nature course) — annotated unanchored-as-stated 2026-07-27: no passage in the SA raw or source page attests Lefort as a 1957-dater; the one substantive Lefort occurrence (raw 997) has him contesting the Heidegger-influence reading — ; other readings place it in 1959 (the V&I drafts). Saint Aubert's 1955-cardinal reading is a corrective but not the only date-revision proposal — and SA's own Introduction locates his corrective at 1946 ("Merleau-Ponty revendique régulièrement le statut ontologique de sa réflexion depuis 1946," raw 531), testing "la thèse d'un tournant des années 1958-1959" (raw 533), with 1955 an "étape symbolique… faisant transition" (raw 625).
C3 supported-jury refuter objection (evidence-chain lens, consolidation 2026-07-27 run 5, wf_a0b34b6a-bc5): Four defects, in descending severity; the first two are independently sufficient to fail Test 2. 1. The second source contributed no anchored evidence, and the bullet that stood in for it was a non sequitur. Evidence bullet 4 (merleau-ponty-2010-institution-and-passivity) carried no locator of any kind, and its content was not evidence for the thesis: it asserted contemporaneity ("the same period of MP's working life… share the moment"), and the institution-concept is not one of the three mutations. Contemporaneity cannot warrant "coordinated (not coincidental)"; the entry was, at the moment of promotion, effectively single-source — exactly what its own Counterpressure bullet 1 concedes. 2. The claim disclaimed a raw verification that the corpus makes available and that was never performed. Counterpressure bullet 2 stated that "Saint Aubert's archival anchors are not in raw/; the mutations claim can be cited but not independently verified within the audit." That is false for the claim's central mutation (i): the Problème de la passivité feuillets SA quotes at raw 627/631/633 are printed in English in the corpus at raw institution-and-passivity ll. 2332–2334 and 2354, under the editorial heading "[FOR AN ONTOLOGY OF THE PERCEIVED WORLD]" — the General Rule 18 targeted raw check a supported promotion presupposes was never done, and supported would have ratified a false statement about the corpus inside the entry itself. 3. Evidence bullet 1's locator and its quotations did not match, and two of the three quotations do different work in their local context. Two of its three quotations sit at raw 667 and 681 — outside the stated 623–664 range and inside Ch. I §2 ("Un tournant anti-anthropologique ?", opens raw 665); the extraction note assigns both to Argument 3 (the anthropologisme ≠ anthropologie claim), not the three-mutations Argument 2. Locally, raw 667 introduces "Tous nos concepts sont anthropocentriques" inside SA's argument that MP's protestations "ne peuvent être réduites à la dénégation maladroite d'un philosophe mal compris" and were "anticipées par la Phénoménologie de la perception" — it complicates the anti-anthropological register — and raw 681 is a 1958 note answering the Brunschvicg-transposition objection. Neither is a 1955 item and neither attests a terminological mutation. 4. A graded source was cited as flat. Only mutation (i) is "directement introduite dans le contexte de réaction aux lectures d'Alquié et Lachièze-Rey" (raw 625); mutation (ii) is "une réaction implicite" (raw 617); mutation (iii) "provient donc en bonne part… du souci de ne plus s'y laisser enfermer" with SA immediately adding "ce contexte ne suffit pas à l'interprétation" (raw 635/661) and that the remarks go "au-delà de leur terreau protestataire initial" (raw 689). Relatedly, the Claim dated mutation (iii) to "notes from late 1958 through March 1961," whereas raw 635 says the two 1955 passages "en constituent, chronologiquement, les deux premiers exemples." Defects 1 and 2 were the blocking ones; both repaired this run — the residue is the coordination thesis (see the rival-reading and scope objections).
C3 supported-jury refuter objection (rival-reading lens, consolidation 2026-07-27 run 5, wf_a0b34b6a-bc5): Three rivals are live and none is defeated by the entry's present Counterpressure. (R1) Saint Aubert's own text says "coïncident," and frames 1955 as a transition, not a cardinal re-dating. The Claim field's distinctive contrastive — "coordinated (not coincidental)" — is the wiki's gloss, not the source's. At raw 635 SA writes: "La réécriture, en 1955, du primat de la perception en priorité ontologique, et la première déclaration d'une ontologie – ontologie du monde perçu –, coïncident ainsi avec la naissance d'un troisième élément." At raw 625 he calls the course "une étape symbolique," "faisant transition" between the 1946 primat and the end-1958 "réhabilitation ontologique du sensible," and his section heading is "Conséquences : trois mutations terminologiques significatives" — three consequences of one reactive posture, sequenced 1946→1958. The deflationary rival — one vocabulary shift showing three faces at a way-station — explains every cited passage at least as well, and is the reading SA's own lexeme and periodization supply. Counterpressure bullet 1 names this rival ("stages of a single drift") but answers nothing. It also directly deflates the Payoff's re-dating: first naming is not emergence, and SA presents the 1957 Nature course and end-1958 Philosophe et son ombre as the continuing arc, not as errors he is correcting. (R2) The chronology the claim asserted was unattested, and partly reversed. The Alquié article is 1947 (SA raw 1708, fn 28 raw 2140), not "1948–49"; for Lachièze-Rey SA cites no publication at all — he hedges in the conditional ("Selon Merleau-Ponty, Lachièze-Rey lui aurait reproché…," raw 611) and footnotes 25–27 anchor the reproach solely in MP's own notes (MSME 1953; PbPassiv 1955; N-Corps early 1960); the extraction note's entity list dates him "1955-1960 Aristotelian-finalist accuser." So the Lachièze-Rey "objection" is a figure MP constructs inside the 1953/1955 course notes — mutation and objection co-produced in the same documents — and the claimed direction ("1955 mutations respond to 1948–49 objections") is not established by any anchor in the entry. (R3) SA's stated proximate cause is internal, and conjoins the 1946 critics the claim drops. The opening sentence of the section (raw 625): the 1955 course "rejoint l'analyse du cours de 1953 sur celles de Beaufret et Hyppolite… ces objections lui montrent combien la démarche de la Phénoménologie de la perception restait trop réactive et négative, et combien il est urgent d'élaborer enfin pour elle-même…" — an internal self-correction running continuously from the 1946 SFP exchange, with the four critics as occasions revealing an already-registered insufficiency. The claim's two-critic framing drops half of the tableau its own Evidence bullet 3 reproduces. Until Counterpressure engages (R1) the "coïncident"/transition wording, (R2) the corrected datings with the extraction note's "1955-1960" gloss reconciled, and (R3) the internal-development/four-critic alternative, the medium confidence does not survive restatement and the entry stays at live.
C3 supported-jury refuter objection (scope lens, consolidation 2026-07-27 run 5, wf_a0b34b6a-bc5): As worded before this run's repairs, the entry overshot its single source on three axes, and the overshoot was load-bearing for the title, the coordination thesis, and the payoff. (a) "All three are explicit responses" flattened SA's own graded hedges (directe raw 625 / implicite raw 617 / not-reducible raw 661-667-689; even the 1955 note at raw 627 names only Lachièze-Rey and Ruyer, not Alquié) — repaired this run; the claim is defensible only under that grading. (b) The 1955 headline equivocated with the entry's own dating of mutation (iii) — repaired this run per raw 635's birth-vs-litany distinction; note both Wiki homes restated the flat version (institution and indirect-ontology claims-bullets), so the homes asserted a stronger proposition than the register carries — synced this run. (c) The corrective target and the "dominates secondary literature" quantifier are not the source's. SA concedes the 1957 systematization in his own voice ("La qualification du projet merleau-pontien comme 'ontologie' ne devient systématique qu'à partir de 1957"), locates his corrective at 1946 ("Merleau-Ponty revendique régulièrement le statut ontologique de sa réflexion depuis 1946," raw 531), announces his target as "la thèse d'un tournant des années 1958-1959" (raw 533), and never calls 1955 cardinal — "étape symbolique … faisant transition" (raw 625). The Counterpressure's Lefort-as-1957-dater attribution had no anchor (raw 997 has Lefort contesting the Heidegger-influence reading). A claim about the state of the secondary literature ("dominates") is asserted with no survey anchor and against its sole source's own periodization. The narrowed claim SA does warrant — the 1955 PbPassiv course is the transition-stage at which "primat de la perception" is respecified as "priorité ontologique," the résumé officiel supplies the first declared name "ontologie du monde perçu," and the anti-anthropologie protest takes its first two attested forms, all within SA's 1946-onward reactive arc — is a different and weaker proposition than the one on the register. Hold at live until the Claim is restated within that scope or the stronger scope independently anchored.

Payoff

The claim re-dates the emergence of MP's late ontology to 1955 — earlier than the 1957 Nature-course dating that dominates secondary literature. This pushes back the period of MP's "late" thought and clarifies what is new in the 1955 Institution course (per claims#institution-as-middle-term-1953-55): not just an institution-concept but a coordinated ontological-vocabulary shift that responds to the specific named critics — Alquié's 1947 Fontaine article and the Lachièze-Rey reproach anchored in MP's own notes of 1953–1960 (SA dates no L-R publication). It also explains why the anthropologisme / anthropologie distinction (per claims#anthropologisme-vs-anthropologie-distinction live, this run) becomes load-bearing: MP's "ce que je fais n'est pas une anthropologie mais une ontologie" is not a generic ontological commitment but a specific response to Lachièze-Rey and Alquié, where "anthropologie" in the sentence refers to the anthropologisme MP rejects (Brunschvicg-Sartre extension) rather than to the empirical discipline MP praises (Lévi-Strauss).

Status History

2026-05-05 — created at live (Phase 8 ninth run) after the saintaubert-2006-vers-une-ontologie-indirecte ingest. The 3-test gate passes: (1) the three-coordinated-mutations claim is contestable against the dating-to-1957 reading and against the loose-coordination reading; (2) anchored in SA-2006 Pass 2a Arguments 1–2 with raw-line references for each of the three mutations and for the four-objection motivation; (3) Counterpressure documents single-source dependency, unpublished-notes anchoring, and the dating alternatives. Promotion to supported would require corroboration from secondary sources outside Saint Aubert (Dalissier's editorial work on the late MP archive, or further targeted ingests of Lachièze-Rey's 1948–55 publications) and direct access to the BNF feuillets.
2026-05-05 — status: created as live; (lifecycle backfill 2026-07-11)
2026-07-27 — C3 supported-jury blocked (verifier 2 PASS / 2 UNCERTAIN / 0 FAIL — the UNCERTAINs the locator-less I&P bullet and the Alquié-dating defect; 5-test REQUEST-REVISION, confidence stays medium — the philological core verified twice over, including the previously-unrecorded I&P raw-2332 primary anchor; refuters 3x REFUTED — objections appended to Counterpressure; wf_a0b34b6a-bc5 run 5, clean run), status stays live. Repairs applied this edit (the reviewer's four-item list plus two annotations): Evidence bullet 4 anchored to MP's own Passivity feuillets (raw 2332, folio 118 — with the fn-27 two-series folio caution against the extraction note's drifted 218 — objections at 2282/2292, plus raw 2354; main-thread re-verified), converting the second source into an independent primary attestation of mutation (i); the Alquié Fontaine dating corrected 1948–49 → 1947 (SA raw 1708 + fn 28 raw 2140) in Claim and bullet 3, and the unanchored "Lachièze-Rey 1948–55" range dropped (SA dates no L-R publication; the reproach anchors in MP's notes 1953–1960); Counterpressure bullet 2's false "not in raw/" statement rewritten to the true limit (the archive-bound residue is the coordination thesis + the 1958–61 litany); leg (iii) restated per SA raw 635 (born in the 1955 passages; litany from late 1958); the "All three are explicit responses" universal replaced with SA's own grading (directe/implicite/not-reducible, raw 625/617/661); bullet 1's two §2 quotes re-labelled (they anchor the protest register, extraction Argument 3, not a 1955 mutation); the Lefort-as-1957-dater attribution annotated unanchored-as-stated; home-bullet dating sync on institution and indirect-ontology. Would promote: the "coordinated (not coincidental)" modality operationalized or softened (the one proposition the corpus cannot corroborate — SA's own word at raw 635 is "coïncident"); non-SA corroboration of the triad (Dalissier's editorial work the recorded candidate); the "dominates secondary literature" Payoff quantifier anchored or dropped; SA's own 1957-reinforcement concession (raw 679) engaged.
2026-07-28 — Payoff chronology synced to the 2026-07-27 corrections (Alquié 1947; no dated Lachièze-Rey publication — MP-notes 1953–1960 anchoring): the Payoff still concluded with the rejected "specific 1948–49 critics"; caught by the Codex review of PR #116 (incomplete propagation). Updated: held at 2026-07-27 (same-sweep completion, run-4 fixup precedent). The Payoff's "dominates secondary literature" quantifier remains a recorded would-promote repair, deliberately untouched here.