Hyper-objet (Saint Aubert)

Emmanuel de Saint Aubert's own constructive concept introduced in *Être et chair II* Ch III § 3 ("Portance et anti-portance des ultra-choses au-delà de Merleau-Ponty") as a correction to Merleau-Ponty's treatment of the ultra-chose. The hyper-objet is the surdéterminée thing — Winnicott's transitional object generalized ontologically — that mediates our relation to the ultra-choses. Distinct from MP's terminology, Saint Aubert's hyper-objet is part of the announced post-exegetical direction (portance, anti-portance, hyper-objet).

NOTE: unrelated to Timothy Morton's "hyperobjects" (2013) — Saint Aubert's usage is independent and pre-Morton conceptually.

Key Points

  • Saint Aubert's own concept, not MP's. Saint Aubert names it explicitly as his philosophical-constructive contribution, going beyond MP.

  • Mediates between the ultra-chose and us. The hyper-objet is a choix surdéterminé that stands between the pure inaccessibility of the ultra-chose and our need for workable reference.

  • Winnicott's transitional object as paradigm. "On peut regretter que Merleau-Ponty n'ait pas eu connaissance des travaux de Winnicott sur l'objet transitionnel." (Ch III § 3, p. 139) Winnicott's transitional object (e.g., the child's teddy bear) is neither fully internal (fantasy) nor fully external (reality); it structures the aire transitionnelle où naît la créativité.

  • Specific instances: the atelier (artist's workshop), the outil (tool), the object-of-fetish, the culturally-significant object.

  • Against MP's diabolisation of the object. MP's critique of "ontologie de l'objet" (NMS 1957) made him lose sight of the object as cristallisation du désir. Saint Aubert restores this register.

Details

Saint Aubert's critique of MP on the ultra-chose

Saint Aubert's Ch III § 3 articulates the critique that sets up the hyper-objet:

  1. MP generalizes Wallon's ultra-chose (the absolute inaccessible) into the universal-inépuisable: "il faut que la chose soit ultra-chose", "il faut que nous soyons nous-mêmes ultra-choses".
  2. This generalization makes the ultra-chose a positive ontological mode (the inépuisable), losing the NEGATIVE register of the inaccessible as abîme, non-sens, anti-portance.
  3. Consequently: MP does not adequately think the DESTRUCTIVE forms of the ultra-chose. "Le désir ne suffit pas, ne se suffit pas à lui-même."
  4. MP also loses sight of the object-as-cristallisation. Saint Aubert: we NEED objects (hyper-objets) to mediate the ultra-choses.

The hyper-objet as surdétermination créatrice

The hyper-objet is "surdétermine" — it has more determinateness than a plain object would have. It carries:

  • a symbolic load (what Winnicott calls "illusion partagée"),
  • a creative potential (it is generative of new perceptions, not merely representative),
  • a mediating function (between inner and outer, absent and present, imaginary and real),
  • a fetishized stabilization (it is partly fetishized — held as a fixed point — but this is functional, not pathological, when it remains an OBJECT of transition).

Examples from Ch III § 3:

  • The atelier (artist's workshop): "conjoint adversité et création dans le corps-à-corps avec l'élément".
  • The outil (tool): in its rapport with the matériel element.
  • Cultural objects generally as supports of scénarisation.

Winnicott via Bachelard

Saint Aubert connects the hyper-objet to Bachelard's psychanalyses — which "mettent justement en valeur notre rapport ambivalent aux éléments, et abordent la médiation de l'outil, la dimension tout à la fois réparatrice et créatrice du travail de l'atelier" (Ch III § 3, p. 139).

The link: Bachelard's L'eau et les rêves, La psychanalyse du feu etc. treat the material elements as objects-of-desire structured by the imaginary. MP adopted Bachelard's éléments vocabulary (NT p. 320) but not his attention to the MEDIATING object. The hyper-objet fills this gap.

Three orders of not-quite-things

Saint Aubert's implicit taxonomy in Ch III § 3:

  • Simple choses (objects in the perceptual field): perceivable, observable.
  • Ultra-choses (MP's universal mode): the inépuisable ontological modality of every thing.
  • Hyper-objets (Saint Aubert's addition): surdéterminées choses that mediate our relation to ultra-choses. Neither simple choses (not purely observable) nor ultra-choses (they HAVE boundaries and are humanly produced).
  • Anti-portance (Saint Aubert's negative register): the destructive face of the ultra-chose that the hyper-objet protects against.

The key move: "il faut des déterminations"

Ch III § 3: "Nous avons notamment besoin de déterminations, et même de surdéterminations, pour endurer l'indétermination qui caractérise les ultra-choses. Or, l'être humain a justement l'art de surdéterminer certaines choses ou dimensions du réel qui le protègent ainsi des aspects destructeurs de l'indétermination."

Against MP (who valorizes indétermination as productive), Saint Aubert insists: we CANNOT endure raw indétermination — we need surdéter­ minations (hyper-objets) to make indétermination workable.

Connection to portance

The hyper-objet supports portance (bearing/buoyancy). In Saint Aubert's triptych:

  • Portance: the ontological bearing that holds us up (cf. water that carries the navigator).
  • Anti-portance: the ontological abîme that drowns (same water, different mode).
  • Hyper-objet: the humanly-produced helm — the thing that turns anti-portance into portance.

Positions

  • saintaubert-2021-etre-et-chair-ii (Ch III § 3) introduces and defends the hyper-objet as Saint Aubert's own contribution. Expected to be developed in the future post-exegetical work that Saint Aubert repeatedly announces ("un ouvrage consacré à la notion de portance", Ch III § 3 p. 137).
  • Saint Aubert's 2015 and 2016 articles (Alter 23; Archives de philosophie 79-2) give preparatory sketches.
  • winnicott-transitional-object — the direct source. Winnicott's "Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena" (1953, International Journal of Psychoanalysis) and Playing and Reality (1971) are the references.
  • Contrast with Timothy Morton's Hyperobjects (2013) — a distinct concept with the same name. Morton: hyperobjects = massively distributed entities (climate, nuclear waste). Saint Aubert: hyper- objets = surdéterminées transitional objects. Same name, different concepts.

Connections

  • extends portance — hyper-objet is a device of portance- generation.
  • completes ultra-chose — by adding the mediating register missing in MP.
  • draws on winnicott-transitional-object — Winnicott's transitional object as primary paradigm.
  • draws on Bachelard — psychanalyse des éléments, attention to the outil.
  • critiques ontology-of-the-object — but rehabilitates a limited, functional register of objet ("objet cristallisation du désir").
  • is a structural parallel to figuratifs — both are ontological hinges between figure and matrix; the figuratif is natural, the hyper-objet is human-made.
  • supports sublimation — the hyper-objet is a vehicle of sublimation (art, craft, metaphor).
  • counters MP's primauté-du-désir (desire-centric reading).

Open Questions

  • Is the hyper-objet a category of object or a mode any object can enter/leave? Saint Aubert's treatment suggests the latter but is not explicit.
  • How does the hyper-objet relate to Lacan's objet petit a? Both mediate desire; both are semi-fetishized. Saint Aubert's distance from Lacan (see inconscient-primordial) suggests a principled distinction.
  • The atelier-paradigm vs. the digital object: a contemporary extension of Saint Aubert's account would need to address whether digital objects can be hyper-objets.

Sources

  • saintaubert-2021-etre-et-chair-ii — Ch III § 3 (p. 137-140), especially the explicit Winnicott-MP cross-reference.
  • Saint Aubert, "Introduction à la notion de portance", Archives de philosophie, 79 (2), 2016, p. 317-343.
  • Saint Aubert, "La chair ouverte à la portance de l'être", Alter, 23, 2015, p. 165-182.
  • Primary reference: Donald W. Winnicott, "Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena", International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 34, 1953; Playing and Reality, London: Tavistock, 1971.
  • Saint Aubert refers to Bachelard's psychanalyses of elements for background: L'eau et les rêves (1942), La psychanalyse du feu (1938).