Advertisement

Surprise as a Phenomenal Marker of Heart-Unconscious

  • Natalie DeprazEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contributions To Phenomenology book series (CTPH, volume 88)

Abstract

In this contribution I would like to make a room for another unconscious, which I name the “heart unconscious”. To me it appears as a remarkable possible thread in order to bridge, more, to weave together two already well-known threads; that is, broadly speaking, the physical and the subjective, which first appear ontologically irreducible. Why? Well, one initial argument in favour is that the heart-unconscious allows a pre-conscious continuity of our experiential dynamics because of its very twofold structure, organic (the heart-muscle) and lived (heart-affectivity). In order to reveal the specificity of such an experiential pre-conscious heart-unconscious, I will put to work a very simple and daily experience; namely, the experience of surprise. Why surprise? My idea is that surprise is a remarkable marker of heart-unconscious, insofar as, in a similar structural way, it also appears as a twofold objective-subjective pre-conscious, easily conscious becoming occurrence, manifesting as a physiological-cardiac startle as well as a lived perplexity.

Keywords

Unconscious Heart| Surprise Emotion Pre-conscious Explication interviews First-person methods Micro-phenomenology Neuro-phenomenology Cardio-phenomenology 

References and Endnotes

  1. Bateson, Gregory. 2008. Vers une écologie de l’esprit. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  2. Buser, Pierre. 2005. L’inconscient aux mille visages. France: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  3. Dehaene, Stanislas, J.-P. Changeux, L. Naccache, J. Sackur, and C. Sergent. 2006. Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: A testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dennett, Daniel. 2001. Surprise, surprise. Commentary on O’Regan and Noe. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5): 982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Depraz, Natalie. 2003. Looking forward to being surprised.—At the heart of embodiment. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum: International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies 7: 5–11.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2008. The rainbow of emotions: At the crossroads of neurobiology and phenomenology. Continental Philosophy Review 41: 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2010. Phenomenology of surprise. Levinas and Merleau-Ponty in the light of Hans Jonas. In Advancing phenomenology. Essays in honor of Lester Embree, ed. T. Nenon and Ph. Blosser, 223–235. Heidelbeg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2011. Phénoménologie de la surprise. In L’héritage de la phénoménologie et le problème de la vie, ed. D. Rocchi. Roma: Lithos editrice.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2013. The surprise of non sense. In Enactive cognition at the edge of sense making, ed. M. Cappuccio and T. Froese. Baskingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  10. ———. (to appear). Surprise, valence, emotion. The multivectorial integrative cardio-phenomenology of surprise. In Surprise, an emotion?, ed. Depraz, N. and Steinbock, A. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Depraz, Natalie and Thomas Desmidt. 2015. Cardiophénoménologie. Cahiers philosophiques de Strasbourg, La neurophénoménologie vingt ans après, 38.Google Scholar
  12. Desmidt, Thomas, M. Lemoine, C. Belzung and N. Depraz. 2014. The temporal dynamic of emotional emergence. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, Emotion Special Issue. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Elkaïm, Mony. 1989. Si tu m’aimes, ne m’aime pas. Approche systémique et psychothérapie. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
  14. Husserl, Edmund. 1908–1914. Studien zur Struktur des Bewußtseins, Volume III, edition in preparation in german at the Husserl-Archives in Leuven under the responsability of Üllrich Melle and Thomas Vongehr.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1938. Expérience et jugement (1970, §21, a. L’origine de la négation). Paris: P.U.F.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1999. De la synthèse passive (1918–1926). Grenoble: J. Million.Google Scholar
  17. Kihlstrom, J.F. 1987. The cognitive unconscious. Science 237: 1445–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lutz, Antoine, J.-Ph. Lachaux, J. Martinerie, and F.J. Varela. 2002. Guiding the study of brain dynamics by using first-person data: Synchrony patterns correlate with ongoing conscious states during a simple visual task. PNAS 99 (3): 1586–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marti, S., J. Sackur, M. Sigman, and S. Dehaene. 2010. Mapping introspection’s blind spot: Reconstruction of dual-task phenomenology using quantified introspection. Cognition 115 (2): 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ortony, A., G. Clore, and A. Collins. 1988. The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peirce, C.S. 2002. Sur la phénoménologie (Conference de Harvard, 1903). In Pragmatisme et pragmaticisme, 295–296. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
  22. Petitmengin, C., and J.-Ph. Lachaux. 2014. Microcognitive science: Bridging experiential and neuronal dynamics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 617.Google Scholar
  23. Reisenzein, R., W.-U. Meyer A. Schützwohl. 1996. Analyse von Reaktionen auf überraschende Ereignisse: Ein Paradigma für die Emotionsforschung. In Bericht iiber den 40. Kongreß der DGPs in München, ed. H. Mandl, 830–836. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  24. Reisenzein, R., W.-U. Meyer, and A. Schützwohl. 1997. Reactions to surprising events. A paradigm for emotion research. In Proceedings of the 9th conference of the international society for research on emotion, ed. N. Frijda, 292–296. Toronto: ISRE.Google Scholar
  25. Smith, A. 1982. Wonder, surprise, and admiration one feels when contemplating the physical world. In Lecture on astronomy, section I: Of the effect of unexpectedness, or of surprise, glasgow edition of the works and correspondence vol. 3 essays on philosophical subjects (1795), ed. W.P.D. Wightman and J.C. Bryce. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  26. Varela, F.J. 1996. Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies 3: 330–349.Google Scholar
  27. Varela, F.J., and J. Shear. 1999. First-person methodologies: Why, when and how. Journal Conscious Studies 6 (2–3): 1–14.Google Scholar
  28. Wittesaele, J.-J. 2008. La double contrainte. L’héritage des paradoxes de Bateson. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université of Rouen (ERIAC)RouenFrance

Personalised recommendations