¿En qué sentido mi cuerpo es mío? El “cuerpo propio” en Ideen II y Phénoménologie de la perception

The article confronts the MerleauPontyan analyses of the four features of the “body proper” in Phénoménologie de la Perception (I.2) with the original Husserlian consideration of the same issues in Ideen II (II.3). I examine their analyses of absolute permanency, double sensations, cenesthesis and kinesthesis, to determine the different meaning that the “body proper” acquires for each author. It is thus observed that “localized sensations” do not play for Merleau-Ponty —as they do for Husserl— the constitutive role of the body proper. This leads to distinguish, following Husserl, two different senses of ownership. Whereas Husserl associates the “body proper” with a secondary sense of ownership deriving from an originary sense of self, for Merleau-Ponty the most basic experience of myself and of ownership is lived by a corporeal subject in perception and movementEl artículo confronta el análisis merleau-pontiano de los cuatro caracteres del “cuerpo propio” en Phénoménologie de la Perception (I.2) con el tratamiento original que Husserl realizó de los mismos puntos en Ideen II (II.3). Se examinan sus respectivos análisis de la permanencia absoluta, las sensaciones dobles, las cenestesias y las cinestesias para determinar el diferente significado que comporta el “cuerpo propio” para cada autor. Se observa así que las “ubiestesias” no desempeñan para Merleau-Ponty el rol constitutivo del cuerpo propio que tienen para Husserl. Esto conduce a distinguir, siguiendo a Husserl, dos sentidos diferentes de propiedad. Mientras que Husserl asocia el cuerpo propio con un sentido secundario de propiedad, derivado de un sentido yoico originario, para Merleau-Ponty la experiencia más básica del yo y de lo propio es vivida por un sujeto corporal al percibir y moverse.The article confronts the MerleauPontyan analyses of the four features of the “body proper” in Phénoménologie de la Perception (I.2) with the original Husserlian consideration of the same issues in Ideen II (II.3). I examine their analyses of absolute permanency, double sensations, cenesthesis and kinesthesis, to determine the different meaning that the “body proper” acquires for each author. It is thus observed that “localized sensations” do not play for Merleau-Ponty —as they do for Husserl— the constitutive role of the body proper. This leads to distinguish, following Husserl, two different senses of ownership. Whereas Husserl associates the “body proper” with a secondary sense of ownership deriving from an originary sense of self, for Merleau-Ponty the most basic experience of myself and of ownership is lived by a corporeal subject in perception and movemen