The Crush of Life’s Passion: Interiority in Michel Henry as a Possibility for the Experience of God

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study attempts to intervene in an important debate between two scholars (Rivera and Gschwandtner) regarding a fundamental interpretive decision vis-a-vis the thought of Michel Henry. 

I think the argument in favor of Gschwandtner's position could be, and probably should be, developed. The resolution utilizing marginal archival material should be fleshed out, particularly as the Holy Spirit is glaringly absent (for the most part) from Henry's main body of work, which could be read as quite comfortably 'binitarian'. Further, what does he mean by 'experience'? This is the question. This could still be read in Rivera's optic without too much trouble. The concept of experience--a critical phenomenological term, of course--should be fleshed out. So should Henry's whole oeuvre be mined for any opening to the Spirit in a way that suggests something more than pure interiority of the transcendental (S)elf.

The reference to the Emmaus story is quite promising. Perhaps deeper meditation on it, particularly, in its relation to the fall narrative in Gen 3 ("their eyes were opened"). Knowledge is an important concept here. Also, Henry's writings on art: perhaps the Kandinsky text could help see more clearly how the exterior can be a manifestation of the interior in this theological register. My guess is that patristic and more recent idealisms, perhaps strangely, may be a resource for breaking this open. See Edward Epsen's book, for example, From Laws to Liturgy. Also, the 'non-dual' traditions of India permit multiple interpretations; some of these interpretations might permit a path forward for Henry's Christian thinking. If I recall, Rivera alludes to the East. Perhaps he does so in a monochrome way. Unity and duality can co-subsist, as it were, in a higher hyper-unity with which the visible is already replete... This might suggest that the opposition between visible and invisible is itself an expression of identity. The Alexandrian Christology of the fifth century, in anticipation of Chalcedon, and is its only proper hermeneutic, already earmarks this paradox. 

I do think this paper is important and can be developed with substance by integrating reflection on the kinds of questions this review raises.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article brings to the fore the main controversy found in the secondary literature on Michiel Henry’s phenomenology: within Henry’s schema of interiority, can God be apprehended in an unmediated fashion? Through an analysis of Henry’s “dualism” (the absolute separation of the life of the mind and the world outside) and “duality” (the sub-conceptual distinction created by the mind, which organizes affectivity separately from exterior objects), it is shown how Henry’s ideal of unilateral interioritarianism may allow for a disembodied vision of God. This construction fills a gap in existing scholarship by exploring how Henry’s own notion places the experience of the divine as integral to life’s revelation, without the loss of external intermediaries. Moreover, by focusing on the interplay between Henry’s phenomenological ideas and theological investigation, the article enhances the literature on the theological dimension of Henry’s phenomenology, illustrating how the two interact.

Here are two areas where I believe the logic may be lacking:

1. Incomplete Response to Rivera’s Critique on “Absolute Life”

Even if interior experiences are “distance-free,” they still occur within finite human consciousness. The article does not clarify how such experiences would truly escape phenomenological finitude. Rivera’s critique suggests that any experience, no matter how immediate it looks, may still be subject to finite cognitive structures inherent in human perception. Therefore, it remains unresolved whether Henry’s framework genuinely supports an experience of the infinite within the bounds of subjective consciousness.

2. How does the “arch-experience” concretely ground God’s infinite presence?

Henry’s concept of “arch-experience” (the primordial experience of life’s self-revelation) is treated as the basis for the firsthand experience of God within interiority, linking it in the article directly to the experience of God’s creative power without distance. However, the article lacks detailed argumentation to demonstrate how God’s presence within this experience would be complete and eternal. Strictly speaking, this remains an associative rather than an inferential logical connection.

In addition, the author does appear to focus extensively on presenting and explicating Henry’s views, sometimes at the expense of developing her/his own critical perspective. A broader range of sources could help the author clarify distinctions such as dualism/duality and bolster the overall scholarly contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf