Advertisement

From the Testimonies of the Senses to the Paradoxes of World View

  • Herman Tennessen
Chapter
  • 85 Downloads
Part of the Annals of Theoretical Psychology book series (AOTP, volume 4)

Abstract

The Swiss fable of the frozen coach horn (das gefrorene Posthorn) is old and famous. It was so cold one day in the Alps, that when the postman tried to blow his horn to announce his arrival even the sound was frozen inside the horn. And it remained there all winter long. Until, one warm spring day, the horn suddenly sounded all by itself. I cannot help but feel that my shout of warning against the testimonies of the senses is somewhat like the frozen coach horn. For surely the very idea of attempting, one way or another, to base hypotheses, theories, or explanatory systems on anything resembling direct sense experience, sensa(tions), Konstatierungen, or the like was abandoned almost half a century ago. The proverbial “theory-ladenness” of observations was even extended to include cases whereon the observations were thought to be imbued with that very theory for which they were designed to serve as data. There was, for an honest theorist, only one way out of such an embarassing dilemma: to make his allegedly theoretical biases as transparently explicit as humanly possible. In other words, he found himself forced to produce a lucid outline of the dependency of his experiences, observations, empirical data, and motives on theoretical frameworks, conceptual schemes, world views and so on. But following that line he was soon bound to find himself entangled in a maze of even more discouraging conundrums. For, as I see it, such schemes either are unsatisfactory due to their incompleteness and inconsistency or aim toward global completeness and explicit consistency, which I for one see as an enterprise equal in fatuity to an attempt at eating not only part of myself but all of myself. Moreover, had an explicit, global, consistent system been logically possible, it should in the end have turned out to be entirely useless for any conceivable purpose. This is, in short, the extravagant vagary that I have endeavored to sketch out in my paper. And that is where I leave it.

Keywords

World View Stimulus Object Perceptual Consciousness Veridical Perception Retinal Disparity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allport, F. H. (1962) . Theories of perception and the concept of structure. New York: Wiley. (Original work published 1955)Google Scholar
  2. Brock, F. (1939). Typenlehre und Umweltforschung, Bios IX. Leipzig: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, P. (1980). Other worlds. New York: Simon & Shuster.Google Scholar
  4. Dieckmann, W. (1938). Tiefenwahrnehmung unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Integrationspsychologie. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 143, 149–201.Google Scholar
  5. d’Éspagnat, B. (1979, November). The quantum theory and reality. Scientific American, 241, 158–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fleischer, E. (1939). Die Querdisparation. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 147, 65–132.Google Scholar
  7. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  8. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  9. Gregory, R. (1966) . Eye and brain. New York and Toronto: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Gregory, R. (1970). The intelligent eye. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.Google Scholar
  11. Gregory, R. (1971). Visual illusions. In R. C. Atkinson (Ed.), Contemporary psychology: Readings from Scientific American (pp. 167–177). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  12. Hochberg, J. E. (1978). Perception (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Jaensch, E. R (1929). Grundfragen menschliches Sein. Berlin: O. Elsner’s Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  14. Jaensch, E. R. (1930). Über die Wahrnehmung des Raumes. Leipzig: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
  15. Jaensch, E. R. (1931). Über die Grundlagen der menschlichen Erkenntnisse. Leipzig: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
  16. Jaensch, E. R. (1933). Die Eidetik und die typologische Forschungsmethoden. Leipzig: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
  17. Jaensch, E. R. (1934). Anlage und kindliches Seelenleben (Sondersabdruck aus der Zeitschrift für Psychologie). Leipzig: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
  18. Jaensch, E. (1938). Der Gegentypus. Leipzig: J. A. Barth (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie, Leipzig, 1938).Google Scholar
  19. Krech, D., & Crutchfield, R S. (1969). Elements of psychology. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  20. Mannheim, K. (1929). Ideologie und Utopie. Bonn: Suhrkampf.Google Scholar
  21. Markovic, M. (1967) . Yugoslav philosophy. In P. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 8, pp. 359–364). New York: Macmillan Free Press; London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Naess, A. (1936). Erkenntnis und wissenschaftliches Verhalten. Oslo: In Kommission bei Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar
  23. Naess, A. (1969). Hvilken verden er den virkelige? Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  24. Neisser, U. (1971) . The processes of vision. In R. C. Atkinson (Ed.), Contemporary psychology: Readings from Scientific American (pp. 124–131). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  25. Perky, C. (1910). An experimental study in imagination. American Journal of Psychology, 21, 422–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Polanyi, M. (1952). The stability of beliefs. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, III (11), 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tennessen, H. (1939). Theorien für Stereoskopie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ausnützung der Querdisparation für binokulare Tiefensehen. Oslo: Skrivemaskinstua.Google Scholar
  28. Tennessen, H. (1952). Integrasjon og erkjendelse. Oslo: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  29. Tennessen, H. (1969). Om det firnnes absurde setninger. Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift, 4(2), 55–88.Google Scholar
  30. Tennessen, H. (1970, September) . Which world is the real one and how would we know. Address to the American Psychological Association, Miami Beach, FL.Google Scholar
  31. Tennessen, H. (1976a) . On the conceptual absurdity of “conceptual absurdity.” Philosophical Forum, XIII, 584–591.Google Scholar
  32. Tennessen, H. (1976b) . Scientists in vain want of world views. Methodology of Science, 9(3), 120–128.Google Scholar
  33. Tennessen, H. (1976c). Homo Telluris: The conscious cosmic caddis-fly. In J. Christian (Ed.), Extraterrestrial intelligence (pp. 228–279). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  34. Tennessen, H. (1980). Problems of knowledge. Assen, The Netherlands: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  35. Tennessen, H. (1982). Science under suspicion. Methodology and Science, 15(3), 213–221.Google Scholar
  36. Tennessen, H. (1983). Science, philosophy and world views. In A. van der Merve (Ed.), Old and new questions in physics, cosmology, philosophy and theoretical biology (pp. 809–845) . New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Uexküll, J. von. (1921). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer. (Zweite vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage.)Google Scholar
  38. Walsby, H. (1947). The domain of ideologies. Glascow: William Maclellan.Google Scholar
  39. Zapffe, P. W. (1941). Om det tragiske. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herman Tennessen
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical PsychologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations