Advertisement

Geometry and Rhetoric: Thinking about Thinking in Pictures

  • J. M. Rees
Part of the Nexus Network Journal book series (NNJ, volume 12,3)

Abstract

Thinking about thinking is tricky business. Pitfalls include a tendency to confuse our metaphors with the act itself, difficulties attendant to discredited notions of introspection as a source of evidence and the twin unreasonablenesses of reductive scientists and mystical humanists. Engaging geometry and rhetoric in a common frame presents the opportunity, especially in the context of architecture, to consider discourse and image in ways that are mutually reinforcing.

Keywords

cognition spatial awareness memory palace Giordano Bruno homunculus fallacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberti, Leon Battista. 1976. On Painting. Cecil Grayson, trans. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976..Google Scholar
  2. Auerbach, Erich. 1973. Figura. Pp. 11–71 in Scenes from the Drama of European Literature: Six Essays, Ralph Manheim, ed. and trans. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  3. Berkeley, George. 1972. A New Theory of Vision and Other Writings. London: Dent and New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, Rodney A. 1991. Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence 47: 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caplan, Harry, ed. 1954. Rhetorica ad Herennium. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, Andy. 1989. Microcognition: Philosophy, Cognitive Science, and Parallel Distributed Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dennett, Daniel Clement. 1978. Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  8. Dreyfus, Hubert L. 2005. Merleau-Ponty and recent cognitive science. Pp. 129–150 in The Cambridge Companion to Merleau-Ponty, T. Carman and M.B.N. Hansen, eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eco, Umberto. 2004. Remembering Mnemonics. In The Art of Memory, Catalogue 1322. London: B. Quaritch.Google Scholar
  10. Empson, William. 1930. Seven Types of Ambiguity. London UK: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
  11. Gärdenfors, Peter. 2000. Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, Howard. 1997. Thinking about thinking. New York Review of Books 44,15 (October 9, 1997): 24–25.Google Scholar
  13. Gatti, Hilary. 1999. Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibson, James J. 1977. The Perception of the Visual World. Westport CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  15. Harries, Karsten. 2001. Infinity and Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hall, Edward T. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  17. Heider, Eleanor Rosch, and Donald C. Oliver. 1972. The structure of the color space in naming and memory for two languages. Cognitive Psychology 3: 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ivins, William Mills, Jr. 1973. On the rationalization of sight. Pp. 7–13 in On the Rationalization of Sight with an Examination of Three Renaissance Texts on Perspective. New York: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Julesz, Bela. 1971. Foundations of Cyclopean Perception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Klein, Felix. 1893. A comparative review of recent researches in geometry. Bulletin of the New York Mathematical Society 2(July 1893): 215–249.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koenderink, Jan J. 1986. Optic Flow. Vision Research 26,1: 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 1. 1990. The brain a geometry engine. Psychological Research 52, no. 2-3 (1990): 122–127.Google Scholar
  24. Koenderink, Jan J., and Andrea J. van Doorn. 1991. Affine structure from motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science 8,2: 377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koenderink, Jan J., and Andrea J. VAN DOORN, A. M. L. Kappers, and J. T. Todd. 2000. Directing the mental eye in pictorial perception. Vol. V, pp. 2–13 in Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, Bernice Ellen Rogowitz and Thrasyvoulos N. Pappas, eds. Bellingham, WA: SPIE.Google Scholar
  26. Kubovy, Michael. 1988. The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art. 2nd ed. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, W. Rensselaer. 1940. Ut Pictura Poesis: The Humanistic Theory of Painting. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  29. Leyton, Michael. 2006. Shape as Memory: A Geometric Theory of Architecture. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  30. Marr, David. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  31. Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht, Holland; Boston: D. Reidel Pub. Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1971. Sense and Non-Sense. Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 1. 1974. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  34. Miller, Arthur I. 1986. Imagery in Scientific Thought: Creating the 20th-Century Physics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, George A. 2003. The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective. Trends in Cognative Sciences 7,3: 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moore, Donlyn Lyndon and Charles Willard Moore. 1994. Chambers for a Memory Palace. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Newell, Allen, and Herbert Simon. 1976. Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search. Communications of the ACM 19,3: 113–126. (Rpt. in Mind Design II, ed. John Haugeland,. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997, pp. 81–110).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Noë, Alva. 2004. Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Panofsky, Erwin. 1991. Perspective as Symbolic Form. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  40. Paz, Octavio. 1974. In Praise of Hands: Contemporary Crafts of the World. Greenwich CT: New York Graphic Society.Google Scholar
  41. Rees, J. M. 2005. Teaching geometry to artists. Nexus Network Journal 7,1: 86–98.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reid, Constance. 1970. Hilbert. New York: Springer-VerlagzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saiber, Arielle. 2005. Giordano Bruno and the Geometry of Language. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Schacter, Daniel L. 2001. The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  45. Simon, Herbert. 1970. Appendix: Computer programs as theories. Pp. 272–273 in Perspectives on the computer revolution, Z. W. Pylyshyn, ed. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Smolensky, Paul. 1987. Connectionist AI, and the brain. Artificial Intelligence Review 1: 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stafford, Barbara Maria. 2007. Echo Objects: The Cognitive Work of Images. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Todd, James T. 1994. On the optic sphere theory and the nature of visual information. Pp. 471–478 in Perceiving Events and Objects, Gunnar Jansson, et al. eds. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Widdows, Dominic. 2004. Geometry and Meaning. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Yates, Frances. 1964. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. 1. 1966. The Art of Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. 2. 1969. The Theatre of the World. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Rees
    • 1
  1. 1.Jack Rees InteriorsKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations