Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:00:09.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Metaphoric Origins of Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Consciousness in The Direct Perception of Reality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Stanley A. Mulaik
Stanley A. Mulaik*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology Georgia Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper utilizes the theories of metaphor of George Lakoff, Mark Johnson and Julian Jaynes to extend Jaynes' metaphor theory of consciousness by treating consciousness as an operator that works with ‘covert behavior’ so that humans can integrate temporally discontinuous percepts with concepts based on metaphoric extensions of the embodied schemas of direct and immediate perception and thereby transcend the limitations of direct perception. A theory of first-person expressions and covert behavior to account for self-conscious awareness as language-based is advanced. Subjectivity and objectivity are metaphors based on schemas of perception.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 283 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Send reprint requests to the author, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332.

References

Bruce, V. and Green, P. R. (1985), Visual Perception: Physiology, Psychology and Ecology. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Butterworth, G. (1982), “Object Permanence and Identity in Piaget's Theory of Infant Cognition”, in Butterworth, G., (ed.), G. Butterworth, New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 137–169.Google Scholar
Butterworth, G. (1983), “Structure of the Mind in Human Infancy”, Advances-in-Infancy Research 2: 1–29.Google Scholar
Butterworth, G. (1992a), “Origins of Self-Perception in Infancy”, Psychological Inquiry 3: 103–111.10.1207/s15327965pli0302_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, G. (1992b), “Self-Perception as a Foundation for Self-Knowledge”, Psychological Inquiry 3: 134–136.10.1207/s15327965pli0302_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, G. (1994), “Theory of Mind and the Facts of Embodiment”, in Lewis, C. & Mitchell, P. (eds.), Children's Early Understanding of Mind Origins and Development Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 115–132.Google Scholar
Butterworth, G. (in press), “An Ecological Perspective on the Origins of Self”, in Bermudez, J., Eilan, N., and Marcel, A. (eds.), The Body and the Self. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Butterworth, G. and Hicks, L. (1977), “Visual Proprioception and Postural Stability in Infancy: A Developmental Study”, Perception, 6: 255–262.10.1068/p060255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Copi, I. M. (1978), Introduction to Logic. Fifth Edition. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Costal, A. (1982), “On How So Much Information Controls So Much Behavior: James Gibson's Theory of Direct Perception”, in Butterworth, G., (ed.), G. Butterworth, New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 30–51.Google Scholar
Davis, L. H. (1989), “Self-Consciousness in Chimps and Pigeons”, Philosophical Psychology, 2: 249–259.10.1080/09515088908572977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. (1991), Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1966), The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin & Co.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. Reasons for Realism. Selected Essays of James. J. Gibson. Reed, E. & Jones, R. (eds.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Harris, M., Freeman, T., and Williams, G. (1992), “Surface Layout from Retinal Flow”, in Humphreys, G. W., (ed.), G. W. Humphreys, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 199–231.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1958), Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), “Aspects of Scientific Explanation”, in Hempel, C. G. (ed.), Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jastrow, J. (1900), Fact and Fable in Psychology. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin & Co.10.1037/10919-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1890), The Principles of Psychology. Dover Books.10.1037/10538-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaynes, J. (1990), The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin & Co. Second Edition with an Afterword. First published in 1976.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987), The Body in the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1965), The Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by N. K. Smith. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993), “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”, in Ortony, A., (ed.), A. Ortony, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, W. (1986), The Disappearance of Introspection. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mulaik, S. A. (1990), “An Analysis of the Conditions Under Which the Estimation of Parameters Inflates Goodness of Fit Indices as Measures of Model Validity”. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Princeton, NJ, June 28–30.Google Scholar
Mulaik, S. A. (1991), “Factor Analysis, Information-Transforming Instruments, and Objectivity: A Reply and Discussion”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 42: 87–100.10.1093/bjps/42.1.87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulaik, S. A. & James, L. R. (in press), “Objectivity and Reasoning in Science and Structural Equation Modeling”, in Hoyle, R. H. (ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Applications. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1986), The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neisser, U. (1987), “From Direct Perception to Conceptual Structure”, in Neisser, U. (ed.), Concepts and Conceptual Development. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–24.Google Scholar
Neisser, U. (1988), “Five Kinds of Self-Knowledge”, Philosophical Psychology, 1: 35–59.10.1080/09515088808572924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, J. and Burton, A. (1974), Thinking: Its Nature and Development. London: John Wiley Sons.Google Scholar
Reese, H. W. (1971), “The Study of Covert Verbal and Nonverbal Mediation”, in Jacobs, A. and Sachs, L. B. (eds.), The Psychology of Private Events. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, J. (1986), The Thinking Self. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1953), Science and Human Behavior.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957), Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.10.1037/11256-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiles, M. (1984), Bachelard: Science and Objectivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, W. (1966), The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon Their History. (2nd ed.) New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. (Originally published in 1847).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953), Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar