Multistable FiguresOn the Critical Potential of Ir/Reversible Aspect-SeeingVienna: Turia + Kant, 2014
Copy to Clipboard
Add italics as necessary
Cite as: Christoph F. E. Holzhey, ‘Introduction’, in Multistable Figures: On the Critical Potential of Ir/Reversible Aspect-Seeing, ed. by Christoph F. E. Holzhey, Cultural Inquiry, 8 (Vienna: Turia + Kant, 2014), pp. 07–21 <https://doi.org/10.37050/ci-08_01>

IntroductionChristoph F. E. HolzheyORCID

Abstract

Multistable figures offer an intriguing model for arbitrating conflicting positions. Moving back and forth between the different aspects under which something can be seen, one recognizes that mutually contradictory descriptions can be equally valid and that disputes over the correct account can be resolved without dissolving differences or establishing a higher synthesis. Yet, the experience of a gestalt switch also offers a model for radical conversions and revolutions – that is, for irreversible leaps to incommensurable alternatives foiling ideals of rational choice while providing the possibility and necessity of decision. Accentuating the temporal dimensions of multistable figures, this multidisciplinary volume illuminates the critical potentials and limits of multistability as a complex figure of thought.

Keywords: Aesthetics; aspect seeing; critical thinking; figure of thought; heuristic; knowledge, theory of; multistable figures: multistability; science

Click here to open the pdf in a new window or download.

Bibliography

  1. Black, Max, Models and Metaphors (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1962)
  2. Hesse, Mary B., ‘The Explanatory Function of Metaphor’, in Models and Analogies in Science (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), pp. 157–77
  3. Lingua Franca, eds, The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000)
  4. Lykke, Nina, ‘The Timeliness of Post-Constructionism’, NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 18.2 (2010), pp. 131–36 <https://doi.org/10.1080/08038741003757760>
  5. Pang, Alex Soojung-Kim, ‘Visual Representation and Post-Constructivist History of Science’, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 28.1 (1997), pp. 139–71 <https://doi.org/10.2307/27757789>
  6. Rancière, Jacques, La Mésentente: Politique et philosophie (Paris: Galilée, 1995); in English as Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy, trans. by Julie Rose (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999)
  7. Ricoeur, Paul, The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977)
  8. Rouse, Joseph, ‘Vampires: Social Constructivism, Realism, and Other Philosophical Undead’, History and Theory, 41 (2002), pp. 60–78 <https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2303.00191>
  9. Sokal, Alan and Jean Bricmont, Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science (New York: Picador, 1998) <https://doi.org/10.1063/1.882506>
  10. Žižek, Slavoj, The Parallax View (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006) <https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5231.001.0001>