Thinking, Experiencing and Rethinking Mereological Interdependence

Open access


The present article is a partly ontological, partly Gestalt-psychological discussion of the thinkability of structures in which parts and whole are interdependent (MI). In the first section, I show that in the framework of E. Husserl’s formal part–whole ontology, the conceptualization of such an interdependence leads to (mereo)logical problems. The second section turns to and affirms the experience of this interplay between parts and whole, exemplified with B. Pinna’s recent research on meaningful Gestalt perception. In the final section, I take the experienceability of MI as a justification to suggest a way of rethinking it. This entails an implementation of the process of foregrounding and backgrounding displayed by reversible figures and originally described by E. Rubin. This can avoid both an identity relation between parts and whole and their mutual exclusion as well as hierarchization due to their apparent differences. It would also guarantee the inherent dynamics of interdependence.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Albertazzi L. (2015). A science of qualities. Biological Theory10 188–199.

  • Anjum R. & Mumford S. (2017) Emergence and Demergence. In: M. Paoletti & F. Orilia (Eds.) Philosophical and Scientific Perspectives on Downward Causation (pp. 92–109). New York London: Routledge.

  • Arnheim R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Ash M. G. (1985). Gestalt psychology: Origins in Germany and reception in the United States. In: C. E. Buxton (Ed.) Points of view in the modern history of psychology (pp. 295–344). Orlando e.a.: Academic Press.

  • Bischof N. (1966). Erkenntnistheoretische Grundlagenprobleme der Wahrnehmungspsychologie. In: W. Metzger (Ed.) Handbuch der Psychologie. In 12 Bänden. Bd. 1 (pp. 27–78). Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie.

  • Brdar-Szabó R. & Brdar M. (2011) What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In: F. de Mendoza R. Benczes & A. Barcelona (Eds.) Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Gabriel M. (2018). Der Sinn des Denkens. Berlin: Ullstein.

  • Harrington A. (1996). Reenchanted science: holism in German culture from Wilhelm 2 to Hitler. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Hochstein S. & Ahissar M. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron36 791–804.

  • Hoffman D. Richards W. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition 18 65–96.

  • Husserl E. (2001). Logical Investigations. London New York: Routledge.

  • Husserl E. (2003). Philosophy of arithmetic: Psychological and logical investigations with supplementary texts from 1887-1901. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Koenderink J. (2012). Visual awareness. Utrecht: De Clootcrans Press.

  • Koestler A. (1970). Beyond atomism and holism - the concept of the holon. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine13(2) 131–154.

  • Koffka K. (1922). Perception: an introduction to the Gestalt-Theory. The Psychological Bulletin19(10) 531–585.

  • Köhler W. (1939). The place of value in a world of facts. London: Kegan Paul Trench Trubner & Co.

  • Lee T. S. & Mumford D. (2003). Hierarchical Bayesian inference in the visual cortex. Journal of the Optical Society of America A20(7) 1434–1448.

  • Leisegang H. (1951). Denkformen. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

  • McCulloch W. (1945). A heterarchy of values determined by the topology of nervous nets. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics7 89–93.

  • Metzger W. (2001). Psychologie. Die Entwicklung ihrer Grundannahmen seit der Einführung des Experiments. Vienna: Krammer.

  • Næss A. & Haukeland P. I. (2002). Life’s philosophy: Reason & feeling in a deeper world. Athens London: University of Georgia Press.

  • Pind Jörgen L. (2014). Edgar rubin and psychology in Denmark: Figure and ground. Dordrecht e.a.: Springer.

  • Pinna B. (2010). New Gestalt principles of perceptual organization: An extension from grouping to shape and meaning. Gestalt Theory32(1) 11–78.

  • Pinna B. (2011). What is the meaning of shape? Gestalt Theory33(3/4) 383–422.

  • Pinna B. & Albertazzi L. (2010). From grouping to visual meanings: A new theory of perceptual organization. In: L. Albertazzi G. J. van Tonder & D. Vishwanath (Eds.) Perception beyond inference: The information content of visual processes (pp. 287–344). Cambridge London: MIT Press.

  • Pinna B. & Reeves A. (2009). From perception to art: How vision creates meanings. Spatial Vision22(3) 225–272.

  • Pomerantz J. R. Cragin A. I. (2015). Emergent features and feature combination. In: J. Wagemans (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Perceptual Organization (pp. 88–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Radden G. & Kövecses Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In: K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.) Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Rausch E. (1967). Über Summativität und Nichtsummativität. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

  • Rubin E. (1921). Visuell wahrgenommene Figuren. Studien in psychologischer Analyse. Kopenhagen e.a.: Gyldendalske Boghandel.

  • Ruiz de Mendoza F. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In: A. Barcelona (Ed.) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 109–132). Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Simons P. M. (1982). The formalisation of Husserl’s theory of wholes and parts. In: B. Smith (Ed.) Parts and moments: Studies in logic and formal ontology (pp. 113–159). Munich Vienna: Philosophia.

  • Smith B. (1988). Gestalt theory: An essay in philosophy. Munich Vienna: Philosophia.

  • Smith B. (1994). Austrian philosophy: The Legacy of Franz Brentano. Chicago LaSalle: Open Court.

  • Smith B. & Mulligan K. (1982). Pieces of a theory. In: B. Smith (Ed.) Parts and moments: Studies in logic and formal ontology (pp. 15–109). Munich Vienna: Philosophia.

  • Smith B. & Smith D. W. (1995). Introduction. In: B. Smith & D. W. Smith (Eds.) The Cambridge companion to Husserl (pp. 1–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Sokolowski R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ströker E. (2009). Husserls Logische Untersuchungen. Ein Werk des Durchbruchs zur Phänomenologie. In: E. Husserl Logische Untersuchungen (pp. xxvii–lxxiii). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.

  • Stumpf C. (1873). Über den psychologischen Ursprung der Raumvorstellung. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.

  • van der Helm P. (2012). Cognitive architecture of perceptual organization: From neurons to gnosons. Cognitive Processing13 13–40.

  • van der Helm P. (2017). Human visual perceptual organization beats thinking on speed. Attention Perception & Psychophysics79 1227–1238.

  • Varzi A. C. (2016). Mereology. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy visited 1 October 2018).

  • Von Ehrenfels C. (1988). On ‘gestalt qualities.’ In: B. Smith (Ed.) Foundations of Gestalt theory (pp. 82-117). Munich Vienna: Philosophia.

  • Wagemans J. Feldman J. Gepshtein S. Kimchi R. Pomerantz J. van der Helm P. van Leeuwen C. (2012). A century of gestalt psychology in visual perception II. Conceptual and theoretical foundations. Psychological Bulletin138(6) 1218–1252.

  • Wertheimer M. (1938). The general theoretical situation (Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt I). In: W. D. Ellis (Ed.) A source book of gestalt psychology (pp. 12–16). Abingdon: Routledge.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 127 127 14
PDF Downloads 76 76 6