Comment on Dr Simenauer's Paper

Simenauer mentions at one point in his paper that 'many a problem turns out to be on the whole linguistic'. I must confess that in studying the paper I have had some difficulty in understanding what its author really meant. For example, the sentences (p. 432): 'Here, in the biological basis of aesthetic experience we are confronted with one as yet undifferentiated phase of the somatic and psychological as we witness the transition from one mode or quality of reaction to a different one, on an entirely new plane. What in many species we observe as biological releasing mechanisms, … finds expression in man through the aesthetic experience. Since with every sensation perceived and with every emotion felt, motor and secretory processes take place on the somatic side of the organism, and since we know from the study of hysteria and from psychosomatic observations that the resultant affective states may be expressed through related organs and organ-systems, we are in a position to glance here, as it were, at the common matrix of life-processes throughout different phylogenetic periods. What in many species is a purely somatic response … has become in man a psychological one …' (italics mine). To my mind these sentences show very clearly what seems to be the weakness of the whole paper, viz., generalization without sufficient supporting evidence, complicated propositions, in themselves often doubtful, stated as facts, abstractions with vague or no references to concrete or verifiable material. Furthermore in these sentences another tendency of the author can be observed, i.e. to move freely between the somatic and psychological frames of reference without hesitation or apprehension. Our epistemologists have seriously criticized this inclination and urged us to avoid it completely.

It is the author's great merit to have drawn our attention to the interesting experiments concerning the artistic activities of the anthropoids, especially Congo's. But his ambition is t