He also goes
on to discuss the goals and plans of animals, which was a bit hazier of a
concept to me but I will take a shot.
From what I understand, he is arguing for Nature’s plan instead of a
goal orientated animal. For example, the
chicken that rescues a peeping chick but cannot notice the same chick when
placed under a bell jar, this occurs because of the perception mark of the peep
and not because of the goal of the mother hen.
Well I will
take a shot at utilizing Von Uexküll’s philosophies to understand a particular animal,
the lovely Wisconsin bird, the robin. I
don’t have much knowledge about these birds but I feel that after seeing them
every spring I should know a thing or two.
Thinking about the problem of form
with the robin, or any other bird for that matter, would consist of mainly separating
obstacles from the open sky and grass. I
would argue that the robin is attracted to open spaces or thin lines, like
branches, instead of large masses and buildings.
This also
relates to the way in which Von Uexküll discusses an animal’s space and the
effect tones in it. For example, the
robin would likely see maybe two or three effect tones, food or eating, landing
and flying. The robin would see trees or
the ground as having the same effect tone, places where they can find worms as
having another tone and the sky would have a flying effect tone.
Overall, despite
the fact that I found Von Uexküll’s analysis of the natural world somewhat
difficult, applying it to a specific animal helped me understand his terms
further. While seemingly abstract, his
methods do successfully explain and develop sound theories about the animals he
observes.