This illusion is often used to demonstrate that our conscious experience always has a frame of reference or direction. In other words, the mind imposes a frame on perception. We can either see a vase or two faces, but not simply the ambiguous pattern with which we are confronted. Some frame of reference is believed to be a necessity for perception.
The Rubin Illusion also demonstrates a dialectic – in the sense of a juxtaposition of opposing elements where the two sustain and transform one another. The two are mutually constitutive in a continual process of interaction. Without the vase one would not be able to see the two faces and without the two faces one would not be able to see the vase. For purposes of this discussion, we will use this very narrow definition of a dialectic.
In our paper "Thought, Action, Praxis", we discuss how praxis is a transformational process resulting from a synthesis of thought and action where each constitutes and informs the other through the experience of reality. We assert that thought and action are in fact dialectically related.
Another example is the infamous theory-practice gap. Should academic contributions be judged solely by the rigor of the research or instead by the relevance to practitioners? Many regard research and practice as opposite ends of a continuum. Data obtained from research is thought to be precise, controlled, and uncontaminated. Unfortunately, the questions answered are often those practitioners have little interest in. Data obtained from practice is often regarded as riddled with bias, purely anecdotal, and possibly even useless. However, the problems addressed represent real world challenges.
We assert that research and practice are in fact dialectically related. Researchers should act as designers by using existing knowledge in creating blueprints to address real world challenges. Practitioners adapt and use the blueprints in their practice, which checks the validity of the intervention and allows the intervention to be redesigned and improved. This improvement process should contribute further to theory by highlighting the generative mechanism that makes the intervention work.
This synthesis of theory and practice comes in the form of interventions that rely on scientific data whenever possible, but also recognize the inherent limits of such knowledge, and constantly strive to generate hypotheses to address practical challenges.
The phenomenon of a dialectic can be used strategically. A particularly devious stratagem is where you wish to advance an extremely unpopular agenda. The majority of people would oppose the agenda. The stratagem involves creating a false dichotomy instead. Let’s call the desired agenda C, which the majority would reject. The people are presented with the choice between A or B, which appear to the misinformed as opposites, but which are in fact dialectically related. People alternate between choosing A and B, which actually advances the agenda C that most people would prefer to avoid in the first place.
