Chapter 8

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

�d�j� vu has remarkably different manifestations. It has been argued that many d�j� vu experiences have been missed due to conscious or unconscious factors, and that d�j� vu experiences that did not exist have been misinterpreted as having occurred. This book has established that �subjectively inappropriate impressions of familiarity with undefined pasts� have substantially different qualitative features in different subtypes. Nevertheless, this definition has proved workable throughout this book. The fact that the manifestations of d�j� vu are radically different does not make the above definition invalid. This may lead to an absence of consensus of the objective nature of its manifestations. However, it does not diminish the unity behind its fundamentally subjective and variegated nature. To reject any coherence behind this subjectivity, because each person�s impressions are different, is possibly as ludicrous as rejecting each person�s sense-data impressions because of their individuality.

Thus, in my opinion, �d�j� vu� is a valid subjective concept. What this study has measured has been this concept, which may have differed radically between nosological subtypes because, in fact, it was objectively heterogeneous; a qualitative objectification of these subjective experiences measured was attempted, and it was through this attempt that the objective heterogeneity was adumbrated.

Ordering Information

Read our Disclaimer, Contact Information, and Copyright Notice
Contact Webmaster