[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Barsalou's Grounded Cognition Theory

The example comes from an article he wrote, "The Hermeneutics of Symbols
and Philosophical Reflection"
I was actually using the imaginal symbol of *captivity* to point to the
more general relationship of the *literal* and the *beyond* which comes
into *being through the symbolic.

The way these cultural historical symbols guide or orient *interpretive
Suzanne Kirschner wrote a book "the Religious and Romantic Roots of
Psychanalysis" which outlines the symbolic imaginal of "falling away AND
return" which she traces through Neo-Platonism, the Protestant mystical
tradition and moves through or in to psychoanalysis.

It was Ricouer's general exploration of symbol [at this level or time scale
of situations the level that guides zeitgeists] that I was attempting to
weave together with *grounded cognition*.
If Ricouer and Kirschner are pointing to a *real* phenomena then the
relation of the *literal* and the *metaphorical* exploring *trans*
positioning opens up stituations or *events* to what Merleau Ponty calls
*excess* [the beyond]
It is this realm which I'm suggesting is a *gap* which  metaphorical power
or force assists in coming into being through the imaginal.
I am speculating that to understand *cognition* as multimodal then this
time scale as a mode or path also guides our *quests* or questions.
In other words the questions as grounded in the literal but calling us
beyond the literal is the realm Ricouer and Kirschner are exploring.

To situate Suzanne Kirscher, she co-authored the book "The sociocultural
Turn in Psychology* with Jack Martin.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>

> Hi Larry,
> I've read a lot of Ricoeur, but he wrote faster than I can read so I
> haven't covered it all. This sounds like his book Symbolism and Evil?  If
> so, it's one I didn't read...
> Martin
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Martin,
> > Thank You for the article on Grounded theory that is exploring the
> > multimodal synthesis of  perceptual, action, linguistic, and conceptual
> > phenomena. [his Perceptual Symbol System's or PSS theory]. On page 623
> > Barsalou explores *memory theories* and says his Perceptual Symbol System
> > Theory  shares similarities with Rubin's *Basic Systems Theory*
> > In Barsalou's words,
> > "Basic Systems Theory proposes that a complex memory contains many
> > multimodal components from vision, audition, action, space, affect,
> > language, etc., and that retrieving a memory involves simulating its
> > multimodal components together.
> > Rubin was articulating a more complex and richer form of memory which
> > includes autobiographical memory and oral history.
> >
> > On page 622 Barsalou articulates his PSS theory and indicates how
> grounded
> > cognition can implement symbolic functions naturally. He states,
> >
> > "Through the construct of simulators - corresponding roughly to concepts
> > and types in standard theories - PSS implements the standard symbolic
> > functions of type-token, binding, inference, productivity, recursion and
> > propositions."
> >
> > I am curious how you understand the relation of Barsalou's Perceptual
> > Symbol System theory of grounded cognition as it engages with another
> > complex aspect of the symbolic memory system which points to more
> expansive
> > notions of memory through historical time. Ricoeur has engaged deeply
> with
> > this more expansive symbolic memory. which he describes as a schema of
> > existence. As a concrete example he refers to the symbol of *captivity*
> > which trans*forms* an actual historical event such as the Jewish Egyptian
> > captivity and then the Babylonian captivity into a *schema of existence*
> > Ricouer conjectures that symbolism such as the schema of captivity
> precedes
> > reflection as a *guiding metaphor*.
> > It is this complex, multimodal aspect of memory that I was pointing to.
> >
> > Ricouer posits a relation between the *literal* and the *metaphoric* in
> the
> > power or force of the living symbol. He says in the analogous relation [A
> > is to B as C is to D]  and these terms can be objective. BUT in symbolic
> > metaphor  I cannot *objectivize* the analogous relation. By living in the
> > first *literal* meaning in this literal act I am drawn or carried
> *beyond*
> > this literal understanding [i.e. captivity] The symbolic *meaning* is
> > *constituted* IN AND THROUGH the literal *meaning*.
> >
> > I am not sure where to situate Ricouer's exploration of the symbolic
> > relation that *binds*  literal *meaning* and  symbolic *meaning*. As
> > another aspects of multimodal cognition can Ricouer's  extension of
> *memory
> > systems* beyond autobiography and oral history be included in Barsalou's
> > PASS theory of grounded cognition?  Would Barsalou situate Ricouer's
> > metaphorical understanding of symbolism as a simulation?