[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
Mike and Larry,
I promise to read your profer, but just want to say how jazzed up I am now about this thread. My mind has been going wild, the mind as Larry construes it. I ended up just now with a triad, actually various triads, finally found my old friend Serpinski. Part now of my notebooks of the mind, as Vera would construe it. I’ll be back! Gap adentro, luega pa’ fuera.
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 5:09 PM, mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> For those interested in the imagination thread, attached are two articles
> by philosophers who have worried about the issue.
> My current interest stems from the work of CHAT theorists like Zaporozhets
> and his students who studied the development of imagination in a manner
> that, it turns out, goes back to Kant's notion of productive imagination. I
> am not advocating going back to Kant, and have no intention of doing so.
> But these ideas seem worth pursuing as explicated in the attached texts.
> Through reading the Russians and then these philosophers, I came upon the
> idea that perception and imagination are very closely linked at several
> levels of analysis. This is what, in our naivete, Ettienne and I argued in
> our paper on imagination sent around earlier as a means of access to the
> work of the blind-deaf psychologist, Alexander Suvorov. Moreover, such
> views emphasize the future orientation of the perception/imagination
> process. I believe that these views have direct relevance to Kris's paper
> to be found on the KrisRRQ thread, and also speak to concerns about the
> role of different forms of symbolic play in development.
> So here are the papers on the imagination thread. Perhaps they will prove
> useful for those interested.
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> <Imagination and Perception by P.F. Strawson.pdf>