[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.
Fractally yours,

> On Dec 12, 2014, at 5:09 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> 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.
> mike
> -- 
> 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>