Strawson provides a long view historically on imagination (starting with
Hume and Kant), Williams a more contemporaneous look, and provides a space
for imagination not afforded by the socio-cultural as fixed. This, coupled
with Pelaprat and Cole on Gap/Imagination, gives me a ground to take part
in the thread on imagination. Of course, I start with preconceptions: Vera
on creative collaboration and the cognitive grammarian Langacker on
symbolic assemblies in discourse and cognitive domains, particularly the
temporal. Everyday discourse, it seems to me, is full of imagination and
creativity. I am terribly interested in two aspects of temporality:
sequence and rhythm (including tempo and rhythmic structure), which I think
must both figure in imagination and creativity, for both individual and
distributed construals of cognition and feeling.
On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Larry Purss <email@example.com> wrote:
Henry, Mike, and others interested in this topic.
I too see the affinities with notions of the third *space* and the
I am on holiday so limited access to internet.
However, I wanted to mention Raymond Williams and his notion of
of feeling" that David K references. This notion is explored under the
notion of historical *styles* that exist as a *set* of modalities that
together. This notion suggests there is a form of knowing that is
but has not yet formed [but can be "felt" [perceived??] if we think
imaginatively. Raymond explores the imaginal as *style*
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:38 PM, HENRY SHONERD <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mike and Larry,
I promise to read your profer, but just want to say how jazzed up I am
about this thread. My mind has been going wild, the mind as Larry
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 <email@example.com> wrote:
For those interested in the imagination thread, attached are two
by philosophers who have worried about the issue.
My current interest stems from the work of CHAT theorists like
and his students who studied the development of imagination in a manner
that, it turns out, goes back to Kant's notion of productive
am not advocating going back to Kant, and have no intention of doing
But these ideas seem worth pursuing as explicated in the attached
Through reading the Russians and then these philosophers, I came upon
idea that perception and imagination are very closely linked at several
levels of analysis. This is what, in our naivete, Ettienne and I argued
our paper on imagination sent around earlier as a means of access to
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
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
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>