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

[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination



"Recollection" is a translation of Erinnerung, and "Memory" is Gedaechtnis.
The whole piece on Representation (Vorstellung) and Imagination (Einbildungskraft) is at http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/suspirit.htm#SU451 Attached is a couple of pages from Michael Inwood's excellent Hegel Dictionary explaining the differences between what these terms mean. I take it that Erinnerung is to be reminded of something, whereas Gedaechtnis is "thinking about something" and as you can read, is closely connected to the word.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


mike cole wrote:
Andy- It was the Russians who pointed me toward Kant and they are doing contemporary work in which they claim Vygotsky and his followers as an inspiration. Some think that LSV was influenced by Hegel, so its of course interesting to see those additional categories emerge. 19th Century psychological vocabulary, especially in translation, seems awfully slippery territory to me. The word, "recollection" in this passage, for example, is not a currently used term in counter distinction to "memory." Normal problems. There are serious problems in contemporary discourse across languages as our explorations with out Russian colleagues have illustrated.

That said, I feel as if I am learning something from theorists who clearly influenced Vygotsky and early psychology -- when it was still possible to include culture in it. Ribot has a book called "Creative Imagination" which, interestingly links imagination to both movement and the meaning of a "voluntary" act. Parts of it are offputting, primitives thinking like children stuff that was also "in the air" for example. But at present the concepts of creativity and imagination are thoroughly entangled, so its curious to see that the two concepts are linked.

Just cause its old doesn't mean its useless, he found himself writing.
mike


Its difficult, of course, to know the extent to which pretty old approaches to a pesum

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    I know we want to keep this relatively contemporary, but it may be
    worth noting that Hegel's Psychology also gave a prominent place
    to Imagination in the section on Representation, mediating between
    Recollection and Memory. He structured Imagination as (1)
    Reproductive Imagination, (2) Associative Imagination (3)
    Productive Imagination, which he says leads to the Sign, which he
    describes as Productive Memory. In other words, the transition
    from immediate sensation to Intellect is accomplished through
    these three grades of Imagination.

    Andy
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Andy Blunden*
    http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
    <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>


    mike cole wrote:

        Here are some questions I have after reading Strawson and
        Williams.

        Kant et al (including Russian developmentalists whose work i
        am trying to
        mine for empirical
        strategies and already-accumulated results) speak of productive
        imagination. The Russians write that productive imagination
        develops.

        At first I thought that the use of productive implies that
        there must be a
        kind of ​imagination called UNproductive imagination. But I
        learned that
        instead the idea of RE-productive imagination appears and is
        linked to
        memory.

        So, it seems that imagination is an ineluctable part of
        anticipation and
        memory.
        Imagine that!
        mike

        On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM, HENRY SHONERD
        <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
            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.
            Henry

                On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Larry Purss
                <lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>>
                wrote:

                Henry, Mike, and others interested in this topic.

                I too see the affinities with notions of the third
                *space* and the
            analogy
                to *gap-filling*
                I am on holiday so limited access to internet.
                However, I wanted to mention Raymond Williams and his
                notion of
            "structures
                of feeling" that David K references. This notion is
                explored under the
                notion of historical *styles* that exist as a *set* of
                modalities that
            hang
                together.  This notion suggests there is a form of
                knowing that is
            forming
                but has not yet formed [but can be "felt"
                [perceived??] if we think
                imaginatively.  Raymond explores the imaginal as *style*
                Larry
                On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:38 PM, HENRY SHONERD
                <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
            wrote:
                    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,
                    Henry

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






--
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.



Attachment: Erinnerung.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document