"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. mikeIts difficult, of course, to know the extent to which pretty old approaches to a pesumOn Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.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. HenryOn Dec 13, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Larry Purss <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote: Henry, Mike, and others interested in this topic. I too see the affinities with notions of the third *space* and theanalogyto *gap-filling* I am on holiday so limited access to internet. However, I wanted to mention Raymond Williams and his notion of"structuresof feeling" that David K references. This notion is explored under the notion of historical *styles* that exist as a *set* of modalities thathangtogether. This notion suggests there is a form of knowing that isformingbut 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>>wrote:Mike and Larry, I promise to read your profer, but just want to say how jazzed up I amnowabout this thread. My mind has been going wild, the mind as Larryconstruesit. 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, HenryOn Dec 12, 2014, at 5:09 PM, mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote: For those interested in the imagination thread, attached are twoarticlesby philosophers who have worried about the issue. My current interest stems from the work of CHAT theorists likeZaporozhetsand his students who studied the development of imagination in a manner that, it turns out, goes back to Kant's notion of productiveimagination. Iam not advocating going back to Kant, and have no intention of doingso.But these ideas seem worth pursuing as explicated in the attachedtexts.Through reading the Russians and then these philosophers, I came upontheidea that perception and imagination are very closely linked at several levels of analysis. This is what, in our naivete, Ettienne and I arguedinour paper on imagination sent around earlier as a means of access tothework 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'spaperto 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 willproveuseful 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.
Description: Adobe PDF document