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

[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination



I’m old but consider myself a late bloomer. Thanks to the chat, especially the latest ferment and fermenters, I am sensing we’re all getting a new lease on life as Vygotskians. Vera introduced me to him over thirty years ago. Finally, I’m starting to get it. Or so I think. Hey, if Ribot looked as generative to Vygotsky and Larry as he does to me, I must be on to something right, right?
Henry
P.S.  
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 12:44 PM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Message from Francine Smolucha:
> 
> Vygotsky  referenced Ribot  in the three papers that Vygotsky wrote
> on the development of imagination and creativity. Michael attached a copy of one
> translation of Imagination and Creativity in Childhood (original 1930).
> But there are two other papers Imagination and Creativity of the Adolescent
> (1931) and The Development of Imagination in Childhood (1932).
> 
> I translated these three papers into English in the mid-1980's and presented a summary
> at the APA convention in 1986 which was published in a German journal in 1986.
> The Newsletter of the Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition accepted that 
> same paper for publication in 1986 but has never published it. In 1990 and 1991 my 
> translations of two of the papers were published in Soviet Psychology. The connections
> with Ribot's theory were explicitly discussed in my 1992 publication "A Reconstruction of Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity" along with excerpts from my translations of the three 
> Vygotsky papers on imagination and creativity (Creativity Research Journal 1992 Vol 5 No 1).
> 
> It was not until 2011, that I was able to find an English translation of Ribot's
> book Essay on the Creative Imagination (published in French in 1900, English 
> translation 2006). In my 2012 publication the Vygotsky-Ribot connection is
> further elaborated on (see Smolucha, L. and Smolucha, F. Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity:
> Figurative Thinking Allied with Literal Thinking in O. Saracho (Ed). Contemporary
> Perspectives on research in Creativity in Early Childhood. Information Age Publishing 
> pp. 63-85).
> 
> I am glad a new generation of scholars has taken an interest in these topics.
> By the way, my new paper on Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity and Cultural
> Synergy, builds on all this, and will be presented in Europe next year.
> 
>> From: mcole@ucsd.edu
>> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:10:47 -0800
>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
>> 
>> Colleagues-- The Vygotsky text that contains the material on Ribot and an
>> introduction to the set of public lectures it was part of are attached in
>> order to further this educational disussion.
>> 
>> A number of ideas that were perplexing me and I was stumbling around
>> thinking about are laid out very well in these two documents. They may
>> perhaps help to ground this part of the discussion of imagination.
>> 
>> I am certainly benefiting from reading them. My last reading was very
>> narrowly focused and I was totally ignorant of the links between what LSV
>> was writing about imagination and Kant or Hegel. And most amazingly, I
>> ignored the discussion of Ribot. And, naturally, I have the attached pdf
>> in my file on imagination (!).
>> 
>> There must be some lesson here about the social, culturally mediated nature
>> of individual memory out there somewhere.  :-))
>> 
>> mike
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:49 AM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Message from Francine Smolucha:
>>> 
>>> To the old-timers on XMCA I have to say HELLO!!!!!!
>>> To the Newcomers read on.
>>> 
>>> In Vygotsky's three papers on the development of imagination and
>>> creativity in childhood and adolescence, Vygotsky specifically defined
>>> memory as
>>> reproductive imagination  and creativity as combinatory imagination
>>> (1930 paper published in 1990 in Soviet Psychology
>>> p. 85 - F. Smolucha translator). All three of Vygotsky's papers on the
>>> development
>>> of imagination and creativity cited Ribot's book Essay on the Creative
>>> Imagination (1900).
>>> In these three papers and in his writings on play, Vygotsky also mentioned
>>> that
>>> imagination and creativity emerge from children's pretend play involving
>>> analogical/metaphorical/figurative thinking in which one object is
>>> substituted for another
>>> (using a stick as a horse).
>>>        Newcomers to XMCA will forgive me if I seem a bit short tempered
>>> when dealing with
>>> the veteram XMCAR's on these topics - but Michael Cole and others are
>>> certainly
>>> familiar with my pioneering work in this area. I even emailed Michael a
>>> copy
>>> of my 2012 publication on these topics to post for discussion on XMCA -
>>> that paper not
>>> only reviews these topics but provides the formal bibliography including
>>> the
>>> reference to Ribot's book Essay on Creative Imagination that was first
>>> published in
>>> English in 2006 (I discovered the 2006 translation while writing my 2012
>>> publication).
>>>        For a review of all of this, and the past 25 years of research on
>>> these topics,
>>> read my 2012 publication "Vygotsky's Theory of Creative Imagination:
>>> Figurative thinking Allied with Literal Thinking" (authors: Larry and
>>> Francine Smolucha) published in Contemporary
>>> Readings on Research in Creativity in Early Childhood (O. Saracho editor)
>>> Information Age Publishing 2012 pp. 63 - 85.
>>>        I applaud those interested in pursuing these ideas in new
>>> directions, and an important
>>> part of that effort requires a understanding of where these ideas came
>>> from so you are not
>>> just reinventing the wheel.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: mcole@ucsd.edu
>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:42:05 -0800
>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
>>>> 
>>>> Makes perfect sense to me concerning Ribot, David. Where does LSV write
>>>> about Ribot on imagination? I lost the forest for the trees and am lost
>>>> back in memory land!
>>>> 
>>>> And who do we turn to for the evidence that animals other than humans
>>>> engage in volitional attention? I was under the impression that it is
>>>> through subordinating oneself to a external/cultural mediator one learned
>>>> to control oneself from the outside.
>>>> 
>>>> These seem like important issues to be straight about, even if one
>>>> disagrees about their implications/interpretation (if that is possible!)
>>>> mike
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:19 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the one hand, Ribot is really responsible for the division between
>>>>> higher and lower psychological functions. On the other, because Ribot
>>> is an
>>>>> associationist, he sees imagination as a rather distal form of
>>> attention.
>>>>> And, as Mike says, he does associate it with the transition from
>>> forest to
>>>>> farm, so in that sense he is responsible for the division between the
>>> two
>>>>> great periods of semio-history: the literal and commonsensical world
>>> of the
>>>>> forest where attention has to be harnessed to fairly prosaic uses in
>>> life
>>>>> and death struggles for existence, and the much more "imaginative"
>>> (that
>>>>> is, image based) forms of attention we find in the world of the
>>> farm,where
>>>>> written accounts (e.g. calendars) are kept, where long winter months
>>> are
>>>>> wiled away with fables, and we are much more likely to encounter
>>> talking
>>>>> animals (but much more rarely talking plants!). Here attention has to
>>> be
>>>>> more voluntary.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Vygotsky rejects all this, of course. I think he has a very clear
>>>>> understanding of the kind of Rousseauvian romanticism that underpins
>>> Ribot
>>>>> here, but above all he rejects associationism. Vygotsky points out the
>>>>> LOGICAL flaw in Ribot's argument: if these productive practices
>>> really are
>>>>> the true source of volitional attention and thus of imagination, there
>>>>> isn't any reason to see a qualitative difference between human and
>>> animal
>>>>> imagination, because of course animals are perfectly capable of
>>> volitional
>>>>> attention (and in some ways are better at it than humans). Without a
>>> theory
>>>>> of the difference language makes, there isn't any basis for Ribot's
>>>>> distinction between higher and lower psychological functions at all.
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 16 December 2014 at 01:02, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lots of interesting suggestions of new kinds of imagination, thanks
>>> to
>>>>> all
>>>>>> for the food for thought.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ribot, not Robot, Henry. He was apparently very influential around
>>> the
>>>>> time
>>>>>> emprical psychology got going in the late 19th century. I had seen
>>> work
>>>>> on
>>>>>> memory before, but not imagination.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Robert-  Does generative = productive and reflective equal
>>> reproductive?
>>>>>> Overall I am pondering how to link up empirical studies of
>>> development of
>>>>>> imagination to these various categories --- The cost of being a
>>> relative
>>>>>> newcomer to the topic.
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:19 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Forgive me coming late to this! Robot is now on my bucket list.
>>> This
>>>>>>> business of movement recycles our cross-modal musings from some
>>> weeks
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> our metaphorizing. (I just got an auto spell correct that
>>> segmented the
>>>>>>> last two words of the previous sentence as “met aphorizing”. Puns,
>>>>>>> according to my Wikipedia is a kind of metaphor. :)
>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Dec 14, 2014, at 10:57 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> 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
>>>> 
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with
>>> an
>>>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>