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

[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination



For Francine via Larry,

Dear Professor Smolucha,
I didn’t notice your name until after I sent an email extolling Larry for published work that I realize you and your husband co-authored. You must be one of those creative married couples (like the Pasteurs) that my mentor Vera John-Steiner writes about in her book, Creative Collaboration. In another paper of Vera, Road to Competence in an Alien Land—all about L2 acquisition--translators and interpreters represent la creme of L2 learners. I wouldn’t know, because I don’t know Russian, but I understand Vygotsky is devilishly hard, and not just because he’s Russian. So glad you are back in the chat! I’m a newbie. And I am so grateful to Mike for his initiative in getting your publications out. Couldn’t be better timed IMHO, given the tide of the current chat.

I will be in Europe this summer. Where are you presenting your paper? 

With respect,
Henry Shonerd


> On Dec 16, 2014, at 3:06 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
> For Francine via Larry
> 
> Hi Francine. I am sorry that your paper(s) did not make it into the
> lchcnewsletter. Clearly a result of the bad judgment of youth, or maybe it
> was the lousy organization of LCHC!
> 
> As you can see, in old age I come slowly around to understanding
> imagination in a manner that reveals it to be central to a lot of what I
> have
> worried about in my trying to teach about "mediational theories of mind."
> 
> It seems that your first paper and your upcoming paper as well as
> everything in between should be a part of the Bibliography being compiled
> at present and be general knowledge among the participants.
> 
> The thread/topic of Imagination on xmca appears to be solidifying. It sure
> would be great to have an authentic expert in the topic curate the
> discussion.
> 
> Might you volunteer for the role?
> When did Minerva's owl take off?
> 
> mike
> 
> So far it has been wonderfully educational for me.
> mk
> 
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:44 AM, 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.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.