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

[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination



The part played by memory in perception via imagination can be seen as another version of the well-known rising from the abstract to the concrete. In Hegel's Logic, what mediates between immediate perception (Being=Sein) and Thinking (Begriff) is Essence (Wesen, in German the past tense of Sein, i.e. "was").
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


HENRY SHONERD wrote:
Francine and Mike!
This is so exciting that you are sharing this dialog between the two of you. Better than any conference panel discussion I have attended. So much hope here. I take it you are talking about the bibliography initiative of Helena and Annalisa? If so, I hope Vera and Andy and Anna Stetsenko weigh in soon on imagination and creativity in a Vygotskian vein. Andy has just edited a book on collaborative projects which includes an article by Vera, as well as one by Anna Stetenko, both articles on creative projects. In an article he wrote last year entitled “Power, Activity and Human Flourishing he quoted Shakespeare:

“There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.”

There are no guarantees. But there is hope. Let’s party!
Henry



On Dec 16, 2014, at 5:58 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

Well, Francine, there are no precedents regarding curatorship since this
would be the first of its kind. And you need no introduction as a long time
participant in xmca meanderings. Hopefully your example will encourage
others with similar expertise to offer their time.

I attach the paper you sent me back in 2010. "A reconstruction of
Vygotsky;s theory of creativity." Along with Ribot all of xmca and I get to
read and discuss it now.

The question of the relation of imagination and creativity has to come up
more explicitly as the conversation progresses but I have, because my
starting point is around micro-analysis of perception of stabilized images
and Suvorov's intuitive characterization of voobrazhenie as "rising off of
the world and returning to it again" I have not dared to cross the fuzzy
zone into creativity. If you feel they must be discussed together, the
thread/theme could be changed to Imagination and Creativity, but i fear all
hell might break loose when our varied common sense intuitions of the
meanings of these words clash with our imperfect understandings of their
usages in theoretical discourse. Your call. :-)

Great that you can engage this way!!!
mike

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:32 PM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Message from Francine,

Michael,

I would gladly curate the discussion. Would that change anything as far as
the manner of discourse goes? Do I need an introduction?

Do you still have the e-mail copy of my 2012 publication? (I no longer
have it on my computer) It has been published.

Perhaps, Merlin's owl can shed some light since he like Merlin must have
lived backwards in time (being prescient about the future).

To all XMCARs - let me say that I think the study of imagination and
creativity
is what gives us hope for the future - at a time when lack of imagination,
stagnation, and 'acting act' cast a shadow over the world. Vygotsky did say
that creativity is like electricity - it brings light to dark places.





From: mcole@ucsd.edu
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:06:26 -0800
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination

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