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

[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination



Lakoff and Johnson have lots about this, Andy.

Martin

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195-208.


On Dec 18, 2014, at 4:54 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> the kind of metaphor which I find most interesting is the metaphorical use of prepositions like:
> - "there is some value IN your argument"
> - "I'd like to go OVER that again"
> - "I'd don't see what is BEHIND that line of thinking"
> - "Let's go THROUGH that again"
> 
> and so on.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> 
> 
> larry smolucha wrote:
>> Message from Francine Smolucha:
>> 
>> Forgive me for replying to myself -
>> 
>> In regard to combinatory imagination and the synergistic possibilities:
>> 
>> In the Genetic Roots of Thought and Speech (1929) published in Thought
>> and Speech (1934) [or Thought and Language as translated into English 1962]
>> Vygotsky discussed how word meaning is more than the 'additive' value of the
>> two components (the sensory-motor thought and the speech vocalization).
>> He used the analogy of H2O in which two chemical elements that are flammable
>> gases combine to produce water, which is neither flammable nor a gas.
>> 
>> [Just a note for Newcomers - in the early 20th century European Developmental
>> Psychologists used the word 'genetic' to mean 'developmental' hence the
>> Developmental Roots of Thought and Speech or in the case of Piaget's Genetic
>> Epistemology read as Developmental Epistemology.
>> 
>> And to those XMCARs who mentioned earlier synthesis and synthesis based on
>> metaphoric thinking - definitely - we even see this in Vygotsky's example of H2O.
>> 
>>  
>>> From: lsmolucha@hotmail.com
>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:18:07 -0600
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
>>> 
>>> Message from Francine Smolucha:
>>> 
>>> Combinatory or recombinative imagination could be synergistic
>>> and produce something new that is more than the sum of the parts.
>>> It does not have to mean that "imagination is nothing more than the
>>> recombining of concrete experiences, nothing really new can ever be imagined"
>>> (David Kellogg's most recent email.)
>>> 
>>> A couple things to consider:
>>> 
>>> (1) Sensory perception involves some element of imagination as the brain has
>>> to organize incoming data into a pattern (even at the simplest level of the Gestalt
>>> Law of Closure or Figure/Ground Images). 
>>> (2) Memories themselves are reconstructed and not just photographic.
>>> 
>>> (3) The goal of reproductive imagination (memory) is to try to accurately reproduce
>>> the sensory-motor experience of some external event. Whereas, the goal of combinatory
>>> imagination is to create something new out of memories, dreams, musings, and even
>>> sensory motor activity involving the actual manipulation of objects and symbols.
>>> 
>>> (4) I think it would be useful to think of the different ways that things and concepts can be
>>> combines. For example, I could just combine salt and sugar and flour.
>>>                                           I can add water and it dissolves a bit
>>>                                           But adding heat changes the combination into a pancake.
>>>                        [Is this synergistic?]
>>> 
>>>              Sorry I have to go now - I am thinking of more examples to put the discussion
>>>              in the metaphysical realm.
>>>                                           
>>>    
>>>> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:05:49 +0900
>>>> From: dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
>>>> 
>>>> Let me--while keeping within the two screen limit--make the case for
>>>> Vygotsky's obsession with discrediting associationism. I think it's not
>>>> just about mediation; as Michael points out, there are associationists who
>>>> are willing to accept that a kind of intermediary associationism exists and
>>>> some mediationists who are willing to accept that as mediation. Vygotsky
>>>> has far more in mind. How do we, without invoking religion, explain the
>>>> uniqueness of our species?
>>>> 
>>>> Is it just the natural egocentrism that every species feels for its own
>>>> kind? From an associationist point of view, and from a Piagetian
>>>> perspective--and even from a strict Darwinian one--true maturity as a
>>>> species comes with acknowledging that there is nothing more to it than
>>>> that: we are simply a singularly maladaptive variety of primate, and our
>>>> solemn temples and clouded towers are but stones piled upon rocks in order
>>>> to hide this. The value of our cultures have to be judged the same way as
>>>> any other adaptation: in terms of survival value.
>>>> 
>>>> Making the case for the higher psychological functions and for language is
>>>> not simply a matter of making a NON-religious case human exceptionalism.
>>>> It's also, in a strange way, a way of making the case for the vanguard role
>>>> of the lower classes in human progress. For other species, prolonging
>>>> childhood is giving hostages to fortune,and looking after the sick and the
>>>> elderly is tantamount to suicide. But because artificial organs (tools) and
>>>> even artificial intelligences (signs) are so important for our species, it
>>>> is in the societies and the sectors of society where these "circuitous,
>>>> compensatory means of development" are most advanced that lead our
>>>> development as a species. The wretched of the earth always been short on
>>>> rocks and stones to pile up and on the wherewithal for material culture
>>>> generally. But language and ideology is quite another matter: verily, here
>>>> the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
>>>> 
>>>> I think the idea of imagination is a distal form of attention is simply the
>>>> logical result of Ribot's model of imagination: he says there are only two
>>>> kinds of imagination: reproductive, and recombinative. So imagination is
>>>> nothing more than the recombination of concrete experiences, and nothing
>>>> really new can ever be imagined. But as Vygotsky says, when you hear the
>>>> name of a place, you don't have to have actually been there to be able to
>>>> imagine it. So there must be some artificial memory at work in word meaning.
>>>> 
>>>> You probably know the hoary old tale about Archimedes, who was given a
>>>> crown of gold and who discovered that the gold had been mixed with silver
>>>> by measuring the displacement of an equivalent quantity of gold. Well, we
>>>> now know that this method doesn't actually work: it's not possible to
>>>> measure the differences in water displacement that precisely. The method
>>>> that Archimedes actually used was much closer to the "principal of
>>>> buoyancy" which Vygotsky always talks about.
>>>> 
>>>> And how do we know this? Because of the Archimedes palimpsest, a velum on
>>>> which seven texts were written at right angles to each other. Because
>>>> parchment was so expensive, the velum was scraped and written over every
>>>> century or so, but because the skin it was made of was soft, the pressure
>>>> of the writing preserved the older texts below the new ones when the old
>>>> text was scraped off. And one of the lower texts is the only known Greek
>>>> copy of Archimedes' "On Floating Bodies".
>>>> 
>>>> Neither the relationship of these texts to meaning nor their relationship
>>>> to each other is a matter of association (and in fact they are related to
>>>> each other by a kind of failed dissociation). But it's quite similar to the
>>>> way that word meanings are reused and develop anew.
>>>> 
>>>> (Did I do it? Is this two screens?)
>>>> 
>>>> David Kellogg
>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>> 
>>>> On 16 December 2014 at 14:24, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>> I meant to ask: What does it mean that Ribot, as an associationist, “sees
>>>>> imagination as a rather distal form of attention”?
>>>>> Henry
>>>>> 
>>>>>        
>>>>>> On Dec 15, 2014, at 5:19 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>            
>>>>> 
>>>>>        
>>> 		 	   		      
>> 		 	   		  
>