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

[Xmca-l] Re: Metaphors



Helena and David,
I wonder if this quote below from Benjamin Whorf (one of the so-called
authors of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis - a kindred tradition to
Vygotsky's) might be useful. In it Whorf is comparing the Hopi notion of
"time" to the SAE (Standard Average European - including English) notion of
"time" and how each of these languages offers different affordances of
meaning. Whereas Hopi has a much more processual understanding, English has
a much more reified/objectified/entified sense of time. (btw, I think the
first paragraph is easier to follow than the second - and in that first
paragraph you'll find our old friend "imagination").
David, does this jibe with what you were pointing to?
-greg

Taken from:
http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/extra4/sloan/mousesite/Secondary/Whorfframe2.html

" "Such terms as summer, winter, September, morning, noon, sunset" are with
us nouns, and have little formal linguistic difference from other nouns.
They can be subjects or objects, and we say "at sunset" or "in winter" just
as we say "at a corner" or "in an orchard." They are pluralized and
numerated like nouns of physical objects, as we have seen. Our thought
about the referents of such words hence becomes objectified. Without
objectification, it would be a subjective experience of real time, i.e. of
the consciousness of "becoming later and later"--simply a cyclic phase
similar to an earlier phase in that ever-later-becoming duration. Only by
imagination can such a cyclic phase be set beside another and another in
the manner of a spatial (i.e. visually perceived) configuration. "But such
is the power of linguistic analogy that we do so objectify cyclic phasing.
We do it even by saying "a phase" and "phases" instead of e.g., "phasing."
And the pattern of individual and mass nouns, with the resulting binomial
formula of formless item plus form, is so general that it is implicit for
all nouns, and hence our very generalized formless items like "substance,
matter," by which we can fill out the binomial for an enormously wide range
of nouns. But even these are not quite generalized enough to take in our
phase nouns. So for the phase nouns we have made a formless item, "time."
We have made it by using "a time," i.e. an occasion or a phase, in the
pattern of a mass noun, just as from "a summer" we make "summer" in the
pattern of a mass noun. Thus with our binomial formula we can say and think
"a moment of time, a second of time, a year of time." Let me again point
out that the pattern is simply that of "a bottle of milk" or "a piece of
cheese." Thus we are assisted to imagine that "a summer" actually contains
or consists of such-and-such a quantity of "time."

In Hopi however all phase terms, like "summer, morning," etc., are not
nouns but a kind of adverb, to use the nearest SAE analogy. They are a
formal part of speech by themselves, distinct from nouns, verbs, and even
other Hopi "adverbs." Such a word is not a case form or a locative pattern,
like "des Abends" or "in the morning." It contains no morpheme like one of
"in the house" or "at the tree." It means "when it is morning" or "while
morning-phase is occurring." These "temporal s" are not used as subjects or
objects, or at all like nouns. One does not say "it's a hot summer" or
"summer is hot"; summer is not hot, summer is only WHEN conditions are hot,
WHEN heat occurs. One does not say "THIS summer," but "summer now" or
"summer recently." There is no objectification, as a region, an extent, a
quantity, of the subjective duration feeling. Nothing is suggested about
time except the perpetual "getting later" of it. And so there is no basis
here for a formless item answering to our "time." "



On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> David, I am with you and etremeley interested right up to this:
>
> "But grammatical metaphors, such as the nominalizations that Newton
> and Galileo created to talk about gravity as an entity and to create
> sentences that look like mathematical equations, are highly productive,
> which is why they still form the basis of scientific writing and thinking
> today."
>
> Can you slow down for a moment and give some examples? I lose you when you
> say "created to talk about gravity as an entity".
>
> Thank you,
>
> Helena
>
>
> Helena Worthen
> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>
> On Dec 18, 2014, at 1:59 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>
> > As Helena points out, prepositions are from the "grammatical" end of what
> > Henry has called the "lexicon-grammar" continuum (and what Halliday calls
> > "wording" or "lexicogrammar"). What that means is that they have three
> > properties that words from the more "lexical" end do not have:
> >
> > a) They are a closed class. You can't invent new ones. (You can,
> actually,
> > but you can't teach people to use it, whereas if you invent a new name
> or a
> > new noun like "lexicogrammar", you can).
> >
> > b) They are systemic. They are not liimited to specific semantic field
> (the
> > way that "lexicogrammar" is limited to a particular area of linguistics)
> > but can be used wherever nouns and adverbial phrases are used.
> >
> > c) They are proportional. They always have more or less the same effect,
> > which is why when you say "there's a flaw in your argument" the "in" has
> > more or less the same feeling to it as the "in" in "there's a fly in your
> > tea". In contrast, the word "lexicogrammar" MIGHT, in Henry's hands,
> refer
> > to a book or even a footnote.
> >
> > Now, the interesting thing for me is that these properties pretty much
> > define the difference between learning and development, at least as I
> > understand it from Koffka. Learning is adding on functions
> > indefinitely while development works by reorganizing the closed set of
> > functions you already have into new systems. Learning is skill specific
> > and local, while development is quite global in its implications.
> Learning
> > is non-proportional and doesn't generalize to create new systems, while
> > development does. And this is why we learn vocabulary (and forget it just
> > as readily) but grammar seems to grow on you and never goes away.
> >
> > For Halliday, lexical metaphors (e.g. "that little tent of blue that
> people
> > call the sky") are simply metaphors from the non-productive end of the
> > lexicogrammatical continuum, which is why they are crisp, concrete, and
> > vivid. But grammatical metaphors, such as the nominalizations that Newton
> > and Galileo created to talk about gravity as an entity and to create
> > sentences that look like mathematical equations, are highly productive,
> > which is why they still form the basis of scientific writing and thinking
> > today.  For Halliday, the "break" into grammatical metaphor is the third
> > great moment in child development (after the break into mother tongue and
> > the break into disciplinary language in school work).
> >
> > Prepositions, of course, encode geometrical notions: "at" implies zero
> > dimensions ('at a point'), "on' implies one or two ("on a line', 'on a
> > plane') and "in" impies three ('in a space'). But because they are
> > grammatical, and therefore productive, we also use them with time: 'at a
> > point in time', 'on a morning/afternoon', 'in 2015'. Compare: "at
> > Christmas' (a specific time), "on Christmas' (the very day), and "in
> > Christmas' (season).
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >
> > On 19 December 2014 at 04:32, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes to prepositions as metaphors. They "carry across" spatial
> >> relationships from the concrete material world into the conceptual
> >> imaginary world. There are not many of them (50 common ones, and
> between 70
> >> and 150 total, including multi-word prepositions like "as far as" --
> this
> >> is according to https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/prepositions.htm).
> >> We don't make up new ones. They don't have synonyms. Apparently, in
> >> English, they evolved from and did the job done by inflections in parent
> >> languages, examples being cases and tenses.
> >>
> >> But there is real difference in meaning between an inflection like the
> >> dative or accusative cases in Latin and the spatial relationships
> suggested
> >> by contemporary prepositions.
> >>
> >> I'll bet someone else on this list knows a lot more about this.
> >>
> >> Helena Worthen
> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>
> >> On Dec 18, 2014, at 9:58 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
> >>
> >>> I’m with Andy on prepositions as metaphors. They are clearly embodied,
> >> proprioceptive, symbolic, meaningful. A standard intro to linguistics
> (For
> >> example, Yule, The Study of Language) semantics is focused on “lexicon”:
> >> nouns, verbs, adjectives, absolutely no mention of prepositions, being
> part
> >> of grammar, as it is traditionally construed. Langacker and Halliday
> see no
> >> clear demarcation between lexicon and grammar, hence, lexico-grammar.
> (Lo
> >> and behold, my spell check wanted me to write lexicon-grammar, adding
> the
> >> “n”. The traditions holds! Keep them separate!) Word coinings are great
> >> data for imagination and creativity. Did Vygotsky do much of that? In
> >> translation from Russian is word coining ever practiced?
> >>> Henry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 18, 2014, at 2:54 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson