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

[Xmca-l] the technical meaning of "imitation" that requires "under/standing"



I wanted to return to Seth Chaiklin's article on ZPD and the concept of
"imitation" which has a technical meaning for Vygotsky that implies that
only what is "under/stood" can be imitated.

I want to tie this RELATION to Gadamer's notion that one can only
"interpret" what is "under/stood".

Now Gadamer's notion of "interpretation" is based on Heidegger's notions of
"FORE-STRUCTURES" [for example fore-concepts].

I have a hunch that these two relations [imitation/understanding] and
[interpretation/understanding] may overlap in certain aspects.

I could say more but I am fascinated by this notion of the place where we
stand that is "under" us is already a felt "sense" prior to its being
articulated in "gestures" and different "modalities" [touch hearing sight].

Language as a primary way of expressing the fore-structures. Development as
a way of articulating the shifting structure-function-genesis through
imitation and interpretation but indicating what is already "felt"
under/standing?
I hope this question is somewhat clear?