[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Kant's Imagination
- To: Ed Wall <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kant's Imagination
- From: Lplarry <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:14:18 -0800
- In-reply-to: <8213AF51-7C8B-43CE-9B52-FAC3FB8B29F9@umich.edu>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <BY2PR07MB107D4436F4E6466457B2B9EC1080@BY2PR07MB107.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AB83C26C-B5A7-485E-B80C-BEA79E7F68CD@umich.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHCnM0DsZ7dBez4JB=Ot4_o9vSR3wG9UZe1D3m1swcoYJp4y8Q@mail.gmail.com> <D12717D5-0173-4E5B-BFCB-9579F525A790@umich.edu> <email@example.com> <16E7372C-D528-458F-A156-0E12D04E6408@umich.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHCnM0D8KFgNXSsGekFBjj=CXQH2KKw4bk5OG=GSJJkoJp6J_w@mail.gmail.com> <8213AF51-7C8B-43CE-9B52-FAC3FB8B29F9@umich.edu>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
We had a conversation which shifted offline and this is returning our conversation (online).
Kant seems a pivotal figure (notice the double meaning) as we reflect on the location of the imaginal (and the location of reason)
From: "Ed Wall" <email@example.com>
Sent: 2015-12-09 11:39 AM
To: "Larry Purss" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Kant's Imagination
Mike and Larry
In that case I would suggest this slightly abbreviated version for which the subject line is appropriate.
On Dec 9, 2015, at 11:58 AM, mike cole <email@example.com> wrote:
Can't we take this to the whole group?
The productive/unproductive distinction is important to the discussion.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Lplarry <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I am going to try to follow your lead and stay with this categorization of 2types of imagination.
(reproductive imagination) and
(productive imagination) which is intimately connected with conceptual thinking.
The question this opens for myself is what (attitude) is on display with this way of understanding the imaginal as mediating the productive (conceptual) AND the reproductive. (perceptual apprehension and memory).
The reproductive lines up with (sensibility) and the productive lines up with (understanding).
If these categories are expressing a particular (attitude) then I am suggesting the way Kant imaginally composed his categories expresses a relation to the character (and value) of productive forces (an attitude)
Ed, I am proposing this line of thought (itself) has been productive and from this root stock many branches have developed exploring our (conceptual) nature.
In no way am I denying the fertility of this conceptual approach towards productive forces.
This line of composing the categories I am proposing generates rejoinders that explore THIS process as a particular approach to composing lifeworlds.
I will offer one example of rejoinders that stays close to the (attitude) of Kant .
Clarence Irving Lewis is one of the classical pragmatists who composed a (conceptual) pragmatism. My intent is to show the movement in the rejoinders to Kant not to choose a side.
The traditional example of the a priori par excellence is the laws of logic. These cannot be derived from experience since they must FIRST be taken for granted in order to prove them. They make EXPLICIT our (general) modes of classification. And they impose upon experience no real limitation.
in other words our categories and classifications are (general) modes expressing our (attitudes) towards what is given.
I will pause here. I hope I have tried to start from within your example. I am suggesting our categorical imperatives and our structures reveal (attitudes).
I am suggesting the image of the imaginal mediating the productive (conceptual) and the reproductive (sensibility) IS generative of further elaboration.
This image also as Lewis says makes explicit (reveals) our general modes of classification as attitudinal initiatives.
This topic (imaginal) and commentary are generating reflective thought and meaningful action.
Let's see where CHAT takes us.
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch