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

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

Hi Larry,

I didn't read a direct question in your request.  If you're asking about
the relation between understanding and interpretation, I would say that
they are both predicated on appreciation of the meanings in the situations.

Note that the criteria of a "test by imitation" will necessarily refer to a
special kind of imitation, that traverses the latently meaningful
circumstances that represent what skill is being imitated.  Imitation by
rote will not suffice for content requiring interpretation that is
contingent upon the orientation and goals of the actor.

This is the same thing as the assertion that one must engage with the
problem rather than learning set rules, in order to achieve conceptual


On 21 September 2015 at 18:59, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?