[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination

[HENRY SHONERD]

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>
>> 
>> 
>>