[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
HENRY SHONERD
hshonerd@gmail.com
Tue Dec 16 20:15:39 PST 2014
Francine and Mike!
This is so exciting that you are sharing this dialog between the two of you. Better than any conference panel discussion I have attended. So much hope here. I take it you are talking about the bibliography initiative of Helena and Annalisa? If so, I hope Vera and Andy and Anna Stetsenko weigh in soon on imagination and creativity in a Vygotskian vein. Andy has just edited a book on collaborative projects which includes an article by Vera, as well as one by Anna Stetenko, both articles on creative projects. In an article he wrote last year entitled “Power, Activity and Human Flourishing he quoted Shakespeare:
“There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.”
There are no guarantees. But there is hope. Let’s party!
Henry
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 5:58 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, Francine, there are no precedents regarding curatorship since this
> would be the first of its kind. And you need no introduction as a long time
> participant in xmca meanderings. Hopefully your example will encourage
> others with similar expertise to offer their time.
>
> I attach the paper you sent me back in 2010. "A reconstruction of
> Vygotsky;s theory of creativity." Along with Ribot all of xmca and I get to
> read and discuss it now.
>
> The question of the relation of imagination and creativity has to come up
> more explicitly as the conversation progresses but I have, because my
> starting point is around micro-analysis of perception of stabilized images
> and Suvorov's intuitive characterization of voobrazhenie as "rising off of
> the world and returning to it again" I have not dared to cross the fuzzy
> zone into creativity. If you feel they must be discussed together, the
> thread/theme could be changed to Imagination and Creativity, but i fear all
> hell might break loose when our varied common sense intuitions of the
> meanings of these words clash with our imperfect understandings of their
> usages in theoretical discourse. Your call. :-)
>
> Great that you can engage this way!!!
> mike
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:32 PM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Message from Francine,
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I would gladly curate the discussion. Would that change anything as far as
>> the manner of discourse goes? Do I need an introduction?
>>
>> Do you still have the e-mail copy of my 2012 publication? (I no longer
>> have it on my computer) It has been published.
>>
>> Perhaps, Merlin's owl can shed some light since he like Merlin must have
>> lived backwards in time (being prescient about the future).
>>
>> To all XMCARs - let me say that I think the study of imagination and
>> creativity
>> is what gives us hope for the future - at a time when lack of imagination,
>> stagnation, and 'acting act' cast a shadow over the world. Vygotsky did say
>> that creativity is like electricity - it brings light to dark places.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: mcole@ucsd.edu
>>> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:06:26 -0800
>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
>>>
>>> For Francine via Larry
>>>
>>> Hi Francine. I am sorry that your paper(s) did not make it into the
>>> lchcnewsletter. Clearly a result of the bad judgment of youth, or maybe
>> it
>>> was the lousy organization of LCHC!
>>>
>>> As you can see, in old age I come slowly around to understanding
>>> imagination in a manner that reveals it to be central to a lot of what I
>>> have
>>> worried about in my trying to teach about "mediational theories of mind."
>>>
>>> It seems that your first paper and your upcoming paper as well as
>>> everything in between should be a part of the Bibliography being compiled
>>> at present and be general knowledge among the participants.
>>>
>>> The thread/topic of Imagination on xmca appears to be solidifying. It
>> sure
>>> would be great to have an authentic expert in the topic curate the
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Might you volunteer for the role?
>>> When did Minerva's owl take off?
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> So far it has been wonderfully educational for me.
>>> mk
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:44 AM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Message from Francine Smolucha:
>>>>
>>>> Vygotsky referenced Ribot in the three papers that Vygotsky wrote
>>>> on the development of imagination and creativity. Michael attached a
>> copy
>>>> of one
>>>> translation of Imagination and Creativity in Childhood (original 1930).
>>>> But there are two other papers Imagination and Creativity of the
>> Adolescent
>>>> (1931) and The Development of Imagination in Childhood (1932).
>>>>
>>>> I translated these three papers into English in the mid-1980's and
>>>> presented a summary
>>>> at the APA convention in 1986 which was published in a German journal
>> in
>>>> 1986.
>>>> The Newsletter of the Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition
>> accepted
>>>> that
>>>> same paper for publication in 1986 but has never published it. In 1990
>> and
>>>> 1991 my
>>>> translations of two of the papers were published in Soviet Psychology.
>> The
>>>> connections
>>>> with Ribot's theory were explicitly discussed in my 1992 publication "A
>>>> Reconstruction of Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity" along with excerpts
>> from
>>>> my translations of the three
>>>> Vygotsky papers on imagination and creativity (Creativity Research
>> Journal
>>>> 1992 Vol 5 No 1).
>>>>
>>>> It was not until 2011, that I was able to find an English translation
>> of
>>>> Ribot's
>>>> book Essay on the Creative Imagination (published in French in 1900,
>>>> English
>>>> translation 2006). In my 2012 publication the Vygotsky-Ribot
>> connection is
>>>> further elaborated on (see Smolucha, L. and Smolucha, F. Vygotsky's
>> Theory
>>>> of Creativity:
>>>> Figurative Thinking Allied with Literal Thinking in O. Saracho (Ed).
>>>> Contemporary
>>>> Perspectives on research in Creativity in Early Childhood. Information
>> Age
>>>> Publishing
>>>> pp. 63-85).
>>>>
>>>> I am glad a new generation of scholars has taken an interest in these
>>>> topics.
>>>> By the way, my new paper on Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity and
>> Cultural
>>>> Synergy, builds on all this, and will be presented in Europe next year.
>>>>
>>>>> From: mcole@ucsd.edu
>>>>> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:10:47 -0800
>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
>>>>>
>>>>> Colleagues-- The Vygotsky text that contains the material on Ribot
>> and an
>>>>> introduction to the set of public lectures it was part of are
>> attached in
>>>>> order to further this educational disussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> A number of ideas that were perplexing me and I was stumbling around
>>>>> thinking about are laid out very well in these two documents. They
>> may
>>>>> perhaps help to ground this part of the discussion of imagination.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am certainly benefiting from reading them. My last reading was very
>>>>> narrowly focused and I was totally ignorant of the links between
>> what LSV
>>>>> was writing about imagination and Kant or Hegel. And most amazingly,
>> I
>>>>> ignored the discussion of Ribot. And, naturally, I have the attached
>> pdf
>>>>> in my file on imagination (!).
>>>>>
>>>>> There must be some lesson here about the social, culturally mediated
>>>> nature
>>>>> of individual memory out there somewhere. :-))
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:49 AM, larry smolucha <
>> lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message from Francine Smolucha:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To the old-timers on XMCA I have to say HELLO!!!!!!
>>>>>> To the Newcomers read on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Vygotsky's three papers on the development of imagination and
>>>>>> creativity in childhood and adolescence, Vygotsky specifically
>> defined
>>>>>> memory as
>>>>>> reproductive imagination and creativity as combinatory imagination
>>>>>> (1930 paper published in 1990 in Soviet Psychology
>>>>>> p. 85 - F. Smolucha translator). All three of Vygotsky's papers on
>> the
>>>>>> development
>>>>>> of imagination and creativity cited Ribot's book Essay on the
>> Creative
>>>>>> Imagination (1900).
>>>>>> In these three papers and in his writings on play, Vygotsky also
>>>> mentioned
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> imagination and creativity emerge from children's pretend play
>>>> involving
>>>>>> analogical/metaphorical/figurative thinking in which one object is
>>>>>> substituted for another
>>>>>> (using a stick as a horse).
>>>>>> Newcomers to XMCA will forgive me if I seem a bit short
>>>> tempered
>>>>>> when dealing with
>>>>>> the veteram XMCAR's on these topics - but Michael Cole and others
>> are
>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>> familiar with my pioneering work in this area. I even emailed
>> Michael a
>>>>>> copy
>>>>>> of my 2012 publication on these topics to post for discussion on
>> XMCA -
>>>>>> that paper not
>>>>>> only reviews these topics but provides the formal bibliography
>>>> including
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> reference to Ribot's book Essay on Creative Imagination that was
>> first
>>>>>> published in
>>>>>> English in 2006 (I discovered the 2006 translation while writing my
>>>> 2012
>>>>>> publication).
>>>>>> For a review of all of this, and the past 25 years of
>> research
>>>> on
>>>>>> these topics,
>>>>>> read my 2012 publication "Vygotsky's Theory of Creative
>> Imagination:
>>>>>> Figurative thinking Allied with Literal Thinking" (authors: Larry
>> and
>>>>>> Francine Smolucha) published in Contemporary
>>>>>> Readings on Research in Creativity in Early Childhood (O. Saracho
>>>> editor)
>>>>>> Information Age Publishing 2012 pp. 63 - 85.
>>>>>> I applaud those interested in pursuing these ideas in new
>>>>>> directions, and an important
>>>>>> part of that effort requires a understanding of where these ideas
>> came
>>>>>> from so you are not
>>>>>> just reinventing the wheel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: mcole@ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:42:05 -0800
>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes perfect sense to me concerning Ribot, David. Where does LSV
>>>> write
>>>>>>> about Ribot on imagination? I lost the forest for the trees and
>> am
>>>> lost
>>>>>>> back in memory land!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And who do we turn to for the evidence that animals other than
>> humans
>>>>>>> engage in volitional attention? I was under the impression that
>> it is
>>>>>>> through subordinating oneself to a external/cultural mediator one
>>>> learned
>>>>>>> to control oneself from the outside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These seem like important issues to be straight about, even if
>> one
>>>>>>> disagrees about their implications/interpretation (if that is
>>>> possible!)
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:19 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
> <smolucha.pdf>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list