[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination

[Larry Purss]

Robert,
I want to push your comment towards Mike's exploration of *rising from the
ground AND returning to the ground*
You wrote:

" In other words, he believed that at the base of
all thinking, there is a metaphoric relationship.  Richards takes this one
step further when he suggests that metaphors are “cognitively irreducible'
"

It is the notion of *irreducuible* and its relation to "the literal". The
 relation OF "the metaphoric" AND t*the literal* -  [the rising and
falling].

I once again want to bring in Raymond Williams and his notion of effective
historical  *styles* that grounds our notions of the fact/fiction boundary
and what is on one side and what is on the other side.
I am suggesting that the interesting phenomena are in the PERMEABLE
boundary markings  [the imaginal place of gaps and gap-filling] .
I wonder if what is irreducible is THIS MOVEMENT ACROSS THE GAPS.

Each specific historically effected socially situated consciousness trans
-verses this "gap" by trans-verse-ing  the gap within the border
lands using our imaginal *constructions* [in other theories we would say
the imaginal *cultivations*]  Performing [moving] within BOTH sedimented
AND emerging consciousness

It seems to me that our socially situated relation to the *imaginal* and
the *literal* may be moving THROUGH OR BEYOND OR INTO OR WITHIN a sea
change in the relation of fact/fiction border lands.

Turning to Vico and Goethe I read as a trans-verse-al movement [or
performance].

In the book *Carnal Hermeneutics* Goethe's "in the beginning is the Deed"
is trans-lated into the motto of the book by BONDING *beginning* AND *deed*
together. The motto becomes:

"in the beginning was embodied sociality"

A quick reference to *the third space* in Kris' article on nondominant
performances. I read her as *cultivating* a new radical phenomenological
embodied sociality that is trans-lating and trans-versing the current
border lands. Living WITHIN THIS *third space* as a radical re-visioning of
our current modernist *style*

Larry




On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>
> Andy and Martin,
>
> A more current book by the metaphoric caped crusaders is Philosophy in the
> Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its challenge to Western Thought (1999) Basic
> Books. I don't know if there is one that has come out since, but this one
> is excellent.
>
> I love this book.
>
> Annalisa
>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:59 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture,     Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
>
> Lakoff and Johnson have lots about this, Andy.
>
> Martin
>
> Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago:
> University of Chicago Press.
>
> Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human
> conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195-208.
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2014, at 4:54 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > the kind of metaphor which I find most interesting is the metaphorical
> use of prepositions like:
> > - "there is some value IN your argument"
> > - "I'd like to go OVER that again"
> > - "I'd don't see what is BEHIND that line of thinking"
> > - "Let's go THROUGH that again"
> >
> > and so on.
> > Andy
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >
> >
> > larry smolucha wrote:
> >> Message from Francine Smolucha:
> >>
> >> Forgive me for replying to myself -
> >>
> >> In regard to combinatory imagination and the synergistic possibilities:
> >>
> >> In the Genetic Roots of Thought and Speech (1929) published in Thought
> >> and Speech (1934) [or Thought and Language as translated into English
> 1962]
> >> Vygotsky discussed how word meaning is more than the 'additive' value
> of the
> >> two components (the sensory-motor thought and the speech vocalization).
> >> He used the analogy of H2O in which two chemical elements that are
> flammable
> >> gases combine to produce water, which is neither flammable nor a gas.
> >>
> >> [Just a note for Newcomers - in the early 20th century European
> Developmental
> >> Psychologists used the word 'genetic' to mean 'developmental' hence the
> >> Developmental Roots of Thought and Speech or in the case of Piaget's
> Genetic
> >> Epistemology read as Developmental Epistemology.
> >>
> >> And to those XMCARs who mentioned earlier synthesis and synthesis based
> on
> >> metaphoric thinking - definitely - we even see this in Vygotsky's
> example of H2O.
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: lsmolucha@hotmail.com
> >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >>> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:18:07 -0600
> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
> >>>
> >>> Message from Francine Smolucha:
> >>>
> >>> Combinatory or recombinative imagination could be synergistic
> >>> and produce something new that is more than the sum of the parts.
> >>> It does not have to mean that "imagination is nothing more than the
> >>> recombining of concrete experiences, nothing really new can ever be
> imagined"
> >>> (David Kellogg's most recent email.)
> >>>
> >>> A couple things to consider:
> >>>
> >>> (1) Sensory perception involves some element of imagination as the
> brain has
> >>> to organize incoming data into a pattern (even at the simplest level
> of the Gestalt
> >>> Law of Closure or Figure/Ground Images).
> >>> (2) Memories themselves are reconstructed and not just photographic.
> >>>
> >>> (3) The goal of reproductive imagination (memory) is to try to
> accurately reproduce
> >>> the sensory-motor experience of some external event. Whereas, the goal
> of combinatory
> >>> imagination is to create something new out of memories, dreams,
> musings, and even
> >>> sensory motor activity involving the actual manipulation of objects
> and symbols.
> >>>
> >>> (4) I think it would be useful to think of the different ways that
> things and concepts can be
> >>> combines. For example, I could just combine salt and sugar and flour.
> >>>                                           I can add water and it
> dissolves a bit
> >>>                                           But adding heat changes the
> combination into a pancake.
> >>>                        [Is this synergistic?]
> >>>
> >>>              Sorry I have to go now - I am thinking of more examples
> to put the discussion
> >>>              in the metaphysical realm.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:05:49 +0900
> >>>> From: dkellogg60@gmail.com
> >>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me--while keeping within the two screen limit--make the case for
> >>>> Vygotsky's obsession with discrediting associationism. I think it's
> not
> >>>> just about mediation; as Michael points out, there are
> associationists who
> >>>> are willing to accept that a kind of intermediary associationism
> exists and
> >>>> some mediationists who are willing to accept that as mediation.
> Vygotsky
> >>>> has far more in mind. How do we, without invoking religion, explain
> the
> >>>> uniqueness of our species?
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it just the natural egocentrism that every species feels for its
> own
> >>>> kind? From an associationist point of view, and from a Piagetian
> >>>> perspective--and even from a strict Darwinian one--true maturity as a
> >>>> species comes with acknowledging that there is nothing more to it than
> >>>> that: we are simply a singularly maladaptive variety of primate, and
> our
> >>>> solemn temples and clouded towers are but stones piled upon rocks in
> order
> >>>> to hide this. The value of our cultures have to be judged the same
> way as
> >>>> any other adaptation: in terms of survival value.
> >>>>
> >>>> Making the case for the higher psychological functions and for
> language is
> >>>> not simply a matter of making a NON-religious case human
> exceptionalism.
> >>>> It's also, in a strange way, a way of making the case for the
> vanguard role
> >>>> of the lower classes in human progress. For other species, prolonging
> >>>> childhood is giving hostages to fortune,and looking after the sick
> and the
> >>>> elderly is tantamount to suicide. But because artificial organs
> (tools) and
> >>>> even artificial intelligences (signs) are so important for our
> species, it
> >>>> is in the societies and the sectors of society where these
> "circuitous,
> >>>> compensatory means of development" are most advanced that lead our
> >>>> development as a species. The wretched of the earth always been short
> on
> >>>> rocks and stones to pile up and on the wherewithal for material
> culture
> >>>> generally. But language and ideology is quite another matter: verily,
> here
> >>>> the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the idea of imagination is a distal form of attention is
> simply the
> >>>> logical result of Ribot's model of imagination: he says there are
> only two
> >>>> kinds of imagination: reproductive, and recombinative. So imagination
> is
> >>>> nothing more than the recombination of concrete experiences, and
> nothing
> >>>> really new can ever be imagined. But as Vygotsky says, when you hear
> the
> >>>> name of a place, you don't have to have actually been there to be
> able to
> >>>> imagine it. So there must be some artificial memory at work in word
> meaning.
> >>>>
> >>>> You probably know the hoary old tale about Archimedes, who was given a
> >>>> crown of gold and who discovered that the gold had been mixed with
> silver
> >>>> by measuring the displacement of an equivalent quantity of gold.
> Well, we
> >>>> now know that this method doesn't actually work: it's not possible to
> >>>> measure the differences in water displacement that precisely. The
> method
> >>>> that Archimedes actually used was much closer to the "principal of
> >>>> buoyancy" which Vygotsky always talks about.
> >>>>
> >>>> And how do we know this? Because of the Archimedes palimpsest, a
> velum on
> >>>> which seven texts were written at right angles to each other. Because
> >>>> parchment was so expensive, the velum was scraped and written over
> every
> >>>> century or so, but because the skin it was made of was soft, the
> pressure
> >>>> of the writing preserved the older texts below the new ones when the
> old
> >>>> text was scraped off. And one of the lower texts is the only known
> Greek
> >>>> copy of Archimedes' "On Floating Bodies".
> >>>>
> >>>> Neither the relationship of these texts to meaning nor their
> relationship
> >>>> to each other is a matter of association (and in fact they are
> related to
> >>>> each other by a kind of failed dissociation). But it's quite similar
> to the
> >>>> way that word meanings are reused and develop anew.
> >>>>
> >>>> (Did I do it? Is this two screens?)
> >>>>
> >>>> David Kellogg
> >>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >>>>
> >>>> On 16 December 2014 at 14:24, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I meant to ask: What does it mean that Ribot, as an associationist,
> “sees
> >>>>> imagination as a rather distal form of attention”?
> >>>>> Henry
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 15, 2014, at 5:19 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>