One last post - this one is about the larger question of AAE and linguistic
relativity and was provoked by a recent conversation I had with John Lucy
(a key proponent of the LRH - http://home.uchicago.edu/~johnlucy/ ). He is
has been having a conversation about AAE and the LRH with John McWhorter,
one of the top scholars of AAE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McWhorter),
and McWhorter is not a fan of the LRH. At least part of this seems to be
b.c. of the fact that it far too easily leads down the road of deficit
thinking about AAE speakers. The argument goes: if language affects thought
then speaking AAE will have an effect on how one is able to think. From
there it is a short jump to the assumption that AAE leads to ways of
thinking that are not conducive to learning complex intellectual concepts.
Hopefully that provides some background to my comment about potential
concerns with Orr's work. The concerns are not with her work per se. My
concerns are rather with the body of scholarship on AAE and the LRH and the
fact that, other than Labov's early work, there are no positive
articulations of what the linguistic forms that define AAE actually do for
those who speak this English dialect (as compared to another dialect). (I
should add that I've since recalled that Geneva Smitherman's work is shot
through with positive articulations of what AAE linguistic forms can do -
her book Talkin and Testifyin' is a classic in this regard, but I wonder if
the demonstrative style may be too difficult for speakers of mainstream
English and/or academic-ese to understand!).
Orr's work, in the wrong hands, can lead us down the path that McWhorter is
concerned about - right to the conclusion that AAE is an intellectually
problematic language because it interferes with a student's ability to
understand mathematics.
Hopefully that pulls some of the context of the larger conversation of
which my post was only a small part.
Cheers to all,
greg
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> A second response to the paper that Mike forwarded (and to Paul's post on
> the previous thread).
>
> There is a sticky problem here that has not yet been dealt with
> adequately, namely, if language forms do affect habitual thinking, then
> what are the effects of the linguistic forms that come with AAE? I'm
> thinking not just about pragmatics, but also about grammar (and perhaps
> semantics as well).
>
> One thing that many have noted about AAE is that passive voice and
> nominalizations are dispreferred by AAE speakers. The result is a way of
> speaking that encourages the naming of actors and agents. Thus, in AAE, it
> is difficult to carry on agent-less talk like:
> 1. "Our neighborhood has been negatively affected in the past few years."
> or, with nominalizations:
> 2. "Negative affectings have happened in our neighborhood in the past few
> years."
>
> Now these are perhaps terrible examples because although the first seems a
> reasonable locution, I think most of us would disprefer the second.
> Nonetheless, the second takes a form that is not uncommon in legal-ese and
> academic-ese (!!) as a way of obfuscating potentially responsible agents
> (one of the main tasks of the lawyer) and making processes into things (one
> of the tasks of the scientific academic...).
>
> Instead the preference in AAE is for active sentences like:
> "Somebody('s) been negatively affecting our neighborhood in the past few
> years."
>
> With this locution (as with any form), you win some and you lose some.
> On the one hand, the frequent use of active voice is a mark of good
> writing (notwithstanding the various other AAE grammatical inflections that
> are often understood as "bad grammar" by mainstream speakers - and I'll
> admit that the example offered here is not a good one either...). On the
> other hand, using predominately active voice can be marginalizing in
> "high-theoretical" academic writing and in legal writing.
>
> That's the way that I tend to think of relativity effects - with any
> language, you win some, you lose some. But I think attention to both sides,
> winning and losing, is important. What I've sketched here in a somewhat
> pathetic fashion is one answer to the question: "what do you "win" with
> AAE?"
>
> -greg
>
> p.s., that seems like too many screens (I just adjusted my font size
> bigger so maybe I can blame it on that...).
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:33 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I am not in general following this thread, being waaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind
>> on
>> the imagination thread, but I tripped over the exchange regarding Orr and
>> AAE. To keep it short, I attach two documents.
>>
>> The first is a draft segment from Cultural Psychology (1996) and the other
>> an empirical report of even greater activity. For those who do not know
>> the
>> Labov work, the Word file might prove useful. for those of you for whom
>> this topic is of continuing interest, perhaps the published paper is of
>> more value.
>>
>> It is not true that no one followed up on Labov. It is probably true that
>> no one followed up on the followup.
>> mike
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > David Ki,
>> > No worries. No offense taken. But thanks for the just-in-case note.
>> > And yes, I agree to disagree.
>> > Respectfully,
>> > greg
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:24 AM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Greg,
>> > >
>> > > I disagree with you that Orr could/should have taken a more culturally
>> > > sensitive approach to her studies of AAE speakers' difficulties in
>> > > classrooms dominated by standard English instruction. But I in no wise
>> > > intended to imply your wishing she had done so places you among those
>> who
>> > > consider her work as racist. I'm very sorry if my words suggested
>> > otherwise.
>> > >
>> > > David
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>> > > xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg
>> > Thompson
>> > > Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 9:36 AM
>> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Metaphors
>> > >
>> > > In the interests of following the recently suggested injunction not to
>> > > directly address specific interlocutors, I'll talk in generalities
>> (This
>> > > makes it a bit more challenging to have a conversation but it also
>> makes
>> > > one think about the extractable and generalizable point that is beyond
>> > the
>> > > immediate context).
>> > >
>> > > In my previous post (apologies for drawing on prior context), I
>> neither
>> > > suggested nor intended to imply that Orr's work is racist (do
>> intentions
>> > > matter when it comes to meaning?). This speaks to some of the
>> > difficulties
>> > > of talking about issues of race. And in this connection let's not
>> forget
>> > > the fact that this list-serve is dominated by white men - that doesn't
>> > mean
>> > > that we are necessarily racist but it does mean that we are likely to
>> be
>> > > ignorant of many aspects of these issues.
>> > >
>> > > Nonetheless, I believe that we can overcome our ignorance through
>> > > education, by learning more about the issues - even when it comes to
>> > trying
>> > > to understand cultures and languages that we did not grow up with. And
>> > > while I think that there is good evidence for the linguistic
>> relativity
>> > > hypothesis, I do not believe that language is a determining influence
>> in
>> > > ALL thinking (Whorf uses the term "habitual" to describe the type of
>> > > thinking that is most susceptible to the influence of language). That
>> > means
>> > > that even if you don't speak AAE, you can still study it and even
>> come to
>> > > understand how the grammatical forms lend themselves to particular
>> ways
>> > of
>> > > understanding the world (this is what linguistic anthropology is all
>> > > about!).
>> > >
>> > > And this is my concern with Orr's work. With all academic work, I
>> think
>> > it
>> > > is worth considering questions like "How would racists take up our
>> > > research?" In the case of Orr's work, my sense is that racists could
>> > easily
>> > > take up her research to argue (perhaps even by using the linguistic
>> > > relativity hypothesis) that AAE speakers are unable to do complex
>> > > mathematical thinking. This is why I would think that it is important
>> to
>> > > give a positive articulation of what AAE does as a language. It is
>> > > certainly important to understand what it CAN'T do (e.g., help one
>> learn
>> > > math in a particular way), but it is equally important to understand
>> what
>> > > it CAN do.
>> > >
>> > > As Paul points out, Labov has done some of the work addressing this.
>> But
>> > > note that Labov's work was done 40 years ago and no one has sought to
>> > > replicate or do any kind of similar work. What gives?
>> > >
>> > > -greg
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -greg
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 11:37 PM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Greg,
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm delighted that you're familiar with and appreciative of Orr's
>> work.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cleary she didn't provide "serious consideration of how AAE speakers
>> > > > actually use prepositions"--she couldn't have, as she was not a
>> native
>> > > > speaker of Black English dialect, and she was not a linguist. But
>> I'm
>> > not
>> > > > sure how paying serious attention to technical nuances of Black
>> English
>> > > > grammar would have helped, as her analyses show that the African
>> > American
>> > > > students in her classes were not speaking either standard English or
>> > > Black
>> > > > English Vernacular, but rather a hybrid that arises from their
>> efforts
>> > to
>> > > > emulate standard English.
>> > > >
>> > > > Now, it's true her work didn't parallel the approach Gay and Cole
>> took
>> > to
>> > > > understanding what other psychologists were classifying as
>> linguistic
>> > and
>> > > > cognitive deficits by carefully studying the native language and
>> > culture.
>> > > > On the other hand, she did something Gay and Cole didn't do, namely
>> > > > micro-analyze the linguistic miscues operating in the classroom, and
>> > the
>> > > > resultant dilemmas of comprehension this created for her African
>> > American
>> > > > students.
>> > > >
>> > > > As the excerpt copied below illustrates, Orr was scrupulously
>> attentive
>> > > to
>> > > > understanding her students' experience of distance and location
>> given
>> > the
>> > > > different linguistic setting. And her analyses consistently point to
>> > the
>> > > > mismatch between the native dialect and the language of instruction
>> as
>> > > the
>> > > > source of the problems, not the native dialect, itself. To label
>> this
>> > > work
>> > > > as implicitly racist, I think cedes too much to those who mistrust
>> > > science
>> > > > as a tool of the oppressor, and whose only locus of attention is the
>> > > > history and legacy of social injustice. Even now, in this
>> discussion,
>> > we
>> > > > are missing the point. The major significance of Orr's work is not
>> that
>> > > > differences in grammatical structure have semantic implications.
>> This
>> > is
>> > > > merely a window to the dramatic realization that semantics are
>> written
>> > > into
>> > > > grammatical form.
>> > > >
>> > > > David
>> > > >
>> > > > Excerpt from Orr (1987):
>> > > >
>> > > > "Jane gives us in these diagrams a glimpse into the kinds of mental
>> > > images
>> > > > she constructs when she is using the single symbol length,
>> representing
>> > > > both location and distance, as a tool with which to think. Even the
>> > > > diagrams Jane drew for problems 13 and 14 begin to be less
>> > > incomprehensible
>> > > > if one attempts to construct in one's own mind images of the
>> > information
>> > > > given in these problems, while adhering to the requirement that
>> length
>> > be
>> > > > used to represent both location and distance. They can be seen as
>> > > possible
>> > > > consequents or extensions of the symbol length when it is used to
>> > > represent
>> > > > both location and distance. Consider, for instance, the mental
>> images
>> > one
>> > > > might construct in responding to problem 13: Two cities, both
>> > represented
>> > > > by line segments, are equal distances (that is, equal line segments)
>> > > closer
>> > > > to a third city (another line segment) than two other cities (line
>> > > > segments) are. The first two cities must be represented by equal
>> line
>> > > > segments because they are equal distances closer to the third city
>> than
>> > > the
>> > > > other two cities are. And these other two cities must also be
>> > represented
>> > > > by equal line segments because they are equal distances from the
>> third
>> > > > city. One can see that Jane's diagrams are not as lacking in reason
>> as
>> > > they
>> > > > may initially have appeared to be.
>> > > >
>> > > > "Jane's diagrams suggest the possibility that when words, or symbols
>> > are
>> > > > used as instruments with which to think, the use in one language of
>> a
>> > > > single symbol in contexts where a second language requires two or
>> more
>> > > can
>> > > > lead a speaker of the first language to arrive at a different mental
>> > > > construct of some given information from that arrived at by a
>> speaker
>> > of
>> > > > the second language. Or, as in Jane's attempt to handle problem 14,
>> the
>> > > > result may be an inability to arrive at a workable mental construct
>> at
>> > > > all." (p. 25)
>> > > >
>> > > > [Note, this excerpt is part of a longer segment I emailed on Dec. 19
>> > that
>> > > > shows Jane's diagrams that Orr is referring to.]
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>> > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson
>> > > > Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 3:14 PM
>> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Metaphors
>> > > >
>> > > > The issues that are raised by Orr are indeed important ones. I am a
>> fan
>> > > of
>> > > > her work as it points to important differences in language usage
>> among
>> > > AAE
>> > > > speakers. I agree that she shouldn't have been condemned for
>> pointing
>> > out
>> > > > these differences (particularly considering how important it is for
>> > > > teachers to understand the consequences of these differences). If
>> you
>> > > want
>> > > > to help AAE speaking students do better on standardized tests, then
>> you
>> > > > absolutely need to pay attention to these differences.
>> > > >
>> > > > My one concern here is that I do feel like there is a problem of
>> > deficit
>> > > > thinking that is at least implied in her work (and maybe "implied"
>> is
>> > too
>> > > > strong a term - maybe it's just that she doesn't provide evidence to
>> > > > discourage us from this view). What we don't see in this book is any
>> > > > serious consideration of how AAE speakers actually use prepositions
>> -
>> > > e.g.,
>> > > > the ways of using language that exist in the community of AAE
>> speakers.
>> > > > This gives Orr's work a feel somewhat like the studies of math among
>> > the
>> > > > Kpelle studied by Gay and Cole in the pre-early days of LCHC (see
>> wiki
>> > > for
>> > > > more: http://lchcfestschrift.wikispaces.com/Chapter+1). Before
>> they
>> > > > showed
>> > > > up on the scene, everyone had assumed that the Kpelle (Liberia)
>> > couldn't
>> > > > comprehend basic math concepts b.c. they weren't learning it in the
>> > ways
>> > > > that it was being taught (and perhaps there were even linguistic
>> > > relativity
>> > > > arguments that pointed to this). Rather then continuing to pluck
>> these
>> > > > folks out of context and run them through various types of
>> experiments,
>> > > Gay
>> > > > and Cole "explicitly began with the assumption that “we must know
>> more
>> > > > about the indigenous mathematics so that we can build effective
>> bridges
>> > > to
>> > > > the new mathematics that we are trying to introduce”"
>> > > > >From their research, they found that the Kpelle actually had high
>> > > > competence with complex mathematical problems (e.g., estimating
>> > volumes).
>> > > > As they write:
>> > > > "Overall, the data suggested that no generalized lack of
>> mathematical,
>> > > > perceptual, or problem solving abilities stood in the way of
>> > mathematics
>> > > > education. When the materials and procedures used in assessment
>> tasks
>> > > were
>> > > > designed to match closely valued local practices, lack of ability
>> could
>> > > be
>> > > > replaced by apparent special ability. At the same time, schooling
>> did
>> > > > appear to influence performance in tasks that were routinely used to
>> > > > measure cognitive development."
>> > > > So I think I would be more comfortable with Orr's work if she were
>> to
>> > > have
>> > > > included this kind of rich understanding of usage in context and how
>> > > > prepositions actually are used among AAE speakers.
>> > > >
>> > > > This points to a larger question that might be irksome to some
>> folks,
>> > but
>> > > > the question regards the extent to which mathematical language is
>> > > > predicated upon a particular form of what Whorf called "Standard
>> > Average
>> > > > European." In short, the idea here is that Math has a history and a
>> > > > culture. This doesn't mean that it is useless or a waste of time,
>> just
>> > > that
>> > > > it is a particular way of encountering the world that is good for
>> > > > particular things and not for others.
>> > > >
>> > > > I think we've gone round this mulberry bush before, but that was
>> just
>> > > more
>> > > > grist for the mill (I prefer my metaphors mixed!).
>> > > >
>> > > > -greg
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:46 PM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu
>> > > <mailto:
>> > > > dkirsh@lsu.edu>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The topic of how grammatical form relates to meaning calls to mind
>> > the
>> > > > > groundbreaking work of Eleanor Orr--whom you've probably never
>> heard
>> > of
>> > > > on
>> > > > > account of the fact that her work was condemned by a
>> > > politically-correct
>> > > > > faction of race-conscious sociolinguists who decided her analysis
>> of
>> > > > Black
>> > > > > English Vernacular could too easily be appropriated into racist
>> > > > discourses
>> > > > > about language deficiency.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Orr was a Washington DC area teacher and principal in the 1970s
>> and
>> > > > 1980s,
>> > > > > who traced math difficulties of her African American students to
>> > subtle
>> > > > > grammatical differences between Black English dialect and standard
>> > > > English.
>> > > > > Her 1987 book goes into compelling detail to support the thesis
>> that
>> > > the
>> > > > > meaning structure of basic mathematical terms is embedded in the
>> > > > > grammatical setting in which those terms are expressed. For
>> instance,
>> > > the
>> > > > > meaning of “distance” is embedded in the grammatical structure
>> > > “distance
>> > > > > from _________ to __________” where the place-holders hold
>> locations;
>> > > if
>> > > > > you don’t have that grammatical structure, and you're in a
>> linguistic
>> > > > > environment in which that structure is assumed, you're likely not
>> > going
>> > > > to
>> > > > > be able to gain full access to the concept.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The attached excerpts from her book--ignore the Forward, unless
>> you'd
>> > > > like
>> > > > > some context--reveal some of her students' bizarre conceptions of
>> > > > distance
>> > > > > (and other basic mathematical concepts) as revealed in their
>> > diagrams.
>> > > > Her
>> > > > > approach involves linguistic analysis of sentences produced by her
>> > > > African
>> > > > > American students that she reads as collapsed versions of standard
>> > > > English
>> > > > > sentences, with differences in prepositional structure being
>> > > highlighted
>> > > > > (but other grammatical elements also are indicated).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This work cuts against the grain of anything going on in
>> mathematics
>> > > > > education. The Piagetian view that dominates that field holds that
>> > > basic
>> > > > > concepts come about from reflection on our actions in our
>> engagement
>> > > with
>> > > > > the material world. When language enters the conversation, it's
>> with
>> > > > > respect to semantic structure; to my knowledge, nobody's ever
>> > > implicated
>> > > > > syntax directly in basic quantitative understanding.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This work is particularly interesting to me in connection with my
>> > > > > 21-year-old son who is autistic, and whose grammatical function is
>> > > > severely
>> > > > > impaired. He has a decent vocabulary, but unless the setting for
>> the
>> > > > > conversation provides contextual clues, he can't piece together
>> how
>> > the
>> > > > > semantic elements are linked to one another. It is only recently
>> that
>> > > it
>> > > > > occurred to me his lack of a secure sense of basic quantitative
>> terms
>> > > > like
>> > > > > “more” and “less” may be rooted in his grammatical incapacities.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The XMCA discussion, thus far, has touched on grammar with
>> respect to
>> > > > > lexical items such as prepositions. But we've not yet tied that to
>> > the
>> > > > > grammatical forms that embed those lexical items. I'm very
>> curious as
>> > > to
>> > > > > whether that further connection can be made.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > David Kirshner
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Orr, E., W. (1987). Twice as less: Black English and the
>> performance
>> > of
>> > > > > black students in mathematics and science. New York: W. W. Norton
>> &
>> > > > Company.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>> > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
>> > > > > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 3:06 PM
>> > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Metaphors
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes, Haliday is essentially a Whorfian, and that's one of things
>> that
>> > > > > brings him close to Vygotsky. (Compare, for example, Chomsky, who
>> is
>> > > > > essentially anti-developmental in his ideas about language, and
>> who
>> > now
>> > > > > rejects the leading role played by social communication and says
>> that
>> > > > > communication is epiphenomenal to language, whose original
>> purpose is
>> > > > > thought.) For Sapir, and for Whorf, in the beginning of every
>> major
>> > > > > onotogenetic, sociogenetic, and even phylogenetic change in
>> language
>> > > > there
>> > > > > has to be some change in the nature of communication.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So what Andy says about the lack of the basis of modern science in
>> > Hopi
>> > > > > applies perfectly well to English. When we read the scientific
>> > writings
>> > > > of
>> > > > > Chaucer on the astrolabe, for example, we do not see words like
>> > > > > "reflection", "refraction" or "alignment". Chaucer uses words like
>> > > > "bounce
>> > > > > off", "bend through", and "line up" (note the use of prepositions,
>> > > > > Helena!). Where did these words come from, and how did they make
>> > > > scientific
>> > > > > English possible?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Most of us have no problem saying that Isaac Newton discovered the
>> > laws
>> > > > of
>> > > > > gravitation. But it's only a slight exaggeration to say that what
>> he
>> > > > really
>> > > > > discovered was the meaning potential of words like "gravitation".
>> > > Gravity
>> > > > > is, of course, not a thing at all; that is, it's not an entity,
>> but
>> > > > rather
>> > > > > a process, the process of falling down, or falling in (preps,
>> > again!).
>> > > So
>> > > > > how and above all why does it become an entity?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It's interesting to compare Newton's writings on optics with
>> > Chaucer's
>> > > on
>> > > > > the astrolabe. The "Opticks" has a fixed format that we recognize
>> > > almost
>> > > > > instantly today: Newton describes his equipment (the prism and the
>> > dark
>> > > > > room); he then narrates his method as a kind of recipe ("First, I
>> did
>> > > > this;
>> > > > > then I did that") and draws conclusions, which he then formulates
>> in
>> > > > > mathematical terms (this is essentially the format of Vygotsky's
>> > > lectures
>> > > > > on pedology, so much so that when translating them we had some
>> > trouble
>> > > > > determining the precise moment when Vygotsky turns to the
>> blackboard
>> > to
>> > > > > write his conclusion in the form of a law).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In order to get them into mathematical shape, though, he has to
>> make
>> > > > > sentences that look a lot like equations. "The plumpness of the
>> lens
>> > > > yields
>> > > > > a greater refraction of the light", "The reflection of the light
>> from
>> > > the
>> > > > > glass results of the light striking the flatness of the glass"
>> "The
>> > > > > curvature of the spectacle glass supplies the lacking plumpness of
>> > the
>> > > > > eye". In each of these, a quality or a process which would
>> normally
>> > be
>> > > > > realized as an adjective or a verb is suddenly realized by a noun,
>> > > > creating
>> > > > > an imaginary entity.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That's grammatical metaphor. Something that is "canonically"
>> realized
>> > > by
>> > > > a
>> > > > > verb ("to grow") is suddenly realized nominally ("growth"), or
>> > > something
>> > > > > that is canonically a quality ('red") is realized verbally
>> > ("redden").
>> > > We
>> > > > > even find related clauses realized as verbs ("She did not know the
>> > > rules.
>> > > > > So she died" is realized by "Death was brought about through
>> > > ignorance",
>> > > > > all of these examples from Halliday). In fact, the Genetic Law
>> that
>> > > > > Vygotsky formulates in "Mind in Society" ("Every higher mental
>> > function
>> > > > is
>> > > > > realized on two planes....") is really just one instance of
>> > grammatical
>> > > > > metaphor.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > One of Chomsky's best known arguments for the radical innateness
>> > > > > hypothesis is this. If I take a sentence like "Students who do
>> not do
>> > > > their
>> > > > > homework do not do well" and I want to make a question, how do I
>> know
>> > > > which
>> > > > > "do" to move to the front? Chomsky assumes that this knowledge is
>> > > > > essentially innate; it is part of universal grammar. But you can
>> see
>> > > that
>> > > > > "Do students who do not do their homework do well?" can be built
>> up
>> > > > through
>> > > > > a process of what we might call "discourse metaphor"--whereby
>> clauses
>> > > > stand
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > exchanges:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Mother: You did your homework, didn't you?
>> > > > > Child: No.
>> > > > > Mother: You didn't do your homework? Did you do well?
>> > > > > Child: No.
>> > > > > Mother: You didn't do well?
>> > > > > Child: No.
>> > > > > Mother: You didn't do you homework so you didn't do well. Do the
>> > other
>> > > > > students do well?
>> > > > > Child: Some of them.
>> > > > > Mother: Who does well? Do students who do not do their homework do
>> > > well?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And this of course explains why wh-items like "who" and 'why" have
>> > two
>> > > > > functions--one inside a clause, where it expresses an intra-mental
>> > > > function
>> > > > > (grammar) and one between them where it expresses an inter-mental
>> > > > function
>> > > > > (discourse).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I realize that grammatical metaphor will seem rather dry and
>> abstract
>> > > and
>> > > > > unpoetic to people who assume that metaphor is only of the lexical
>> > > kind.
>> > > > > But to me, and I think to most children, it is far far more
>> powerful
>> > > and
>> > > > > far more important developmentally. In some ways, it's the lexical
>> > > > metaphor
>> > > > > that is responsible for the disenchantment of the child's world,
>> > while
>> > > > the
>> > > > > grammatical metaphor infinitely expands it. (And here, I'm
>> afraid, I
>> > > must
>> > > > > stop--it's time for breakfast and anyway my one screen is used
>> up!)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > David Kellogg
>> > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > , or "the
>> > > > >
>> > > > > . He
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 19 December 2014 at 15:15, Greg Thompson <
>> > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> > > > <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Helena and David,
>> > > > > > I wonder if this quote below from Benjamin Whorf (one of the
>> > > so-called
>> > > > > > authors of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis - a kindred
>> > tradition
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > Vygotsky's) might be useful. In it Whorf is comparing the Hopi
>> > notion
>> > > > > > of "time" to the SAE (Standard Average European - including
>> > English)
>> > > > > > notion of "time" and how each of these languages offers
>> different
>> > > > > > affordances of meaning. Whereas Hopi has a much more processual
>> > > > > > understanding, English has a much more
>> reified/objectified/entified
>> > > > > > sense of time. (btw, I think the first paragraph is easier to
>> > follow
>> > > > > > than the second - and in that first paragraph you'll find our
>> old
>> > > > friend
>> > > > > "imagination").
>> > > > > > David, does this jibe with what you were pointing to?
>> > > > > > -greg
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Taken from:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/extra4/sloan/mousesite/Second
>> > > > > > ary/Whorfframe2.html
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > " "Such terms as summer, winter, September, morning, noon,
>> sunset"
>> > > are
>> > > > > > with us nouns, and have little formal linguistic difference from
>> > > other
>> > > > > nouns.
>> > > > > > They can be subjects or objects, and we say "at sunset" or "in
>> > > winter"
>> > > > > > just as we say "at a corner" or "in an orchard." They are
>> > pluralized
>> > > > > > and numerated like nouns of physical objects, as we have seen.
>> Our
>> > > > > > thought about the referents of such words hence becomes
>> > objectified.
>> > > > > > Without objectification, it would be a subjective experience of
>> > real
>> > > > > > time, i.e. of the consciousness of "becoming later and
>> > later"--simply
>> > > > > > a cyclic phase similar to an earlier phase in that
>> > > ever-later-becoming
>> > > > > > duration. Only by imagination can such a cyclic phase be set
>> beside
>> > > > > > another and another in the manner of a spatial (i.e. visually
>> > > > > > perceived) configuration. "But such is the power of linguistic
>> > > analogy
>> > > > > that we do so objectify cyclic phasing.
>> > > > > > We do it even by saying "a phase" and "phases" instead of e.g.,
>> > > > > "phasing."
>> > > > > > And the pattern of individual and mass nouns, with the resulting
>> > > > > > binomial formula of formless item plus form, is so general that
>> it
>> > is
>> > > > > > implicit for all nouns, and hence our very generalized formless
>> > items
>> > > > > > like "substance, matter," by which we can fill out the binomial
>> for
>> > > an
>> > > > > > enormously wide range of nouns. But even these are not quite
>> > > > > > generalized enough to take in our phase nouns. So for the phase
>> > nouns
>> > > > we
>> > > > > have made a formless item, "time."
>> > > > > > We have made it by using "a time," i.e. an occasion or a phase,
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > > > > pattern of a mass noun, just as from "a summer" we make
>> "summer" in
>> > > > > > the pattern of a mass noun. Thus with our binomial formula we
>> can
>> > say
>> > > > > > and think "a moment of time, a second of time, a year of time."
>> Let
>> > > me
>> > > > > > again point out that the pattern is simply that of "a bottle of
>> > milk"
>> > > > > > or "a piece of cheese." Thus we are assisted to imagine that "a
>> > > > > > summer" actually contains or consists of such-and-such a
>> quantity
>> > of
>> > > > > "time."
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > In Hopi however all phase terms, like "summer, morning," etc.,
>> are
>> > > not
>> > > > > > nouns but a kind of adverb, to use the nearest SAE analogy. They
>> > are
>> > > a
>> > > > > > formal part of speech by themselves, distinct from nouns, verbs,
>> > and
>> > > > > > even other Hopi "adverbs." Such a word is not a case form or a
>> > > > > > locative pattern, like "des Abends" or "in the morning." It
>> > contains
>> > > > > > no morpheme like one of "in the house" or "at the tree." It
>> means
>> > > > > > "when it is morning" or "while morning-phase is occurring."
>> These
>> > > > > > "temporal s" are not used as subjects or objects, or at all like
>> > > > > > nouns. One does not say "it's a hot summer" or "summer is hot";
>> > > summer
>> > > > > > is not hot, summer is only WHEN conditions are hot, WHEN heat
>> > occurs.
>> > > > > > One does not say "THIS summer," but "summer now" or "summer
>> > > recently."
>> > > > > > There is no objectification, as a region, an extent, a
>> quantity, of
>> > > > > > the subjective duration feeling. Nothing is suggested about time
>> > > > > > except the perpetual "getting later" of it. And so there is no
>> > basis
>> > > > > here for a formless item answering to our "time." "
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Helena Worthen
>> > > > > > <helenaworthen@gmail.com<mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > David, I am with you and etremeley interested right up to
>> this:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "But grammatical metaphors, such as the nominalizations that
>> > Newton
>> > > > > > > and Galileo created to talk about gravity as an entity and to
>> > > create
>> > > > > > > sentences that look like mathematical equations, are highly
>> > > > > > > productive, which is why they still form the basis of
>> scientific
>> > > > > > > writing and thinking today."
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Can you slow down for a moment and give some examples? I lose
>> you
>> > > > > > > when
>> > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > say "created to talk about gravity as an entity".
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thank you,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Helena
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Helena Worthen
>> > > > > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com<mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Dec 18, 2014, at 1:59 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > As Helena points out, prepositions are from the
>> "grammatical"
>> > end
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > Henry has called the "lexicon-grammar" continuum (and what
>> > > > > > > > Halliday
>> > > > > > calls
>> > > > > > > > "wording" or "lexicogrammar"). What that means is that they
>> > have
>> > > > > > > > three properties that words from the more "lexical" end do
>> not
>> > > > have:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > a) They are a closed class. You can't invent new ones. (You
>> > can,
>> > > > > > > actually,
>> > > > > > > > but you can't teach people to use it, whereas if you invent
>> a
>> > new
>> > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > > or a
>> > > > > > > > new noun like "lexicogrammar", you can).
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > b) They are systemic. They are not liimited to specific
>> > semantic
>> > > > > > > > field
>> > > > > > > (the
>> > > > > > > > way that "lexicogrammar" is limited to a particular area of
>> > > > > > linguistics)
>> > > > > > > > but can be used wherever nouns and adverbial phrases are
>> used.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > c) They are proportional. They always have more or less the
>> > same
>> > > > > > effect,
>> > > > > > > > which is why when you say "there's a flaw in your argument"
>> the
>> > > > "in"
>> > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > more or less the same feeling to it as the "in" in "there's
>> a
>> > fly
>> > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > your
>> > > > > > > > tea". In contrast, the word "lexicogrammar" MIGHT, in
>> Henry's
>> > > > > > > > hands,
>> > > > > > > refer
>> > > > > > > > to a book or even a footnote.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Now, the interesting thing for me is that these properties
>> > pretty
>> > > > > > > > much define the difference between learning and
>> development, at
>> > > > > > > > least as I understand it from Koffka. Learning is adding on
>> > > > > > > > functions indefinitely while development works by
>> reorganizing
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > closed set of functions you already have into new systems.
>> > > > > > > > Learning is skill specific and local, while development is
>> > quite
>> > > > > global in its implications.
>> > > > > > > Learning
>> > > > > > > > is non-proportional and doesn't generalize to create new
>> > systems,
>> > > > > > > > while development does. And this is why we learn vocabulary
>> > (and
>> > > > > > > > forget it
>> > > > > > just
>> > > > > > > > as readily) but grammar seems to grow on you and never goes
>> > away.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > For Halliday, lexical metaphors (e.g. "that little tent of
>> blue
>> > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > people
>> > > > > > > > call the sky") are simply metaphors from the non-productive
>> end
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > > the lexicogrammatical continuum, which is why they are
>> crisp,
>> > > > > > > > concrete, and vivid. But grammatical metaphors, such as the
>> > > > > > > > nominalizations that
>> > > > > > Newton
>> > > > > > > > and Galileo created to talk about gravity as an entity and
>> to
>> > > > > > > > create sentences that look like mathematical equations, are
>> > > highly
>> > > > > > > > productive, which is why they still form the basis of
>> > scientific
>> > > > > > > > writing and
>> > > > > > thinking
>> > > > > > > > today. For Halliday, the "break" into grammatical metaphor
>> is
>> > > the
>> > > > > > third
>> > > > > > > > great moment in child development (after the break into
>> mother
>> > > > > > > > tongue
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > the break into disciplinary language in school work).
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Prepositions, of course, encode geometrical notions: "at"
>> > implies
>> > > > > > > > zero dimensions ('at a point'), "on' implies one or two
>> ("on a
>> > > > > > > > line', 'on a
>> > > > > > > > plane') and "in" impies three ('in a space'). But because
>> they
>> > > are
>> > > > > > > > grammatical, and therefore productive, we also use them with
>> > > time:
>> > > > > > > > 'at
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > point in time', 'on a morning/afternoon', 'in 2015'.
>> Compare:
>> > "at
>> > > > > > > > Christmas' (a specific time), "on Christmas' (the very day),
>> > and
>> > > > > > > > "in Christmas' (season).
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > David Kellogg
>> > > > > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On 19 December 2014 at 04:32, Helena Worthen
>> > > > > > > > <helenaworthen@gmail.com<mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>>
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Yes to prepositions as metaphors. They "carry across"
>> spatial
>> > > > > > > >> relationships from the concrete material world into the
>> > > > > > > >> conceptual imaginary world. There are not many of them (50
>> > > common
>> > > > > > > >> ones, and
>> > > > > > > between 70
>> > > > > > > >> and 150 total, including multi-word prepositions like "as
>> far
>> > > as"
>> > > > > > > >> --
>> > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > >> is according to
>> > > > > > > >> https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/prepositions.htm
>> > > > > > ).
>> > > > > > > >> We don't make up new ones. They don't have synonyms.
>> > Apparently,
>> > > > > > > >> in English, they evolved from and did the job done by
>> > > inflections
>> > > > > > > >> in
>> > > > > > parent
>> > > > > > > >> languages, examples being cases and tenses.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> But there is real difference in meaning between an
>> inflection
>> > > > > > > >> like the dative or accusative cases in Latin and the
>> spatial
>> > > > > > > >> relationships
>> > > > > > > suggested
>> > > > > > > >> by contemporary prepositions.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> I'll bet someone else on this list knows a lot more about
>> > this.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Helena Worthen
>> > > > > > > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com<mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> On Dec 18, 2014, at 9:58 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>> I’m with Andy on prepositions as metaphors. They are
>> clearly
>> > > > > > embodied,
>> > > > > > > >> proprioceptive, symbolic, meaningful. A standard intro to
>> > > > > > > >> linguistics
>> > > > > > > (For
>> > > > > > > >> example, Yule, The Study of Language) semantics is focused
>> on
>> > > > > > “lexicon”:
>> > > > > > > >> nouns, verbs, adjectives, absolutely no mention of
>> > prepositions,
>> > > > > > > >> being
>> > > > > > > part
>> > > > > > > >> of grammar, as it is traditionally construed. Langacker and
>> > > > > > > >> Halliday
>> > > > > > > see no
>> > > > > > > >> clear demarcation between lexicon and grammar, hence,
>> > > > > lexico-grammar.
>> > > > > > > (Lo
>> > > > > > > >> and behold, my spell check wanted me to write
>> lexicon-grammar,
>> > > > > > > >> adding
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > >> “n”. The traditions holds! Keep them separate!) Word
>> coinings
>> > > are
>> > > > > > great
>> > > > > > > >> data for imagination and creativity. Did Vygotsky do much
>> of
>> > > > > > > >> that? In translation from Russian is word coining ever
>> > > practiced?
>> > > > > > > >>> Henry
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> On Dec 18, 2014, at 2:54 AM, Andy Blunden <
>> > ablunden@mira.net
>> > > > <mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
>> > > > <mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> > > > > > Assistant Professor
>> > > > > > Department of Anthropology
>> > > > > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> > > > > > Brigham Young University
>> > > > > > Provo, UT 84602
>> > > > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> > > > Assistant Professor
>> > > > Department of Anthropology
>> > > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> > > > Brigham Young University
>> > > > Provo, UT 84602
>> > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> > > Assistant Professor
>> > > Department of Anthropology
>> > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> > > Brigham Young University
>> > > Provo, UT 84602
>> > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> > Assistant Professor
>> > Department of Anthropology
>> > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> > Brigham Young University
>> > Provo, UT 84602
>> > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson