[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
Peg Griffin
Peg.Griffin@att.net
Sun Dec 13 16:03:12 PST 2015
This 2015 Nobel Laureate for Literature lecture strikes me as pertinent to this imagination discussion. She is an amazing woman and here addresses issues familiar maybe tanatalizing for this list, I think.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2015/alexievich-lecture_en.html
It begins this way: " I do not stand alone at this podium ... There are voices around me, hundreds of voices. They have always been with me, since childhood. I grew up in the countryside...}
Peg
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:12 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
Perhaps the challenge will get easier if you keep piling up the references, Mike. :)
So, I have persevered with reading, skipping and scanning Lovejoy's "The Great Chain of Being" and have come away with a few pages of notes, and some edification (22nd printing, 2001, Harvard University Press).
With respect to the valorisation of imagination, Lovejoy identifies Schleirmacher as an early proponent of the merits of the development of imagination (although one could say that this is implicit in the platonic ideas which concern the book as a whole). (p. 309)
With respect to the origins of the idea of a cell (urbild), he identifies Robinet as a rather eclectic proponent of the idea (p. 279), which again is derived from the history of the ideas of absolute perfection (of god), the principle of plentitude and the principle of continuity. He also attributes to Robinet that "fundamental reality in nature for him is not matter but l'avtivite". (p. 281)
On a more down to regular strain on the imagination, regarding my assertion early of cognate terms (imagination, orientation etc), my reckoning is that orientation determines the scope and nature of interpretation.
Not so long ago, I noticed some apparently new developments in our eldest child's formulations (4y6). We were talking about how to make papier mache objects, which took me back to making a papier mache 'pig' with the help of a balloon. In response to this he volunteered that the balloon would have to be burst with a pencil once it had been covered. I think it was the day before this that he pronounced that the ugly duckling's egg must have been laid by a swan. It seemed to me that that these articulations indicated that he was using a relatively new idea which was helping him to imaginatively understand these situations (an idea of process). I am fairly sure that these solutions were not supplied beforehand.
Best,
Huw
On 9 December 2015 at 03:59, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> The Casey site looks amazing and of course very relevant, Ed. Thanks.
>
> When I first read Sartre many years ago, I was totally unprepared to
> take in what he was saying. I had not way to "digest it."
>
> Reading into the electronic copy I sent around yesterday, I could see
> that it is inappropriate for me to refer to what I do as
> phenomenology. It is just a kind of intuitive reflection on my
> experiences and thoughts. No Husserl, no Sartre. Just unschooled
> introspection that I seek to verify through acquiring evidence that
> there is more than total idiosyncrasy to what my musings.
>
> I feel as if I need to download all the sources of inquiry we have
> unearthed in the last few days and retreat to a place with no
> communication with the world for a few weeks just to take them, in. !!
> mike
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > Mike
> >
> > There are, perhaps, some shortcomings in portions of Sartre
> > work
> on
> > imagination to which Casey supplies some useful modifications. Also
> > it
> is a
> > bit long. Take a look at Edward Casey’s web site: <
> > http://edwardscasey.com/?page_id=13>. Many of those articles on
> > imagination seem downloadable and besides possibly whetting one’s
> appetite
> > for Sartre might be interesting in themselves. Perhaps you could
> > pick one that most interests you and provides, from your vantage, a
> > useful common, and modestly short reading source. I would, of
> > course, recommend Casey’s book, but isn’t freely available.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > > On Dec 7, 2015, at 9:44 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > So maybe Sartre would be a useful common reading source, Ed.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://blog.exre.org/wp-content/uploads/Sartre_The_Imaginary__A_Phenom
> enological_Psychology_of_the_Imagination.pdf
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:42 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> It make sense for the questions to differ, Ed, or at least the
> > >> way
> they
> > >> are posed. Finding a common foundation will take a lot of
> communication
> > >> (which will require a lot of imagination!).
> > >> mike
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Mike
> > >>>
> > >>> I assume you have read Sartre on imagination; i.e. The
> Imagination.
> > >>> This gives what he considers a phenomenological take on imagination.
> > >>> However, I would consider a much more revealing take to be that
> > >>> of
> > Edward
> > >>> Casey in Imaging (I am hoping that book you referenced will
> supplement
> > that
> > >>> of Casey). The connection to Kant, by the way, critically
> > >>> preceded
> > that of
> > >>> Mzerleau-Ponty and Sartre and that is why I was surprised to not
> > >>> see
> > him
> > >>> mentioned.
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree that we all seem to be coming out in, more or less,
> > >>> the same place. Only the questions seem to differ.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ed
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 7:42 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Seems to me that we have achieved pretty close proximity given
> > >>>> that
> we
> > >>>> started from such different places. Part of the problem, as I
> > indicated
> > >>> in
> > >>>> my prior note, is that I came to this problem late in life
> > >>>> through
> my
> > >>>> teaching. It took a long time for my research/theory ideas
> > >>>> drawn
> from
> > >>>> psychology and apprenticeships in anthropology and
> activity-centered
> > >>>> research practices. But here I am.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So, happy to be wrong so long as I can see how it broadens my
> > >>> understanding.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am not sure how to be more phenomenological than the
> > >>>> description
> of
> > >>> the
> > >>>> flow from imagination to representation, but glad to encounter
> > >>>> a
> > dozen!
> > >>>> Affect and cognition are so entangled that sites where the
> > abstractions
> > >>> can
> > >>>> be seen, seem hard to come by.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My proposal to take advantage of the structure offered by
> > >>>> identifying different threads of the topic they constitute was
> offered
> > >>> with
> > >>>> that goal in mind.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The connection to Kant I know about, and Ribot, but that is
> > >>>> about
> it.
> > I
> > >>>> learned that from the Russians who write about imagination.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Seems like there is an Indian tradition, or 6?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> etc?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To the extent that these different traditions lead people to
> > >>>> the
> same
> > >>> kinds
> > >>>> of conclusions seems interesting. Especially when the
> > >>>> conclusions
> are
> > >>>> tightly bound to daily practice, as they are, for example,
> sometimes,
> > in
> > >>>> good teaching.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> mike
> > >>>>
> > >>>> mike
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Larry and Mike
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Since you seem to agree with one another I will reply to
> > >>>>> both
> of
> > >>> you
> > >>>>> in this email. First I note that I seeme to be involved in a
> > >>> conversation
> > >>>>> that diverges a bit from where I started. This is probably
> > >>>>> good,
> but
> > >>> it is
> > >>>>> a conversation that seems at a grain size that is a little
> > >>>>> larger
> > than
> > >>> what
> > >>>>> I can find immediately useful. That said, I often find that I
> > >>>>> need
> > to,
> > >>> one
> > >>>>> might say, assimilate a bit so as to find resonances that bear
> > >>>>> on
> > the,
> > >>>>> perhaps, pragmatic problem I tend to take up.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Mike, I have read your article (and I am sure I will reread
> it). I
> > >>>>> found it interesting although again it seems to occur at a
> > >>>>> large
> > grain
> > >>> size
> > >>>>> (I tend to be a bit more phenomenological in the way I look at
> > >>> things). A
> > >>>>> few comments from my perspective; these are not! criticisms
> > >>>>> and are
> > >>> offered
> > >>>>> in the hope that they might be useful.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1. Dictionary definitions are a good place to start;
> > >>>>> however, looking at how words are used (a philosophy of
> > >>>>> language, so to
> speak)
> > >>> often
> > >>>>> does a better job of opening things up.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2. I was surprised to find that Kant or Schelling did not
> > >>>>> make
> > >>> your
> > >>>>> list of those influential in thinking about imaging; not to
> > >>>>> mention Avicenna.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 3. I have the impression you are using the term ‘stable’
> > >>>>> as a somewhat replacement of Vygotsky’s concrete; I like that
> > >>>>> as
> > ‘concrete'
> > >>>>> seems to have very different meanings for different people. I
> > >>>>> will
> > try
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> use it (and I may misuse it out of yet misunderstanding) in my
> > replies
> > >>>>> tooters.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 4. When I read the blind/deaf section I thought of Hellen
> > >>> Keller. I
> > >>>>> wonder if the only reason Suvorov considered such having a
> > >>>>> thin gap
> > is
> > >>>>> because he was too focused on seeing and hearing. I have a
> suspicion
> > >>> that
> > >>>>> he was quite imaginative in the way I think about it and I am
> fairly
> > >>> sure
> > >>>>> Keller was.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 5. I tend to think of the gap as too wide rather than too
> > >>>>> thin although the metaphor of filling still seems reasonable
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 6. In a way you don’t seem to quite come out and say it
> > >>>>> (or I missed you doing so), but I agree that imagination is
> > >>>>> not
> necessarily
> > >>>>> creative and I would add that it is quite everyday.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Larry, I will try to answer your comments or questions as they
> occur.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ed
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Mike, I would be willing to re(turn) to re(read) and
> > >>>>>> re(present)
> > our
> > >>>>> notions as we sail under Dewey's arches to the (open see) a
> metaphor
> > >>> not
> > >>>>> error.
> > >>>>>> Ed,
> > >>>>>> To continue with your reflection if image has some relation
> > >>>>>> to how
> > >>>>> others use text.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Actually I don’t think image has some relation to how others
> > >>>>> use
> > text.
> > >>> I
> > >>>>> twas speculating as whether there is some commonality between
> > >>>>> how
> > Mike
> > >>> is
> > >>>>> using using image and how others are using text. I said this
> because
> > I
> > >>>>> struggle against the tendency to make being vision primary in
> > >>> mathematics
> > >>>>> and otherwise what Mike has written has little relevance to
> problems
> > >>> that
> > >>>>> presently catch my attention.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Can we imagine human shared movement (itself) as text? In
> > >>>>>> other
> > words
> > >>>>> can we (read) mutual shared movements as choreography. The
> physical
> > >>>>> gestures as the material having a quality like the shape of
> > >>>>> letters
> > on
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> page, or the acoustic resonance of the voice on the ear, or
> > >>>>> the
> > visual
> > >>>>> marks making a circle-like shape.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I have no great problem with any of this, but the grain size
> > >>>>> is too
> > >>> large.
> > >>>>> That is why I tried to give you a particular example which I
> > >>>>> now
> > >>> realize
> > >>>>> was not necessarily a good one because of how you appear to
> > >>>>> view imagination. I don’t mean your perspective is lacking; it
> > >>>>> just
> seems
> > to
> > >>>>> result in different questions than I would/do ask.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> These different physical forms are not the foundational
> > >>>>>> bedrock,
> > they
> > >>>>> are the material.
> > >>>>>> If we can imagine (texts) as not just scratches on parchment
> > >>>>>> but
> as
> > >>>>> having a deeper process,
> > >>>>>> Is it also possible to imagine (images) as not just visual
> > perceptions
> > >>>>> but rather having a deeper process.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> My initial reaction is “Why are you saying this?" If I ever
> > >>>>> thought
> > the
> > >>>>> contrary, I can’t remember. This is just common sense. The
> > interesting
> > >>>>> thing about what you say is that you seem to using ‘imagine’
> > >>>>> in a
> > non
> > >>>>> visual fashion which was largely my initial point.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> All the senses share in this process and engage with
> > >>>>>> physically
> > >>>>> experienced phenomena but what is being gestured toward is
> > >>>>> that
> > >>> unifying
> > >>>>> process that includes all the senses but is not itself the senses.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would say that all senses can participate in this process.
> > >>>>> Also physically experienced phenomena sounds a little too
> > >>>>> strong
> although
> > >>>>> physically experienced phenomena seem to place constraints of
> > >>>>> a
> sort
> > on
> > >>>>> imaging. There is also, re Mike, the idea of stability as I
> > >>>>> don’t physically experience a platonic circle.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> To imagine the marks on paper as a (circle) to imagine the
> collated
> > >>>>> pages of a book as a (text) to imagine vocal acoustics as a
> > dialogue,
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> imagine mutual shared actions as an (activity) may possibly
> > >>>>> have a unifying basis in the image which is (created) as the
> > >>>>> vital
> animating
> > >>>>> process lived (into).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Here is where my example wasn’t helpful. I did not mean one ‘sees'
> > the
> > >>>>> marks on the paper as a circle. One imagines the oval (marks
> > >>>>> is too
> > >>> large a
> > >>>>> grain size) on the board as having certain properties
> > >>>>> consistent
> with
> > >>> those
> > >>>>> of a platonic circle. This is why marking the center makes a
> > >>>>> sort
> of
> > >>> sense.
> > >>>>> The teacher’s language seems to prove the imaging and the
> > >>>>> moving to
> > new
> > >>>>> stabilities. My experience is that a large number of people
> > >>>>> don’t
> > make
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> leaps.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> This imaging is multimodal and not reduced to the primacy of
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>> visual
> > >>>>> sense.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Imagine may or may not be multimodal. It may reference none of
> > >>>>> the
> > >>> sensory
> > >>>>> modes
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> The relation of this image process to the language process is
> > >>>>>> also
> > >>>>> multimodal and I suspect reciprocal.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This doesn’t seem to follow or, given my earlier comments,
> > >>>>> doesn’t
> > >>> follow
> > >>>>> for me.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Larry, all of you said here is not an unreasonable
> > >>>>> perspective. It
> is
> > >>> just
> > >>>>> one that, to a degree, I either don’t share or seems to be the
> wrong
> > >>> grain
> > >>>>> size.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: "Ed Wall" <ewall@umich.edu>
> > >>>>>> Sent: 2015-12-06 1:14 PM
> > >>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> > >>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Mike
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> My wondering has more to do with your focus on the
> > >>>>>> visual
> and
> > >>> my
> > >>>>> examples may not of helped since it seemed. perhaps to be
> > >>>>> about the
> > >>> visual.
> > >>>>> However, imaging that some poorly drawn thingy (or even well
> > >>>>> drawn)
> > is
> > >>> a
> > >>>>> ‘concrete’ platonic circle doesn’t seem to be visual or, at
> > >>>>> least,
> it
> > >>> never
> > >>>>> was for me. I have no problems with an image being a process.
> > >>>>> In
> > fact,
> > >>>>> assuming that it is static seems strange although I guess I
> > >>>>> can
> > >>> imagine it
> > >>>>> (smile).
> > >>>>>> On the other hand, perhaps, you are using the term
> > >>>>>> ‘image’ in
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> way some use the word ‘text.’ That is, to take into account
> > >>>>> both
> > >>> external
> > >>>>> and the , so called, internal senses. In that case, much of
> > >>>>> what
> you
> > >>> say
> > >>>>> resonates with what I have been thinking. However, I am
> > >>>>> finding
> that
> > >>>>> peeling way the visual from what you write is tricky.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ed
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 2:35 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If I read you correctly Ed, my language belies my intent.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> "An image" is not a static thing, it is a process. Think of
> > >>> Zinchenko's
> > >>>>>>> experiments with fixed images in which he tricked the visual
> system
> > >>> that
> > >>>>>>> prevented stabilized images from disappearing. He stabilized
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>> image
> > >>>>>>> (here reified as a projection on the retina) but changed its
> color,
> > >>> thus
> > >>>>>>> defeating the retina's tendency to go grey. In those
> > >>>>>>> conditions,
> > eye
> > >>>>>>> movements continue to trace the spatial coordinates of the
> > >>>>>>> image
> as
> > >>> if
> > >>>>> it
> > >>>>>>> were continuing to "feel it."
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> These are very special circumstances, to be sure, but for
> > >>>>>>> they
> make
> > >>> it
> > >>>>>>> clear that what is called an image is a process (according
> > >>>>>>> to
> > >>> Suvorov,
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>>> stepping away from the world and then stepping back into it,
> > >>>>>>> but
> > >>> then he
> > >>>>>>> was blind and deaf).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> What we designate as "the image" is some form of
> > >>>>>>> materialized
> > >>>>> stabilization
> > >>>>>>> of the flow of into-image-making. Some structure in the flow
> > >>>>>>> of
> the
> > >>>>> always
> > >>>>>>> new. From just the blink of an eye to our image of the
> > >>>>>>> statue of
> > >>>>> liberty.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This is an old idea but it fits with my intuition. I first
> > >>> encountered
> > >>>>> it
> > >>>>>>> reading Dewey who refers to "the poet" on the topic of
> experience.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> *Yet all experience is an arch wherehrough / Gleams that
> untraveled
> > >>>>> world
> > >>>>>>> whose margin fades / Forever and forever when I move. *
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> *Tennyson, Ulysses*
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If you are interested, we could try to synch re/reading of
> > >>>>>>> some
> > core
> > >>>>> common
> > >>>>>>> articles/chapters. This entire area of concern is of recent
> vintage
> > >>> for
> > >>>>> me
> > >>>>>>> and my ignorance is particularly keenly felt.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> mike
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Mike
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> As I indicated to Larry, I wonder somewhat about the
> privileging
> > >>> of
> > >>>>>>>> the ‘image’ in discussions of imagination. Additionally,
> although
> > it
> > >>>>> has
> > >>>>>>>> been awhile since I delved into enactivism (and I don’t
> > >>>>>>>> think it
> > was
> > >>>>> of the
> > >>>>>>>> Russian kind) some of the theorists they seemed to draw on
> > >>>>>>>> would
> > >>>>> disagree
> > >>>>>>>> with such a focus; this also seems to apply to semiotics.
> > >>>>>>>> I did order the book after an Amazon perusal - it seems
> useful! -
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> I have yet to read your paper slowly. However, despite a
> > >>>>>>>> huge
> > >>> emphasis
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> mathematics education on visualization, I may be thinking
> > >>>>>>>> less
> > about
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> ‘imaginal’ than you or Larry. That doesn’t mean that what
> > >>>>>>>> you
> and
> > >>>>> Larry are
> > >>>>>>>> talking about might not usefully factor in especially your
> > >>>>>>>> point
> > >>> about
> > >>>>>>>> joint, mediated, activity.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Ed
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 11:11 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for having IMAGINATION in the subject line Larry et
> > >>>>>>>>> al
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'll venture that into-image-make in its embryonic
> > >>>>>>>>> beginnings
> > >>> builds
> > >>>>> off
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>> the already highly functional sensory system. Assume
> > >>>>>>>>> vision as
> > the
> > >>>>>>>> sensory
> > >>>>>>>>> system in question. We know that in an important sense,
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>> "simple"
> > >>>>> act
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>> seeing what you might call a common object, for example
> > >>>>>>>>> your
> car
> > in
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> driveway, or for an infant, the mother's face, involves
> temporal
> > >>> and
> > >>>>>>>>> spatial discontinuities arising from saccadic eye movement
> > >>>>>>>>> that
> > >>> must
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>> resolved by the nervous system or vision ceases, the
> > >>>>>>>>> process of
> > >>> image
> > >>>>>>>>> formation ceases to function.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The Peleprat/Cole paper provides more substantiation for
> > >>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>> simplified
> > >>>>>>>>> account. In thinking about imagination I turn to
> > >>>>>>>>> Zaporozhets,
> > >>>>> Zinchenko
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>> non-Russians who I think of as promoting the idea of
> > >>>>>>>>> enactive perception/cognition. It is also consistent with
> > >>>>>>>>> joint,
> mediated,
> > >>>>>>>> activity
> > >>>>>>>>> as the germ cell of human ontogeny. Or so the story might go.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I currently have my bet on the emergence of the semiotic
> function
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> human possibility for symbolic communication is
> > >>>>>>>>> co-incident and co-constitutive of distinctly human imagination.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> in brief
> > >>>>>>>>> mike
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Lplarry
> > >>>>>>>>> <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Ed, mike, Michael,
> > >>>>>>>>>> I will push my question to an earlier time period.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Age 2 months.
> > >>>>>>>>>> The baby (perceives) mom's activity and introduces
> > >>>>>>>>>> her.own
> > >>> activity .
> > >>>>>>>>>> Question
> > >>>>>>>>>> With this mutual activity is the baby forming an image,
> > >>>>>>>>>> moving
> > >>> into
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> image and becoming an (imaging) human as het nature?
> > >>>>>>>>>> Will say more but where does (image) have its embryonic
> origin?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>> From: "Ed Wall" <ewall@umich.edu>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2015-12-05 4:48 PM
> > >>>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > >
> > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination or Fantasy
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Larry
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I wan’t looking at the title, but, yes, ‘or’ can be
> > >>>>>>>>>> inclusive
> or
> > >>>>>>>>>> exclusive.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I don’t think of it as a detour; that doesn’t seem to
> > >>>>>>>>>> make
> sense
> > >>> if
> > >>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>> understand Vygotsky correctly.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I, personally, don’t equate ‘physical' and ‘concrete’;’
> perhaps
> > I
> > >>>>>>>>>> wasn’t clear. In any case, I’ve never completely
> > >>>>>>>>>> understood
> the
> > >>>>>>>> tendency to
> > >>>>>>>>>> think of the physical (i.e. a thing in itself) as somehow
> > >>>>>>>> extra-concrete.
> > >>>>>>>>>> The best I can do is imagine that in a certain cultural
> > historical
> > >>>>>>>> context
> > >>>>>>>>>> and at a certain stage of development people act as if
> > >>>>>>>>>> certain
> > >>> things
> > >>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>> ‘concrete.’ This includes the 'physical world' (whatever
> > >>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>> is?).
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I’m not quite sure where you are going with the
> > >>>>>>>>>> development
> of
> > >>>>>>>>>> systems and concrete-like or even cultural historical.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Fantasy is a complicated word so I don’t know what you
> > >>>>>>>>>> mean
> > >>> when
> > >>>>>>>>>> you allude to “assume that or let’ involving fantasy. My
> answer,
> > >>>>>>>> perhaps,
> > >>>>>>>>>> would be neither is necessarily imaginal or fantasy
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Since I have no clear idea what you mean by system or
> fantasy
> > >>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> your email, I can’t give a reasonable answer to your
> > >>>>>>>>>> final
> > >>> question.
> > >>>>> An
> > >>>>>>>>>> approximate answer might be “no”; however, I can imagine
> > >>>>>>>>>> other possibilities (smile).
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Ed
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Lplarry
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ed,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The title imagination (or) fantasy Is different from
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Imagination (equates) with fantasy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> To move from the physical concrete though a detour (a
> > >>>>> distanciation?)
> > >>>>>>>>>> and return to the mathematical concrete.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Is the same word (concrete) shift meaning in this
> > >>>>>>>>>>> transfer
> from
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> physical to the mathematical?
> > >>>>>>>>>>> If mathematics is actually a (system) that has emerged
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>> historical
> > >>>>>>>>>> consciousness then is it reasonable to say that the
> > >>>>>>>>>> physical
> > >>>>> (concrete)
> > >>>>>>>>>> which exists prior to the human understanding and the
> > mathematical
> > >>>>>>>>>> (concrete) which is a cultural historical system emerging
> within
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> imaginal are both (concrete) in identical ways?
> > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems that systems (develop) and become concrete-like.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Is this the same meaning of concrete as the physical
> > >>>>>>>>>>> which
> > >>>>> originates
> > >>>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>>> concrete.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> To (assume that or to let) involves the imaginal and fantasy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Is there a clear demarcation between the imaginal and
> fantasy.
> > >>> Does
> > >>>>> one
> > >>>>>>>>>> imply it does not (actually) exist while the other
> > >>>>>>>>>> implies the
> > >>> actual
> > >>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>> be mapped onto the physical with systems?
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Is there a clear demarcation between systems and fantasy?
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Larry
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>>> From: "Ed Wall" <ewall@umich.edu>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2015-12-04 11:05 AM
> > >>>>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Imagination or Fantasy
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> All
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> For various reasons I have been thinking about a kind of
> > >>>>> imagination
> > >>>>>>>>>> that might be subsumed under statements like “assume that,”
> > >>> “let,” or
> > >>>>>>>>>> “Imagine that” (and these may be, in fact, very different
> > >>> statements
> > >>>>>>>>>> although, under certain circumstances, might be the
> > >>>>>>>>>> same.” In
> > >>> doing
> > >>>>> so I
> > >>>>>>>>>> came across something written by Vygotsky in Imagination
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>> Creativity
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> the Adolescent (ed Rieber) p163: “It is characteristic
> > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>> imagination
> > >>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>> it does not stop at this path, that for it, the abstract
> > >>>>>>>>>> is
> only
> > >>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>> intermediate link, only a stage on the path of
> > >>>>>>>>>> development,
> > only a
> > >>>>> pass
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> the process of its movement to the concrete. From our
> > >>>>>>>>>> point of
> > >>> view,
> > >>>>>>>>>> imagination is a transforming, creative activity directed
> from a
> > >>>>> given
> > >>>>>>>>>> concrete toward a new concrete.”
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I find this quote very interesting in view of a previous
> > >>> discussion
> > >>>>>>>>>> on the list regarding Davydov’s mathematics curriculum in
> that I
> > >>> am
> > >>>>>>>>>> wondering whether part of what is going on is that
> > >>>>>>>>>> children
> are
> > >>> being
> > >>>>>>>> asked
> > >>>>>>>>>> to “imagine." I have other mathematical examples of this
> > >>>>>>>>>> join
> > the
> > >>>>>>>>>> elementary school that are possibly a little more obvious
> > >>>>>>>>>> (if
> > >>>>> somebody
> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>> interested I can give them off list). Anyway, one reason
> > >>>>>>>>>> for
> my
> > >>>>>>>> wondering
> > >>>>>>>>>> is that for so many people mathematics is not concrete; i.e.
> > there
> > >>>>> is no
> > >>>>>>>>>> stepping from concrete to concrete; the sort of get
> > >>>>>>>>>> stuck, so
> to
> > >>>>> speak,
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> the abstract. So let me give two examples of what I am
> wondering
> > >>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> then a question.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> My first example: It is possible that we would all
> > >>>>>>>>>>> agree
> that
> > to
> > >>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>>>> a winged horse is imagine a winged horse as there is no
> > >>>>>>>>>> such
> > >>> thing.
> > >>>>> In a
> > >>>>>>>>>> somewhat like manner, a simple proof that the square root
> > >>>>>>>>>> of
> two
> > >>> is
> > >>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>> fraction begins with “Assume that the square root of two
> > >>>>>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>> fraction.”
> > >>>>>>>>>> This is not so thus, in sense, one must imagine that it
> > >>>>>>>>>> is
> true
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> then
> > >>>>>>>>>> look at the consequences (the square root of -1 is
> > >>>>>>>>>> perhaps
> > another
> > >>>>>>>>>> example). This seems to be a case of concrete to concrete
> > through
> > >>>>>>>>>> imagination and this type of proof (a proof through
> > contradiction)
> > >>>>>>>> seems to
> > >>>>>>>>>> be very hard for people to do.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> My second example: The teacher goes up to the blackboard
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>> draws
> > >>>>>>>>>> something rather circular and says “This is a circle.”
> > >>>>>>>>>> She
> then
> > >>>>> draws a
> > >>>>>>>>>> point somewhat towards the center of the planar object
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> says,
> > >>>>> "This
> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>> its center.” She then says “Every point on this circle
> > >>>>>>>>>> (waving
> > her
> > >>>>> hand
> > >>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>> the object on the blackboard) is equidistant from the center.”
> > >>> None
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>> is true, but somehow we are meant to behave as if it were.
> Each
> > >>> step
> > >>>>>>>> here
> > >>>>>>>>>> seems to go through imagination from the concrete to the
> > concrete.
> > >>>>> (Hmm
> > >>>>>>>> , I
> > >>>>>>>>>> see that I am really saying from the physical concrete to
> > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> mathematical
> > >>>>>>>>>> concrete. Perhaps Vygotsky wouldn’t allow this?)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [I note by the way Poul Anderson took on the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> consequences of
> a
> > >>>>> winged
> > >>>>>>>>>> horse].
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> So my question, as Vygotsky seems to identify
> > >>>>>>>>>>> imagination
> with
> > >>>>>>>>>> fantasy (this may be a fault of the translation), what
> > >>>>>>>>>> would
> > >>> Vygotsky
> > >>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>> called my examples? A case of sheer conceivability or
> something
> > >>> else?
> > >>>>>>>> There
> > >>>>>>>>>> is, I note, good reason to call it imagination, but I’m
> > >>> interested in
> > >>>>>>>> your
> > >>>>>>>>>> take on what Vygotsky’s take might be.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ed Wall
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural
> > >>>>>>>>> science
> with
> > >>> an
> > >>>>>>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science
> > >>>>>>> with
> > an
> > >>>>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science
> > >>>> with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with
> > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with
> > > an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list