Re: [xmca] Abduction, Creativity and Imagination

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Larry and Michael--

I was working from the far beyond when i sent around the Vygotsky article on
creativity and imagination in which he makes what seems to me to be a sound
arguement. It written before any of us was born!.
Did it not get through? His differentiations make sense to me.
What am i missing here? Do I need to re-send? I am notorious for think I
sent some attachment when I failed to!!
mike

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael
> I've been reflecting on your question of differentiating between creativity
> and imagination.  I agree the question of the procedure of how the imaginal
> becomes actualized and changes the "order of things" [Bateson] in
> lifeworlds
> is the central question of this topic.
> Your comment that "Imagination" may be located more INSIDE THE HEAD and
> less
> directly related to "problem solving" is where I sense a slight difference
> of emphasis.  This "inside the head" or "JUST imagination" as somehow less
> legitimate than "problem solving" is where I'm at the edge of my horizon of
> understanding in my ZPD.  It is also why I'm also curious about RELATIONAL
> psychoanalysis as a tradition.  INscapes and LANDscapes are somehow linked
> and abduction as a topic is exploring these linkages.  I recognize that
> people take strong positions on one side or the other of this
> Inscape/Landscape dialectic but I'm contnually fascinated with the tension.
>  As an orientation in my work [and life] I'm wondering if  it's possible to
> delight in the continuing fluidity and dance between subjectivity/self and
> intersubjectivity that is both imaginal and creative with the teleological
> end goal of creating "COMMON sense".  I do strongly support that Inscapes
> are a developmental achievement grounded in previous societal situations of
> development  but "AGENTIC capacity" and "self-determination" are also
> key constructs which I believe have continuing relevance within
> sociocultural theory. [though "post modern perspectives challenge this
> view]
>
> Michael, a last comment that creativity can be "observed".  When I have
> given students an opportunity to  share their imaginal Inscapes [that are
> usually kept private] in a space where these deeply personal reflections
> are
> recognized and validated [shared in OPEN spaces] I OBSERVE a transformation
> in the intersubjective affiliation within the group. There is a quality of
> "intimacy" that is generated which leads to an EXPANSION of learning and a
> sharing of multiple perspectives.
> Larry
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Larry and All,
> >
> > I wonder if it might be worthwhile making a differentiation between
> > creativity and imagination.  Creativity it seems to be is more active and
> > can be observed, is process oriented, and is, or can be directly related
> to
> > problem solving.  Imagination is maybe more inside the head and less
> > directly related to problem solving.  I sort of think of John Lennon's
> song
> > Imagine and the old song "Just my Imagination."  Well anyway, maybe
> > abduction is more related to creativity than imagination.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Purss
> > Sent: Sun 8/8/2010 9:45 AM
> > To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike and Denise and Michael [and others engaged in this expanding
> > conversation]
> >
> > Mike, this topic's multi-voicedness has definitely gone ballistic and
> I've
> > been sent into orbit. However, without coordinates I'm confused about
> which
> > constellation I'm circling. Hard to get my bearings when moving at warp
> > speed.
> >
> > I struggle with reading and understanding Peirce, but I do recognize the
> > depth and profound intuitive insights which he generates from a lifetime
> of
> > reflecting.
> >
> > Valsiner's "translation" of Peirce's concept "abduction" as ABSOLUTELY
> > FOUNDATIONAL to the other generative functions of "inferencing"
> [deduction
> > and induction] articulates the ABSOLUTE CENTRALITY OF IMAGINATION as
> > implicated in the formation of mind, "self" "culture" "history".
> >
> > Your mentioning the influence of prior discussions about LSV and
> > imagination
> > [and playworlds] led me back to a CHAT discussion in 2006 on these
> topics.
> > In that thread you were discussing John Dewey's Chapter 1 of "Art &
> > Experience"
> >
> > Within that thread on Dewey the topic of "learning by expanding" was
> being
> > discussed and you posted the following quote from Dewey.
> >
> > "... if life continues and in continuing it expands there is an
> overcoming
> > of factors of opposition and conflict; there is a transformation of them
> > into different aspects of a higher powered and more SIGNIFICANT life. The
> > marvel of organic, of vital, adaptation through expansion (instead of by
> > contraction and passive accomodation) actually takes place. Here in germ
> > are
> > balance and harmony attained through rhythm.  Equilibrium comes about not
> > mechanically and inertly but out of and because of tension." (p.13)
> >
> > Mike, I decided to repost this quote you previously posted to express the
> > centrality of this theme of abduction and imagination for Peirce, Dewey,
> > and
> > Mead.
> >  Michael mentioned the central value of instrumental pragmatism was in
> the
> > empirical putting into practice abductive processes.  However as I read
> > Valsiner's translation of Peirce I want to suggest that instrumental
> > pragmatism is GROUNDED IN IMAGINATION [abduction] and without imagination
> > there is no LEARNING BY EXPANDING.
> >
> > I believe Mead's contribution to pragmatism was his focus on expanding
> SELF
> > formation and developing the "agentic capacity" to ACTUALIZE imaginal
> > expansions within a community of dialogical inquiry.  What Mead brings to
> > the conversation is a focus on "intersubjectivity" and SHARED imagination
> > as the ground of emerging subjectivity.  The terms "perspective-taking"
> and
> > "social acts" and "SIGNIFICANT [shared] SYMBOLS" are key concepts in his
> > emphasis on learning by EXPANDING.  Coordinating multiple perspectives is
> > the procedural process of abduction [as I understand abduction from
> > Valsiner's translation]
> >
> > Denise,
> > I want to once more thank you for Valsiner's article which I hope EXPANDS
> > our learning in our playworld.  When I asked for other readings
> contrasting
> > "mind reading" and "non-mind reading" theories I had no idea of the orbit
> I
> > would be sent into.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > This
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:21 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Denis
> > > This time of year (in northern hemisphere) everyone is moving around in
> > > every which direction. And when lots of people get into the discussion.
> > > multi-voicedness goes ballistic!!
> > >
> > > Will read Valsiner on abduction with interest. Mulling over the
> > abduction/
> > > imagination connection which intuitively works, although I had not
> > connect
> > > the two ideas before (the influence, too, of prior discussions about
> LSV
> > > and
> > > imagination).
> > >
> > > Sure a lot of threads entangled here. very interesting.
> > > mike
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Denise Newnham <dsnewnham@bluewin.ch>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Michael,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wrote to Jaan about your question as no where was it clearly
> > stipulated
> > > > in
> > > > the earlier works and he has just replied so I forward his words and
> > text
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Denise
> > > >
> > > > Dear Denise,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good question! In 1998 I was somewhat naively optimistic about Peirce
> > > cand
> > > > abduction (see Pizarroso & V 2009 on overcoming that optimism).
> > > >
> > > > But the 1998 quote from my book is indeed an embryonic form of what
> > later
> > > > (2001 in Potsdam, and more thoroughly in my 2007 book CULTURE IN
> MINDS
> > > AND
> > > > SOCIETIES became clear-- words as POINT-LIKE CONCEPTS cannot be the
> > > highest
> > > > level of semiotic mediation as they would close up further creativity
> > of
> > > > meaning-making. So Vygotsky was basically limited.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, the pseudo-concept translates in my terminology into
> > field-type
> > > > sign (Level 4 in my system of semiotic mediation)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jaan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > On
> > > > Behalf Of Michael Glassman
> > > > Sent: 05 August 2010 15:22
> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Denise,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering, does Valsiner have an argument as to how and why
> > > > pseudo-concepts actally aids in Peirces ilogic of abduction.  I am
> > > > currently
> > > > under the impresson that abduction is primarily about hypothesis
> > > generation
> > > > - the ability to develop new hypotheses in response to unique
> problems.
> > >  So
> > > > I'm wondering what role pseudo-concepts, if we are going by
> Vygotsky's
> > > > definition, might play in all this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  _____
> > > >
> > > >  From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Denise Newnham
> > > > Sent: Thu 8/5/2010 5:26 AM
> > > > To: ablunden@mira.net; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
> > > >
> > > > Hello Andy, the reference as you saw to pseudoconcepts is in his book
> > > 'The
> > > > guided mind' 1998 and the other is : The development of the concept
> of
> > > > development: Historical and epistemological perspectives. In W.
> Damon,
> > &
> > > R.
> > > > Lerner(Eds), Handbook of child psychology. 5th Ed. VOl.1. Theoretical
> > > > models
> > > > of human development (pp. 189-232). New York: Wiley.
> > > >
> > > > I quote (1998): 'Vygotsky and his colleagues (Luria would be the
> > closest
> > > > example) attributed and overly idealized role to the role of concepts
> > in
> > > > human reasoning. The role fitted with his emphasis on the hierarchy
> of
> > > > mental functions (i.e. higher mental functions regulating lower
> ones),
> > > yet
> > > > by this exaggerated emphasis the focus on the process of semiogenesis
> > is
> > > > actually diminished. In contrast, it could be claimed that
> > > pseudo-concepts
> > > > (i.e. specific unified conglomerates of concept and complex
> qualities)
> > > are
> > > > the core (and highest form) of human psychological functioning. The
> > claim
> > > > would fit with the unity of representational fields (of Karl Buhler,
> > > > described and extended earlier) and with the central focus of
> abduction
> > > > (rather than induction or deduction) in the process of making sense
> > > (along
> > > > the lines of Pierce).
> > > >
> > > > I read you paper 'when is a concept really a concept' and heard that
> > > there
> > > > was a debate on XMCA but as I was not connected at that time have not
> > > heard
> > > > or read this debate.
> > > >
> > > > Denise
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > On
> > > > Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > > Sent: 05 August 2010 10:22
> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > Subject: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
> > > >
> > > > Can you give us the full reference for "see Valsiner,
> > > > 1997d", Denise, and maybe even the context? I just find it
> > > > incredible that someone could know as much about Vygotsky as
> > > > Valsiner does and place pseduoconcepts at the top of the
> > > > development hierarchy.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > Denise Newnham wrote:
> > > > > Dear Larry and others,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am new to this game so perhaps am doing something out of turn so
> if
> > > so
> > > > let
> > > > > me know. Larry I read your reply and this extract below made me
> think
> > > of
> > > > > Valsiner's work on semiotic mediators and concepts where he states
> > that
> > > > > pseudoconcepts (1998, p.278-279) should be placed at the top to the
> > > > > developmental hierarchy as the hierarchy should be seen as 'open to
> > > > changes
> > > > > or formation of intrasensitive order- [see Valsiner, 1997d]' (2001,
> > p.
> > > > > 85).This brings ot my mind Markova's discussion on the spontaneous
> of
> > > > > intuitive in knowledge formation (2003) and I think that Cole's
> fifth
> > > > > dimension attests to this argument. There is an interesting paper
> by
> > > > > Galligan (2008) "using Valsiner" on the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denise
> > > > >
> > > > > 'These reflections of linking up multiple perspectives lead to the
> > > > > developmental question of how  socially situated microgenetic
> > > experiences
> > > > > get "generalized" into "higher" levels of organization that
> organize
> > > > > experience across situations [and organize the relation of the
> > "lower"
> > > > and
> > > > > "higher"
> > > > > functions]?'
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > > > > Sent: 04 August 2010 19:04
> > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Call For Papers: Special Issue
> > on
> > > > > Mindreading, Review of Philosophy and Psychology
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Leif and Katerina
> > > > >
> > > > > Leif,
> > > > > I have recently read Daniel Stern's latest book "The Present
> Moment"
> > > and
> > > > I
> > > > > agree that he has a fascinating perspective on the topic of
> > > "engagement"
> > > > > that emphasizes a "non-mind reading interpretation" of engaging
> with
> > > > > others.  I will look up his earlier work discussing Vygotsky and
> > Glick.
> > > > It
> > > > > is also interesting that you mention Joseph Glick. Glick's articles
> > on
> > > > > Werner are also fascinating as they suggest that Werner was also
> > > focused
> > > > on
> > > > > "microgenesis" as central to developmental accounts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katerina,
> > > > > I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "accept metaphor" but
> generally
> > I
> > > > > accept metaphor as a central way of understanding "human science"
> as
> > > > > interpretive and "perspectival".  As I read  Glick's interpretation
> > of
> > > > > Werner's microgenetic developmental theory, I was also REFLECTING
> on
> > > Mike
> > > > &
> > > > > Natalia's focus on the microgenetic social situation of
> development,
> > > and
> > > > > also my attempt to link these perspectives with neo-Meadian notions
> > of
> > > > > social ACTS [interchangeability of actual social positions].  These
> > > > > reflections of linking up multiple perspectives lead to the
> > > developmental
> > > > > question of how  socially situated microgenetic experiences get
> > > > > "generalized" into "higher" levels of organization that organize
> > > > experience
> > > > > across situations [and organize the relation of the "lower" and
> > > "higher"
> > > > > functions]?
> > > > >
> > > > > Glick's article "Werner's Relevance for Contemporary Developmental
> > > > > Psychology"  points out that Werner thought developmental processes
> > got
> > > > > organized "at one of  three different levels: the sensorimotor, the
> > > > > perceptual, or the symbolic." (p.562)  Metaphor organizes
> experience
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > 3rd symbolic level and at this level we can have metaphoric models
> of
> > > > "mind"
> > > > > [for example: conversation, text, computers, dance, orchestra,
> etc.]
> > > > > However, this still leaves us with questioning  the RELATIONAL
> > process
> > > of
> > > > > linking language and metaphor to the other levels of organization
> at
> > > the
> > > > > sensorimotor and perceptual levels.
> > > > > Stern, Reddy, Werner, Glick, Gillespie & Martin, Mike and Natalia,
> > and
> > > > > others are exploring the possible dynamic fluidity of the capacity
> > for
> > > > > organizing and structuring the 3 levels of experience that may be
> > more
> > > > > reciprocal [and possibly simultaneous assemby] than a linear
> > > teleological
> > > > > dynamic.  The question becomes, how central are the sensorimotor
> and
> > > > > perceptual ways of "constructing" or "forming" experience once
> social
> > > > > situations of development are  symbolic [and metaphorical]?  As
> Glick
> > > > points
> > > > > out, Werner believed these language and symbolic functions "undergo
> a
> > > > > differentiation process from deeper sensorimotor roots." (p.562)
> > > However
> > > > > these deeper roots are NOT TRANSCENDED but continue to organize
> > > > experience.
> > > > > The notion of "leading activity" implies an INVARIANT linear
> process
> > > > where
> > > > a
> > > > > specific leading activity DOMINATES each stage of development.  An
> > > > > alternative perspective emphasizes the fluidity of these "leading
> > > > > activities" as continuing to remain central for development. For
> > > > > example functions such as "affiliation" are not only dominant in
> one
> > > > > specific stage of developmentand then recede into the background,
> but
> > > > > ACTUALLY continue to ACTIVELY organize experience [depending on the
> > > > societal
> > > > > microgenetic situation of development].  Whether the previous
> > "leading
> > > > > activity" recedes or remains active is dependent, not on the stage
> of
> > > > > development [age determined] but rather on the particular social
> > > > situation
> > > > > of development. Mike's point that particular school contexts
> > correlate
> > > > with
> > > > > particular ages of students allows 2 alternative models of
> > development.
> > > > > Stage theory that is age "determined" or layered development that
> is
> > > > > socially situated [schools CONSTRAIN affiliative activity which
> > recedes
> > > > into
> > > > > the background]  If the 2nd alternative guided how we structured
> > > schools
> > > > and
> > > > > affiliation and interchangeability of social positions was VALUED,
> > > > identity
> > > > > and concept development would be altered.
> > > > > My personal fascination, working in schools, is the idea of the
> > > > possibility
> > > > > of creating institutional structures which promote the
> > > > "interchangeability
> > > > > of social positions in social acts" and how to facilitate social
> > spaces
> > > > > which nurture this interchangeability. An example of this is the
> > > creation
> > > > of
> > > > > the 5th dimension METAPHORICAL SPACES where interchangeability of
> > > > positions
> > > > > is fluid and dynamic and leads to the development of "agentic
> > capacity"
> > > > > where ALL participants experience being recognized and experiencing
> > > > OTHERS
> > > > > RESPONDING to their recognition.  This affiliative activity is
> > > formative
> > > > of
> > > > > particular "identity" characteristics [communal self] and also
> > "concept
> > > > > development" formed within microgenetic moments of development. The
> > > > reason
> > > > I
> > > > > appreciate  neo-Meadian accounts of development are
> > > > > there privileging the centrality of ACTUAL INTERCHANGEABILITY of
> > social
> > > > > positions [which simultaneously organize and regulate sensorimotor,
> > > > > perceptual, and symbolic experiences].  I also believe this "ideal"
> > of
> > > > > actual interchangeability is fundamentally affiliative and
> dialogical
> > > as
> > > > the
> > > > > participants openly share perspectives.  This also creates social
> > > > > spaces where cognitive development [and reflective capacity] is
> > > nurtured
> > > > and
> > > > > "grown" [cultured]
> > > > >
> > > > > Larry
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Katerina Plakitsi
> > > > <kplakits@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Larry, with "trans situated" do you mean that you accept
> "metaphor",
> > > > which
> > > > >> is been considered as a constructivist argument?
> > > > >> Katerina Plakitsi
> > > > >> Assistant Professor of Science Education
> > > > >> Department of Early Childhood Education
> > > > >> School of Education
> > > > >> University of Ioannina
> > > > >> 45110
> > > > >> Greece
> > > > >> tel.: +302651005771 office
> > > > >> fax: +302651005842
> > > > >> tel.: +6972898463 mobile
> > > > >> e-mail: kplakits@cc.uoi.gr
> > > > >> http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits
> > > > >> http://users.uoi.gr/5conns
> > > > >> http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr <http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr/>  <
> > http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr/>
> > > > >> http://www.edife.gr/school/5oschool.html
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> From: "Larry Purss" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:43 PM
> > > > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Call For Papers: Special
> Issue
> > on
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Mindreading, Review of Philosophy and Psychology
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Martin
> > > > >>> This topic of "mind-reading" vs  "non-mind reading" models of
> young
> > > > >>> infants
> > > > >>> CAPACITY for attending to and ENGAGING with other "minds"
> [persons]
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > >>> fascinating topic which has been discussed previously in CHAT
> > > > >>> conversations
> > > > >>> on this listserve.
> > > > >>> I recently read V. Reddy's book which recommends a 2nd person
> > > societal
> > > > >>> interactional microgenetic model of non-mind reading. I have
> > sympathy
> > > > for
> > > > >>> this particular perspective. However, I would like to read more
> > > widely
> > > > on
> > > > >>> this particular topic.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Do you or others on this listserve have any recommendations for
> > > further
> > > > >>> articles which  engage with the pros and cons of the various
> models
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > >>> spirit similar to the proposed intent of the special issue of the
> > > > Review
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>> Philosophy and Psychology?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I'm curious about the various theories of young infants capacity
> > for
> > > > >>> engaging with others within sociogenesis, ontogenesis, and
> > > > microgenesis.
> > > > >>> However, I'm also interested in how the various  models of
> "infants
> > > > >>> engaging
> > > > >>> with others" become transformed in the transition to
> > > > >>> TRANS-situational understandings  [the development of "higher"
> > mental
> > > > >>> functions.]
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Larry
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > >>>>> From: Victoria Southgate <v.southgate@bbk.ac.uk>
> > > > >>>>> Date: August 2, 2010 4:22:07 AM GMT-05:00
> > > > >>>>> To: cogdevsoc@virginia.edu
> > > > >>>>> Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Call For Papers: Special Issue on
> > Mindreading,
> > > > >>>> Review of Philosophy and Psychology
> > > > >>>>> Social Cognition: Mindreading and Alternatives
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Special issue of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Guest Editors:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Daniel D Hutto, University of Hertfordshire
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Mitchell Herschbach, University of California, San Diego
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Victoria Southgate, University of London
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>           CALL FOR PAPERS
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>           Deadline for submissions: 1 December 2010
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Human beings, even very young infants, exhibit remarkable
> > > capacities
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>> attending to, and engaging with, other minds. A prevalent
> account
> > of
> > > > > such
> > > > >>>> abilities is that they involve "theory of mind" or
> "mindreading":
> > > the
> > > > >>>> ability to represent mental states as mental states of specific
> > > kinds
> > > > >>>> (i.e.,
> > > > >>>> to have concepts of "belief," "desire," etc.) and the contents
> of
> > > such
> > > > >>>> mental states. A number of philosophers and psychologists
> question
> > > the
> > > > >>>> standard mindreading and wider representationalist framework for
> > > > >>>> characterizing and explaining our everyday modes and methods of
> > > > >>>> understanding other people. One possibility is that infants may
> be
> > > > >>>> exhibiting sophisticated yet non-conceptual, and possibly
> > > > >>>> non-representational, mind tracking abilities that do not equate
> > to
> > > > any
> > > > >>>> sort
> > > > >>>> of mindreading.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Proponents on both sides of this debate must adequately
> > accommodate
> > > > >>>> recent work in developmental psychology. Experiments involving a
> > > > variety
> > > > >>>> of
> > > > >>>> nonverbal tasks - e.g., the "violation of expectation" paradigm
> > and
> > > > >>>> anticipatory looking tasks, as well as nonverbal tasks involving
> > > more
> > > > >>>> active
> > > > >>>> responses -suggest that young infants can understand others'
> > goals,
> > > > >>>> intentions, desires, knowledge/ignorance, and beliefs. Perhaps
> > most
> > > > >>>> prominent are studies suggesting infants as young as 13 months
> of
> > > age
> > > > > are
> > > > >>>> selectively responsive to the false beliefs of others, well
> before
> > > > they
> > > > >>>> are
> > > > >>>> able to reliably pass standard verbal false belief tasks around
> 4
> > > > years
> > > > >>>> of
> > > > >>>> age.
> > > > >>>>> This special issue of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology
> > aims
> > > to
> > > > >>>> create a dialogue between the mindreading and non-mindreading
> > > > approaches
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>> basic social cognition. Contributors are asked to clarify their
> > > > >>>> theoretical
> > > > >>>> commitments; explain how their accounts compare with rivals; and
> > how
> > > > > they
> > > > >>>> propose to handle the emerging empirical data, particularly that
> > > from
> > > > >>>> human
> > > > >>>> developmental psychology. Themes and questions to be addressed
> > > include
> > > > >>>> but
> > > > >>>> are not limited to:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -       Infants as young as 13 months old display a systematic
> > > > >>>> sensitivity to the beliefs of others. Does it follow that they
> > must
> > > be
> > > > >>>> operating with a concept of belief, or indeed, any concepts at
> > all?
> > > > >>>>> -       Normally developing children become able to attribute
> > false
> > > > >>>> beliefs to others between the ages of 3 and 5. Does it follow
> that
> > > > they
> > > > >>>> must
> > > > >>>> be operating with a "theory of mind" or the equivalent?
> > > > >>>>> -       What does mental attribution minimally involve? What
> > > exactly
> > > > >>>> distinguishes mindreading from non-mindreading approaches to
> early
> > > > > social
> > > > >>>> cognition? Are there theoretical reasons to prefer one over the
> > > other?
> > > > >>>>> -       What exact roles are mental representations thought to
> > play
> > > > in
> > > > >>>> mindreading approaches? What kind of mental representations
> might
> > be
> > > > >>>> involved? Can a principled dividing line be drawn between
> > > > >>>> representational
> > > > >>>> and non-representational approaches?
> > > > >>>>> -       How precisely should we understand the
> explicit/implicit
> > > > >>>> distinction as invoked by certain theorists?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Invited contributors
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -       José Luis Bermúdez, Texas A&M University
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -       Pierre Jacob, Institut Jean Nicod
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -       Andrew Meltzoff, University of Washington
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Important dates
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -       Submission deadline: 1 December 2010
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -       Target publication date: July 2011
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> How to submit
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Prospective authors should register at:
> > > > >>>> https://www.editorialmanager.com/ropp to obtain a login and
> > select
> > > > >>>> "Social
> > > > >>>> Cognition: Mindreading and Alternatives" as an article type to
> > > submit
> > > > a
> > > > >>>> manuscript. Manuscripts should be no longer than 8,000 words.
> > > > > Submissions
> > > > >>>> should follow the author guidelines available on the journal's
> > > > website:
> > > > >>>> http://www.springer.com/13164  Any questions? Please email the
> > > guest
> > > > >>>> editors: d.d.hutto@herts.ac.uk, mherschb@ucsd.edu,
> > > > v.southgate@bbk.ac.uk
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> About the journal
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> The Review of Philosophy and Psychology (ISSN: 1878-5158;
> eISSN:
> > > > >>>> 1878-5166) is a peer-reviewed journal published quarterly by
> > > Springer
> > > > > and
> > > > >>>> focusing on philosophical and foundational issues in cognitive
> > > > science.
> > > > >>>> The
> > > > >>>> aim of the journal is to provide a forum for discussion on
> topics
> > of
> > > > >>>> mutual
> > > > >>>> interest to philosophers and psychologists and to foster
> > > > >>>> interdisciplinary
> > > > >>>> research at the crossroads of philosophy and the sciences of the
> > > mind,
> > > > >>>> including the neural, behavioural and social sciences.
> > > > >>>>>  The journal publishes theoretical works grounded in empirical
> > > > > research
> > > > >>>> as well as empirical articles on issues of philosophical
> > relevance.
> > > It
> > > > >>>> includes thematic issues featuring invited contributions from
> > > leading
> > > > >>>> authors together with articles answering a call for paper.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Editorial board
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Editor-in-Chief: Dario Taraborelli, Surrey. Executive Editors:
> > > > Roberto
> > > > >>>> Casati, CNRS; Paul Egré, CNRS, Christophe Heintz, CEU.
> > > > >>>>> Scientific advisors: Clark Barrett, UCLA; Cristina Bicchieri,
> > Penn;
> > > > > Ned
> > > > >>>> Block, NYU; Paul Bloom, Yale; John Campbell, Berkeley; Richard
> > > > Breheny,
> > > > >>>> UCL;
> > > > >>>> Susan Carey, Harvard; David Chalmers, ANU; Martin Davies, ANU;
> > > > Vittorio
> > > > >>>> Girotto, IUAV; Alvin Goldman, Rutgers; Daniel Hutto,
> > Hertfordshire;
> > > > Ray
> > > > >>>> Jackendoff, Tufts; Marc Jeannerod, CNRS; Alan Leslie, Rutgers;
> > Diego
> > > > >>>> Marconi, Turin; Kevin Mulligan, Geneva; Alva Noë, Berkeley;
> > > > Christopher
> > > > >>>> Peacocke, Columbia; John Perry, Stanford; Daniel Povinelli,
> > > > >>>> Louisiana-Lafayette; Jesse Prinz, CUNY; Zenon Pylyshyn, Rutgers;
> > > Brian
> > > > >>>> Scholl, Yale; Natalie Sebanz, Nijmegen; Corrado Sinigaglia,
> Milan;
> > > > Barry
> > > > >>>> C.
> > > > >>>> Smith, Birkbeck; Elizabeth Spelke, Harvard; Achille Varzi,
> > Columbia;
> > > > >>>> Timothy
> > > > >>>> Williamson, Oxford; Deirdre Wilson, UCL
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Dr. Victoria Southgate
> > > > >>>>> Wellcome Trust Research Career Development Fellow
> > > > >>>>> Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development
> > > > >>>>> Henry Wellcome Building
> > > > >>>>> Birkbeck, University of London
> > > > >>>>> Malet Street
> > > > >>>>> London, WC1E 7HX.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>>> xmca mailing list
> > > > >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>> xmca mailing list
> > > > >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> xmca mailing list
> > > > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/><
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/><
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy/%3Chttp://home.mira.net/~andy/> >
> > > >
> > > > Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > > > Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > >
> > >  > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca