Re: [xmca] Ingold linking "figments" of imagination and "figments" of materiality as a single ontology

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Hi Larry, Robert et al--

I am following along as best i can. At present I have an extra heavy set of
local obligations that make serious response to lots of serious comments
simply impossible.

Tim Ingold asks: Could it be that images do NOT stand FOR things, but
rather help you FIND things?"

I  believe that a Vygotskian notion of imagination answers firmly, yes.

Four more weeks of heavy pressure here. I
s the light at the end of the tunnel a train coming?

mike
T



On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>wrote:

> Thanks for sharing this wonderful treasure Larry!
>
>           It is interesting ( and perhaps instructive) to imagine the
> polar opposite of Ingold's
> view of imagination. For example in Newspeak, “all ambiguities and shades
> of meaning” (Orwell, 1949, p. 304) are purged from languages so that one
> word conveys one rigidly defined thought. Freedom for example, could only
> mean one thing. The result is that thinking in metaphor becomes less and
> less possible.  Orwell gives an example of this one dimensional aspect of
> freedom in Newspeak by saying that “The dog is free of lice” (ibid.).  You
> don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the trends toward Newspeak in
> standardized thinking, standardized tests and test preparation materials
> that comprise what  Herbert Kliebard calls a "curriculum of
> followership"(1995,p. 95).
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike [and others who enjoy Ingold's writings]
> >
> > I'm reading his article "Ways of Mind -walking Reading Writing Painting"
> > [see attached article if interested]
> >
> > I love the way he writes and links up concepts and images into "fertile"
> > generative perspectives [as real]
> >
> > Page 16 & 17 describe how he "developed" the ideas for this article
> through
> > "accidental" encounters that were linked into coherence. This descriptive
> > journey of "mind" is in itself worth the effort of reading the article.
> >
> > However, I want to introduce the BIG question Ingold asks in this
> article.
> > He writes on page 16
> >
> > "The question of the RELATION between the observation of marks and traces
> > inscribed or impressed in surfaces in the WORLD and the imagining that is
> > carried on, as it were, on the hither side of eyesight, 'in the mind'.
> > Reading and writing surely involve the exercise of both eye and mind, and
> > the same must be true of walking. Is it possible, then, to find a way of
> > describing the imaginative activity that goes on as one walks, reads or
> > writes, without having to SUPPOSE that it involves the perusal of images?
> > Perhaps it is the very notion of the image that has to be rethought away
> > from the idea that images represent, ON ANOTHER PLANE, the forms of
> things
> > IN THE WORLD, to the idea that they are PLACE-HOLDERS for these things
> > which travellers watch out for, and from which they TAKE THEIR DIRECTION.
> > Could it be that images do NOT stand FOR things, but rather help you FIND
> > things?"
> >
> > This is a BIG question, worth asking.  The fundamental question, Are
> > aesthetically produced objects productions or compositions OF things in
> the
> > world, or are they LIKE things in the world in the sense that we have to
> > FIND OUR WAY through and among them as wayfarers dwelling in the world.
> > Ingold says he has NO FINAL ANSWERS to this big question, but as an
> > anthropologist the way he approaches the question is through an analysis
> of
> > the answers that people of radically different life experiences have come
> > up with. In other words Ingold accepts the EXCESS and "ambiguity" at the
> > center of his inquiries into the big question.
> >
> >  Ingold, [like Zygmunt Bauman] engages with metaphors as a fundamental
> tool
> > for exploring the place of the imaginal within the world.  Not as two
> > separate realities or ontologies but as a single ontology. Ingold
> > definitely thinks outside the frames of received knowledge.
> >
> > In a simple phrase the question becomes, Is it "true" that imagination IS
> > reality???
> >
> > Hope you enjoy the article.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.
> *Assistant Professor
> Social Foundations of Education
> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> Georgia Southern University
> P. O. Box 8144
> Phone: (912) 478-5125
> Fax: (912) 478-5382
> Statesboro, GA  30460
>
>  *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
> midwife.*
> *-*John Dewey.
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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