RE: [xmca] Re: Cultural Synergy/Creativity -- And the relation between imagination and creativity

[Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>]

I am not sure about imagination beginning at 3 - it may be more accurate to say that a distinction between imagination and perception becomes clearer at about this age. While a 2 year old 'drinking' from an empty cup may be being swept along by the affordances of the cup as much as 'choosing' to 'pretend' to drink, I think it would be perverse to deny any imaginative engagement in this sort of activity. Early playfulness can result in 'accidental' discovery of pleasing new combinations of actions (using a cup as a hat for a doll) but I am not sure whether purists would be happy to describe this as creativity. Questions of degrees of intentionality and control over impulses might muddy the waters but I suspect that the pleasure derived from this sort of re-articulation of 'bits' of activity may drive the development of more sophisticated forms of creativity.

I have to confess to being wholly out of my depth when it comes to your explanation of Gadamer's distinction.

All the best,

Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
Sent: 23 May 2012 14:21
To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Cultural Synergy/Creativity -- And the relation between imagination and creativity

Mike, I hope others participate in a conversation in the difference [or similarity] understanding imagination and creativity.
Do others agree that imagination begins at approximately 3 years of age?
Is creativity and interpretation intimately related concepts?  Would Vygotsky agree with Gadamer that *interpretation* as a process has 2 poles?
On the one hand,
 interpretation implies continuity ans self-identity over time. If the interpretation is NOT the same then it is not an interpretation but a NEW text, unrelated to the first and is not the same.
On the other hand,
interpretation includes a pole of discontinuity and self-difference.
Interpretations are not merely duplicates [the other hand] but GENUINELY DIFFERENT. This might b called the pole of CREATIVITY, since interpretation points to the CAPACITY to generate an essentially limitless number of novel interpretations.  In Gadamer's language, texts, when interpreted invite the limitless novelty of the *unsaid*

For interpretation [and creativity??]  is it essential to maintain the pole of correctness [in interpretation NOT anything goes] and the pole of creativity [there is NOT one single correct interpretation]

If *correct and novel* are relata HOW are they related WITHOUT sliding to either the pole of *absoluteness* OR the pole of *relativism*  What kinds of things can be interpreted [texts, artifacts?]  that INVITE many right interpretations [OF the artifact or text]  BUT still different from it?

Gadamer's dis-position is to *perceive* [metaphorically] this question of interpretation as a GENERALIZABLE QUESTION as it pertains to any occurence that can be INTERPRETED and understood. What KIND of objects [text, occurences,  artifact] is OPEN to interpretation such that it produces OTHERNESS that nevertheless BELONGS to the object. What kind of objects [texts, occurences, artifacts] can be understood?

Is this interpretive process occuring before age 3 or must it wait for imagination to occur? Does creativity and interpretation require imagination?.
How would Vygotsky respond to Gadamer's invitation to explore imagination, creativity, and the polarity implied in interpreting?

Larry.


Does
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:14 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sounds real interesting, Francine.  Thanks for sending it. Would you 
> like it posted also on papers for discussion at xmca for others who 
> might find it that way.
>
> Here is a question I have been trying to think about, but am still 
> puzzled
> by:  Is there, from a Vygotskian point of view, a difference between 
> imagination and creativity (voobrazhenie and tvorchestvo)? In what 
> does it consist and how can we study their relationship empirically?
>
> With you and Vera and David and the playworld people on this list, it 
> seems a perfect place to seek enlightenment.
>
> mike
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > Message from Francine Smolucha;
> > The attachment contains a paper that I am writing titled aVygotskian 
> > Perspective on Cultural Synergy and Cultural Creativity.
> > It is a work in progress, that might be of interest to XMCA.
> > As usual, I am pioneering a new perspective. The main thesis is that 
> > Vygotsky's Theory of Creativitycan enhance our understanding of how 
> > ideas and tools fromdifferent cultures can be used to create new 
> > inventions andconceptual systems. Cultural exchanges throughout 
> > historyhave fueled creativity. The contemporary emphasis oncultural 
> > exchange as conflict and oppression, has obscuredthe creativity 
> > dimension. Understanding how the individual, group, and society 
> > creatively use ideas and tools from different cultures,will provide models for enhancing these skills.
> > Greetings from the south side of Chicago.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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