[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Living metaphor and conventionalized language
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Martin Packer wrote:
I don't like the word "internalization" because I can't see that anything internal is involved! As LSV put it:
?Consciousness does not occur as a specific category, as a specific mode of being. It proves to be a very complex structure of behaviour?
David Bakhurst describes well the 'radical realism' those guys were developing:
"Thought is conceived not as a barrier or interface between the self and the world beyond the mind, but as the means by which the individual enters into immediate cognitive contact with the material world. Thought, the mode of activity of the socially defined subject, reaches right out to reality itself" (1991, p. 261)
If the "inner" is out there in the "outer," we've got the metaphors wrong, IMHO.
"Internalization" suggests "representation," whereIN what once was
external becomes re-presented interally.
A semiotic alternative (Peirce, not Saussure), in agreement with Martin's
reading of LSV, would suggest rather that a person comes to participate in
what's going on in the world. The cognitive facet of that pragmatic
participation can be abstracted for consideration, if one wants to do so;
but the participation generally would or could involve more than just that
xmca mailing list