xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes: Our man from Brazil wrote:
>
>
>In my understanding, yes. Because internalization would be a larger
>concept than appropriation. So, all kind of appropriation would imply,
>any way, internalization.
>
>My thinking is that all appropriation presupposes internalization but not
>all internalization would be necessarily appropriation (unconscious
>reasons and desires etc).
>
>Any child, "normal" or "deaf", in the process of appropriation the
>activity of writting-reading (one thing cannot be separeted from the
>other) had already internalized a very specifical way of thinking: verbal
>thinking! She speaks and hear/understand the world - although in a very
>specific manner - necessarily mediated by WORDS.
>
>For the reasons I briefly put above, I cannot agree with your statement
>that "appropriation does not necessarily encopass the concept of
>internalization". Can you point me where and why I'm wrong?
>
as well, our woman from New Mexico wrote:
I am suggesting an analogy: while appropriation is not "rote " it may
consist of an imitated activity or one where " making a process one's own"
is a relatively straightforward activity.It results in an expansion of
one's
repertoir of adaptive activities. Internalization, on the other hand,
requires appropriation plus transformation, the linking of a present
process
to previous schemata or networks of rewpresentation. They are both
representational activities but they may vary in depth, duration, number
of
attempts and transformational possibilities.
>
_____________
both appear to be writing the same - that appropriation precedes
internalization -
as well, the idea of aperceptive learning has been introduced - a
batesonian notion -
and as pointed out aperceptive learning is how we learn much of what
constititues cultural norms, or "common sense" -
phillip
* * * * * * * *
* *
The English noun "identity" comes, ultimately, from the
Latin adverb "identidem", which means "repeatedly."
The Latin has exactly the same rhythm as the English,
buh-BUM-buh-BUM - a simple iamb, repeated; and
"identidem" is, in fact, nothing more than a
reduplication of the word "idem", "the same":
"idem(et)idem". "Same(and) same". The same,
repeated. It is a word that does exactly what
it means.
from "The Elusive Embrace" by Daniel
Mendelsohn.
phillip white
university of colorado at denver
denver, colorado
phillip_white@ceo.cudenver.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 08:02:50 PDT