Re: [xmca] Living metaphor and conventionalized language

[Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>]

Larry, David...

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.

Martin

On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:27 AM, David Kellogg wrote:

> Of course, BOTH "internalization" and "appropriation" are metaphors. I don't flee from the "internalization" metaphor the way that Martin does, partly because I think of it as referring not to a body but as to a nation, a country, a city, a community, a family...or some particle thereof. In this sense (a sense which I suppose is better captured by "interiorization" than by "internalization", just as "reflection" is better captured by "refraction") there is no duality; when you move from one nation to another you do not change worlds, nor do you change nations when you move from one city to another.
>  

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca