These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
David, Are you asking about 'consciousness' and 'thought'? My reply would be the standard one: consciousness is the dynamic system of psychological functions (as well as being our relationship with the world); thinking is one of those functions. Was it pointless to ask? :) Martin On Aug 12, 2011, at 3:54 PM, David H Kirshner wrote: > Are these different material processes, or different perspectives on the > same process, or is it pointless to ask? > > David > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] > On Behalf Of Martin Packer > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 1:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: Re: [xmca] Living metaphor and conventionalized language > > 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 > __________________________________________ > _____ > 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