Internalization may be described as taking what is 'outer' and making it 'inner.' David Cooper spoke of us gluing bits of others onto ourselves. Is this best thought of as poetic? Does the idea of internalization even make any sense? Is the idea based on a false distinction? What do people think about all this?
to me to internalize something is to absorb what one has seen/read or heard and think about it not from the outside but from its inside. ie there is a shape as well as a meaning. in other words one has to read between the line and visualise the meaning of a something within a context.Originally Posted by russellb
I am not sure I understand this. does this mean that one must apply what one reads to oneself first? one would have to imagine what he or she writes or reads must apply to them first.David Cooper spoke of us gluing bits of others onto ourselves.
this needs more examples of what you mean.Is this best thought of as poetic? Does the idea of internalization even make any sense?
false distinction of what?Is the idea based on a false distinction? What do people think about all this?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
internalization could be said to involve the 'inner' workings of the mind that somehow reach out to absorb what is 'outer.' Like David cooper's thought this could be seen as figurative and i think this raises questions as to the limitations of language and understanding. The potentially false distinction i was referring to was simply between 'inner' and 'outer.' How helpful if at all is this distinction? Does it provide an illusory basis for the idea of internalization? Perhaps the notion is simply to misunderstand the workings of the human mind and that to produce a representation, behaviour pattern etc is not to literally to take from 'outer' to 'inner.' If i ape your behaviour say we would not say albeit in some very literal sense that i have grabbed hold of your behaviour and put it inside me.
Internalization is often or can be considered plagiarizing and we have to caution ourselves when we internalize and I do not like this idea but I choose the word assimilation. I assimilate thoughts and I can call that mine once they are integrated.
I'm curious as in what way you are questioning the meaning of internalization? Because if you're going for the philosophical meaning of internalization then it is to incorporate or consolidate one's values, beliefs especially when referring to moral behavior. There is also the psychological approach where a person takes someone else's behavior and integrates it into their own. There are other explanations. But they wouldn't fall into philosophy.
"To handle a language skillfully is to practice a kind of evocative sorcery."-Charles Baudelaire
you talk of integrating someone else's behaviour. Does this involve taking 'something' that is literally 'outside' you (this may be said to be outside the boundaries of your body though if you mean a behaviour pattern this is not a physical thing outside you in physical space-it is a tendency not an object) and then literally putting that 'inside' you (whatever that means?). So my question is...can talk of internalization really only ever, like a lot of our discourse, be figurative? And if you'll excuse my 'realism' to what extent does this mask or distort actual process? (even this question has a figurative element!!!)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote