PDA

View Full Version : Institutionalization of thought



SpookyWriter
06-19-2007, 08:12 AM
I'm curious to know more of this subject. Does anyone have (or know of) a dissertation or white paper on the subject? I have a few links, nothing significant, and one ebook (http://books.google.com/books?id=feyejYnO6rkC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=%22institutionalization+of+thought%22&source=web&ots=IPDgPtaixH&sig=o-RoAx2F2brpMQDR4ifWC7MQQa8#PPA10,M1) which I am tempted to order. But I wanted to know if anyone is familar with this term.

ColoradoGuy
06-19-2007, 08:27 AM
I don't know, but that page on your link was pretty much gibberish to me. Rob would probably know what it all meant. Rob?

Medievalist
06-19-2007, 09:01 AM
Meh. He's using a sucky translation of Derrida and getting stuff all wrong.

Read Nietzsche instead; he at least knows etymology . . .

robeiae
06-19-2007, 06:08 PM
Well, what he is saying about the Heidegger quote is not incorrect, imo anyway. But he's saying it in a most convoluted and somewhat silly way, again imo. And that's problematic, since Heidegger isn't exactly an easy read. Also, strung together words, like ontology-as-pragmatism, may be reminiscent of Heidegger, but the terms don't necessarily have any relationship to Heidegger's ideas.

But moving forward to chapter one, re introductions, I'd say that he's not saying much of anything, at all. I assume there is supposed to be some humor or cleverness in this chapter, but it's pretty weak.

As to the concept "institutionalization of thought," it would seem, from the limited bit available, that it is descriptive of how thought occurs in identifiable patterns. But supposing that this "institutionalization" can be avoided/overcome seems to be largely nonsensical, insofar as the human mind does operate in identifiable ways and no amount of critical theory is going to break through those ways. Tabula Rasa, as a theory, is as dead as Derrida--which is to say that it should be dead, but fools keep digging it up (imo, of course).

I would never buy this book, Spooky, fwiw. It seems much more like an essay, unnecessarily expanded to book length.

SpookyWriter
06-20-2007, 12:17 AM
http://books.google.com/images/cleardot.gif

SpookyWriter
06-20-2007, 12:33 AM
But moving forward to chapter one, re introductions, I'd say that he's not saying much of anything, at all. I assume there is supposed to be some humor or cleverness in this chapter, but it's pretty weak.

I agree the subsequent chapters failed miserably to make sense, where he was going, and lacked purpose.

As to the concept "institutionalization of thought," it would seem, from the limited bit available, that it is descriptive of how thought occurs in identifiable patterns.

I'm still chewing on this concept. I am not sure if "institutionalization of thought" isn't another means of critical thinking (in so much as a process by which thought is analyzed). I am drawn to this subject line which I've been unable to adequately define.

I would never buy this book, Spooky, fwiw. It seems much more like an essay, unnecessarily expanded to book length.
Good idea. I had Heidegger in college, but that was twenty years ago.

SpookyWriter
07-31-2007, 08:14 AM
Was it school of thought that had me thinking that thought, as a collective, could become an institution? Is it possible that one day the mechanics of thought can become characterized by ... let me think on this some more.

joetrain
07-31-2007, 08:30 AM
But supposing that this "institutionalization" can be avoided/overcome seems to be largely nonsensical

i'm not familiar with the subject, but this is particularly interesting. while i agree with your following criticism of the tabula rossa, it also seems apparent that thought can be "institutionalized" by certain daily routines, particularly those in childhood, and that the mind can also recognize these patterns and begin to make decisions against them, "deinstitutionalize" itself. something like a will.

or maybe i'm misunderstanding.