[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] moral life of babies
- Subject: Re: [xmca] moral life of babies
- From: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 01:04:15 +1000
- Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4BE36B9B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (Windows/20090812)
Mike, I have no way of knowing. I have no research
experience in this area at all. I am just raising the
*question* of what relation baby abilities have to later
abilities which are similar. "Sublate" is a third relation
between retained and lost. I guess in this case it means
becoming a subordinate part of a higher function.
mike cole wrote:
Jay raiises your question in another, Andy. Plenty of uncertainty to go
Is sublate a particular kind of transformative relationship?
If we are going to get keep into this, the work of Jean Mandler seems to
require some kind of consideration. She quite explicitly critiques the
idea in Piaget's version of it which seems a least similar to Jay's
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Andy Blunden <email@example.com
Sorry for my unclarity, Mike. The 3 options I had in mind are (1)
that the so-called "infant morality" remains in its independent form
albeit overlaid by social acquisitions, (2) by sublate I mean it is
taken up into a more complex form of behaviour such that it no
longer exists as an independent mode of behaviour, and this I called
"sublated" and (3) it just disappears. So yes, I guess (2) sublated
I don't know what here would be a "proto-concept" though. Personally
I think LSV can call syncretism a concept only on the basis that it
is an early stage in the development of what later becomes
concept-use; the same sense in which crawling is a form of walking.
In that case, what we see is by definition a proto-concept, I suppose.
mike cole wrote:
Larry and Andy (and Martin and David I guess).
I would rather withhold judgment on some to the categorization
going on in this discussion. Andy wrote:
"To me, it does raise the question, as Jay commented in his
belated commentary on the infant communication discussion, how
much is retained or built on, how much is sublated into more
complex neoformations and how much actually just fades away to
be replaced by other neoformations?"
Is sublation not a transformation?
Are you sure that what the baby arrives with are not proto-concepts?
Everyone understand (e.g., can specify new examples in an
unambiguous way) what counts as a neoformation?
I feel quite uncertain about these issues.
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435
An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity:
xmca mailing list