Re: [xmca] moral life of babies

[Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca>]

Mike, "sublate" translates Hegel's German verb "aufheben." One sense of the verb is to keep (safe), in opposition to throwing it away. Another sense is to cancel something, to undo. In dialectical thinking, therefore, INNER contradictions (not the logical ones that some people call "inner" when in fact they are not inner at all) are never done away with, they are kept and done away with. Aufheben means to say both happen. The contradictions appear because one-sided expressions are held against each other, when in fact, they are "sublated", done away with, in the superordinate concept. But they are kept because, as one-sided expressions of the whole, they still exist. :-) Michael  


On 2010-05-07, at 7:26 AM, mike cole wrote:

Jay raiises your question in another, Andy. Plenty of uncertainty to go
around.
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
"sensori-motor first"
idea in Piaget's version of it which seems a least similar to Jay's
formuation.
mike

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> 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 is "transformed".
> 
> 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.
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 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.
>> mike
>> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
> andy.blunden
> An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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