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?
This is more complex question, I guess. But it does emphasise that every stage of development is itself an autonomous form of life and missing nothing. Is "baby morality" necessary for baby life, or is it just life sex organs, waiting to be developed for adult life?
Andy mike cole wrote:
A colleague sent me this link. Seems relevant to ongoing discussion of early infancy and ITS social situation of development! (short easy reading) mike http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------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