Re: [xmca] moral life of babies

[Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>]

Andy
I just want to add that "something" that is a "gut feeling" is PRE-linguistic and PRE-conceptual.  My bias is to say that language and concepts [neoformations] do NOT negate but rather transFORMS that "something" or "gut feeling" that comes before.
When I read Daniel Stern's book "The Present Moment" his exploration of "felt intersubjectivity" which he believes is present in the infant continues to be an active component of linguistic and conceptual intersubjectivity.
 
Martin recommended Astington's work on ToM. Stern's notion of  felt intersubjectivity is NOT  Theory of Mind  [which posits the CONCEPT of MIND and may be a cultural and linguistic construct] Rather felt intersubjectivity posits a DIALOGICAL primacy of communication [as awareness]
 
Andy, I think this article does raise interesting "what-ifs" for philosophy and psychology and our notions of being human. My question is What-if Stern's and Reddy's notions of "attunement" and "engagement" that they observe from the beginning of the infant's life continues to be a central aspect of being human in all the later developmental neoformations?
Martin, I'm still waiting for your response to David and how you propose to link up thought [ imagination & SENSE] signification [meaning] and symbols [concepts]
I SENSE in my imagination that the "something" that is a "gut feeling" is implicated in the SENSE phase BEFORE signification and conceptualization.
 
Larry
 


----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] moral life of babies
To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> It's a very good article. The author doesn't leap to rash 
> conclusions, but just that moral sense has to build on 
> *something* and that is a "gut feeling" for good and bad, or 
> us and them.
> 
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca