[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] moral life of babies



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