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

Re: [xmca] moral life of babies

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 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.

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


    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 Skype andy.blunden An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: http://www.brill.nl/scss

xmca mailing list