Re: [xmca] moral life of babies

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

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