These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Larry and others interested in attending to early infancy as part of a discussion about development -- Attached are a few pages early from Dan Stern's book to which Larry has pointed us. I am curious about people's thought on the "layers vs. stages" antinomy/contrast. A couple of questions: 1. Layering appears on the surface at least to deny any process of sublation. Is this a reasonable interpretation? 2. Layering is specifically associated with the interpersonal sphere and ideas about the primacy of sociality from the get go and seems contrasted with the (non-human) object sphere; sort of like relations and modes of production. So maybe the social sphere is layered and the object sphere undergoes stage-like transformations? But, the two are co-constituitive in human life, so would this mean that ontogenetic change would have features of each? What think you? mike
Attachment:
Layered Model.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca