Plasticity is not the same as polymorphous flexibility

Evidence

The ‘extension’ I have been drawing out must be understood in a particular way. By analogy to a malleable material, children are said to be ‘plastic’. However, the adjective ‘plastic’, while certainly in opposition to ‘rigid’, ‘fixed’ and ‘ossified’, is not to be confused with ‘polymorphous’. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 225

Categorization

• DEFINE: The negative definitional move: plastic contrasts with rigid/ossified but must NOT be equated with polymorphous — the key exclusions that shape the concept’s precision.
• XREF: This exclusion anticipates Malabou’s later argument against reducing plasticity to mere flexibility/adaptability — the critique of ‘flexibility’ her brain books develop. — connects to: Plasticity is suppleness that is neither passion nor passivity — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 290; Plasticity’s future emerges from replaying rigid past forms — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 1268; Plasticity adapts while flexibility submits, so the two are not interchangeable (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Plasticity adapts while flexibility submits, so the two are not interchangeable #corroborates (0.92)
• Brain plasticity is often misread as flexibility, a docility-based economy #corroborates (0.85) — Catherine Malabou, What Should We Do with Our Brain?, 154
• Flexibility is an unrooted notion while plasticity is a historically grounded concept #corroborates (0.80) — Catherine Malabou, What Should We Do with Our Brain?, 59
• Plasticity means both receiving and giving form, unlike mere malleability #qualifies-own (0.60) — Catherine Malabou, What Should We Do with Our Brain?, 39