Plasticity requires refusing the transcendence-empiricism split, since spirit is not separate from man.

Evidence

In so far as Hegel has no room for the problematic of transcendence as it is commonly understood, noetic plasticity can only be conceived through the concrete determinations of spirit, namely, in this case, man. This refusal of transcendence logically entails a refusal to make a division between the transcendental and the empirical: the absolute never exists separately, never occupies an overhanging position. Consequently, since the concept of plasticity must also be understood in this way, it finds here its second meaning, as a mutual giving of form between the empirical and the noetic. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 428

Categorization

• XREF: Directly grounds the reader’s brain-work: noetic plasticity as mutual giving of form between empirical and noetic maps onto the neuroplastic brain as neither reducible to mere biology nor to pure thought. — connects to: Spirit develops by externalizing and returning to unite with itself — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 281
• DEFINE: Gives plasticity’s ‘second meaning’: mutual formation between the empirical and the noetic, tied to Hegel’s refusal of transcendence.

Broader Connections

• Spirit develops by externalizing and returning to unite with itself #expands (0.75) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 281