A child hears it said that the stove is hot. But it is not, he says; and, indeed, that central body is not touching it, and only what that touches is hot or cold. But he touches it, and finds the testimony confirmed in a striking way. Thus, he becomes aware of ignorance, and it is necessary to suppose a self in which this ignorance can inhere. …
In short, error appears, and it can be explained only by supposing a self which is fallible.
Ignorance and error are all that distinguish our private selves from the absolute ego of pure apperception.
🙞 C.S. Peirce • “Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed For Man”
Inquiry Into Inquiry 
As an aside, I had to go to IEP to confirm my understanding, but Royce went so far as to argue that the possibility of error is itself indicative of the necessity of an infinite mind:
In 1885, he published his first major philosophical work, The Religious Aspect of Philosophy, proposing the idea that in order for our ordinary concepts of truth and error to have meaning, there must be an actual infinite mind, an “Absolute Knower,” who encompasses the totality of actual truths and possible errors.
(Also, in his later works, Royce is very explicit about his debt to Peirce, especially around the idea of a “community of inquirers,” which became the foundation for Royce’s concept of the “Beloved Community.”)
LikeLike
For my part it all goes back to whether virtue can be taught, the relation between the Infinite and the Finite, Plato’s Meno and Sophist, the Gnostic pleroma and creatura, Leibniz’s pregnant plenum, Peirce’s ultimate community.
But I do not know if that helps much with the infant’s immediate problem. There I’d have to turn to Freud in his object relations mode.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The infant’s problem seems to gravitate toward aloe and unquentine …
LikeLike
℞ ICE
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Survey of Cybernetics • 4 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Cybernetics • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Cybernetics • 5 | Systems Community of Inquiry