claims#ambivalence-as-unconscious-replacement-predates-wahl-1951

MP teaches the Politzer-derived "ambivalence as substitute for the unconscious" at the 1949–50 Sorbonne, predating the Wahl-1951 trigger of the *ambiguïté / ambivalence* distinction

ID: ambivalence-as-unconscious-replacement-predates-wahl-1951 Title: MP teaches the Politzer-derived "ambivalence as substitute for the unconscious" at the 1949–50 Sorbonne, predating the Wahl-1951 trigger of the ambiguïté / ambivalence distinction Status: contested Confidence: low Claim type: genealogical / philological / corrective Created: 2026-05-04 Updated: 2026-07-27 Sources: merleau-ponty-2010-child-psychology-pedagogy, saintaubert-2021-etre-et-chair-ii, merleau-ponty-2022-inedits-i-1946-1947, merleau-ponty-2022-inedits-ii-1947-1949 Wiki homes: ambiguity-vs-ambivalence, broad-vs-narrow-psychoanalysis

Claim

The Saint-Aubert genealogy on ambiguity-vs-ambivalence traces MP's distinction ambiguïté / ambivalence to a 12 September 1951 Wahl-MP private exchange (after the Geneva conference on L'homme et l'adversité). The Welsh-edition Sorbonne lectures (1949–52, ingested 2026-05-04) reveal a distinct earlier sense of "ambivalence" in MP's vocabulary, articulated at the 1949–50 Sorbonne — 18 months before the Wahl 1951 trigger. The earlier sense is Politzer-derived, embedded in the broad-vs-narrow psychoanalysis taxonomy (CPP ch. 2 §III): ambivalence as the positive technical term that broad psychoanalysis substitutes for "the unconscious" — signification that is "lived, predicted, but ignored."

This is a corrective claim against the existing wiki page: not that the Saint-Aubert post-1951 genealogy is wrong, but that it captures only the technical-distinction crystallization, not the first lexical use of "ambivalence" as a technical term in MP's vocabulary. Two senses must now be tracked separately on ambiguity-vs-ambivalence: (a) 1949–50 Politzer-derived = ambivalence-as-positive-technical-replacement-for-unconscious; (b) post-1951 Wahl-derived = ambivalence-as-pathological-monocular-alternation against ambiguïté.

Evidence

  • merleau-ponty-2010-child-psychology-pedagogy — ch. 2 §III the named broad-psychoanalysis taxonomy (Politzer, Bachelard, Sartre, Lacan); cardinal quotation (raw 1196, verbatim restored 2026-07-27): "We should therefore prefer this notion of ambivalence, which paints perfectly all that is equivocal in certain behaviors, 'resistances' to treatment, in which the subject is partially complicit, attitudes of hate that are at the same time love, desires that express themselves as agony." On the dream (raw 1194, verbatim): "the signification is for him an ambivalent state (lived, predicted, but ignored) and not an unconscious state." Anchored in extraction-note Pass 2a item 3 + Pass 2b "ambivalence (vs. unconscious)." Also ch. 1 §VIII.A (raw 790, verbatim): "The other is who delivers me from my own ambivalence: we are both, other and self, two variables of the same system" — sub-anchor re-tagged 2026-07-27: the local context (raw 788–792) is the depersonalization / verbal-hallucination analysis, and being delivered from one's ambivalence reads closer to the negative valence, so this passage no longer carries the "positive technical term" characterization (C3 panel finding; the ch. 2 §III anchor alone carries that).
  • saintaubert-2021-etre-et-chair-ii — Ch I §§ 2-3 for the post-1951 Saint-Aubert genealogy; cardinal formula at p. 64 (Ch I § 2b: "L'ambiguïté n'est donc pas l'ambivalence, mais désigne tout au contraire la sortie de l'ambivalence," extraction-note Key Passage). The former "(p. 61-85)" span was unattested in any wiki artifact and is dropped (verifier, consolidation 2026-07-27). The Welsh-edition discovery does not contradict Saint-Aubert; it adds an earlier layer.

Counterpressure / Limits

  • The two senses are not in direct contradiction. The post-1951 sense could be read as a pathologized narrowing of the 1949–50 broader Politzer-sense; "ambivalence" remains the lexeme for both, but its argumentative role differs.
  • The 1951 Wahl exchange may have triggered the technical distinction (ambiguïté vs. ambivalence) crystallizing, even though the lexeme "ambivalence" was already in MP's Sorbonne lectures. Saint-Aubert's genealogy is about the distinction, not the lexeme's first use. So the corrective is philological-historical (when did MP first use "ambivalence" technically) rather than philosophical (when did the ambiguïté vs ambivalence distinction crystallize).
  • The Politzer-derived ambivalence may itself trace to earlier sources (Bleuler 1910, Klein in MP's reading, etc.). The "predates Wahl 1951" claim is about MP's articulation, not about the concept's intellectual history.
  • C3 supported-jury refuter objection (evidence-chain lens, consolidation 2026-07-27, wf_0c146f6b-f92): Evidence-chain refutation (consolidation 2026-07-27, evidence-chain lens): the cited source itself attests the distinction, not only the lexeme, before Wahl 1951 — and the entry's Counterpressure concedes the opposite. 1. The primary evidence source contains sense (b) pre-Wahl, twice, unregistered anywhere in the wiki. The claim (claims#ambivalence-as-unconscious-replacement-predates-wahl-1951, Claim §2 and Counterpressure bullet 2) rests on a bifurcation: CPP supplies only sense (a) (Politzer-derived positive replacement for the unconscious, 1949–50), while sense (b) (ambivalence as pathological monocular alternation against ambiguïté) is a post-1951 Wahl-triggered crystallization, so that the corrective is "philological-historical (when did MP first use the lexeme) rather than philosophical (when did the distinction crystallize)." A targeted raw check (General Rule 18) of the same Welsh volume falsifies that concession. In the course "The Child's Relations with Others (1950–1951)" — i.e. still before the 12 September 1951 Wahl exchange — MP twice draws the distinction itself: §I.B, raw/datalab-output-Child psychology and pedagogy the Sorbonne lectures 1949-1952 (Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Talia Welsh).md line 3397 (printed p. 242): "Melanie Klein had distinguished the concept of ambivalence from that of ambiguity. Ambivalence is where the subject makes two alternative images for the same being; alternatives that are not seen as representing the same object. Ambiguity is an adult concept. The subject perceives two images, but he knows that they apply to the same object" (continuation at line 3401); and §VI, line 3891 (printed p. 286): "Recall that ambivalence is almost the contrary of ambiguity." The back-of-book index confirms both as the volume's own indexed loci ("ambivalence: contrasted with ambiguity, 242, 286", line 7292). "Two alternative images for the same being, not seen as representing the same object" is the monocular-alternation-versus-binocular-holding contrast the entry assigns exclusively to the post-1951 Wahl-derived sense. 2. The claim's own wiki home assigns the psychological anchor of the post-1951 distinction to material MP was already teaching in 1950–51. wiki/concepts/ambiguity-vs-ambivalence.md §"The psychological anchor (Frenkel-Brunswik)" (lines 82–96) states that Frenkel-Brunswik 1949 "provides MP with the empirical basis for the distinction" and glosses "Psychorigidity = ambivalence: monocular alternation." That very Frenkel-Brunswik exposition — intolerance of ambiguity, psychological rigidity, the good-mother/bad-mother double image — is CPP ch. 5 §I.B, raw lines 3391–3395, immediately preceding the Klein distinction at 3397, and is registered in the extraction note (line 113, "ch. 5, §I-II") without its bearing on the ambivalence/ambiguïté pair ever being drawn. The two-sense table on the concept page (lines 290–291, "Post-1951 (Wahl-derived) … pathological monocular alternation, opposed to ambiguïté … psychorigidity") is therefore contradicted by the source the claim itself cites as its cardinal evidence. 3. Consequence for the gate. Test 2 requires that a characterization of a passage's argumentative function be warranted by the specific passages cited in their local context. Evidence bullet 1 characterizes CPP as attesting a "distinct earlier sense," but the volume's local context (ch. 5 §I.B and §VI, 1950–51) shows the same volume already deploying the contrast-sense; neither the Evidence bullets, nor Counterpressure (whose bullet 3 mentions Klein only as a possible remote ancestor of the Politzer sense, not as the source of the distinction), nor the extraction note engage those passages. As worded, the claim's corrective is therefore either understated or misdescribed, and the confidence rating does not survive restatement against this passage (Test 5). 4. Two subsidiary evidence-chain defects. (i) Evidence bullet 3 cites the wiki's own [[ambiguity-vs-ambivalence]] page ("now reflects this two-layer genealogy … documented in the new '## The 1949–50 Earlier Layer' section") — a concept page written by this very ingest is not one of the four permitted anchor types (extraction-note passage, source-page passage, traceably-anchored audit report, verified raw location), and the citation is circular. (ii) Evidence bullet 1's second anchor, ch. 1 §VIII.A, over-reads its passage: in local context (raw lines 788–792) "The other is who delivers me from my own ambivalence" sits inside a superego/id-discordance, projection–introjection account of depersonalization in verbal hallucination; nothing there ties ambivalence to Politzer or to a substitute for "the unconscious," and being delivered from one's ambivalence reads closer to the pathological sense than to the "positive technical term" the bullet asserts. The wiki's own source page corroborates the narrower reading: its Terminology table (wiki/sources/merleau-ponty-2010-child-psychology-pedagogy.md line 196) lists the technical ambivalence attestation as "ch. 2 §III" only. 5. The entry's own recorded precondition for supported is undischarged. Status History 2026-05-05 states promotion to supported "would require (i) finer reading of Saint-Aubert against Welsh-edition MP to determine whether Wahl-1951 was a trigger of the technical distinction or a consolidation of an already-active 1949–50 lexeme — not performed this run." Updated: remains 2026-05-05 and the only later Status History lines are the 2026-07-11 lifecycle backfills, so that reading has never been performed — and items 1–2 above indicate it would come out against the entry's current wording. Only the ch. 2 §III Politzer anchor (raw lines 1190–1196, verified verbatim) survives this pass intact; it supports a narrower claim than the one on the register.
  • C3 supported-jury refuter objection (rival-reading lens, consolidation 2026-07-27, wf_0c146f6b-f92): Rival reading (unresolved, blocks live -> supported): the claim's own source contains the ambivalence-vs-ambiguïté distinction itself, pre-Wahl, credited to Klein — so the two-sense periodization the claim asserts is not the best explanation of the evidence. The claim's Claim field partitions MP's usage into (a) a 1949–50 Politzer-derived sense = "ambivalence as the positive technical replacement for 'the unconscious'" and (b) a post-1951 Wahl-derived sense = "ambivalence-as-pathological-monocular-alternation against ambiguïté," and asserts these "two senses must now be tracked separately." A targeted raw check (General Rule 18) of the same cited source falsifies that partition: both senses are inside the same volume, in adjacent Sorbonne course years, both before the 12 September 1951 Wahl exchange. At raw/datalab-output-Child psychology and pedagogy the Sorbonne lectures 1949-1952 (Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Talia Welsh).md ll.3397–3401 (printed pp. 258–259, ch. 5, the 1950–51 course "The Child's Relations with Others"), MP teaches: "Melanie Klein had distinguished the concept of ambivalence from that of ambiguity. Ambivalence is where the subject makes two alternative images for the same being; alternatives that are not seen as representing the same object. Ambiguity is an adult concept. The subject perceives two images, but he knows that they apply to the same object." Its local context is the Frenkel-Brunswik psychorigidity material (ll.3391–3395, printed p. 258) and it closes at l.3411 (printed p. 260): "The entire world is ambiguous, but what is important is the manner in which one deals with this ambiguity. Psychological maturity is shown in accepting to see ambiguity and to 'interiorize' conflict." The Welsh edition's own index registers the pairing as a distinct topic — "ambiguity … contrasted with ambivalence, 242, 286" / "ambivalence: contrasted with ambiguity, 242, 286" alongside "ambivalence … as the unconscious, x, xi, 124" (ll.7291–7292). The same material is independently in the wiki as the second English witness to that course: merleau-ponty-1964-primacy-of-perception, Key Passages — "Ambiguity is ambivalence that one dares to look at face to face. What is lacking in rigid subjects is this capacity to confront squarely the contradictions that exist in their attitudes toward others" (Ch 4, p. 122) — and Key Findings ("Psychological rigidity (Frenkel-Brunswik) vs. maturity is cast as an ambivalence / ambiguity distinction"), with the extraction note .extraction-merleau-ponty-1964-primacy-of-perception.md ll.55–57 locating it at pp. 119–127. That content — ambivalence as monocular alternation between two incompossible images of the same being; ambiguity as the mature holding-of-both-as-one — is precisely the distinction Saint-Aubert's genealogy (per .extraction-saintaubert-2021-etre-et-chair-ii.md ll.749–760: "psychorigidity (Frenkel-Brunswik 1949) as paradigm of immature ambivalence… the wahlian bonne/mauvaise confusion … is the filiation-seed") dates from the Wahl exchange forward, and MP attributes it to Klein, not to Wahl. The rival reading this licenses, which explains the same evidence at least as well: MP's Sorbonne vocabulary is a single continuous Klein/Frenkel-Brunswik-anchored psychoanalytic usage in which ambivalence is already the to-be-overcome alternation contrasted with ambiguity, and the ch. 2 §III "prefer this notion of ambivalence" passage (raw ll.1194–1196, printed pp. 89–90) is one doxographic application of it — MP reporting the broad camp's "second manner" ("The notion of the unconscious is replaced by the notion of ambivalence. The best analysis of how ambivalence impacts us is given by Politzer") — not the coinage of a distinct positive sense that Saint-Aubert missed. On this rival the claim's corrective ("correct but incomplete"; "two senses must now be tracked separately") is not the finding; the finding would be that the distinction itself predates Wahl 1951 — a materially different, more contestable thesis than the one registered, and one the entry nowhere states. Three reasons the entry's existing Counterpressure does not defeat this rival: 1. Counterpressure bullet 1 concedes only that the two senses are "not in direct contradiction" and floats post-1951 as a "pathologized narrowing" of the 1949–50 sense. That reading is now blocked: the pathological/alternation sense is already present in the 1950–51 course, so there is no 1949–50 → post-1951 narrowing to describe. 2. Counterpressure bullet 3 quarantines the Klein prehistory as "the concept's intellectual history," not "MP's articulation." That escape route is closed by CPP pp. 258–259, which is MP's own articulation of the Klein distinction in his own teaching. 3. Counterpressure bullet 2 preserves compatibility with Saint-Aubert by conceding that his genealogy is about the distinction and the wiki adds only the lexeme. Given pp. 258–259 that concession is no longer available in the form stated, and the entry does not say what replaces it. Two further, independent pressures on the same rival that the entry also does not address: - Evidence-bullet valence. Evidence bullet 1 characterizes ch. 1 §VIII.A as showing "ambivalence used as the positive technical term." Raw l.790 reads: "The other is who delivers me from my own ambivalence: we are both, other and self, two variables of the same system" — in a passage whose stated central phenomenon is depersonalization. Being delivered from ambivalence is the sortie structure, i.e. the negative valence the claim reserves for the post-1951 layer; the passage does not warrant the "positive technical term" characterization. - Philological mediation, for a claim typed philological about first technical lexical use. The extraction note records (l.3) that the text is Verdier's re-edition of student notes published in Bulletin de psychologie 1949–52, read here only in Welsh's English translation (no French edition in raw/). A "first lexical use in MP's vocabulary" thesis therefore rests on wording attributable to note-takers and a translator; and the wiki's contrast case, Saint Aubert 2013 Ch VII (said to treat ambivalence in Klein and Frenkel-Brunswik), is not in raw/ and unread, so the claimed incompleteness of Saint-Aubert's genealogy cannot presently be verified at all. Consequence for the promotion: test 5 fails. The confidence rating (medium) does not survive restatement with this rival visible, because the rival attacks the claim's central taxonomic assertion, not a peripheral hedge, and it is sourced from the claim's own cited volume plus an in-wiki source page (merleau-ponty-1964-primacy-of-perception) that was already available when the entry went live and that the Evidence field never engages. The entry should stay at live until either (i) the two-sense partition is rewritten against CPP pp. 258–260 / PP ch. 4 pp. 119–127, or (ii) the claim is restated as being about the distinction's pre-Wahl presence and re-run through the gate on that wording.
  • C3 supported-jury refuter objection (scope lens, consolidation 2026-07-27, wf_0c146f6b-f92): Scope defect (blocks live -> supported): the claim's load-bearing "earliest / first use" wording is over-scoped by seven years, and is refuted from inside the wiki's own ingested corpus. The claim's distinctive content is not the trivially true "a use of 'ambivalence' exists in a 1949–50 lecture" but the priority assertion. That assertion is stated flat in three places: the Claim field ("it captures only the technical-distinction crystallization, not the first lexical use of 'ambivalence' as a technical term in MP's vocabulary"); the 2026-05-05 Status History line ("the 1949–50 Sorbonne lectures remain the earliest named technical usage in MP's corpus"); and, propagated to the Wiki home, ambiguity-vs-ambivalence §"The 1949–50 Earlier Layer" ("the earliest documented MP usage of 'ambivalence' as a technical philosophical term") and §"What the Concept Does" bullet 5 ("Identifies the 1949–50 Politzer-derived layer as the earliest documented technical use"). As worded, that is false: 1. The Structure of Behavior (1942), Ch. III, printed p. {208} (raw line 1686): "Thus, the pretended unconsciousness of the complex is reduced to the ambivalence of immediate consciousness." This is not an incidental lexeme; it performs the exact argumentative role the claim attributes to the 1949–50 passage — ambivalence as the positive term that replaces the Freudian unconscious — and it sits in MP's explicitly Politzer-anchored Freud critique (Ch. III notes 79, 80, 99, 102–105 = Politzer, Critique des fondements de la psychologie; raw lines 2538–2576; SB index line 2911 "Politzer, G., 244, 246, 250, 253"). The wiki's own artifacts already record it: wiki/sources/merleau-ponty-1942-structure-of-behavior.md Core Argument 8 (line 72) states "the unconscious of the repressed is 'the ambivalence of immediate consciousness' (raw 1686)", and .extraction-merleau-ponty-1942-structure-of-behavior.md carries it as a Key Passage (line 581) and as "unconscious as ambivalence" under Freud-as-structure-not-cause (line 375). 2. Phenomenology of Perception (1945) attests the same sense twice more: raw line 3799 (Cogito chapter, printed {397} region) — "I am not unaware of the feelings that I repress and in this sense there is no unconsciousness. But I can live more things than I can represent to myself … What is only lived is ambivalent; there are feelings in me to which I do not give a name" — which is verbatim the "lived, predicted, but ignored / and not unconscious" structure the claim treats as the 1949–50 signature; and raw line 2609 — "Pithiatism is an illness of the Cogito, it is consciousness become ambivalent, and not a deliberate refusal to confess what one knows." (Cf. also raw line 1967, "the ambivalent presence of an arm," in the phantom-limb/preconscious-knowledge analysis.) 3. The gate that promoted this to live never tested the relevant window. The 2026-05-05 Status History records that only Inédits I (1946–47) and Inédits II (1947–49) were checked. Both MP monographs that precede them — SB 1942 and PhP 1945, both ingested wiki sources with source pages and extraction notes — were never checked, and neither appears in the entry's Sources: field. 4. The existing Counterpressure does not cover this; it explicitly asserts the refuted leg. Counterpressure bullet 3 concedes only that "the Politzer-derived ambivalence may itself trace to earlier sources (Bleuler 1910, Klein…)" and then reserves precisely the point that fails: "The 'predates Wahl 1951' claim is about MP's articulation, not about the concept's intellectual history." MP's own articulation is exactly what SB 1942 / PhP 1945 pre-empt. Test 5 (confidence survives restatement) therefore fails as the entry currently stands. Secondary scope point (hedge stated as flat): "18 months before the Wahl 1951 trigger" (Claim field) and "predating the Wahl 1951 trigger by ~18 months" (ambiguity-vs-ambivalence §"The 1949–50 Earlier Layer") are point estimates presented without their range. The raw fixes ch. 2 only to the 1949–1950 academic year (raw TOC line 111; §heading raw line 1126; cf. editorial note raw line 6450 recording missing "February 2, 1950" course notes); no within-year date for §III is recoverable. The interval to 12 September 1951 is therefore 15–23 months, not a determinate 18. Register note (what survives, for the maintainer's narrowing decision — not a promotion recommendation): what the CPP passage uniquely supports is (a) the named four-member camp taxonomy, which is already the separate live claim claims#broad-psychoanalysis-as-named-camp-1949-sorbonne and is untouched by SB/PhP (SB cites Politzer but names no camp), and (b) the pre-Wahl dating of a non-pathological register of "ambivalence" — which SB/PhP strengthen rather than defeat, but which is a much weaker thesis than "earliest/first use." The claim as worded is refuted; a narrowing the entry does not state would be required, and per the panel's discipline that narrowing is not mine to write.

Payoff

If supportable, the claim:

  • Adds an earlier genealogical layer to ambiguity-vs-ambivalence, showing that MP's vocabulary of "ambivalence" entered his technical apparatus through Politzer / broad psychoanalysis at the 1949–50 Sorbonne, before the post-1951 Wahl-derived distinction crystallized.
  • Connects the broad-vs-narrow-psychoanalysis taxonomy to the later ambiguity-vs-ambivalence distinction as a continuous development.
  • Shows the wiki's existing genealogy as correct but incomplete — Saint-Aubert tracked the technical distinction; the Welsh-edition makes visible the prior lexeme-use that the distinction reformulates.

Status History

  • 2026-05-04 — created as candidate during the merleau-ponty-2010-child-psychology-pedagogy ingest. Direct artifact-internal evidence is solid; the corrective layer has been added to ambiguity-vs-ambivalence. Phase 8 should test against the Inédits I (1946–47) and Inédits II (1947–49) extraction notes to see whether the lexeme "ambivalence" appears even earlier in MP's vocabulary.
  • 2026-05-05 — promoted to live (Phase 8 seventh run). The Inédits I/II extraction notes (ingested 2026-05-04 — earlier the same day as candidate creation) do not record an earlier technical deployment of "ambivalence" in MP's vocabulary; the 1949–50 Sorbonne lectures remain the earliest named technical usage in MP's corpus. The 3-test gate is met: claim contestable (the two-senses-not-in-direct-contradiction objection is preserved), each evidence bullet anchored (CPP ch. 2 §III + ch. 1 §VIII.A; Saint-Aubert 2021 Ch I §§2–3), counterpressure recorded. Promotion to supported would require (i) finer reading of Saint-Aubert against Welsh-edition MP to determine whether Wahl-1951 was a trigger of the technical distinction or a consolidation of an already-active 1949–50 lexeme — not performed this run.
  • 2026-05-04 — status: created as candidate; (lifecycle backfill 2026-07-11)
  • 2026-05-05 — status: candidate -> live; (lifecycle backfill 2026-07-11)
  • 2026-07-27 — status: live -> contested; C3 supported-jury blocked (verifier 1 PASS / 2 UNCERTAIN; 5-test REQUEST-REVISION; refuters 3x REFUTED); reviewer-recommended demotion, wf_0c146f6b-f92 clean run
  • 2026-07-27 — Demotion substance, main-thread re-verified in raw before apply: (i) SB 1942 Ch III raw 1686 — "the pretended unconsciousness of the complex is reduced to the ambivalence of immediate consciousness," inside the Politzer-anchored Freud critique (Ch III notes 79/80/99/102–105) — falsifies the "first lexical use" / "earliest named technical usage" leg seven years before the Sorbonne; (ii) Inédits II raw 6577 carries the Politzer / « réalisation de second récit » / « – l'ambivalence – » / « le rêveur rêve et ne pense pas » complex (1947–49), while the Inédits II extraction note (lines 184, 484) quotes the neighboring phrases and omits the interpolated lexeme — the 2026-05-05 live promotion's negative check ran against that elision (General Rule 18 extraction-adequacy finding); (iii) CPP itself teaches the Klein ambivalence/ambiguïté distinction in the 1950–51 course, pre-Wahl (raw 3397 ≈ printed 242, raw 3891 ≈ printed 286, both in the volume's index), undercutting the two-sense periodization; (iv) PhP 1945 corroborates the pre-1949 lexeme (raw 3799, 2609, 1967). Confidence medium -> low per the 5-test recommendation. Mechanical repairs applied in this edit: Evidence bullet 1 restored to raw-verbatim + ch. 1 §VIII.A sub-anchor re-tagged (depersonalization context; no longer carries the positive-technical-term characterization); bullet 2's unattested "p. 61-85" span narrowed to the attested p. 64; former bullet 3 (self-cite of ambiguity-vs-ambivalence, not a permitted anchor type, stale updated-date parenthetical) deleted. The 5-test reviewer's corrective restatement — the survivable thesis: the Politzer-derived ambivalence-replaces-the-unconscious doctrine is continuous in MP from SB 1942 Ch III through the Inédits II notes (1947–49) to its fullest taught articulation at CPP 1949–50, while Saint-Aubert's Wahl-1951 genealogy concerns the ambiguïté distinction — is filed to the Harvest reservoir; the clean route back is a successor entry naming this one in Supersedes:. Two run-level notes: the verifier's assertion that the E&C II raw is absent from raw/ is a false absence (raw/datalab-output-Etre et Chair II.md is present; main-thread check — its UNCERTAIN on bullet 2 stands on the unattested span only), and the unregistered CPP ch. 5 passages (raw 3397/3891, Klein distinction) are routed to the next audit Coverage phase.
  • 2026-07-27 — cite-back completion (PR #115 review follow-up, Codex P2): the Wiki home ambiguity-vs-ambivalence still carried a (live) label and the priority framing at two sites (What the Concept Does; Stakes) after the demotion. Both now expose contested (confidence low) and the pre-Wahl counterevidence, and the surviving weaker point — a distinct Politzer-derived sense rather than a first one — is stated in place of the refuted superlative. broad-vs-narrow-psychoanalysis and the same page's §"The 1949–50 Earlier Layer" were already synced by the run. No further status change.

Related claims (3)

Claims sharing at least one wiki-home, sorted by overlap.