Well of-course i am talking about perception. That is the point. And
re-cognition does not entail memory or learned response, for re-cognition,
in itself, is inspecific to its object. I can re-cognize a face but fail to
remember anything about the face (where I saw him, etc..). The re-cognition
need not bring anything to mind, such as specific memories however
re-cognition is what meaning is based upon. I re-cognize and then I think
"rain" as the symbol of the logical form which is the conclusion of the
procedure of thinking (the logical relation). In any case, re-cognition is
not knowledge, here the concept or the logical form is the knowledge. The
re-coginition begins the process of the formation of the logical relation,
which finds its end in the logical form or concept.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:16:08 -0000, Poetryetc provides a venue for a
dialogue relating to poetry and poetics wrote:
> But surely now what you're talking about is perception, a perception
based
> upon recognition memory, which is a learnt response, not innate or
bestowed
> from on high. And if you boil down that recognition through the process
of
> acquisition you'll find it's based on little more than Yes/No, as when a
> child learns that some things mean danger. So your logical relations end
up
> with the startling revelation of 'on/off', or 'pulse/no pulse', which is
> about as much as a computer can be said to 'know'.
>
>
> db
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel Jab <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:44 PM
> Subject: Re: statement
>
>
> > no jorie and slyvia haven't joined up yet but i was hoping to enlist,
at
> > least one of them, relatively soon.
> >
> > "You know when I see the rain, rather than thinking 'It is raining' I
tend
> > to
> > > have thoughts like 'oh fuck it's Monday morning' or the very
primitive
> > > cave-grunt 'Rain'"
> >
> > Its in the fine details you know. Such as, re-cognizing that "it is
> raining"
> > does not necessarily ential that you either think nor mouth those
words.
> > Re-cognition of the fact that it is raining suffices to perform the
> logical
> > relation. Being a poet-type i thought you have an appreciation for the
> fine
> > of the mind.
> >
> > ciao,
> > d
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:43:19 -0000, Poetryetc provides a venue for a
> > dialogue relating to poetry and poetics wrote:
> >
> > > SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEAM
> > >
> > >
> > > ah, I feel better after that.
> > >
> > >
> > > So it's Jorie Grahame and Sylvia Plath as the vessels of the logical
> new
> > > order, eh?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think I'm going to take up something less dangerous to my mind
than
> > > poetry, like heroine addiction.
> > >
> > >
> > > How about Christian Morgenstern and Lewis Carroll, Daniel?
> > >
> > > You know when I see the rain, rather than thinking 'It is raining' I
> tend
> > to
> > > have thoughts like 'oh fuck it's Monday morning' or the very
primitive
> > > cave-grunt 'Rain'. Interesting triplex isn't it: noun, copula,
process?
> > > Which is which, which is being which? Is it the rain that is raining
or
> > the
> > > raining, rain? The rain in raining rains mainly in the rain.
> > >
> > > Oh lord, there are leaves on the tree, in its open arms.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to sign this but my synapses have just collapsed.
> > >
> > >
> > > d-d-duh-duhr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Daniel Jab <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: statement
> > >
> > >
> > > > >Where are the leaves before they are "on" the tree?
> > > > >Are they not in the tree?
> > > >
> > > > Well, it seems fairly obvious that leaves are only leaves when
they
> are
> > on
> > > > the tree. Before they unfurl, the thing is called a "bud" not a
leaf.
> > > >
> > > > >Surely all of your logical grammar depends on a set view of
seeing
> the
> > > > >world.
> > > >
> > > > No, I am not advocating a set view. I am talking about the
> fundamentals
> > of
> > > > thinking, such as logical relation and logical form (concept).
> Whether
> > > what
> > > > you say is illogical or logical (as in what you call "breaking the
> > rules")
> > > > is irrelevant to the logic that confines it. Whatever you say is
> either
> > > > logical or illogical. And it is only illogical because logic makes
it
> > so.
> > > > So either way, you obey logic. Even in your so-called "linguistic
> > > > disobedience".
> > > >
> > > > >Logic is only bound by its own rules.
> > > > >Break through those rules and it falls apart.
> > > >
> > > > Well if you had any grasp of the issue, you would immediately see
> that
> > > > logic can not have rules. The rules are derived from logic but the
> > rules
> > > > can not say what logic is. The law of contradiction, for example,
is
> a
> > > > principle that states a certain feature, a certain manifestation
of
> > logic,
> > > > but what makes it so can not itself be stated. The rules, or laws,
> only
> > > > show an obvious conformance to logic.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >If you cannot see past the logic, past absolute truth, then how
can
> we
> > > > >express it to you?
> > > >
> > > > I do not necessarily think that logic means absolute truth, truth
is
> > the
> > > > agreement between a logical form and the feature in the world. And
> the
> > > > reason that you can't express this to me is that there is no way
to
> > "see
> > > > past" logic. As poets, it may be a hard pill to swallow, only
because
> > we
> > > > tend to see logic as logitians do. Logic is not a strict code and
> > neither
> > > a
> > > > lifeless method. How i see it is that, in a poem that is
particularly
> > > > effective a new logical thread is woven between a certain feature
in
> > the
> > > > world or nature and the mind. In this, is certainly a novel beauty
> and
> > it
> > > > does not in any way diminish anything from poetry to re-cognize
this.
> > > > Indeed I feel that, at least for poems that really touch me, such
as
> a
> > > > Jorie G. or a Plath, i can see in the relations that they make a
NEW
> > and
> > > > beautiful logical thread. That is not easy to do but when it is
> > > > accomplished it is beautiful. I suppose it takes a new conception
of
> > what
> > > > logic is to see it in this way.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose many of you feel that it takes away from the freedom of
> > writing
> > > > poetry when someone tries to introduce a fundamental order into
the
> > nature
> > > > of thought. However i feel it is just the opposite and have
witnessed
> > what
> > > > a difference it has made in my own writing to be able to see logic
in
> > this
> > > > way and then learn to use it to achieve new dimensions of
creativity
> > that
> > > > truly speak effectively. Anyhow, this is my take on it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________
> > Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> > http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
|