In your description of facial recognition you fail to distinguish between
conscious memory, and unconscious recall, which is what occurs in the
scenario you describe. Most of what we know is not present at the conscious
level, at the upper layers of the forest canopy where the monkeys begin to
talk. The process of symbolization you describe is simply an abstraction of
linguistic apperception , of the self-reflex of the mirror-aware, and so is
ultimately a wan platonic ghost dependent although it denies it on
linguistic usage for its existence.

db



----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Jab <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: statement


> 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/