What exactly does unconscious recall mean? do you mean to say that we recall
events that we were previously unconscious of? In any case, re-cognition can
not be synonymous with conscious memory or deep unconscious "memory" since
it, that is re-cognition, does not entail a specific memory or pictured
event. If I was to re-cognize a specific perfume, this re-cognition need not
be attached with a specific memory. I know this is what you are driving at
with unconscious memory but nonetheless i am dealing simply with the mental
phenomena of the re-cognition (not its consequences or ties).
I am not sure what you mean by the "symbolization" I described because i
dont have the email handy but I believe that the symbol "the word" is simply
a utility in order to effect the re-cognition of an object that is now not
before us. That is its tie to the object and hence to our re-cognition of
the object and in this way it is the meaning of the word.
regards,
d
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:29:15 -0000, Poetryetc provides a venue for a
dialogue relating to poetry and poetics wrote:
> 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/
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
|