|
> What exactly does unconscious recall mean? do you mean to say that we
recall
> events that we were previously unconscious of?
No, that awareness and consciousness are not identical.
Enough.
Else I shall write a poessay called 'The Jabberwhacky'.
david b
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Jab <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: statement
> 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/
|
