dear all,
such a host of signs, such a lot of thoughts ...
find it really hard to get back into it again.
however, the issue of time.
I would not talk about memory (G) as being timeless,
however, producing its own timely experience.
With Diana I would hold that memory (G)
successfully repulses the notion of linearity
of time in the classical physical sense,
whereas remembering (E) always seems to me as being a
SITUATED answer to a (often, at least in the case of unvoluntary
remembering) question that has not been explicitely posed.
Thus, remembering (E) - though often far from WILL -
should not be looked upon as a random process ...
Consequence: remembering (E)is - even if we look upon a
individual "monade" - a DISCOURSIVE process, just as
Middleton, Edwards, et al. have pointed out when examining
processes of remembering in groups.
So - Mr. Phikl G. - I would hold that the significance
we attach to a certain event, its heritage, our anticipations
brought about by a certain interpretation of a situation ...
all these processes are "realtime", here, now (I know modern
neurophysiology has demonstrated convincingly that we
are always late ... but I wouldn't argue about some fragments
of a seconc;-). - Mr. Freud speaks of the
flashing up of memories in our consciousness...
And Bartlett, yes, one of the first constructivist positions
on memory. If remembering (E) is ontologically not a "recall",
"retrieve" (or anything like that) from the fridge of our mind,
but an active construction, that is motivated (as Zinchenko
also highlights) by the present activity of any subject, then,
why should we bother with accuracy (in terms of the identical
reproduction of any reified original)? Or rather, what would
accuracy mean then ...
Here's Bartlett:
„Remembering is not the re-excitation of innumerable fixed,
lifeless and fragmentary traces. It is an imaginative
reconstruction, or construction, built out of the relation
of our attitude towards a whole active mass of organized past
reactions or experience, and to a little outstanding detail
which commonly appears in image or in language form.
It is thus hardly ever really exact, even in the most
rudimentary form of rote recapitulation, and IT IS NOT
AT ALL IMPORTANT that it should be so.“ (Bartlett, 1932)
Greetings from rainy Zurich,
Christoph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:02:02 PDT