Edelman writes specifically and in great detail on the past-referencing
neurobiology of recognition in _The Remembered Present_ but his _Bright Air,
Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind_ (1992. BasicBooks) is more wide
ranging and accessible. I found _The Remembered Present_ very heavy going in
some places. As Mike pointed out to me this also connects to the first
chapter of CP as communication is also always past-referent.
The related comments on Zen spiritualism were prompted by several sources
but I was thinking more specifically of the American Zen master, Alan Watts,
and found the relevant reference; he states, in chapter 2 of _The Way of
Zen_ (1957), "Zen =85 does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God
while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the=
potatoes." =20
It is perhaps not coincidental that a number of innovative researchers from
Eleanor Rosch to Barbara McClintock to, I believe, George Lakoff make
references to Buddhism in their work (although there is, not surprisingly,
variance: Ms. McClintock I believe is more interested in the Tibetan rather
than the Zen strands). The 'double vision' of CHAT is not terribly
dissimilar in some ways; in my most humble opinion of course. I should add,
for the sake of 'full disclosure,' that I have some problems with the
theoretical visions of Rosch and Lakoff (but none whatsoever with their
desire to seek alternative frames).
Henri Bergson's comment took some more searching but (eureka!) it comes from
chapt 4 of a 1911 re-publication of _Matter and Memory_ (1896) in which he
states, "To perceive means to immobilize =85 we seize, in the act of
perception, something which outruns perception itself." This is from some
old notes; I'm afraid I don't have the text in question.
As well, Ana correctly notes the restriction of possibilities in the 20
questions game. I believe this follows what Stan Salthe, in _Development and
Evolution: Complexity and Change in Biology_ (1993. MIT Press) would
consider the logic of specification (which itself follows Baer's law).
Information in organized systems is entropic; the price of increasing
cogency is senescence as it were. This I think is consistent with J.J.
Gibson's view of perception as well as the more recent neurobiological
discoveries of Antonio Damasio (1994. _Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason,
and the Human Brain_. G. P. Putnam's Sons). But I believe Jay can say far
more about this, and slippage as well (which is more about lack of
congruence between systems I think), if he's so inclined.=20
This is a rich series of topics and I genuinely regret the necessity of
leaving XMCA (it is to be hoped only temporarily) just as the 'Fall Feast"
seems to be shaping up so deliciously. There is so much to say, far more to
'hear.' Ah well, I'll try to get back soon.
Warmest regards and best wishes to all, Rolfe
Rolfe Windward (Science/Technology Curriculum & Teaching)
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rwindward/
"Reason itself is fallible, and this fallibility must find=20
a place in our logic." -Nicola Abbagnano