We really don't have the systematic distinction of Gedachtnis and Erinnern
in English, so that made it a bit harder initially to sort out the issues,
though I also see our views as quite close.
Would you say then that Memory (G) is what makes Remembering (E) possible?
That Memory is always at work, is in some sense cumulative (not that
nothing is lost -- I don't know about that -- but that Memory at each
subsequent time depends on what went before, which depended on what went
further before, etc.), but the Remembering is intermittent? or is it only
the consciousness of Remembering that is intermittent, and that R. too is
always feeding back, feeding up from the unconscious processes?
In the old, static view, there was laying something down into memory, what
was stored in memory, and the process of recalling it back up from storage.
In the dynamical view we can't say any of these things anymore ... but we
need some new distinctions like those you are proposing to speak of
memory/remembering in more detail, and not just as a unitary one-name
phenomenon.
Who else has written about these issues?
JAY.
---------------------------
JAY L. LEMKE
PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
JLLBC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
<http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/index.htm>
---------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:01:59 PDT