memory

[TQWcS]

What do you consider more important, the act of doing something or the ability to remember it?

[BeHereNow]

An orange of course!

[ST88]

What do you consider more important, the act of doing something or the ability to remember it?

That's an interesting question. Most animals have no such choice. There is evidence to support procedural memory, and the limited ability to remember certain orientations and senses, but so far as we know, no ability to remember specific events in their context (aside from apes).

If I had to choose, it would be the ability to remember it. So often, we are "in the moment" and have no true knowledge of what might be happening to us or those around us. It's more important to be able to put things into context. Even in the case of a daring rescue of another person -- though the rescuer's instinct of being in the moment of the act is extemely important -- you could argue that the existence of memory causes the rescuer to realize how desperate the situation is and act with more clarity. Without memory, there might not even be the concept of rescue.

[BeHereNow]

If there were no act of doing, what would there be to remember?

Although there is a lot to be said for Nothingness.

[Corvus]

If there were no act of doing, what would there be to remember?

Although there is a lot to be said for Nothingness.

Without the ability to remember the act, then the act could just as easily never have happened. But the question did say "What do you consider more important, the act of doing something or the ability to remember it?" That there is an "it" means that there is an act to be remembered.

I would say the ability to remember is always more important than the act. Without the ability to remember, I cannot envision any need to act, except by instinct. The remembrance of an act adds power to it. How often is it that I remember a rare treat from my youth, like drinking chinotto, or thrills experienced while watching a particular movie, and repeat those sensations only to find that chinotto is not as bitter as it once was, and is quite disappointing, and the movie is sloppy, filled with poor acting and with script riddled with plot-holes. When Wilde met Gide he counselled him never to try to re-enact a good memory, to always be a adventurer in life and seek new sensations, because to return to old ones is to destroy them.

[BeHereNow]

The answer to my question, “If there were no act of doing, what would there be to remember?” is: There would be nothing to remember.

If you ask me “Which is more important, the Mother or the Daughter?”, It does no good to say that the Daughter was the CEO of IBM and mother was only a scrub woman. The fact remains that the Daughter owes her very existence to the Mother. If we can agree that existence is better (more important) than no existence, clearly the cause is more important than the effect.

Without the ability to remember the act, then the act could just as easily never have happened.

I don’t follow this.
If you save my life, then forget that you did, the fact remains that now I am alive where I might have been dead. To say that it “could just as easily never have happened” is to say that your memory is more important than my life.

We might ask “Which is more important, to ‘remember’ something you never actually did (do we agree this can happen?), or to have done something and not remember it?”. If you answered “Give me the enjoyment of remembering eating the ice cream cone that never existed rather than to have eaten the cone and never remember it.”, I would say you place more importance on pleasure than on existence. ST88 seems to be saying the same thing.
A defendable position no doubt. Be thou a hedonist?

[scorpia]

What about imagined memories? Such as acts that weren't committed but you have 'experienced' second hand leaving you with memories. Like the dream I had were I had were I was stinking rich, but when I woke up, it turned out not to be real, just a dream. It would have been nicer if I had experienced it for real.

[ST88]

What about imagined memories? Such as acts that weren't committed but you have 'experienced' second hand leaving you with memories. Like the dream I had were I had were I was stinking rich, but when I woke up, it turned out not to be real, just a dream. It would have been nicer if I had experienced it for real.

This is true, but the question was whether the action or the memory was more important, not which one was more desirable or even more effective at whatever.


By your statement, I would say that you also believe that memory is more important than action also. Because memories can be illegitimate and even manipulated by those around us, it becomes even more important. The famous cases of false-memory child abuse syndromes show just how powerful memory is, even if the act never happened. The argument of the memory of a dream would be most effective if you actually believed you were rich based on the dream. Many psychotropic drugs have this effect. And Alzheimer's patients or those with dementia can firmly believe things that may have never happened and deny those that did, and then act according to their confused states.

[Corvus]

The answer to my question, “If there were no act of doing, what would there be to remember?” is: There would be nothing to remember.

If you ask me “Which is more important, the Mother or the Daughter?”, It does no good to say that the Daughter was the CEO of IBM and mother was only a scrub woman. The fact remains that the Daughter owes her very existence to the Mother. If we can agree that existence is better (more important) than no existence, clearly the cause is more important than the effect.

But if we were to remove the effect, we would have something that causes nothing. We would have a very insignificant thing which we could no longer label a cause. If I were to concede to the perception that the scrub woman is inferior to the CEO - which some might argue otherwise - then to remove the CEO daughter is to complete remove any importance applied to the scrub woman. That is to say, the scrub woman is only given even a cursory glance because she is the mother of the CEO, regardless of whether the CEO owes her existence to the scrub woman.

Without the ability to remember the act, then the act could just as easily never have happened.

I don’t follow this.
If you save my life, then forget that you did, the fact remains that now I am alive where I might have been dead. To say that it “could just as easily never have happened” is to say that your memory is more important than my life.

Good point. What I mean is that whether the act happened or not would not be something I would be aware of, and thus never existed for me. But then, I suppose that saving someone’s life would have an impact in my own life, as well as the life of the person I have saved, in which case memory would not be necessary.

This is quite a good topic, and one with which I am having trouble formulating an instant reply. It gives me a puzzling philosophical dilemma. Normally I would say that actions are more important than ideologies, and the intent of a good deed is less important than a good deed done, although intent is the only indication of character we have. But here I find myself thinking something on the contrary. Hm.

We might ask “Which is more important, to ‘remember’ something you never actually did (do we agree this can happen?), or to have done something and not remember it?”. If you answered “Give me the enjoyment of remembering eating the ice cream cone that never existed rather than to have eaten the cone and never remember it.”, I would say you place more importance on pleasure than on existence.

But doesn’t the pleasure validate existence? I suppose what I am thinking is, in the true metaphysical fashion, there are two worlds, a perceived world and an actual world. Our interactions (actions) with the real world brings about sensations, and these sensations, when stored in one’s mind, become memories. Both these ways of knowing the world are subjective, and relative to our existence as humans, since they are registered using human senses, i.e, we have a nose inferior to a dog's, ears inferior to a bat's, eyes that do not see as well as a hawk's, etc, etc. I am arguing as Bishop Berkeley did, that if our knowledge of the material world consist only of the ideas we have of it in our heads, then why suppose that a material world even exists in anything other than ideas? And if our knowledge of the world only exists in ideas, why is it wrong to suppose that a reality formulated entirely of memory without action is better than a real world where actions exist?

A defendable position no doubt. Be thou a hedonist?

Something like that.

I have gone a 3 days with very little sleep, so I might be able to better answer your questions, or my own, after some rest.

[BeHereNow]

But doesn’t the pleasure validate existence? I suppose what I am thinking is, in the true metaphysical fashion, there are two worlds, a perceived world and an actual world.

Certainly your prerogative.
My philosophy of Zen teaches me that there is no duality. Mind and body are one. Self and universe are one. Real and perceived are one. All is One.
This was one of the most difficult tenets for me to grasp. I have a western mind and I believe this makes realization of non-duality even more difficult. Traditional Christianity has an element of duality to it that I had to shed. I have been living off the fruits of earlier studies and this forum has had a renewing effect for me. I will be going to my other sources to augment the rejuvenation. I find in many philosophical discussions a hinge point of divergence rests on this issue of duality and non-duality. I cannot “prove” non-duality. I can make my case and the listener accepts or not (most do not). I came to accept Zen as Truth before I struggled with duality. At one point I thought I might reject Zen based on the duality issue alone, but the more I tried to prove to myself that duality is reality, the more I realized there is no duality.

Zen has no creed, but if it did, this might be it:

A special transmission outside the scriptures;
Depending not on words and letters;
Pointing directly to the human mind;
Seeing into one's nature, one becomes a Buddha.

that if our knowledge of the material world consist only of the ideas we have of it in our heads, then why suppose that a material world even exists in anything other than ideas? And if our knowledge of the world only exists in ideas, why is it wrong to suppose that a reality formulated entirely of memory without action is better than a real world where actions exist?

These thoughts are a result of perceived duality.