that affection the state whereof we
call memory-to be some such thing as a picture. The process of
movement (sensory stimulation) involved the act of perception stamps
in, as it were, a sort of impression of the percept, just as persons
do who make an impression with a seal. This explains why, in those who
are strongly moved owing to passion, or time of life, no mnemonic
impression is formed; just as no impression would be formed if the
movement of the seal were to impinge on running water; while there are
others in whom, owing to the receiving surface being frayed, as
happens to (the stucco on) old (chamber) walls, or owing to the
hardness of the receiving surface, the requisite impression is not
implanted at all. Hence both very young and very old persons are
defective in memory; they are in a state of flux, the former because
of their growth, the latter, owing to their decay. In like manner,
also, both those who are too quick and those who are too slow have bad
memories. The former are too soft, the latter too hard (in the texture
of their receiving organs), so that in the case of the former the
presented image (though imprinted) does not remain in the soul,
while on the latter it is not imprinted at all.
But then, if this truly describes what happens in the genesis of
memory, (the question stated above arises:) when one remembers, is
it this impressed affection that he remembers, or is it the
objective thing from which this was derived? If the former, it would
follow that we remember nothing which is absent; if the latter, how is
it possible that, though perceiving directly only the impression, we
remember that absent thing which we do not perceive? Granted that
there is in us something like an impression or picture, why should the
perception of the mere impression be memory of something else, instead
of being related to this impression alone? For when one actually
remembers, this impression is what he contemplates, and this is what
he perceives.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20