Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Elwood P. Lofgren's avatar

Ulrich, thanks for this excellent post. After many decades of research, materialist have nothing, nada, zilch to account for memory. And they'll never be able to do so. Nor can they explain related phenomena, such as the many cases of "terminal lucidity" being reported for Alzheimer patients.

To quote clinical psychologist Douglas Varoch: "we have a woefully limited understanding of the phenomenon". Shorter version: "we have no clue."

https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/terminal-lucidity/

Expand full comment
Rod Hemsell's avatar

In my understanding of these things, 1) Mnemosyne doesn't belong to an age of symbolic representation but, like Aletheia and Savitri, is an eternal emanation that makes "memory" a fundamental and necessary aspect of "consciousness" in the world of manifestation, as explained adequately by Bergson; 2) the phrase adopted from Braude, "selected according to needs and interests" can conveniently be applied to the statement of Sri Aurobindo and his intention, but the phrase "it was from the beginning envisaged..." exceeds such a reductive interpretation to an extent that dissolves completely the validity of such an application. From the point of view of a critique of the limitations of language, ontological pluralism makes sense, but from the point of view of the "being of truth" and the greater possibilities of consciousness, this idea of the trace, and the nature of things, as expressed by Braude and favored by you, I find altogether inadequate and inappropriate with respect to any endeavor to grasp the truth of existence.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts