la condition de possibilité

22:11 Feb 18, 2010 

(maybe more anon!)

11:20 Feb 13, 2010 

*smer- is an IE root that originally means "portion" (like Grk "moira"), but is also the root of "memory". I think this passage omits a complete discussion of this change (i.e. initial consonant reduplication, plus the change of liquid r/n -- plus the change in meaning). Drawing philosophical conclusions from etymology has a long history, but is generally looked upon with caution by serious linguists.

(Normal English usage puts an asterisk in front of *smer- to indicate that it is a hypothetical construct.)

08:57 Feb 13, 2010 

I appreciate all this interest and your intrigued questions about the rest of the text is natural. here is the first paragraph of the paper. It's been years since I delved into such metaphysical stuff! It is written by an eminent (and very old) lady at a (mainly medical) conference on Memory. You may find inconsistencies (e.g. 'smer' I cannot find). Any comments welcome (though this may not be within Proz rules!)
La mémoire est une déesse, l'une des plus anciennes. Son nom, Mnémosyne et le nom commun, mnémé, signifient l'un et l'autre, mémoire. Ils ont la même étymologie indo-européenne (smer) qui indique l'antériorité la plus archaïque. En grec, le verbe mimnesco, connaître, se souvenir, est issu de la même racine. Il nous apporte une indication devenue banale, mais qui reste précieuse: la connaissance est inséparable de la mémoire. Une mémoire corporelle précède ce que nous appelons communément la mémoire. En est-elle la cause ? En est-elle seulement la condition de possibilité ? On sait que des atteintes spécifiques du cerveau peuvent perturber, voire détruire la mémoire. Les progrès de nos connaissances scientifiques ne sont pas aujourd'hui assez convaincants pour régler un p

03:19 Feb 13, 2010 

That's right, "mimnesko" does mean "memory", not "knowledge". I am certain that "est issu de la même racine" is the *continuation* of an argument: just before this passage, s/he mentioned another of Greek's "-mn" verbs that is etymologically related to "mimnesko" but has a different shade of meaning.

00:31 Feb 13, 2010 

from the standpoint of Plato you would say:"Is the sense impression the cause of the memory?" Or is it merely an impression which requires another action or another power to make it into knowledge? The answer from Plato (in his Theatetus dialogue, which also talks about false knowledge derived from memory) is that the power is in the soul, not in the physical apparatus per se, or the physical memory per se.

All that being said, I think prerequisite works, and I think Carruthers may be right that Jung might show up.

23:15 Feb 12, 2010 

The author I think is saying that knowledge is based on memory, that without memory you can’t obtain or hold onto knowledge, hence for the Greeks the two are inextricably linked. This makes sense. As for a collective memory, we all share memories of shared events. Wouldn’t surprise me if Jung’s collective unconcious were to pop up in the text

23:01 Feb 12, 2010 

is what I've been keeping up my sleeve & both you and Carruthers hint at this. But (somewhat despairingly) I may have to go for the literal translation if it is the 'accepted' term (although opaque to me). But Jim you take the subject to be Knowledge, not Memory? (I have not found much proof that the Greek does actually mean Knowledge too, it all being Greek to me...!). By the way the text then waxes even more lyrical and talks about collective memory, Holocaust, etc.

21:30 Feb 12, 2010 

It's not the starting point of the passage.

The initial distinction is between connaissance (to which, admittedly, s/he imparts a physical aspect in the following sentence) and mémoire.
Knowledge as a precondition for memory: Does knowledge (or physical memory) create memory (in the usual sense), or is knowledge just a prerequisite for memory's formation?

In other words, is knowledge enough my itself? Or is something else required?

20:00 Feb 12, 2010 

My take:
Is memory merely somatic (i.e. caused by the body)? Or is the soma merely a condition necessary for the existence of memory? (i.e. not necessarily the cause, just like space is the condition necessary for the existence of matter, not what causes it). The tiringly eternal mind /body question in fact.
He then brings up how brain injury can damage or even destroy the memory, so it sounds like he’s veering in the physical direction for the moment, unless he's planning to pull out another rabbit from his hat further on!