Adrian asked:

Given the Art of memory, as done over by Dame Yates, reaching back into the Middle Ages, and it is
known that they were in wide use during oral times [why is it] that no deep research is done into this?
vide:

""Anatole realises that the frame of time and space, which has always seemed to be the fundamental
map upon which existence itself must be drawn, is as distorted a view of reality as the Mercator
projection of the Earth's surface, no less useful, but artificial." Brian Stableford."

Which is exactly how it works, not unlike the one Kepler stole from alchemy and somewhat like
"Hamlet's Mill" by Giorgio de Santillana and Martha von Dechend. What they missed is this as an
intellectual construct. As I recall Foucault made an attempt to find it in the family triad, and which
completely misses the boat, just as does Chomsky's deep structure. It also focusses on the notion of
what amounts to a universal Aristotle allowed us to only deduct from, while not explaining its function.
Sapir was into it too but also missed the connection. The only one I found who knew how it works was
Lewis Carroll.

""New concepts formed in his mind...but now that he had comprehended the message of the ruins, he
understood the interlocking of place, time and identity that lay at the core of Bellaterran thought. For
the first time, he felt that he glimpsed the ethos of the planetary deity, the creator and sustainer, the
omnipresent giver-of-all." John Morresey, 'Nail down the Stars', NEL, 1979, p 76."

What puzzles me about this is how come people cannot realise or recognise this as resident in the
head, or, rather, as the foundation of "intellect". I'm not so sure this is a function of intelligence so
much as quite something else. So we indeed suffer as suggested by Bolke, the biologist, that our
minds ossify as we grow older? What then does this not happen with some, etc.. He wrote, as I recall
it, that we are the extended version of the ape's youth, given, of course, one "believes" in Darwin.

============

Nice, but you've forgotten Kant. He was quite clear and elaborate on this subject. And he's been
taken up, in effect, by many modern cognitive psychologists. Cognitive psychology is, in my opinion,
the data-driven successor to Kant's original position, and while it does not support everything Kant
maintained, it definitely supports his general stance (and surprisingly many of his specific claims). It is
interesting, I grant, how well-educated science fiction writers are, and how they incorporate
philosophy into their stories. That's one of the major reasons I read sci-fi. But you have to realize that
those ideas did not originate with them.

I would recommend, if you want to get seriousabout this, that you read Kant. A nice translation:

Kant, I. Critique of Practical Reason.Translated by W.S.T. Pluhar. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
Publishing Company, Inc., 2002.

Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason.Translated by W.S.T. Pluhar. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing
Company, Inc., 1996.

I happen to like the Pluhar translation very much. To get into the actual data supporting this, you
might start with a good general text in cognitive science:

A classic:

Neisser, U. Cognitive Psychology.The Century Psychology Series. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967.

Nice intro, if old:

Gardner, H. The Mind's New Science.New York, NY: BasicBooks, 1985.

Tie-in with philosophy:

Goldman, A. I. "Cognitive Science and Metaphysics." Journal of Philosophy84, no. 10 (1987):
537-44.

Goldman, A. I. (Ed.). Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,
1995.

More modern and general:

Reisberg, D. Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind.1st ed. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 1997.

Mehler, J., and S. Franck, eds. Cognition on Cognition.Edited by J. Mehler, Cognition Special Issues.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995.

Steven Ravett Brown