ATDTDA (3) Dynamitic mania, 80-86

[Monte Davis]

> But aren't you being a bit self-contradictory when you 
> introduce time as a factor which increasingly distorts the 
> "original record," which you simultaneously say isn't really 
> "on file?"  There would have to be some "core" of the memory 
> which is the original for time to be a factor in its 
> increasing distortion.

A fair cop: yes, I was tacitly positing a "way it really was" for
comparison. But I'll sidestep, defining "changes in a memory of moment X"
not as "divergence from the memory summoned up one second late," but as
"divergence from what one would observe in an improbably complete
audio-video-all-other-sensory record of moment X."

Which is just another way of advancing the point I was trying to make: that
the more we learn about memory, the less it has in common with any notion of
a "record" a la writing, film, tape, etc.... something that is "there" and
(at least ideally) unchanging in between consultations. 

These are deep waters, and here's where I paddle back toward shore.