SECTION 1 - via - School of Visual Arts

penchant for error and cruelty. How could it be otherwise, this ancient-memory in error and
cruelty is affirmed through infancy and childhood, through adolescence and adulthood, within
various kinds of disfranchisement, and retributive-notions of enfranchisement, organizing in
error and retributive bias all our inherent potential in abstraction in cognition.
Is it any wonder that it is impossible for the disfranchised of abstraction in their antintellectualism
in memory and cognition to be stuck in limbic-will with little if any intellect,
with no intellect in free-will. Is it any wonder that it is near impossible even for the
enfranchised limbic-led intellectuals to evolve intellect free of retributiveness, intellect free in
“will” in objective-research.
We are as free of our limbic systems penchant to assert limbic-will with its retributive fallout,
to the extent that we deconstruct in objectivity our culturally, limbically-conditioned memory
and cognition. Then we are free of our penchant for retributiveness, then we are finally free of
the limited, ego-centric retributive circumscribing of
our and others lives.
By now its clear that memory is much more than recalling where you left those keys, or your
glasses, memory is a code specific process occurring in layers of kinds of memory, out of kinds
of cognition that represent like tree rings our history in cognitive development. Our infant
earliest layers are comprised of the most transparent, isolated linkage of our most cognitively
immature, dominance in limbic-cognition, with meme and imitation memory dominating. The
later layers are of multiple and even contradictory transparent-linkages, or what might be
viewed as cognitively contradictory opaque-semantics, that in their complexity of linkage of
layers organize the kinds of narratives that the psychologist of the mid-sixties, R.D. Lange, in
his book, entitled Knots dubbed knots.
In Knots, Lange describes it as an internal multi-layered convoluted, contradictory narrative
process. For instance: I know you think I think I know that you know I know your secret; what
you do not know is that I will never let you know that I think you know I know you know I
think I know your secret, because that my secret, and I know you do not know my secret, and I
will never tell you.
Lange makes clear that the semantics of intention is designed and driven in communication by
our will in cognition. By a will that is either limbically-bound in a maze of illiteracy, of subpredicate-coded
layers of paleo-logic, or a will in memory and cognition that is freed from
limbic-will through abstraction, and through abstraction in literacy to objectivity and free-will
in intellect.
It is our acculturated will in memory and cognition, as it serves to realize or inhibit our biobrain
potential, in each of our various stages in bio-brain system development, from infancy to
earlier and later childhood, to early and later adolescence, to early and later adulthood and oldage
that determines what mode of cognition and therefore linkage, dominates each of our
developmental-stages from infancy to old-age.
We are like a digital nonlinear 16 track recording, comprised of layer upon layer of data, of
realities and identities each with a process in linkage driven by its own will in cognition and
memory. Sometimes many of the tracks, many of the wills in memory and cognition play at
32