Ireneo Funes, the protagonist, after an accident, was bestowed with the absolute memory and the keenest perception. Looking at a forest, he noticed each and every leaf, looking at a face, he noticed each and every nuance and movement. And he remembered everything. His memories were visceral, as they were linked to his body sensations. He learned Latin immediately using a dictionary and a book by Pliny. He could compare the setting of the clouds that he saw one day, with the veins on the cover of a book. His memories were so precise and detailed that when he recalled a day from his childhood it took him an entire day to recall it.
Not alike was his thinking. He was not able to generalize, he only saw the particulars, and he thought that each thing should have been named differently.
"He was, let us not forget, almost incapable of general, platonic ideas. It was not only difficult for him to understand that the generic term dog embraced so many unlike specimens of differing sizes and different forms; he was disturbed by the fact that a dog at three-fourteen (seen in profile) should have the same name as the dog at three-fifteen (seen from the front). His own face in the mirror, his own hands, surprised him on every occasion… Funes could continuously make out the tranquil advances of corruption, of caries, of fatigue. He noted the progress of death, of moisture. He was the solitary and lucid spectator of a multiform world which was instantaneously and almost intolerably exact… I repeat, the least important of his recollections was more minutely precise and more lively than our perception of a physical pleasure or a physical torment… I suspect, nevertheless, that he was not very capable of thought. To think is to forget a difference, to generalize, to abstract. In the overly replete world of Funes there were nothing but details, almost contiguous details. "
Reading this short story, I thought about the Luria's patient of a great memory, and of the Buddhist sati, and if we still need thinking if we have perception.
Was Funes the perfect Vipassana practitioner? Did he had the perfect mindfulness? Thus was he liberated afterwards? The only things that could have stayed in his way is that he still tried to rely on the language, and name everything. Plus, it is not clear, how much he was an observer and how much he identified with what he was?
Funes had a synesthetic memory, similar to Solomon Shereshevski described by Luria, and both had difficulties generalizing and reasoning. Do we need thinking if we are able to perceive? We can assume that thinking is an instrument that our mind uses in order to overcome the limitations of perception. With perfect perception, like Funes's, our reasoning becomes unnecessary. In that configuration, however, we would integrate with difficulty in the current society, similar to Sereshevski.