Memory

Honestly, I’m still quite unsure about how I would define memory. I think it is certainly a part of one’s identity, but I’m not sure that it’s the only thing that makes us who we are. I believe this was highlighted for me when we were talking about the difference between memory and thought, especially with concern to Borges’ story about Funes. What I gathered from the text was that memory is more like the raw collection of data that humans store away. Memory is made up of all the details and is more of a matter of no frills recall of a moment, almost as if you were watching back a video tape. Obviously human memory cannot be as perfect as real life and hence distorts this definition of memory, but it is as close an approximation as we can get. If it were perfect however, that is when we are hedging into the realm of what has happened to Funes. The drawback to his case is that due to the overwhelming amount of detail and inability to forget any little bit, to zoom out and get the big picture, he has become unable to think. The thing is that true development of original knowledge that can consequently result in higher level thoughts is so much more than a compilation and recall of little details. Thinking necessitates forgetfulness—this kind of analysis requires the ability to pick and choose and to highlight certain things over others, the ability to place more emphasis on a certain aspect at a certain time. This I think was also well represented in the Sopranos video excerpt that we viewed in class. I was intrigued by their conversation because I think it exemplified the human ability not only to focus on or highlight one thing or another, but also really the tendency to shift which factors and details and highlighted, according to the specific situation. It’s all about how you frame the story. 

Now, moving into the terrain surrounding the concepts of communicative and cultural memory, the analysis becomes even more complex. From what I gathered, communicative memory is socialized, limited, informal, and often passed via word of mouth. It is completely intangible, but it is also part of what I believe makes human relationships so special. Cultural memory on the other hand is formalized, more widely known and recognized. It is the lasting memory that will be passed down and will outlive its co-current participants, or however you would like to call them. The most defining feature of this kind of memory that stood out to me is that it is recorded in some way. Even if it is often the case, it doesn’t have to be on purpose, as in the case of history books or museums, but rather everything that lasts, everything that could be reintroduced later on becomes a part of this cultural memory—the Game of Thrones episodes we talked about, any newspaper articles, books, movies, recipes, public records, etc. One of the things though that caught my attention with respect to our discussion about this cultural memory was the mention of the Mona Lisa as an example. This work is one of wide-spread renown, prominence, and fame, but my question is why? How did it become that way? We spoke briefly about the fact that this piece of art would likely mean different things to different cultures, but even more broadly, why is it that even in the U.S., most people that you walk up to on the street would know about that painting, despite the fact they may have absolutely no personal or historical connection to it whatsoever? Perhaps that can be more of a discussion for another day. For now I'll leave you with a link to this song that I love from one of my favorite musicals that I feel very much connects to this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrMkdZtqiVI