‘Sev 200, Rarann Sahl fr Phenomena. Al ah sed STUDIA PHA'NOMENOLOGICA IV (2004) 3-4, 183-185, ABOUT THE OCEAN OF FORGETTING Alexandru DRAGOMIR have no wish to promote some particular thesis here; my only am- bition is to share with you the intuition that I have regarding forget- ting!. Everything that happens to us is kept. Husserl used the term “reten- tion” for the way in which we keep all that happens to us. Whatever hap- pens to me is given to me in a retained way, which means, for example, that when I remember that someone told me a particular thing ~ chat I had made a stupid statement, let’s say ~ I remember both when and on ‘what occasion I was told it. Of eourse itis possible for me to retain wrong- ly something that I have experienced: it was not that person who told me what I said was stupid, but someone else; he didn’t say it exactly in that way, but differently; and the moment when he said it can like- wise be retained wrongly. However the constitution of our memory still has the following two characteristics: we retain what happens to us and we always retain the circumstances of the event and a certain date connected to it. This “retention”, as Husser cals i, gradually builds up our capital of memories, regardless of the fact that these memories may deteriorate with the passage of time, both as regards their content and their dating. ‘In fact, if stop to think well about what happens to the things re~ tained by our memory, I can distinguish thece situations. Firstly they can be retained correctly for a long time, so that I remember them ai- tor afew days, after a year, or after many years. Or, in the second case, Tecan retain them but, as I was saying, with errors of content or dat- ‘This text is one of a number of “mini lectures” given by Alexandru Dragomir from 1995. These were presented to us inthe course of our mestings as “short com- munications” of 15 to 20 minutes, in fact meditations generally inspired by the reali- ties that we all faced after December 1989, "The text is based on the transcription of a tape-recording made by Sorin Vieru fed. note). ‘Sica Prlromarlg NV No 2-40) The Osean Frag: Aan rage onanin Preaek ey ‘cera Ceca ee Pu Bolg Reman Seri fr Peromerlgy, 203, Pogues Eos Can, Ppcboconra proms conMswasingni son ‘rato wategon en 201827 esCopyrt 02003, Roarin Soy fr Fhananansngy As seed 184 ALEXANDRU DRAGOMIR ing. Or, finally, I can simply forget both what happened and in what circumstances and when it happened. But if that is how things are, then we may ask ~ even if the ques~ tion may be put badly ~ how much objectivity our memory has. How many of the things that have happened to us are retained at all, and how many of those retained are retained correctly in every aspect? Those who have a good memory keep their memories with their content and their dating. When, on the other hand, we alter something that has hap- pened, this means that a deformation of the faculty of memory appears. It does not in any way have to bea matter of mental illness. There are a great many things that ean cause a person to deform memory as such, ‘whether they can be brought to consciousness or remain unconscious. So what does forgetting mean? The answer is within anyone’s reach: to forget means to lose something of what I know or of what I once knew. Tris evident that T cannot forget what I never knew. However at this point I feel the need to raise a question that we are not usually in the habit of asking, and that is not easy to answer: how much is for- gotten, and why, and how much is retained, and why, out of what T once Knew? An undoubtedly correct answer, but only for the immediate pres- ent, would be: we retain and remember whem and to the extent that we are interested in the remembered object. Objects that are no longer of any interest to us have the greatest chance of being forgotten and lost. And likewise, when do we not forget what has happened to us and what we knew? When the memory of these things remains alive in us for reasons concerning our inner life. However in giving this answer we are remaining, with Husserl, on a subjective level. What would interest me, on the other hand, would be to find out objectively how much is retained and how much is for- gotten out of all that happens and all that we know. And here, the an- swer, though obvious and simple, is astounding: we lose much more than we remember. A veritable ocean of things enters the realm of for- getting in comparison with the small number of those we remember and know about. And since there is a veritable chasm becween what really happens and what is retained, the work of retaining what has hap- pened becomes suddenly significant. And here again it is important to note that some things happen and their memory is cultivated, while oth- cers are given to forgetting, as the Romanian idiom puts it. One of the responsibilities of the ministries of culture of this world consists pre- cisely in this maintenance of the memory of those who are unanimously considered worthy of being remembered, and who thus must not be left to fall prey to forgetting. Everything, from gravestones, churches, monuments ete. to speeches comes in here. ‘There are always two dis- ‘suet Phlpanentgeal Ma 3.42000) The Oona Fat: Aare raga: Raval Phenom a by aloo arg 1 Panrachy 208 Pod Cook Con Wp smoot segs eningeeyoh © 208, Rann Soe x Prenarschy. lsh sen ABOUT THE OCEAN OF FORGETTING 185 tinct levels: the event as such and the work of maintaining the memo- ry of this event. And if we are speaking about forgetting, itis precise- ly because we are preoccupied with the work of maintaining memory. And when I speak of “the work of maintaining memory”, Tam think- ing of one of the most important human activities, an activity that has its own techniques, that requires an institutionalization and that resorts to specific means of acting in the realm of people’s hearts and minds. For all thac this activity exists, for all that human endeavour can achieve a great deal, che fact remains that the greater part of reality falls into the realm of forgetting. As I have already said, we have an entire ocean of forgetting in comparison with the tiny lake of memory. But even so, the immense effort of preserving must be considered separate- ly. Itis impressive that today ~ after 2,800 years! — we can still read the Iliad and the Odyssey. Broadly speaking, our entire culture in fact, consists of all that could be saved from the shipwreck of forgetting. Now, however, a new problem appears: in saving all chat it saves, is the human mind really applying a fair measure? We will be quick to an- swer: if we know Homer today, its because 2,800 years ago he created veritable masterpieces. We say the same thing about Shakespeare, and about a number of others de eiusdem farinae. We are inclined then to believe that in the case of the creations of our own times what is preserved will be whatis most valuable and only because its most valuable. [have grave doubts about this. Why ? Because the measure thats applied to these ere- ations, in other words our judgement, belongs to a certain Zeitgeist. Let ime give the first example that comes to mind. When I was a student we used to ask ourselves who the greatest poet of our age was. Like others, I believed and earnestly maintained that in matters of poetry, Rilke, the author of the Sonnets and the Elegies, was unsurpassable. That he was a nec plus ultra forall time. Especially after Ihiad made the effort required to master the German of the Sonnets to Orpheus, ital seemed to me to be of a peerless beauty. After the great age of Goethe and Schiller had passed, the other poets seemed like pygmics in comparison with Rainer ‘Maria Rilke. He climbed onto the podium of world Poetry, and received the bronze medal, if not the silver. $o I started out thinking that Rilke was the unsurpassable peak of poetry and that nothing could come after him. Today Iam far from believing that the selection operated has an ab- solute significance. You will ask me then who I would put in his place, and what a fair selection would look like. And I would answer frst of all that a number of other names could be cited, and that moreover in gen eral we no longer make an issue of choosing the greatest ofall poets, au~ thors or literary currents. And secondly, T would answer that in the meantime I have learned that cultures and civilizations die too. Ska Priomete Y No 2.4200) Th Qcoan ct Fran: arc gant: A RanannPhepanecngt ie by ‘hate Chan aa Pa lg maran Sera or Phnom, 200), Pau tsar Carta, Ppocoaesral pes comTbwashngonel en Coste seh on R07Cenyaht 6203, Raronan Sosy Phenomenon Ate mses, 186 ALEXANDRU DRAGOMIR ‘What is worth retaining out of all that I have said up till now? In the first place that forgetting is normal, and that, although it represents a neg- ative phenomenon and does not seem to be necessary, itis part of our nature and has a decisive effect on the nature of reality. Hence results something else, namely that the event cannot be preserved without an effort of maintenance, that our past is made up of what is preserved, that our history and any part of our history is all that could be saved from a shipwreck. Ido not think people in the field of culture are any more conscious of this than the general population. They work with mate- rial that they tend to confuse with the reality of the past rather than seeing it as the little that has survived from that past. In other words, they are not necessarily conscious that itis a remnant salvaged from the shipwreck of forgetting. Finally, che most vulnerable aspect of this whole story is that maintenance presupposes a selection, and we do not have ar~ guments and evidence that this selection has been made objectively. All therest thatis not selected ~ the heap of facts, events, and channels along which information and even documents circulate ~ is condemned, by forgetting, to non-being. From this point of view, the labour of cul- ture seems derisory is comparison to all that remains doomed to for- getting. What I wanted to communicate to you is that we are all the time surrounded by an ocean of forgetting. ‘xs mien No 9.4004): Te Osseo Frat: Aa regan: Renal Preonarote le by ‘rntan Coven rahul atgs arin Seam fr ananop 208 Podn Coo Cana, mp soso peas conitnatrgonet cen ented nm wesnpan ar 2180007 Yee,