Difference between revisions of "Mnemonics"
(→The Mechanization of Memory)
(→The Mechanization of Memory)
|Line 62:||Line 62:|
===The Mechanization of Memory===
===The Mechanization of Memory===
Hegel discusses memory in two term, “Erinnerung” and “Gedächtnis.” Erinnerung for Hegel is recollection, memory based on learning and internalization. It therefore has a relationship to the past and to a missing Other (Ronell). Gedächtnis is the forgetting of meaning in favor of memorization and technologized memory just as the technologization of speech through the act of writing is also the erasure of speech and the marking of its becoming forgotten. Gedächtnis acts as the simulacrum and mechanical reproduction of memory emptied of its original and of meaning. Memory Palaces fall under Gedächtnis, as they are a phantom crutch or prosthetic for remembering which can be easily dismantled and forgotten. It does reflect Erinnerung in that it calls to its missing Other which is the real house, but it has no relationship to the past, as the reality of the memory palace is artificially constructed. The associations within the memory palace are also artificial revealing the manipulation of memory which becomes something external that can be altered and changed. Derrida writes, “What Plato is attacking in sophistics, therefore, is not smply recourse to memory but, within such recourse, the substitution of the mnemonic device for live memory, of the prosthesis for the organ; the perversion that consists of replacing a limb by a thing, here, substituting the passive, mechanical ‘by-heart’ for the active reanimation of knowledge, for its reproduction in the present. The boundary (between inside and outside, living and nonliving) separates not only speech from writing but also memory as an unveiling (re-)producing a presence from re-memoration as the mere repetition of a monument…(Derrida 109)” Paul elaborates on
Hegel discusses memory in two term, “Erinnerung” and “Gedächtnis.” Erinnerung for Hegel is recollection, memory based on learning and internalization. It therefore has a relationship to the past and to a missing Other (Ronell). Gedächtnis is the forgetting of meaning in favor of memorization and technologized memory just as the technologization of speech through the act of writing is also the erasure of speech and the marking of its becoming forgotten. Gedächtnis acts as the simulacrum and mechanical reproduction of memory emptied of its original and of meaning. Memory Palaces fall under Gedächtnis, as they are a phantom crutch or prosthetic for remembering which can be easily dismantled and forgotten. It does reflect Erinnerung in that it calls to its missing Other which is the real house, but it has no relationship to the past, as the reality of the memory palace is artificially constructed. The associations within the memory palace are also artificial revealing the manipulation of memory which becomes something external that can be altered and changed. Derrida writes, “What Plato is attacking in sophistics, therefore, is not smply recourse to memory but, within such recourse, the substitution of the mnemonic device for live memory, of the prosthesis for the organ; the perversion that consists of replacing a limb by a thing, here, substituting the passive, mechanical ‘by-heart’ for the active reanimation of knowledge, for its reproduction in the present. The boundary (between inside and outside, living and nonliving) separates not only speech from writing but also memory as an unveiling (re-)producing a presence from re-memoration as the mere repetition of a monument…(Derrida 109)” Paul elaborates on , “Memory effaces remembrance (or recollection) just as the I effaces itself. The faculty that enables thought to exist also makes its preservation impossible. The art, the ''techné'', of writing which cannot be separated from thought and from memorization can only be preserved in the figural mode of the symbol, the very mode it has to do away with if it is to occur at all (de Man 102).”
===Memory Palace as Archive/Crypt===
===Memory Palace as Archive/Crypt===
Revision as of 22:48, 11 April 2010
Mnemonics, or the art of memory, is today regarded as an arcane intellectual interest. It functions on the periphery of popular culture, largely through a literature of self-help designed to bolster the confidence of those insecure about their powers of recollection. If it is a useful skill, but not an essential one in a civilization whose collective memory is securely stored in the printed word and, more recently, digital media. Today’s archive exists in the library or the personal computer, not in the depths of a well-ordered mind.
Most of the mnemonic devices and techniques that remain today are simple and standardized. They are tools for remembering sequences of information, especially for recall in test situations. Rather than learning general mnemonic tricks, students are left with specific rhymes or sentences to remember: "Roy G. Biv" to remember the colors of the rainbow; "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally" for the algebraic order of operations; and "lefty, loosey; righty, tighty" to remember how tools work are just a few examples. Despite the longevity of some of these specific mnemonics, however, they are but a mere suggestion of the much more complex and widespread mnemonic strategies of yesteryear: from the wandering rhapsody of ancient Greece who enthralled listeners with the epic tales of Homer to the philosophers of the Renaissance who constructed imaginary memory palaces to present their intricate designs of the cosmos. This dossier will explore mnemonics as a mode of mediation that stored knowledge in a world invested in the authority of the spoken word, and, in attempting to control its input and output, strove to represent the historically black-boxed functioning of the human mind.
- 1 Historical Sketch of Old Works on Mnemonics
- 2 The Technology of Memory
- 3 Case Study or Trace Study of the Memory Palace
- 4 Mnemonic Expression: Writing Secrets and Speaking the Mind
- 5 Obsolescence and the Changing Thinker
- 6 References
- 7 External Links
Historical Sketch of Old Works on Mnemonics
The key understanding the nature of memory, Vico contends, is derived from the direct correspondence between image and idea in primitive poetic language. In the beginnings of civilization, image and idea were one. Primitive peoples possessed robust memories because of the inseparable association they made between images and ideas in their comprehension of the world. They thought metaphorically, and the metaphors that they uttered were easily mimicked and remembered because they were richly expressive, grandiose, and full of wonder at the world. The link between human imagination and the universe that the Renaisance Neoplatonists had sought to discover magically, Vico revealed to have been born histrorically in the development of human consciousness.(Verene, 101) The source of mnemonist’s method is visible in the poetic logic of Vico’s theory of the emergence of human consciousness. That theory, too, involves the relationship between places and images, which Vico labels topics and tropes. Topics were the poetic of formulae through which primitive people identified the phenomena of the world. As imaginative representations of particular aspects of realty, they provided common places or fixed points of reference amidst the flux of sense experience. (Yates, 31)
Considered in this context, Vico’s new art of memory becomes a retrospective search for connection between our present conceptions and the lost poetic images out of which they were born. In the logic of Vichian poetics, the new art of memory is a reconstruction of the imaginative process by which the poets of antiquity gave shape to their perception of the world. Therein the imaginative sources of our present ideas are to be found. The original topic might be linked to a palimpsest, repeatedly covered over with more abstract imagery as the human mind historically ascended the tropological gradient of linguistic expression. Vico’s art of memory was to decipher each tropological layer along the way until the original metaphorical topic, long forgotten,was recalled to mind (Hutton, 379).
Freud's theory as a reverse mnemonics
If mnemonic technologies lay at the source of Romantic soul-searching, both personal and collective they were only rarely the subject of comment. It was left to Sigmund Freud at the turn of the twentieth century to explain the role of memory in introspection in terms of a mnemonic code (Hutton,386).
Forgetting rather than remembering is what we wish to do because it is easier to live with a screen of fantasies about what our live have been than with the reality. In his theory of screen memories Freud asserts the constructive power of the unconscious mind to shape recollection. To use his terminology, memory is tendentious in that it reflects unconscious psychic intent. In this respect the unconscious mind is the guardian of memory. It legislates the selection of what is to be remembered and hides the rest away. As an art of memory, therefore, Freud’s psychoanalysis is a techniques for deciphering the psychic intent encoded in screen memories(Hutton, 388).
The Method of Loci
Long before transcription existed, there have been oral records of events in history, genealogies. In Medieval Iceland, law speakers had their entire law committed to memory (Fentress and Wickham, 1992). In medieval Ireland, it took 12 years of study to become a bard, the lowest rank of orator, and then they had over 500 stories committed to memory, as well as genealogies of all the leading Irish families (MacManus, 1967).
The indigenous people of Australia were very familiar with the method of loci. It is believed that their ancestors sung the world into existence (Cambor, 2001). Every rock and crack of the outback has a song associated with it, and the traveler knows exactly their location by their place in the song. Since then, these songs have been transcribed to aid in the understanding of the geology of the continent. In Ancient Rome, mnemonics were used by lawyers to remember the points they wanted to make in a lawsuit. The method of remembering they used is called the method of loci. The method of loci was first formally described by Quitilian, a first century Roman rhetorician. The first documented benefit of this method is found in the book “The Art of Memory” by Francis Yates, where she recounts the story of a poet, Simonides.
Simonides was invited to a dinner party to recite a poem in praise of the host, Scopas. During his recital, Simonides also included a passage praising the gods Castor and Pollux. Scopas was not pleased by this and refused to pay Simonides the full amount he was due. Just then a messenger came in and told Simonides that there were two men waiting for him outside. He went outside and found no one there. Just then the roof of the dining room collapsed, killing everyone inside. The bodies were so badly mangled that they couldn’t be identified. Simonides though was able to recall where each of the guests had been sitting.
The Technology of Memory
How Mnemonics Work
Mnemonics are essentially storage devices for information in the human mind. The brain, however, is like the ultimate black box as much of its operations are a mystery and we are still just uncovering how it accomplishes many of the tasks we take for granted. Memory is one such process scientists are still trying to understand. However, there are a few things that have been discovered, and the mnemonics users of the past were aware of, that allow mnemonics to function. The process of remembering is split up into different steps: encoding, storage, and retrieval. Mnemonics are involved with encoding. The best way to learn things, or encode them, is to associate them with other things. In people's mind, "apple" will often be associated with "red" and "round." By retrieving the concept of "red," the memory of "apple" will also be triggered. Mnemonics capitalize on this principle by creating more entry points to different pieces of information.
At first glance, mnemonics may seem rather counter-intuitive in that they require you to remember a multitude of information in an attempt to solve the problem of remembering something else entirely. Rather than just remembering one date, 1492 for example, mnemonics ask that you remember a poem, "In 1492 / Columbus sailed the ocean blue." More information is required in an attempt to forge an initial piece of information in one's mind. While it seems rather contradictory to do this, however, it works because it creates more associations, thus making it more likely to stick in one's memory. A useful metaphor may be that a memory is a series of files. Mnemonics store bits of information in a number of different files through which to access the information.
Arbitrariness and the Cake-Mix Effect
In many mnemonic systems, the specifics of the "extra" information one learns to create those associations is entirely arbitrary and can be adapted for each individual. Much like pre-packaged cake mix, a basic structure is offered, however the particular words and connections that will best serve the individual can be fit into the pre-determined structure. For example, a common strategy for remembering the order of things is to remember the first letter of each word and put together a new sentence in which each of the words starts with one of the letters needing to be remembered, in the proper order. So if one wanted to remember biological taxonomic classifications from broadest to most specific (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, Variety), one need construct a new sentence in which each subsequent word starts with the next letter in order (K,P,C,O,F,G,S,V). Each individual might have a different sentence that works best for him or her, however. So while one student might find it most advantageous to remember "King Philip's Classic Order: Family Genius - Special Value'" another might find it easier to remember "Kindly Place Cover On Fresh Green Spring Vegetables." This flexibility makes mnemonics an incredibly useful set of strategies, and the failure of it working is essentially more dependent on the arbitrary information filled into the system. If someone fails to remember the order of the taxonomical classes it is only because the sentence used is not the best for the user. Many mnemonic systems work in this manner, tailored to the individual mind. One prime example of this on a larger scale is the memory palace.
Case Study or Trace Study of the Memory Palace
“A memory consists in the awareness, first, of the diminished intensity of an impression, second, of its increased ease, and third, of the connections it entertains with other impressions.” (Kittler 31)
Memory Palaces are methods of loci which use an imagined architecture to structure a speech based on associations of symbols. They are a remediation of association. Before memory palaces were imagined, symbols were already being used to stand in for words or ideas, such as hieroglyphs. Memory Palaces abstract this notion of association of images with ideas and complicate it to allow one to remember hundreds of ideas and statements. It was developed out of a lack, human deficiency, can’t remember – must create shortcut to help remember, brain can’t hold a whole speech but can remember lots of images and associations, success of symbolism. Constructed out of anxiety for it being lost, it is always already lost. This mode of mediation is based on location, but it itself has no location, it is a non-space that stores imagined data.
The subject that uses the memory palace becomes split, inhabiting two realities. One must imagine one is walking through the memory palace and picking up each object while being rooted in a physical space and delivering a live speech to an audience. [LACAN on the SPLIT SUBJECT] The subject must navigate the memory palace like an automaton, automatic pilot, cannot think or act human because it won’t work. Must go through the motions, if the mind wanders or thinks too much, associations can become lost. While mnemonics can be written down, the memory palace is completely imagined, and therefore the process and the media is black boxed within the mind of the user/creator.
Memory Palace as Afterimage and Trace
The Memory Palace becomes a spectral extension of one’s own home. This extension is a frozen image which cannot be altered if it is to function properly. Its static and unchanging nature reveals that it is very much like a photograph, an archiveable and petrified image, and a dead copy of a live original. The memory palace, then is an afterimage and faint impression of the real house. “…the privileging of the afterimage allowed one to conceive of sensory perception as cut from any necessary link with an external referent. The afterimage – the presence of sensation in the absence of a stimulus – and its subsequent modulations posed a theoretical and empirical demonstration of autonomous vision, of an optical experience that was produced by and within the subject.” (Crary 98) The afterimage of the memory palace is detachable, once it is created you don’t need the real house to evoke it, it can be evoked independently by the subject, independent of the real house as its originary referent. It’s static and spectral quality lends it to the space of the crypt and removes it from the space of the living. It is the dead memory that must be summoned by the speaker, called to as the missing Other, and resurrected into the present.
Memory Palaces, while seeming to be about signs and symbols, have more to do with Derrida's concept of the "trace." “The trace is not a presence but is rather the simulacrum of a presence that dislocates, displaces, and refers beyond itself. The trace has, properly speaking, no place, for effacement belongs to the very structure of the trace. Effacement must always be able to overtake the trace; otherwise it would not be a trace but an indestructible and monumental substance.” (Derrida 156) “’The Pit and the Pyrimid works similarly on Hegel’s semiology, by imposing the economy of the trace on to conventional philosophical semiotics, in which sings are conceived of as tombs, monuments, shelters of meaning, like a (dead) body enclosing a soul (Derrida, 1982, 82) For Hegel, the sign is dead and arbitrary, but the meaning lives. Being dead, the sign acts like a machine, and as a bridge. “ (85)
The Mechanization of Memory
Hegel discusses memory in two term, “Erinnerung” and “Gedächtnis.” Erinnerung for Hegel is recollection, memory based on learning and internalization. It therefore has a relationship to the past and to a missing Other (Ronell). Gedächtnis is the forgetting of meaning in favor of memorization and technologized memory just as the technologization of speech through the act of writing is also the erasure of speech and the marking of its becoming forgotten. Gedächtnis acts as the simulacrum and mechanical reproduction of memory emptied of its original and of meaning. Memory Palaces fall under Gedächtnis, as they are a phantom crutch or prosthetic for remembering which can be easily dismantled and forgotten. It does reflect Erinnerung in that it calls to its missing Other which is the real house, but it has no relationship to the past, as the reality of the memory palace is artificially constructed. The associations within the memory palace are also artificial revealing the manipulation of memory which becomes something external that can be altered and changed. Derrida writes, “What Plato is attacking in sophistics, therefore, is not smply recourse to memory but, within such recourse, the substitution of the mnemonic device for live memory, of the prosthesis for the organ; the perversion that consists of replacing a limb by a thing, here, substituting the passive, mechanical ‘by-heart’ for the active reanimation of knowledge, for its reproduction in the present. The boundary (between inside and outside, living and nonliving) separates not only speech from writing but also memory as an unveiling (re-)producing a presence from re-memoration as the mere repetition of a monument…(Derrida 109).” Paul de Man elaborates on the contradictory nature of Gedächtnis and Erinnerung, “Memory effaces remembrance (or recollection) just as the I effaces itself. The faculty that enables thought to exist also makes its preservation impossible. The art, the techné, of writing which cannot be separated from thought and from memorization can only be preserved in the figural mode of the symbol, the very mode it has to do away with if it is to occur at all (de Man 102).”
Memory Palace as Archive/Crypt
Memory palaces are storage of static files. “The immobile tomes are their own tombs...The immobilization amounts to a musealization, creating a work of art out of files.” (Vismann 161-162) It is the storage or archive of files turned into images. The shaping of the memory palace into a dead picture is also shaping of the self into an instrument that will read the picture correctly, shape self into automaton. Making an archive of the self, discipline and archive, discipline of memory and discipline of the self.
Memory Palaces must be practiced, otherwise they are prone to being forgotten. Meant to be remembered for a specific occasion, a specific speech, or event, once the event has passed, the memory palace recedes, shatters, erases itself into the depths of the mystic writing pad’s unconscious. “With one sharp and one blunt end, the stylus unites writing and erasing, those two fundamental chancery operations, in one instrument. Herein lies an analogy to the workings of memory: just as the Greek verb hypomnematizesthai equates filing and remembering, its opposite, exaleiphein, combines a practical act and a function of memory by referring both to forgetting and wiping off.” (Vismann 55) Obliteration of memory palace, becomes buried as trace and remnant “Ever since Plato, philosophy has used the wax tablet to illustrate the way forgetting enables memory (Vismann).”
Mnemonic Expression: Writing Secrets and Speaking the Mind
The art of memory is like an inner writing - Frances Yates.
While mnemonic techniques were designed for oral performance without visible written aid, they were, from a Derridean perspective, systems of representation organized by writing. Rather than utilizing writing to externalize memory, mnemonics structured texts to correlate with the (variously imagined) inner mechanisms of the psyche. Mnemonics shaped poetics via rhyme and meter, for instance, rendering the text structurally uniform so that it might be more easily remembered and spoken. Mnemonic technique thus interfaced between speech and writing, presence and trace. In the same vein, mnemonics mediated between the interior mind and the external world, articulating both. Mnemonics are thus not simply storage techniques but expression: a form of writing (or art of memory) that reveals historically deviant memories and, in attempting to control its input and output, represents the persistently black-boxed functioning of the human mind.
Mnemonics as cryptography
As a mode of mediation, mnemonics represent a curious combination of semiotics and functional nonsense. Mnemonic signs (images, places, phrases) must be nearly evacuated of meaning in order to cue—but not replace—the desired information actively attached to (or associated with) them. From this perspective, articulated above , mnemonics functioned as a storage technique comprised of arbitrary signifiers (like Roy G. Biv) rather than a communicative semantic system. The seemingly nonsensical functioning of mnemonics, however, leaves open the opportunity for obfuscation. If mnemonics could be 'objectively' coded for memory, then they could also perform as encrypted transmission.
Giordano Bruno's magic mnemonics
Giordano Bruno, a Dominican friar and peripatetic philosopher famous for his “amazing powers of recollection” (Zielinski 72) provides a historical example of the cryptographic, communicative potential of mnemonics in the late 16th century. Bruno was eventually burned at the stake during the Inquisition for his use of magic and allegiance to hermeticism: a philosophy named for Hermes and based in Egyptian astrology, which, needless to say, clashed with Christian doctrine. In The Deep Time of The Media, Siegfried Zielinski links hermetic tradition (which persisted into the Renaissance but had to be promulgated secretly) to the “subhistory” stemming from “the passion for encrypting and deciphering texts runs through the sciences” since the 13th century (Zielinski 73). He also notes that cryptography made particular demands on memory and was thus bound to mnemonic ability (83). Bruno took this relationship one step further. In his writings and teachings, Bruno endeavored to both transmit and internalize hermetic secrets through mnemonic technique.
Bruno’s system of “magic mnemonics” (Yates 223) hinged on his belief that the memorization of significant images enabled the "harnessing of the inner world of the imagination to the stars, or reproducing the the celestial world within" (215). Memory, for Bruno, was thus a dioptric medium, allowing the passage of the sublime order of the heavens into the individual psyche, "arriving at the vision within of the One light diffused through all" (230). This divine lumen, however, was guarded by catoptric technique. Bruno's mnemonic system was based the arrangement of intricate wheels of astral symbols and magic images. Bruno's first book on the art of memory is aptly titled Shadows: as Yates observes, there is “Circaean mystification at the heart of this memory treatise” (247). Bruno’s mnemonic code thus had a dual function to reveal and conceal. He sought to at once unify the human imagination and the celestial order through memory, and to keep this mnemonic recipe secret, decipherable only by those who understood hermetic principles and believed in magic.
Written in wax
Wax—the inscription media associated with classical rhetoric and art of memory—was remediated in recording technology and psychoanalytic discourse at the turn of the 20th century. Through a brief comparison of modern and antique articulations of wax as the material substrate of memory, we may glimpse how the rise and fall of mnemonics is subject to the imagined materiality—and malleability—of the mind.
Antique imaginary: the obvious
Cicero’s De oratore (finished in 55 B.C.E.) is among the earliest treatises describing mnemonics as a rhetorical art (Yates 17). Cicero credits Simonides with the invention of the art of memory, when, with “with almost divine powers of memory,” he “wrote down what he wanted to remember in certain places in his possession by means of images, just as if he were describing letters on wax” (qtd. in Yates 19). Yates interprets Cicero’s portrayal of the origin of mnemonics as “an inner writing on wax” (19): Simonides internalizes the wax tablet, the medium for recording speech that Phaedrus famously concealed under his cloak in Plato’s dialogue. Cornelia Vismann identifies wax as the key medium in the shift from oral to written legal and administrative culture in the West. “To synchronize speech and writing,” Vismann describes, “the speedwriters or exceptores responsible for files and protocols drew their letters in wax, which, in Quintilian’s words, puts up as little resistance to inscribing as it does to erasing” (Vismann 55). These speedwriters also assigned to take down the senate minutes, which “in search for the aura of the authentic,” “aim[ed] for [a] presentist effect” (54). Mnemonic systems were also designed to uphold these cultural values of presence and authenticity, and were analogous to wax in their ability to suture oral performance and written record.
Wax was thus the obvious material through (and on) which to describe mnemonics, which interfaced between speech and writing. The metaphor has an additional layer: as a malleable, hand-held medium, the wax tablet suggests that the memory is likewise easily manipulable by an autonomous author. Cicero renders Simonides as the authorial agent of his inner wax tablet, and thus in control of his memory. Nearly two millennia later, during the modern turn, the idea that one could rely on—let alone control—one’s memory was undercut by the development of recording technologies and the rise of psychoanalytic theories of trauma and repression. Curiously, at this historical moment, the connection between wax and memory that once portrayed both mnemonics and the inner-workings of the classical mind is again applied to the mind. This later incarnation of inner wax, however, is not subject to authorial intent, but inscribed upon by machines and the Unconscious.
Modern memory: the return of the repressed?
Two notable depictions of wax as the material substrate of memory bracket Kittler’s year 1900: Jean-Marie Guyau’s Memory and Phonograph (1880) and Sigmund Freud’s Note Upon the ‘Mystic-Writing Pad’ (1925). “What good are the poetic mnemonic techniques of rhyme and meter when wax rolls can store not only substance and tone but real sounds?” (Kittler 1992, 236), Kittler asks in Discourse Networks, 1800/1900. Guyau addressed this anxiety of the inferiority of human memory and the limits of language early on by claiming the phonograph as the most exact metaphor for man’s ability to record and recite—to read, write, and speak. Notions of manipulating the memory with images, places, and signs is replaced with a techno-scientific inscription in Guyau’s comparison: “Upon speaking into a phonograph, the vibrations of one’s voice are transferred into a point that engraves lines on a metal plate…in analogous ways, invisible lines are incessantly carved into the brain cells” (qtd. in Kittler 1999, 30-31).
Freud’s use of the mystic-writing pad as an analogy for the psyche also revises the idea of memory and inscription. Freud dismisses mnemonics right off the bat: “If I distrust my memory,” he begins, “I am able to supplement and guarantee its working by making a note in writing” (Freud 227). External “devices to aid memory” (228) are imperfect compared to our own sensory apparatus, however, which “has an unlimited receptive capacity for new perceptions and nevertheless lays down permanent—even though not unalterable—memory-traces of them” (228). Though he distrusts his memory, Freud echoes the ancient Greeks in imagining the psychic apparatus as a remediation of the wax tablet: the mystic-writing pad. Unlike the imagined mnemonic tablet, however, Freud’s pad is not consciously inscribed, but “receives perceptions (which are accompanied—but are not consciously manipulated—"by consciousness)and passes the excitation on to the unconscious mnemic systems” (231).
Though these modern articulations of the mind destabilize the ability of human memory (assumed by mnemonics) and man’s conscious power over it (and symbolized by wax), they are haunted by the idea of control and power that they repress. Guyau and Freud participate in the same endeavor to represent the black box of the mind, reiterating the art of memory via technological and psycho-scientific metaphor.
Obsolescence and the Changing Thinker
According to Yates, the quest for improved memory through artificial mnemonic systems emerges as a critical part of our attempt to organize knowledge and impose an understandable order on a chaotic world. Mnemonics were one such attempt, and although they are very efficient at storing information in packages that allow for easy retrieval they are rarely used today, in part because it is decreasingly relevant or important to remember things. As Nietzsche observed, "our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts" (Carr). The way we interact with information has changed drastically since a time before writing, thus changing the way we think. To cite the oft-relevant Jonathan Crary, audiences need to be trained to use new mediums and technologies (Crary 6), and it seems as though our new technologies our shaping the way we seek out, take in, and digest information.
When the printing press was invented by Johann Gutenberg in the early 1450s, memory techniques started to lose their prominence. People were suddenly able to record history, genealogies, law codes and stories without committing them to memory. With easy access to computer databases and the Internet, the need for mnemonic devices is has faded even further. This shift in thinking was pointed out in a recent article published in the New York Times: "Why bother remembering the clever poem that tells the value of pi to 21 places (3.141592653589793238462) when you can look it up online and get a virtual googol of places? Why is it necessary in this information age to remember most thing, except maybe your user name and password(s)?" (Rosenthal). Clive Thompson summed up the change in thinking even more succinctly in Wired magazine: "Almost without noticing it, we've outsourced important peripheral brain functions to the silicon around us." In a time when memory was the only storage device or at least one of the most efficient, mnemonics were an obvious form of mediation, but as new technologies have become available making it simple to find almost any fact in a few quick keystrokes and a quick skimming of a web page, those old strategies have become less necessary. It is not surprising mnemonics have largely disappeared. We have found new ways to solve the problem of retaining important details. Perhaps this modern resistance to memorization masks an anxiety caused by a diminished sense of our own mnemonic capabilities (Cambor 2001) due to developments in technology and the emergence of psychoanalysis, or perhaps memory itself is a dying medium.
- Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, July-Aug. 2008. Web. 10 Apr. 2010.
- Crary, Jonathan. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century. Boston: MIT Press, 1992.
- de Man, Paul. Aesthetic Ideology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
- Derrida, Jacques. Dissemination. New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 2004.
- Derrida, Jacques. Speech and phenomena: and Other Essays on Husserl's Theory of Signs. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973.
- Donald Phillip Verene, Vico’s Science of Imagination (Ithaca, 1981), 96-126
- Fentress, James and Chris Wickham (1992) Social Memory. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Freud, Sigmund. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Ed. James Strachey. London: The Hogarth Press, 1961.
- Kittler, Friedrich A. Discourse Networks, 1800/1900. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992.
- --. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999.
- Patrick H. Hutton. The Art of Memory Reconceived: From Rhetoric to Psychoanalysis. Journal of the History of Ideas, 48(3), 371-392
- Patrick H. Hutton, "The new science of giambattista Vico: Historicism in its Relation to Poetics" Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 30 (1972), 362-64
- Rosenthal, Jack. "Mnemonics." New York Times. New York Times Company, 17 July 2005. Web. 11 Apr. 2010.
- Ronell, Avital. "Scoring Literature: The Drug Culture". (Lecture, NYU, 4/8/10).
- Thompson, Clive. "Your Outboard Brain Knows All" Wired. Conde Nast Digital, 25 Sept. 2007. Web. 11. Apr. 2010.
- Vismann, Cornelia. Files: Law and Media Technology. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008.
- Yates, Frances A. The Art of Memory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966.
- Zielinski, Siegfried. Deep Time of the Media. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.