קראו את הקטע וענו על השאלות: בשבחה של שכחה

We are accustomed to treating memory as a virtue and forgetting as its failure, a leak in the vessel that careful living might seal. The metaphor flatters us, but it misleads. A mind that retained everything would not be a superior instrument; it would be an unusable one, a library in which every book lies open on the floor. The rare individuals who approach total recall describe their condition not as a gift but as a din: old humiliations arriving with the vividness of the present tense, trivia crowding out judgment. Forgetting, on this view, is not the archive’s enemy but its curator, quietly deciding what may recede so that something else can signify. The same charity should perhaps be extended to cultures. Societies, like individuals, must remember in order to learn, and the duty of memory after atrocity is among the few moral claims that command near-universal assent. Yet societies must also, eventually, consent to let certain quarrels lose their heat, or every generation inherits its grandparents’ feuds at full temperature. The art, never mastered and never finished, lies in distinguishing the forgetting that heals from the forgetting that erases; the first allows the wound to close while the scar still teaches, the second pretends there was never a wound at all. We have many monuments to memory. It is harder to imagine what a monument to wise forgetting would look like.