Subject/Object

Today is the first day of winter here; not officially, but today I had that first realization that fall has gone and the seasons have changed. It is the perfect time too, just cold enough to make you feel uncomfortable and you walk at a brisk pace to keep warm. I have my scarf, tuque and gloves, but no heavy jacket yet.

Today I was walking to school and was thinking about what has been the unifying thing in all the various things I have been interested in. And how did I end up in libraries and studying “information”, a place I never really planned to be, and I didn’t know it was my place until I was already here.

I realized that the thing I enjoy about the library is that it exists as a cultural memory. And while that is a grand thing in and of itself, it is much more interesting if we look at it at a slightly deeper level. We can push the metaphor a little bit more, get some more out of it . If the library is a memory, it functions like memory in its faults and in its benefits. It distorts, chooses to forget, blocks out, makes biased decisions. Things are shelved and often used, things are shelved and not found. And all these forgetting and blockages are powered by the history of the culture itself, its wars and its ideas, which leave its mark on memory.

Then I continued walking and I realized that, actually, culture in many ways doesn’t need the library; in others it does. The culture’s memory is being written quite fine without formal channels. The light polls and telephone posts are covered with advertisements, art, religion, personal politics and public opinion.

Of course, some of those things won’t survive. And the argument is that the library (the Archive in general) should step in to help. And this is how the memory faults, because nothing is saved perfectly. It is cleaned up, selected, categorized and in that distorted because things are in reality very messy.

More to come.

Walking in the rain today I was amazed by some of our major biases towards the book as a vehicle of thought transmission. We give much credence to the book: an author’s thoughts are represented by his books, so much to the point that when we say “Augustine’s thought on this subject” what we really mean is what his books say.

But, at least while alive, at any one time someone’s thoughts are never static. Particularly when engaged in a major ongoing investigation and inner debate, we often believe one side of an issue over another. Not just in one’s lifetime, but while walking down the street. In debating with others we are won over to their side in one debate, and maybe at a further time we keep our convictions.

We have this almost religious belief, however, that one’s books are one’s final thoughts on a subject. Who’s to assume that someone hadn’t changed their minds after their last book, died with a death bed conversion. Should we not say “Augustine’s thoughts” but only “Augustine’s writings”? And what about the possibilities of deception, irony or even self-deception, fighting a position we don’t want ourselves to believe. Do I even know my position in a self-conscious fashion?