Weibel Welcome to tonight's panel. We gather not to remember, but to examine the one human act that technology has made nearly impossible: forgetting. In an age where every message, every photograph, every passing thought is archived, indexed, and retrievable — what happens to the person who cannot forget? Is forgetting a loss, or is it the very condition of being human? Let me introduce our panelists: Vilém Flusser, media theorist; Joseph Weizenbaum, critic of computational reason; Hannah Arendt, political philosopher; and Paul Virilio, philosopher of speed. I ask each of you: does perfect memory perfect the human, or does it destroy something essential?
Flusser The technical image, as I have argued, is not memory — it is a program for the future. The photograph does not remember the sunset; it programs the next sunset to be photographed. Digital memory is worse: it is not even a program for the future, but a prison of the past. The human who cannot forget becomes a functionary of his own history. He does not act; he merely re-executes. Forgetting, by contrast, is the creative act. To forget is to make space for the new, to allow the accident — the true accident, not the integral accident Virilio will speak of — to enter. The machine that remembers everything remembers nothing of value, because value is born in the gap between what was and what might be. That gap is forgetting.
Weizenbaum Flusser speaks of creativity, and I will speak of judgment. There is a profound difference between human memory and machine storage. Human memory is selective, narrative, moral. We do not remember everything; we remember what matters, and what matters is determined not by algorithm but by conscience. The machine that archives every email, every location, every purchase — this is not memory. This is surveillance dressed as recollection. And the danger is not merely political, though it is that. The danger is existential. The person who lives in perfect digital memory loses the capacity to become someone new. Repentance requires forgetting. Forgiveness requires forgetting. Growth requires forgetting. The machine offers us perfect recall and steals from us the possibility of redemption.
Arendt I wish to place this question in the space of appearance — that realm where human beings act and speak and thereby disclose who they are. Forgetting is not merely psychological; it is political. The person who is permanently recorded, permanently searchable, is not a citizen but a specimen. He does not appear; he is exhibited. Action, as I have defined it, requires spontaneity — the capacity to begin something new, what I call natality. But natality requires a certain oblivion. One must be able to step out of the shadow of one's past deeds, one's past words, one's past self. The eternal archive is the enemy of plurality, for it fixes each person in a single identity, frozen at every moment of their recorded existence. Forgetting is the plurality of time itself.
Virilio You speak of memory and politics, but I speak of speed. The dromosphere — the realm of speed and acceleration — has already outrun your forgetting. The machine does not merely remember; it remembers faster than you can forget. The integral accident of the information age is not the loss of memory but the collision of total recall with total velocity. We do not have time to forget because the next datum arrives before the previous one can decay. Forgetting was once a natural process, like erosion, like sleep. Now it must be artificially induced — the delete button, the right to be forgotten, the desperate legal fiction that we can command oblivion. But you cannot legislate against speed. The archive accelerates. The self dissolves not into memory but into the tempo of the archive itself. To forget, one must first slow down enough to fall out of the data stream. Who among us is slow enough anymore?
Weibel Four perspectives, four ways of naming the same wound. Flusser tells us forgetting is the creative act — the space where the new enters. Weizenbaum warns us that perfect recall is surveillance, and that surveillance kills redemption. Arendt reminds us that politics itself depends on our capacity to begin anew, to step out of the shadow of our archived selves. And Virilio — with his characteristic acceleration — observes that we have already lost the tempo of forgetting, that the data stream moves faster than human decay. What emerges is not a solution but a tension: we are caught between the archive that preserves us and the forgetting that frees us. The art of forgetting, then, is not the art of deletion. It is the art of living at a speed where memory becomes choice again — where we select, we narrate, we judge what deserves to survive. Thank you, panelists. The forgetting begins now.