Ars Oblivionalis

The Art of Forgetfulness

Predrag Stojadinović
Predrag@Stojadinovic.com

Abstract. Ars Oblivionalis was invented by Umberto Eco and his friends as the most interesting
of all the impossible sciences. It is supposed to be the opposite of the mnemonic arts and is
therefore, supposed to examine, elaborate and develop the techniques for forgetting. Eco starts
by showing to what extent the mnemotechnics is a semiotics and he finishes by showing why the
mnemotechnics “is an apparatus inherently ill-suited to stimulate forgetfulness”. However, he
finds a rather interesting and intriguing solution to the problem of voluntarily invoking
forgetfulness.
1 Introduction to the Non-Existing Disciplines

Ars Oblivionalis was invented by Umberto Eco and his friends as the most

interesting of all the impossible sciences. The group was amusing themselves by

inventing impossible disciplines and then placing advertisement for university positions

in these non-existing disciplines. They divided them into four departments:

• Adynata

• Oxymoronica

• Byzantinica

• Tetrapiloctomia

1.1 Department of Adynata

Word Adynata comes from Adynaton, or ‘the declaration of impossibility, usually in

terms of an exaggerated comparison or, sometimes, the expression of the impossibility

of expression.’ [Burton 1996] We can find a nice example for Adynaton in Shakespeare

2 Henry IV 1.2.20-22: “I will sooner have a beard grow in the palm of my hand than he

shall get one of his cheek.”

Adynata, obviously, represents the Department of impossibilia which contained

impossible sciences such as ‘Gipsy Urbanistics, Microscopic Astrology, Syntax and

Semantics in baby talk, Macroscopic research in elementary particles, History of

Antarctic Agriculture, etc.’ [Mecke & Nitschke]

The department of Adynata is one of the possible departments where Ars

Oblivionalis could be placed. The other possibility is the Department of Oxymoronica.

- Stojadinović 1 -
1.2 Department of Oxymoronica

Word Oxymoronica comes from Oxymoron which means ‘placing two ordinarily

opposing terms adjacent to one another, [or in other words] a compressed paradox’.

[Burton 1996] Some examples of an Oxymoron are “Military Intelligence”, “The Sounds

of Silence” and “Festina lente” (make haste slowly).

Department of Oxymoronica contains self-contradictory and analytically impossible

sciences such as ‘Nomadic Urbanistics, History of Innovative Traditions, Solid-State

Physics of Abstract Objects, Phonetics in Silent Films, etc.’ [Mecke & Nitschke]

1.3 Department of Byzantinica

Department of Byzantinica contains sciences of utter uselessness such as Potiosection

(the art of cutting broth), ‘Oenoaerometrics (measuring the amount of air in a corked

bottle of wine), Musculoplaqueology (identifies mice by their interdental deposit), etc.’

[Mecke & Nitschke]

1.4 Department of Tetrapiloctomia

Department of Tetrapiloctomia contains sciences of excessive subtlety such as

‘Microscopy of indiscernibles’. Tetrapiloctomia stands for ‘The art of splitting a hair

four ways’.

- Stojadinović 2 -
2 Ars Oblivionalis

Ars Oblivionalis is supposed to be the opposite of the mnemonic arts and is, therefore,

supposed to examine, elaborate and develop the techniques for forgetting. The emphasis

here is on the word technique because we are not simply discussing “ways” of

forgetting. Forgetfulness can be a result of multiple causes such as drunkenness, drugs

or some form of aphasia1. These are natural causes which were, hopefully, not induced

intentionally but rather due to some unfortunate accident or stupidity. Ars Oblivionalis,

however, represents intentional techniques that one can induce consciously in order to

forget something.

Certain suggestions have been made in the past for inducing forgetfulness. One

advice comes from the Latin Memory Treatises2 and states that ‘one should associate a

given syllogism with a monstrous bleeding image in the third room on the right in an

enormous palace.’ [Eco 1966] It is quite obvious that this technique will create a certain

feeling of repulsiveness for the fore mentioned syllogism. However, it fails to convince

that it will induce actual forgetfulness. This technique will not force one to forget

something but more likely force one to remember the very thing that one actually

wanted to forget.

As Eco noted in this paper, if a certain object A is somehow and in someway

imagined to have a connection with object B, or if object A presents a sort of homology3

with object B, then it is quite clear that evoking object A will automatically evoke

object B. Vice versa, normally, also applies. It is, therefore, not clear how imagining a

certain objects C will force one’s cerebral center to completely cancel object D. If the

1 Aphasia: loss or impairment of the power to use or comprehend words usually resulting from brain damage
2 Treatise: a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical discussion of the facts and
principles involved and conclusions reached <a treatise on higher education>
3 Homology: a similarity often attributable to common origin

- Stojadinović 3 -
connection between objects C and D has not been made previously, it is certainly

established during this process.

We have available extensive explanations of the way aphasia manifests itself and of

particular and exact effects it has on ones brain but we do not know how to produce it

artificially and therefore induce intentional forgetfulness. In other words, to be exact, we

don’t have an explanation on how to reproduce aphasia voluntarily.

If we turn to neurophysiology, on the other hand, we can only find how to act

physically on someone’s cerebral centers and force forgetfulness effectively. This will

also include serious malicious side affects and great damage to one’s brain. Clearly,

after continuous repetition of this process one will most likely loose a great deal of

one’s brain functionality.

This, then, indicates that we should not examine the art of memory and, of course the

art of recall and forgetfulness as well, in neurophysiological or even just psychological

terms but rather in semiotic1 terms. We can start by showing that mnemotechnics2 is a

semiotics and to what extent this is true and than finish by showing why the

mnemotechnics ‘is an apparatus inherently ill-suited to stimulate forgetfulness.’ [Eco

1966]

2.1 Mnemotechnics as Semiotics

From the definition of semiotics which states that it is ‘a mechanism that presents

something to the mind and therefore a mechanism for producing intentional acts’, [Eco

1966] we can clearly see that the arts of memory is a semiotic phenomenon.

1 Semiotics: A mechanism that presents something to the mind and therefore a mechanism for
producing intentional acts. (by definition)
2 Mnemotechnics: ‘devices to stand in for the frailties of humans, their inexorable drift into forgetting and decay’
[Brown & Lightfoot 1998]

- Stojadinović 4 -
 The art of memory represents a mechanism for linking A with B in some fashion and

by doing so uses one as the signifier of the other. Signifiers can be memory images, and

actually they are sometimes even imaginary memory places. This does not create any

change because mental images, mental icons and concepts can be understood as signs

and are therefore acceptable in the arts of memory.

Mnemotechnics uses a syntactic system of loci1 destined to hold images. These

images, in turn, assume the function of lexical units (a lexical unit is a form-meaning composite that

represents a lexical form2, and a single meaning of a lexeme3) and are linked to a system of Res

Memorandae4, which represent the corresponding units of content.

The problem arises when we examine the similarity between expressive images and

units of content. As we can imagine, any thing can be similar to any other thing as long

as we give a proper description. I could associate trees with cats because I have seen too

many cats that climb trees. In fact, from what I have actually experienced, I know that if

there is a tree available in the immediate vicinity of a cat in danger it will, inevitably,

climb that tree searching for safety. I am therefore, quite inclined to connecting trees

with cats and vice versa. A connection that, most likely, would never come to any other

human being’s mind. At least not as easily as it comes to me.

In the same way, one can express certain world forms in one’s own way which is not

required to necessarily be correct to others. However, by doing so, one creates a

connection, a chain relation, between the particular expression and the form of the

world, the content. ‘In fact… all arts of memory actually unite expression and content.

They link the form of memory places and of images to the form… of the world by

1 System of Loca: Syntax of expression

2 Lexical form: an abstract unit representing a set of word forms differing only in inflection and not in
core meaning
3 Lexeme: a meaningful linguistic unit that is an item in the vocabulary of a language
4 Res Memorandae: things/objects/matters/events/facts that have to be remembered

- Stojadinović 5 -
establishing chains of homologous relations.’ [Eco 1966] They do not, actually, explain

the rhetorical logic of these chains and thus leave the possibility of having everything as

a sign of everything else.

There is a vast number of correlations that we are all familiar with from our everyday

lives. Some of the correlations that Eco refers to were listed by Cosmas Rossellius are:

• correlation by homonymy: the animal ‘dog’ for the ‘dog star’

• correlation by similarity of quantity: ‘ten’ fingers for the ‘ten commandments’

• correlation by similarity of name: ‘Arista’ for ‘Aristotle’

• correlation by irony and contrast: the ‘fool’ for the ‘wise man’

• correlation by vestigial traces: ‘track’ for ‘the wolf’

• correlation by genus and species: ‘leopard’ for ‘the animal’

• etc.

These correlations are just a scratch of the infinitive list that one can create. We are

all free to create our own correlations as we please in order to remember particular

syllogisms. This presents a peculiar problem: what is the technique for remembering the

expressions of an art of memory? In other words, what must one do in order to

remember the correlations between expression and content?

This brings ahead another problem as well, that of a certain image corresponding to

multiple contents. A Lion can stand for a letter L, but as a figure it can also represent the

devil, or more familiarly a King for he is the king of the Jungle, etc. The reverse,

naturally, also applies. ‘For one person it can be useful to associate the series of planets

[which he is already quite familiar with] to the series of angelic hierarchies, for another

it can be useful to associate the series of angelic hierarchies [which he knows already]

with the series of planets.’ [Eco 1966] This is why nothing is inherently expression or

content. Anything can assume one of those two functions freely. The correlation is quite

individual and depends only on the mind of its creator.

- Stojadinović 6 -
 ‘Rossellius’s mnemotechnics is a semiotics because a sign function…determines

expression and content.’ [Eco 1966] The nature of the thing itself is irrelevant and

anything can become either content or expression.

2.2 Semiotics is ill-suited to stimulate forgetfulness

As we have seen it is proper to a semiotics to make present something absent. This, in

turn, suggests clearly that it is impossible to construct an Ars Oblivionalis on the model

of an art of memory because in that case Ars Oblivionalis would also be a semiotics.

This is a contradiction in terms. Semiotics makes present something absent and Ars

Oblivionalis makes absent something present.

Language is one of the semiotics and it has the ability to render present something

that actually is not present (absent). For example, an expression “Nulla rosa est”1

immediately brings to our minds a rose.

Thus, obviously, ‘every expression determined by a semiotic sign function sets into

play a mental response as soon as it is produced, thus making it impossible to use an

expression to make its own content disappear.’ [Eco 1966] This is exactly why, if the

arts of memory are a semiotics, it is impossible to create arts of forgetting based on their

model.

3 Solution

Never the less, there is a way of inducing forgetfulness intentionally. Or, at least if not

creating complete forgetfulness, then creating a complete confusion in one’s mind and

therefore one’s inability to remember correctly.

1“Nulla rosa est”: ‘there is no rose’ or ‘such a thing like a rose has never existed’

- Stojadinović 7 -
 We have all encountered number of words which have, what I call, similarity

partners. Such words are paronomasia and antonomasia, or, for my friend is not a

native English speaker, sheep and cheep, sherry and cherry. These pairs represent the

so-called confusion between expressions. The other kind of confusion is between an

expression and two or more signifieds, notions or definitional contents. An example for

this would be trying to remember the correct translation of the French word fraise. Eco,

in this paper, gives two suggestions: ‘blackberry’ and ‘blueberry’, when in fact, the

correct translation is strawberry.

Both of these phenomena lack subtraction, that is to say that neither came about by

having something disappear. Rather, they are both results of addition. ‘Two [or more]

notions or terms are superimposed in memory and one can no longer tell which [one] is

right.’ [Eco 1966] These mostly happen if one makes a mistake the first time one

encounters a particular expression. One is, further, given a correction but, actually,

remembers both the error and the correction and is usually unable to remember which is

which.

One of my friends, who is actually quite superb in speaking English, very often offers

me ‘some sherries’ instead of cherries. I was quite fast to catch up on that one but the

question: ‘Is that cheep?’, referring to the meat we were eating, was quite puzzling until

I realized it was sheep he was trying to say. He has been corrected numerous times but is

still unable to remember which the correct pronunciation is.

In fact, we are inclined not to remember a particular correct solution to the problem if

we have tried to solve in a wrong way the very first time we encountered it.

Psychologically, this makes sense because it is quite normal to be able to remember the

problem rather than the solution simply because the problem, most often, creates a

greater impression on us than its solution.

- Stojadinović 8 -
 Therefore, we can conclude that ‘it is possible to forget on account not of defect but

of excess.’ [Eco 1966] One can train himself to remember wrongly. For example,

instead of “Barbara Celarent Darii Ferio” one can pronounce repeatedly, day after day

“Birbiri Celirant Doria Fario” until one is no longer able to remember which one is

actually correct. This, of course, is not cancellation by deletion but rather ‘a sort of

cancellation by multiplication of false synonyms1.’ [Eco 1966]

So, one forgets by superimposition and not by cancellation, by multiplying presence

rather than by producing absence. This explains why authors of the treatises2 of memory

feared that one might overload his memory and remember so much as to confuse all

ideas in one’s mind and therefore forget what one knew before.

Now, since we have established why Ars Oblivionalis is not possible we can

conclude that it belongs in the Department of Adynata. If, however, we rename it to

Semiotica Oblivionalis, then it belongs in the Department of Oxymoronica ‘because a

semiotics stalls natural processes of oblivion.’ [Eco 1966]

1 Synonym: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the
same meaning in some or all senses
2 Treatise: a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical discussion of the facts and
principles involved and conclusions reached <a treatise on higher education>

- Stojadinović 9 -
References
On-line Sources:
[Mecke & Nitschke], Academy of Analytical Irrelevance,
http://www.irrelevanz.de/akademie/indexen.html, Ann-Christine Mecke and Markus Nitschke.

[Burton 1996], Silva Rhetoricae, http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm, Gideon O. Burton 1996.

[Brown & Lightfoot 1998], Mnemotechnics: Groupware and the mediation of memory,
http://devpsy.lboro.ac.uk/psygroup/sb/mnemo.htm, Steven D. Brown, Loughborough University &
Geoffrey M. Lightfoot, Keele University 1998.

Bibliography
[Eco 1966], An Ars Oblivionalis? Forget It!, Umberto Eco 1966.

- Stojadinović 10 -