Post #2477827

2026-04-08 13:17 UTC

Joseph is sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites, then pulled from the pit by the Midianites, who sell him to the Ishmaelites, who taken him to Egypt. And meanwhile the Midianites sold him in Egypt to Potiphar. This conflicting narrative is an extreme act of memory, but it also confuses and obscures the details of the story. We know Joseph was taken to Egypt as property, but by who? How did they acquire him? The redactor's refusal to pick a version makes a clear narrative arc untellable without using some omissions they refused to make. If forgetting creates a fog of confusion where once there was clear knowledge, then so does too much memory.

Replies (1)

@celesteh@post.lurk.org 2026-04-09 10:42

The transmission of intergenerational trauma is also disrupted by forgetting, but the transmission of memory is also often a moral mandate. My mother suffered terribly for her belief in Hell and was careful to try to replicate that in my brother and I. Hell has specific aspects that function to keep it within memory. Failure to communicate the idea of Hell is punished by Hell itself. What's more, failure to learn of Hell also damns the ignorant. To avoid the 'reality' of Hell, one must be aware of the idea of Hell and pledge to communicate it further. Rothko's Basilisk is just a special case of Christian Hell, less pernicious because it has a mechanism for forgiving the innocent. Fed Clark has more on hell: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2026/04/07/the-pedagogy-of-moral-accommodation/

Open ##2477828