Human beings have historically fixed their memories in an increasing diversity of media. Nowadays, though far from the creative expansion of new supports, they are growingly dependent on digital objects. Integration is assured but full dependence on external mediation is also assured. In this Era of neurotic memories, one has to be aware that digitalisation does not only bring advantages, as cultural trends want us to believe, but also disadvantages diminishing the importance of cultural values, freedom of memory, freedom to build real identities and control by the support itself over the users. These threats are often ignored by the likes of Knowledge Organization Research and fed by future trends of dogmatic elites. Power is always projected for perpetuation and memory is currently re-written from its imaginary agenda. The comparison between hypothetical units of memory, confined in restricted records, and the geometrical figure of a cube, in spite of its metaphorical reduction, leads to several assertions, some of them programatic, essential to place Knowledge Organization Research a rather pos-epistemological position from which reflexivity and complexity must command both scholars and practitioners directives and actions. Memory interaction is known as a complex network of meanings opened to instability and constant readaptation based on cultural fashion. Exomemory construction is based on local or global prejudices historically set up by instances beyond citizens reach. One of these is the national order, flooding every piece of existence, from linguistic selfawareness to knowledge concept. Knowledge Organization Research theory should be commited to revealing prejudices as such, acting on the organization and representation process, not seeking preconceited refusal but the renegotiation of their invisible and real rethorical presence in digital memory construction.
Knowledge organization research; digital memory; theory