Dear Erika,

I read this a few days ago--thought I upvoted it then, too--so much for reliable memory. I've thought about the post a few times since, especially in light of our recent discussions.
Memory. It implies that the originating event was perceived accurately. But, as we all know, experience is subjective. So, from the very start, formed 'memories' are not likely to be objectively accurate.
Perception is affected not only by physical circumstances (eyesight, lighting, angle of view) but also by emotional component (how does the event impress us at the moment, what parts of it are important to us, and therefore processed and what parts are not...and therefore dismissed).
Eyewitness statements in courts demonstrate this weakness of perception. Some might remember a cap on a perpetrator, some the stature of the perpetrator, some the skin tone. So a report becomes a jigsaw puzzle of several witnesses.
So, with a flawed beginning, 'memory' is formed. How do we hold onto that? Once again, we keep what is important to us. This may be different from what is important to another. Hence the discrepancies in 'remembered' events between family members.
As usual, your post has provoked reflection. Always interesting.

Be well and happy, dear Erika.

Your friend from across the sea and time,
AG