Can writing be for remembering?

This seems like a stupid question. Seems writing has always been for remembering. Yet in fact, there's a myth from Plato's Phaedrus that explicitly stated AND objected the use of a writing system precisely because it undermined people's ability to remember things. It goes like this:

SOCRATES: ...The story I heard is set in Naucratis in Egypt, where there was one of the ancient gods of Egypt–– the one to whom the bird they call the ‘ibis’ is sacred, whose name is Theuth. This deity was the inventor of number, d arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, of games involving draughts and dice––and especially of writing. At the time, the king of the whole of Egypt around the capital city of the inland region (the city the Greeks call ‘Egyptian Thebes’), was Thamous, or Amon, as the Greeks call him. Theuth came to Thamous and showed him the branches of expertise he had invented, and suggested that they should be spread throughout Egypt. Thamous asked him what good each one would do, and subjected Theuth’s explanations to e criticism if he thought he was going wrong and praise if thought he was right. The story goes that Thamous expressed himself at length to Theuth about each of the branches of expertise, both for and against them. It would take a long time to go through all Thamous’ views, but when it was the turn of writing, Theuth said, ‘Your highness, this science will increase the intelligence of the people of Egypt and improve their memories. For this invention is a potion for memory and intelligence.’ But Thamous replied, ‘You are most ingenious, Theuth. But one person has the ability to bring branches of expertise into existence, another to assess the extent to which they will harm or benefit those who use them. The loyalty you feel to writing, as its originator, has just led you to tell me the opposite of its true effect. It will atrophy people’s memories. Trust in writing will make them remember things by relying on marks made by others, from outside themselves, not on their own inner resources, and so writing will make the things they have learnt disappear from their minds. Your invention is a potion for jogging the memory, not for remembering. You provide your students with the appearance of intelligence, not real intelligence. Because your students will be widely read, though without any contact with a teacher, they will seem to be men of wide knowledge, when they will usually be ignorant. And this spurious appearance of intelligence will make them difficult company.’

The Egyptian king-god distrusts writing because it will "atrophy people's memories" and provide them with "the appearance of intelligence." Writing is therfore not for remembering but for NOT remembering. You write things down so as to not having to remember them in your brain. From here has sprung the whole Western tradition of logocentrism, of believing in oral expression rather than in written words, of pursuing the "idea" while abandoning the symbol, taking the "logos", the speech, to be the one true form of existence, while the writing is always mortal, prey to constant material changes. 

But this is no way of abandoning writing as a technique for remembering, especially for us Chinese who have worshipped writing for at least 3200 years. At the origin of Chinese writing, what was so typical was not the remembering feature that writing always shows, but the political power it implied in three specific factors the Shang people developed over the years: a) that writing on something like a huge bronze ding (鼎) or yu (鬻) is most unchangeable, in a sense immortal, than oral language, hence more appropriate for setting up a social contract; b) that by seeing all cleavages in the nature and animals as mysterious passages between the living world and the world of the dead, and by using oracle bones as  the tools for transcendental communications, writing becomes in a way sacred, ritually powerful, and fearful; [This is the shamanism in ancient China that has lived till now. Most Chinese people, including the youngest generations, still believe in the power the dead has over the living, and therefore still fear and worship them so as to get their blessings, or let's just say their promise of not doing bad things, by paying a lot of money to the specialists to perform certain rituals and sending messages between the living and the dead. Of course, I find such national trait highly obnoxious and inconvenient, but have no way and no will whatsoever to change it.] c) that by making the writing system sufficiently difficult to learn, and by monopolizing it, the Shang made writing a privilege, not a tool for common people's communications, but a mental weapon saved only for the shaman class. Hence the Chinese writing is the ONLY writing system that is being widely used today and yet not fully phonetized. Even Japanese or Korean or Vietnamese writing are phonetized.

And from here we can draw a few conclusions, or maybe conjectures: originally, writing is not seen primarily for remembering both in the East and in the West. The emphasis on remembering is rather a late invention, a modern thinking, the presupposition of which is that MY life, my PERSONAL life, is worth remembering. In the good old days (I mean very very old), it simply is not, unless you're a prince, a head of the shaman class, a chief, or at least a member of the royal family. The material side of this is that, neither the productivity for food nor for the writing material is high enough to support common writing. Which leads us to the two simple but never easy questions: 

1. Is a modern person, any person, entitled to write down his/her own life, NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF LIFE HE/SHE HAS? 

2. Why and how is it that we modern people can afford to let everyone, literally EVERYONE, remember their lives by writing EVERYTHING down?

The former question has something to do with generalization, and the latter specialization.