Wisdom of Dreams:
Dreams may be memories of the future. (if you have to ask you wouldn’t understand the answer)
Memories have a disadvantage, they are a form of cognitive authority outside of your direct control.
Cognitive Authority Theory: The fundamental concept is that our minds construct knowledge in two different ways: based on your first-hand experience or on what you have learned second-hand from others. What you learn first-hand depends on your stock of ideas you bring to the interpretation and understanding of your encounters with the world. People, as a whole, primarily depend on others for ideas as well as for information outside the range of direct experience. Much of what you think of the world is what you have gained second-hand unfortunately this second hand information comes with a lot of baggage that makes it suspect at best and pure fabrication at worst.
The trouble with the past is all of the things you didn’t discover that you knew and the things you wish you could forget.
We sleep, dream and remember I wonder if they in fact aren’t the same things.
History is impossible to believe accurately without knowing what precept of real time was being used at the moment that the present became history.
History makes it impossible to find solutions to modern day problems. Rather than learning from history we accept the premise that history if written must be true and accurate. Without the ability to understand the environment, society, morality and remembrances of the author how could we understand his interpretations of the events that became history.(the out of context theory taken to its absolute.) How could we mediate the Arabs and Jews or Croats and Muslims Catholics and Protestants. Do we have any concept at what these differences are or even if they are, difference but only interpretations of the oldest storyteller memory. Do we accept history as truth or as a divine enterprise. History can’t be flawless due to the inherent frailty of man and his remembrances of banal events that may or may not become history. History is not lived, it is only remembered. Who knows what incident will become history to us.
As an example: If we would read the written history of World War 2, we undoubtedly would read two different accounts of the same incident that would fundamentally be diametrically opposed. One version from the crew of Enola Gay (plane that dropped first atomic bomb) and the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both would be poignant and absolutely correct. Both would be wrong without the ability to see the total picture. After all that is what a historian does, looks at the total picture from his view point. Who would or could you believe?
Although we have in this day of computers and Internet, the ability to remember facts and events in smallest detail and be able to impart to all. We still would not know the unwritten history that is defined by circumstances long forgotten and all that that implies. History by definition, was at one time only the stories or memories of the oldest storyteller. Once retold and acclimated to the tenets of the listeners, history would fundamentally change.
History will never define the present only inspire the future.
If you have read this post this far then you get a gold star, You survived wading through philosophy 101, I promise not to do this very often in the works to come.
We sleep, dream and remember I wonder if they in fact aren’t the same things.
History is impossible to believe accurately without knowing what precept of real time was being used at the moment that the present became history.
History makes it impossible to find solutions to modern day problems. Rather than learning from history we accept the premise that history if written must be true and accurate. Without the ability to understand the environment, society, morality and remembrances of the author how could we understand his interpretations of the events that became history.(the out of context theory taken to its absolute.) How could we mediate the Arabs and Jews or Croats and Muslims Catholics and Protestants. Do we have any concept at what these differences are or even if they are, difference but only interpretations of the oldest storyteller memory. Do we accept history as truth or as a divine enterprise. History can’t be flawless due to the inherent frailty of man and his remembrances of banal events that may or may not become history. History is not lived, it is only remembered. Who knows what incident will become history to us.
Although we have in this day of computers and Internet, the ability to remember facts and events in smallest detail and be able to impart to all. We still would not know the unwritten history that is defined by circumstances long forgotten and all that that implies. History by definition, was at one time only the stories or memories of the oldest storyteller. Once retold and acclimated to the tenets of the listeners, history would fundamentally change.
History will never define the present only inspire the future.
History is judgmental, as to who wins and who looses. In reality there are never any winners or losers only differing degrees of compromise. Wars are fought not to win or loose but to inflict enough damage that the other side compromise’s to your benefit. Because history is judgmental it is left to the vanquisher to record the events. Thus history is recorded, the truth nothing but the truth but not necessarily the whole truth. Historians or story tellers tend to see the world in black and white. If one thing is clear it is that dogma is gray, it is neither good nor evil, black or white. It is a position that can’t be defended except on faith. If you question a persons faith you question his existence his ability to define himself. You cannot defend or define Religion, Politics, Hate, Avarice, or Love quantitatively or qualitatively. (with no rhyme or reason) These strong points of view all have the ring of truth and inasmuch as truth can only be singular. All other points of view must be prevarication if we are forced to embrace another point of view not are own, then conversely we are accepting untruth to replace truth. This questions the fundamental truths that are the basic building blocks of what we perceive that we are. Society would fight to protect all that is dear and near but what is that exactly. What do we value above all else are wives, children, home, in-laws, pets, etc? We should value are wives, husbands children, home, in-laws, pets, etc to the point that we create a world where they are valued more than church, state, politics or ideology. We seem as a society to value all else except what we should. Ask your self what can you replace without losing a piece of your self in the process. Wives, husbands children, home, in-laws, pets, etc help us to define what we are, rather than who we are. Who we are, is what we project to the world. What we are is that we admit only to our selves.
Be Proud
If you have read this post this far then you get a gold star, You survived wading through philosophy 101, I promise not to do this very often in the works to come.
