In a sense, everything is history. For example, when I look at an object such as my computer screen, I am aware that I see it not as it is but as it was a fraction of a second ago ; this is because it takes a definite length of time for it to be neurologically processed and to be presented to conscious awareness. When we move away from that kind of example towards more everyday awarenesses, to thinking about what to have for breakfast for example, things get even more historical ; if I decide on cornflakes, then where does my liking of them come from if not from pleasant memories of breakfasts past?
In a sense, then, while the arrow of time is always pointing forward, our sense perceptions of the world are always pointing backward. It is as if Nature made us to feel more comfortable to look at the past rather than the future.
And in a sense, everything is spiritual. For, even though I can persuade myself that I am looking at a material thing as I gaze at the computer screen, the moment I start to think about it, it becomes entirely a phenomenon of consciousness ; i.e., not material at all but spiritual.
These thoughts and others like them were crossing my mind as I enjoyed reading the history of the events following the Norman conquest, from the time of King William himself to King John. I was conscious of enjoying that period of history as a purely spiritual pleasure ; for there is no way I could possibly enjoy it as a sensory one. I might have imagined what it is like to be clad in heavy chain mail on the Sussex Downs ; I might have imagined what the weight of a swinging sword or mace might feel like ; I might have imagined the pain of taking an arrow-hit in the eye. But there is no way that I can experience these things that are long in the past and beyond hope (or fear) of repetition.
“How wonderful life must be for the historian, I thought, living one’s subject entirely through one’s imagination!”
And imagination is but one short step back from its alluring cousin, fantasy. “How comforting it would be,” I thought, “If the nobler Anglo-Saxons had never allowed themselves to become embroiled with those ghastly Normans and French!”
But then, history is history, as they say, and the events cannot be realistically imagined as being different from what they actually were. All ‘what if’ scenarios are mere fantasy. Perhaps that is why so many students of history see their subject as elaborate lists of dates, names and deeds ; nice and safe lists with little margin for error. But surely this is not history at all ; it is little more than chronology.
So, perhaps that is why they also like to have each item in the list tagged with the opinion of their teacher ; in the belief that this somehow adds veracity to the content of the list. But such opinions are so often conditioned by the political opinions of the teacher, which always contaminate history with modern ideas alien to the age being studied.
Of course, history is bound to contain large amounts of historians’ opinion, but I do not think that this is what it is really about. For, surely, no subject is worthy of study unless the student is in some way in love with the subject being studied. And what is being studied in ‘History’? it has to be simply people. So the first requirement of an historian is to love people and, from that, to desire to know what they did and why they did it. The ‘what’ is easy enough ; that is the bare menu. But the ‘why’ is where the recipe is ; it leads to the kitchen where the tale of entire nations and civilisations is cooked up.
History is a tale with many story-lines, therefore with as many aims ; but apparently without an over-arching plot. In 1066 nobody in England had the faintest suspicion of a Hanoverian monarch. History has many chronologists but not an all-knowing author.
And yet there are patterns in history, which suggests something about human nature. And the patterns do not lead to mere repetition of events, which suggests that human nature is changing. For example, in general, the farther back we go, the more violent are the methods of government ; and this suggests that we are moving in a direction where force as a method is giving way to persuasion. And violence, of course, is the outcome of ways of seeing the world and of ways of thinking.
Therefore, it seems to me that history is the tale of the evolution of human consciousness. It is a spiritual tale.
Jamie
Thanks for a great Post and I see that you made a great effort to keep it down in size; spiritualism is a multi-facetted concept.
How about this to keep my contribution short too? Mankind’s quest for knowledge runs in a parallel line with an ever increasing revelation of his ignorance; hence the denial of the existence of the spiritual in order to be greater than he will ever be.
Life was never meant to me material but the latter is a good disguise for his ignorance. It becomes escapism from the truth; that in turn is also a spiritual concept.
There was a short while [you often mention Socrates and I agree] when acquisition of knowledge was perhaps closely linked to spiritual fulfillment but that time was lost; rather I should say wasted and cast into the wind. The victory of materialism over spirituality may be our downfall.
Your second paragraph is very interesting, Ike. I think it highly likely that, the more we know, the more we don’t know. For every new discovery throws up new lines of enquiry.
A way of looking at it is this : knowledge is built upon knowledge : it is like the growth of a tree, where our knowledge is made up of the branches and the twigs. But what about the spaces between the branches and twigs? – just air ; just ignorance. This vast area of fresh air that separates the twigs is where the real new knowledge is to be found. But who is looking?
Maybe the victory of materialism over spiritualism is the deadly sickness of the West ; but, even if we all perish, it is not the end.
JM
Yes, your last line is true; and I certainly did not mean to say that I see the end of Life no matter what we do. The Creation of Life is much bigger than humankind; we will maybe have to play second fiddle and the spiritual will survive. I am not that pessimistic.
I would never accuse you of being a pessimist, Ike! But the point I always try to remember is that, even if Western civilisation were to perish, it would not be the end of all civilisations. It would be a major setback, a disaster even, but not the end.
I couldn’t agree more with your summary, Jamie; it is a point many of us miss though and that is perhaps why we have strayed so far. Maybe we need a disaster to make us stop a while and think.
Yes! Maybe we do need a disaster from time to time, Ike, to smash our complacency. Civilisations come and go, just as individuals do ; and, in general, the world improves a little from the new blood that replaces the old.
Yes Jamie, that thing called complacency! Here is something for you; it’s a bit of Jaksonian Philosophy but I did have you in mind too.
http://ikejakson.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/2012-datelines/
I am not sure whether all the “old blood” needs replacing; some new young blood is fine but some ……
Maybe we need a great balance, or a massive jolt to restore balance.
I think the one quibble I have with your interesting musings is that history is NOT history. The more I read and discover, the more I realize that history – like spirituality- is completely subjective. Perhaps having lived in various countries (and been schooled there) I realized early on that it is all perspective – and that historians who no doubt “love” their subject matter are nonetheless constrained by innate prejudices (that we all have), bureacracy that demands certain outlooks and the inescapable human trait of seeing things through a one-sided looking glass. What I truly agree with is that human nature itself really has remained rather constant – and thus yes, the patterns repeat themselves and it is simply the stories get told from the perspective of the victors
I generally agree with what you say, Celticbean, in that history is subjective ; and also that the very way we see the world is necessarily subjective. But I don’t think that has to get in the way of telling the truth, provided we can get in the habit of taking other points of view seriously.
I’m not sure, either, that history repeats itself in quite the way you suggest. It seems to me that, slowly, very slowly, we are becoming less ready to be violent. I put this down to the evolution of our consciousness, of our ways of thinking. All that, while human nature changes hardly at all in the physical sense.
So, our brains remain the same while our thinking evolves towards better ways of behaving. We’re far from being good, but we’re getting better ; at least we think before we kill!
It’s good to hear from you – you’re welcome any time.