Our Past is our Future

The topic is typical from the Source, and has been suggested in several forms over the years.  Still, it is a question that lingers in the human mind and always has new layers of meaning to examine.  On one hand, many people believe in time being cyclical, and unchangeably so, which must lead us to think that what happened in the past will necessarily happen again when conditions return to that state.  We like to think we learn from the past, but every economic bubble and war makes it seems as if we never learn anything.  However, it is also true that situations are similar to those in the past but not really the same.  Can we consider history to be repeating if the exact conditions are not reproduced?  Another consideration is that "our" past can refer to the past of all humanity, or our community, or ourselves as individuals.  This was not specified.  In some ways, what applies to groups also applies to individuals, as we do not have a firm reputation for being able to suss out perfect solutions on the first go 'round, having to deal with problems many times in some cases before ridding ourselves of them.  Still, we must ask whether the similarities are enough that we can say past and future are essentially the same.  While many situations seem alike or just comparable enough, the details and influencing factors can be quite different.  While we might say the past influences the future, or even determines the future, saying that it is the future may be a step too far.

The Leader was not available to lead this time around, being away in a more hospitable country.  He did leave some written thoughts, which pointed out the problem of memory when looking at the past.  It is not really what has happened, but what we believe to have happened that guides our decisions in the present and the future, but we are notoriously bad at remembering things accurately.  Caution is warrented.

The Source was sure of her opinion, which is why the topic was introduced as an affirmation rather than a question.  In other discussions, there had been dissent, which she found insulting due to the lack of reasoning behind it.  It was pure denial and negativity.  She seemed to want to focus more on personal past and future, because of the disparities in reality for the human population, not only worldwide but in single communities.  Our choices are influenced and limited by a great many factors, stemming not only from the past but continuing in the present.

Our Doctor, in contrast to the Leader, was of the opinion that we know the past, at least as well as necessary to make rational decisions.  We do not, however, know the future, making the statement an impossible one.  Part of the problem with making such unambiguous statements is that all of existence is imbued with ambiguity and concealed knowledge that is not free for the asking.  He used the word ambivalence, in the sense of there being two separate realities, at least.  Everything is true and not true, Schrödinger's dream an internet wag might say.  He would later admit that the present is the result of the past, but we cannot say that that fact must necessarily create a future in the mold of the past.  We try, as human beings, to extrapolate from past experience to prepare for the future, and this is normally what keeps us alive.  Physically we are prepared for changes of season or recurring catastrophes, and emotionally we are in connection with and participating in "reality".  He warned against believing any old speech by any person, calling upon us to be selective in our choices.  Learning from others can change our future, since others do not share our past; in fact, the Doctor quipped that not even we share our own past with ourselves.  In the end, he emphasized the importance of knowledge, but pointed out that knowledge comes under different guises in different areas.  History, for example, is simply not the same in different countries, perhaps even in different areas of the same country in some cases.  While the past and the future are the same, contradictorily he advised us to analyze the past in order to shape the future scientifically.

The True Philosopher admitted that, taken literally, there is no way for the past to be the future.  Nonetheless, the question of how far we can push the importance of the similarities can be an interesting philosophical focus.  He focused on our conscious management of our time in his writing, and in the meeting insisted on the constant stream of time, flowing from the past, through the present, to the future.  The influence is undeniable, and the past must cause the future, both for individuals and in the grand scheme of things.  He pointed out how trauma can cause a person to make certain choices for the future, either avoiding those bad situations, or following the familiar pattern simply because it is familiar.  While new aspects exist, that do not come directly from the past, the future is always affected by the past.  Some participants wondered about the relationship between determinism and free will in this scenario, and the True Philosopher responded by saying there is no contradiction at all; determinism refers only to the past and the present, but the future is yet to be set.  It is merely influenced by the past and the present, which is the past of the future as well.  When we say the past is the future, we should not be interpreted as saying the past is exactly the same as the future, but that our experiences create the pathways that we choose to follow after living through our past.

The Deep Thinker was rather critical of the whole idea, being less than accepting of the simple allowance for the past to influence us without question.  He emphasized the importance of self-awareness to free ourselves of our bad habits and negative tendencies, since this will allow us to have a "free" future as well.  He made an impassioned argument against assuming that all our choices are free, since many people appear to choose, but have been conditioned to do what they do from birth or at least childhood.  He was wary of accepting choices out of hand, since they can be the result of persuasion or even brainwashing.  The True Philosopher, rightly I think, wanted to continue the debate about personal responsibility, since we can be conditioned to do many bad things, but as it was off-topic politely stopped with the question of whether criminals are actually criminals or victims of conditioning.  The Deep Thinker did not have a ready answer to the doubt raised, but certainly can be expected to come up with something should the idea of free will be doubted in the future.

The circumstances were unfortunate for this meeting; there was a birthday celebration in our normal space, so we were in the bar area, subjected to a lot of preparation noise.  Then the attendees started appearing, with a loud baby.  Really unhappy, that kid.  Screeching up and down the stairs.  Then, people started filtering into the bar area to ... do something, but their chatter was really quite distracting and made for the difficult task of following input.  I guess this is the price we pay for meeting on Saturdays in the summer instead of just going dormant.