How Relevant Is The Past

We all know the saying, "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."  We all know, too, that as a general rule we do ignore the lessons of the past.  What could cause this error?  Simply enough, it is probably that we do not really see those lessons as applicable to our present circumstances.  Sure, economic bubbles burst in the past, but this time it's going to go on forever!  Or at least until I can pay off my house.  Why would the cycle not affect me this time?  Well, it's not really the same as before.  Now, we have protections!  Government guarantees!  Economists have learned from past mistakes, and they're the ones who need to keep an eye on these things, not me!

On the surface, this sounds like saying the past has no real relevance to us in the present at all, but that is not quite the case.  Our Great Thinkers came up with pre-discussion essays pointing out the connection between "relevance" and " usefulness".  A great deal of things can be learned from history, but if we cannot put those lessons to use in our lives, they really are not relevant. It was also mentioned in one musing that the distinction we see between past, present, and future is really an illusion caused by the limitations of human perception.  It was something at least I had heard before, and left a strong impression on one other participant, who told us her interpretation of this idea is that everything is now, meaning there is no future and no possibility of anything happening other than what happens.  She also said that since we are the result of our past, as well as the past of our parents and other people around us, we really have little to no control over who we are; we may have some ability to choose how we use the tools we are given, but none at all over which tools we get.  Another contributor took a different track, saying that our perception of the past exists for us to learn how to deal with the present (and future?), and it is her belief that life is full of "second chances" for everyone.  The Artist among us then reminded us that there are two types of past: history and memory.  There is a certain amount of overlap in these two ideas, and indeed history can be thought if as but collective memory of a society.  We must keep in mind, however, that memory is not constant.  Human memory is extremely flexible, even unreliable.  True history requires "quality of information", something which can be guaranteed only with some amount of imprecision.

It was then asked, can memory change history?  History is subjective, after all.  Can events be removed from the historical timeline of the universe beyond human tampering/propaganda if they are simply forgotten?  I think this harkens back to the quality of information, just mentioned.  An event like a natural disaster, even a tiny one, leaves some kind of mark on the environment.  Although we might not be able to decipher the actual things that happened, we as conscious and curious beings will most likely come across the evidence of them, and interpret them as best we can.  The better the quality of our information, the more accurate our interpretation should be.  The True Philosopher also spoke of history as a matter of interpretation, and something that is never set in stone.  Memory is history, but whose memory gets recorded?  Besides that, whose interpretation of that memory gets laid down?  Even if the past is in the past, it is not final because of constant human reinterpretation of it.  The Professional Scientist disagreed, remarking that interpretations change, but that does not mean the past itself changes.  He also presented the idea that we need memory simply because we are temporal beings.  Our death, and our awareness of it, not only make memory possible, but make it necessary, and the awareness of the end of consciousness makes us able to organize our memory and history.

Finally, our ideas boiled down to information always being incomplete, but we are compelled to use it anyway, to the best of our abilities.  In fact, that incompleteness is something cultivated by authority, since it means that what is known can be controlled and even those who wish to change things might hesitate, knowing that they do not have a complete set of facts.  Old ideas might bring a sense of comfort and stability, but they cannot be accepted unquestioningly since things are always changing, and what worked once might not work again, at least in the same way.  What do we remember from our classes, seminars, and discussions?  Only a small percentage of what was said.  Reality, including time, is much more complex than what we filter it down to for our consumption.  No wonder people turn to fatalism and pre-destination.  It offers so much more security.