Speculations on History and Memory

If history is a record of past recollection of actual events, then memory is a microcosmic form of history.

History begins as an event which is witnessed by others. The event is carried in rumor form by word of mouth until it reaches the ears of the journalist. It then takes on the form of breaking news.

Likewise, memory begins as an event in the present which is processed by an individual who then becomes the primary source messenger who communicates the event to others…while it is still hot off the press.

History moves from breaking news to a more elaborate news story, which is still largely based in the actual facts of the event itself, which are close at hand [in relation to time]. Memories move from shared information and experience to the saved story stage of development. We remember what happened to us a few days ago and we can recall it fairly simply and clearly, sharing it with others and reflecting upon it ourselves.

History moves from news story to more permanent book form, which is usually quite a bit more inflated and embellished than the original story. Memories move from a saved story in my memory to a ‘war story’ event which is largely inflated and embellished…e.g. longer winded, now that I have had time to think on it in retrospect.

History moves from the book form of a story to the textbook form of pre-legend-like material—the more formal form of what we mean when we refer to history. Memory moves from the ‘war story’ stage to the pre-legendary stage as well…it becomes less and less clear as to the actual facts and begins to show signs of a greater purpose than just a recollection of facts. A person begins to use the memories to learn lessons and glean insights in to life and living at this point.

History then moves into the form of pure legend—this takes hundreds of years, sometimes thousands. Memory does the same…only on a shorter time scale than does history.

Finally, history moves into the murky waters of myth, which is more concerned with lessons and moral truths than it is in the facts surrounding the original event [from which the myth first sprang]. Memory is the same. After much time, the memory of memories becomes vastly pale and distant, misty and cloudy with all the marks of true myth and legend. Memories which are far removed in time from an actual event are much more blurry and obscure in fact, but their lessons and moral truths become more and more clear to the individual.

It is odd. History and memory are not the events that they recollect; they are only the accounts of those events. History and memory seem to lead to the same pristine point, that of lessons learned and insights gained into life and existence by man.

History and memory appear to serve the purpose of teaching man lessons and giving to humans insights into the meaning of his/her existence.

Therefore, history and memory are just as significant as the events they record in and of themselves, as the lessons intended by the events of life are often more clearly seen and understood the further removed in time man goes from an actual event.

Nice writing.

Ironically, though, human societies tend to ignore those “lessons learned” far too often and, in determining the purpose for the existence of mankind, we still haven’t gotten much farther than the ancient Greeks. (Of course I’m depending on the accurate accounts of history for that.)

History is basically memory. Memory had been transmitted orally and then into writing once that came to be. With writing we have new storage mediums rather than the individual brains.

history based on memory… do you remember what happened 150 years ago? were you there?

do you believe the person telling you the story?

press bias and historian bias render history questionable…

-Imp

Case in point - was Jesus a real person? 99% of people (even non Christians) would say yes, yet not only is there no real historical evidence of his existence, there is evidence that Roman historians forged his name into “historical” documents.

History is suspect,yes, but whether or not that is the case, the effect of history on people today, no matter how much “truth” there is to that history, is quite real

However that may be, history is more reliable than oral recollection/tradition…it is more stable than the memory in the brain which records the event.

The event happens and we remember it. Humans try and preserve memory in various ways. We drew pictures or scrawled symbols…we used the development of written language to write these things down.

The question is not so much, “do you believe the person telling the story”

The question is more along the lines of “what truth about an actual event can be discovered in this person’s story?”

Written memory is more reliable than oral memory. We write it down because our brain tends to forget what actually happened.

But you are correct. We have to work around the whole bias thing. We like an unbiased report of events.

Consider the ‘rumors’ reaching the shores of America during the time of WWII. Many of those rumors were too incredible for Americans to believe.

It was not until we actually sent soldiers over there that the fact of those rumors was confirmed…and we discovered that the facts were even more grotesque than the rumors had conveyed! Still. There was a truth to those rumors and we were able to confirm that truth by going and seeing for ourselves what was happening over there.

Kate.

We can look at written history as ‘rumor,’ if you don’t mind my using this analogy. When that rumor enters our minds we must ask ourselves three questions. Is the rumor true? Is it false? Is it embellished, thus part true and part false.

Then we can consider each of these three questions individually, weighing the implications of each carefully.

If the rumor is false, then there are probably no implications for the truth seeker, personally. If they are true, we must weigh the implications of this truth and decide if it has any bearing on ourselves, personally. If it is embellished, we must try and seek the truth as best as we can and then to weigh the implications of this truth as it relates to ourselves.

Kate.

Man is a journalist, by nature.

I was not there when Martin Luther nailed his 96 theses on the door. I was not there when Saint Francis stole his father’s cloth and sold it in order to buy stones to rebuild the church. I was not there when Jesus caught all those fish with Peter and the gang. I was not there when the Buddha first stepped outside of his wealthy environment and into the reality of the slums which bordered it. I was not there when God called Abraham and made a covenant with him. I was not there when the Brahman Guiding Force was postulated. I was not there when the ape gradually turned into the human. I was not there during the Cambrian explosion. I did not witness the Big Bang.

I cannot make myself tiny enough to observe the processes of oxidation and reduction within human cells during metabolism.

I don’t understand String Theory, nor do I understand quantum physics.

All that I do know, is that rumors of each of these events/things has reached my ears and it is my job to pull from all this rumor…the truth. And not just the truth for knowledge alone, but truth as it pertains to evaluating the consequences and implications of that truth upon me, personally.

Kate.

True Dat.