An Open Question: Connecting with the Past, Living in the Present, Opening the Future

[amicus]

Just watched a History Channel Production, searching for the ship, the Carpathia, the vessel that rescued survivors from the Titanitic disaster and was later sunk in World War One.

In the past day or so, also watched, Moon for Sale and Mars Rising, as Russia, the European Space Agency, China and NASA, all outlined plans for future manned space exploration, including mining the moon for Helium Three, thought by some to be a panacea for the worlds energy problems for a thousand years.

Add to that, a program on Stonehenge, submerged cities and ports off Greece, Egypt and Israel, in search of relics of the past.

Also a program chronicling the life of Nelly Don, a clothing manufacturer from the beginning of the 20th century, her life and times in Kansas City.

My, 'open question', has to do with the imperative of 'connecting with the past', our history, forging into the future, or dealing with practical matters at hand in the present.

Clive Cussler, popular author, organized the search for the Carpathia, it seems to be a hobby of his, but it involves national and international agencies and the cost of underwater exploration is huge and time consuming.

Universities world wide, scientific and historical organizations and governments of many nations, fund and support these and many more endeavors to discover the past and, at the same time, spend tremendous amounts of time, energy and money to prepare for Space ventures.

The third piece of this pie is composed of those who would prefer to expend the energy and resources in the direction of health care, housing, food, retirement funds, infrastructure, those who wish to improve the present time.

To top it all off, I watched an episode of 'Cosmos', with Carl Sagan, concerned with the Great Library at Alexandria, and how all that knowledge was lost due to the ignorance of mankind being involved in conflict and religion. Sagan is a bit, no, more than that, very elitist, in his musings and conclusions and does not have a high opinion of the common man.

I could add a hundred more examples in each category as hundreds of thousands worldwide are involved in archeology, paleontology, orbiting telescopes, 6 billion dollar accelerators and plans and programs to ease life in the current era, but that should be sufficient to frame the question.

Where does your interest lie? Past, Present or Future? In terms of supporting your national imperatives, which would you prefer? Is there a mutually acceptable division of labor and resources that might please all?

Amicus...

 

[Recidiva]

I think people tend to oversimplify and idealize the past. I think it's best dealt with through that filter.

There's a quote somewhere - paraphrasing, I can't find it "Psychosis is an obsession with the past, neurosis is an obsession with the future."

Knowledge of past and consideration of future are both important, but focusing on what it means for you right now and what good will do you do with the information needs to be the most important part of the process.

Learn the past so you're not doomed to repeat it. Let the future be different from the past and don't assume you know all the answers because you have read history.

Knowledge is power, but it's wasted if it's not used at all, and it's best not to have it if you're just going to misuse it.

The loss of Alexandria is awful, but the people who wrote it died as well, that's awful-er. One puts the other in perspective.

Death is real. No amount of continuity with our past or hope for our future changes that. So far! Get working on that death cure - then I'll figure out whether or not I want to take it.

 

[amicus]

If I understand that, guess that puts you in t he 'Present' category, but with attention paid to both past and future.

There used to be a concept, mainly European, I think, "Universal Man", in which a human sought to be all things and know all things.

I doubt that was ever possible and certainly not today. My point being, that it takes a lifetime of study, focus and dedication to extend the knowledge of the past or to step into the future and thus, one must specialize in one area and cannot, I think, if one wishes to excel, be as you suggest, rooted in the present.

But...dunno, thas why it is, to me anyway, an 'open question', cuz I really don't have an answer.

Ami...

 

[Recidiva]

If I understand that, guess that puts you in t he 'Present' category, but with attention paid to both past and future.

There used to be a concept, mainly European, I think, "Universal Man", in which a human sought to be all things and know all things.

I doubt that was ever possible and certainly not today. My point being, that it takes a lifetime of study, focus and dedication to extend the knowledge of the past or to step into the future and thus, one must specialize in one area and cannot, I think, if one wishes to excel, be as you suggest, rooted in the present.

But...dunno, thas why it is, to me anyway, an 'open question', cuz I really don't have an answer.

Ami...

As to Universal Man, I think it's impossible to be all things and know all things. I think it's admirable to try to learn as much as you can and try as many things as you can and hope for those serendipitous moments where you connect things together in new ways.

Study, focus and dedication are required to responsibly gather and apply that information.
Just gathering information with no intention to use it is a form of greed, comparable to hoarding grain in warehouses where it rots and feeds nobody. Identifying self with how much you know is a form of pride. Just about every deadly sin can be applied here. But so can every virtue.

Being able to say "I don't know" and have that be okay, is a virtue. Many people lack that humility. Having the integrity to respect the data and not twist it until it spits out your convictions like a torture victim, is another virtue.

The past is gone, I cannot truly know it, though I can know of it. The present is fleeting, I need to make my judgment of reality accurate, and not insist that reality is what I judge it to be. The future is unknowable, I need to be willing to be surprised so I can adapt when it becomes now.

That's my answer, anyway. Thanks for asking

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...thank you for responding to the thread, first off, and then...

A couple of things here...on another thread that I meant to get back to and did not, someone posted a thought about theoretical mathematics that seemed to nullify the concept of 'absolute knowledge', in terms of physics and astronomy and used that, 'uncertainty principle', the old Heisenberg theory, to challenge the entire concept of human knowledge.

I have to challenge your analogy of knowledge and grain warehouses. You eliminate entirely the formal pursuit of philosophy, it seems to me.

interrupted...gotta go....

later


ami...

 

[Recidiva]

Hmmm...thank you for responding to the thread, first off, and then...

A couple of things here...on another thread that I meant to get back to and did not, someone posted a thought about theoretical mathematics that seemed to nullify the concept of 'absolute knowledge', in terms of physics and astronomy and used that, 'uncertainty principle', the old Heisenberg theory, to challenge the entire concept of human knowledge.

I have to challenge your analogy of knowledge and grain warehouses. You eliminate entirely the formal pursuit of philosophy, it seems to me.

interrupted...gotta go....

later


ami...

I don't think it's possible to know everything. Our senses are limited, our minds are limited, and the Heisenberg principle shows the inability to learn everything about a system, you have to choose. You can't know everything.

And that's the basic flaw of attempting to know everything. You are choosing what to learn at every turn. You are placing value of certain information over other information, when all information is part of the whole. Humans have limited time and limited resources, we are all on an intellectual budget. We can't buy infinite knowledge, none of us. If we had infinite time and infinite capacity to record without bias, sure. But we don't. You can't know the whole because you are forced to choose what path by which you are going to gather information, store information and then apply information. It's haphazard and biased by nature.

I'm not eliminating the formal pursuit of philosophy in any way. If that pursuit ultimately results in some sort of beneficial act, some contribution, then great. Just sitting in a library being smart isn't anywhere near as effective a form of benefiting humankind as volunteering your time to care for the sick or feed the hungry. Your knowledge is only as valuable as your ability to use it to benefit other people. Otherwise it's a lonely, selfish thing.

"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing." Albert Schweitzer

 

[Liar]

There used to be a concept, mainly European, I think, "Universal Man", in which a human sought to be all things and know all things.

Isn't that basically what the concept of a Reannisance Man is?

Interresting topic. But it'll take some musing to come up with an answer. I'll be back.

 

[Recidiva]

Isn't that basically what the concept of a Reannisance Man is?

Interresting topic. But it'll take some musing to come up with an answer. I'll be back.

The theory definitely needs to be updated anyway, as I'm a woman.

Possibly the people who developed the theory of "Universal Man" only expected it to apply to a limited amount of approved, valuable (to them) information. Like getting badges in the scouts. "I know five European languages, the important ones, I know everything I need to know to feel educated and superior. I am a Universal Man" - simple when your universe is very small and excludes other things.

If it was only available to a certain class, gender or rank, even better.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yes, now we say Renaissance Person and I commend to your reading How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci by Michael Gelb which sets out clear guidelines to attain that status. It uses the attitudes and writing of the great Leonardo himself to put one on the path. Good book, I use it with my kids . . .







Look out world, Revolution brews . . .

 

[SavannahMann]

Past, Present, and Future

I like all three. Recently I've been fascinated with the willful stupidity of the leading nations going into World War I. I've read a half dozen books on it, trying to get more insight, yet so far, I've only been able to confirm my suspicion that they violated the principals of learning put forth by Galileo. They refused to believe their own eyes, and use their own minds. When something didn't work once, then twice, they kept trying it over and over again hoping for a different result. Insanity.

Before that, I was reading a book written by a Japanese pilot about his experiences and views on World War II. I could list my reading list for the last several months, but you probably wouldn't believe my interests are that varied.

I believe you can't go forward into the future until you know where we came from, and how we got here. I believe you can't move forward with thought and some reasonable expectation of the outcome until you know what we're doing now. The where we are now. Then you can chart your path towards a future which provides the best possible opportunities for the populace.

As an example. Until we understand that absolute and abject failure that was socialism as practiced by the old Soviet Union, we can't chart wise and well considered plans for our own future. We know socialism doesn't work, history has proven it. Of course, we're like the Generals of World War I, we assume this time the result will be different.

Without knowing the past, in context, we can't reasonably expect to understand where we are. Without knowing where we are, truly are, we can't hope to move forward wisely.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

I see time as just mile posts. The past is what it is, and I can learn from it but never truly grasp it. The records we have are all tainted by the writers, their views and priorities. Learning the who what when and where of history always bored me terribly, but give me the why and I am engaged. The why of history is what I can use now, and can leave for the those of the future.

The future is too nebulous and while I do what I can to make a foundation for those who come behind, its really up to them.

The present is just what I try to get through. I like neither past present nor future but see myself as a knot in a tapestry of time and space.

I do like Gelb's How to think like Da Vinci, as an exercise of wholism, or development of more than one aspect, but Comenius did a better job of integrating the aspects into a whole person, and should be studied much more by educators.

I'm rambling, not truly coherent but I'll come back and explain my thoughts once I sort them more properly.

 

[amicus]

Interesting thoughts, one and all, but...

Not sure I can defend this point, but it has been part of my repertoire before so...here goes...

The lack of manned space exploration since the early 1970's indicated to me that a generation had turned inward and to the past rather than the future.

The 'anti-nuke' generation spilled over into nuclear propulsion for space vehicles and testing has been in limbo, again, since the mid seventies, according to a program I watched the other evening.

I think it would be common sense to attribute value to all three aspects, past, present and future and I cannot put a finger on which to emphasize, although the past and our history, it 'feels' like it should be last on the list...

Again, is it a matter of private concern or to be viewed as a percentage of GDP on National levels, again, decided by whom?

I think I did not specify one six billion dollar project, a plasma accellerator, meant to recreate the environment scientists 'think' existed a milli second after the 'big bang', for 'pure' theoretical knowledge and understanding of the workings of the Universe.

It gets confusing to me...trying to assess where resources ought to be invested.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The past is a goldmine of treasure, I mean, you know what did and didnt work.

What's psychotic is repeating the failures.

I think it was William Faulkner who observed that the past is never past.

 

[Recidiva]

Interesting thoughts, one and all, but...

Not sure I can defend this point, but it has been part of my repertoire before so...here goes...

The lack of manned space exploration since the early 1970's indicated to me that a generation had turned inward and to the past rather than the future.

The 'anti-nuke' generation spilled over into nuclear propulsion for space vehicles and testing has been in limbo, again, since the mid seventies, according to a program I watched the other evening.

I think it would be common sense to attribute value to all three aspects, past, present and future and I cannot put a finger on which to emphasize, although the past and our history, it 'feels' like it should be last on the list...

Again, is it a matter of private concern or to be viewed as a percentage of GDP on National levels, again, decided by whom?

I think I did not specify one six billion dollar project, a plasma accellerator, meant to recreate the environment scientists 'think' existed a milli second after the 'big bang', for 'pure' theoretical knowledge and understanding of the workings of the Universe.

It gets confusing to me...trying to assess where resources ought to be invested.

Amicus...

I think space travel is noble and wonderful, and so much value and hope has come from the research there. We should continue.

But I think that education and public health are not handled well. I know we need defense and research, and I fully support those. I'd just like the ethics and enthusiasm applied there could also go toward solving age-old questions in a practical way. Applying the "can do" socially, making it more possible to care for and educate people.

I don't think this is a problem for governments, though, as governments don't want people to be too strong, for their own purposes. I'd prefer to see these issues recognized and addressed as one of those basic issues. People have to require it, demand it, and maintain higher standards of social behavior.

I'm all for capitalism, but we're affluent enough to be more generous and charitable. I'd love to see my nation's leaders dressing down a bit and donating more of their luxury funds and time for the greater good.

I will feel better when the upper classes and lower classes dress and act and behave the same. I think America is headed more that way, but there's more social work to be done.

I think first priorities have to be people. I understand that is a huge problem, and many people have given up, but I don't think that's the solution. Let's get homelessness, starvation, mental illness, drug addiction, education and disease under our belts more. We need to review how we treat prisoners, how we provide infrastructure. We're working on it, but we need to do more. Without the judgment and anger with which it's being handled now.

Continue to reach for the stars, continue to seek out new knowledge. But do so with an eye not only toward exploration, but maintenance of decent. Social infrastructure. I think we need to weed out the idea that only exploration is interesting, and other pursuits are a waste of time.

I think we're already highly technically mindful. I'd love to see the "stem cell" issue disappear and research continue with an eye toward healing.

We have however reached a point that certain projects like the space-built particle accelerator can be held off for a little bit until we get some social basics down.

It's appalling for me to look at the school system or health care system the way it is and not allocate more funds.

It'd be as if I wanted to build a reactor in my back yard yet failed to clean the house, buy the groceries, cook the food and read to my kids. If I can do it all, great. But I know which ones are the first priorities that symbolize good health and happiness daily.

 

[amicus]

Dear Recidiva....forgive me for what I am about to say...especially since you have been so kind to offer your comments.

I sense you are sincere and committed to your views and that they represent a personal intimate viewpoint and not a detached, intellectual approach to the questions.

They are problems and questions that drive men to drink and women to tears, to be a bit cheezy, but then, for me, that is par for the course.

You, and many others, view social problems from a 'we' aspect, and I understand that viewpoint although I cannot support it and still maintain integrity in respect of the individual.

Let me create a manufactured scenario of a traditional family of four; man, woman, two children, bascially average, statistically, in all aspects.

While indeed, they are part of the larger collective whole, they are first of all and most importantly, unique individuals in their own right, whatever that may be.

You can fill in the particulars...they can be both employed or one, they can live anywhere you choose with family ties, or not, again as you choose, they can be religious or not, with community ties, or not, and almost infinite set of variables as long as you grant their individuality and right to choose how they proceed in life.

Why will a similar unit prosper while another fails? Is it really the 'infrastructure' you put forward? The availability of health care, food stamps, housing assistance, free education, which you seem to view as essential, is available to both, yet one prospers, one fails...why is that?

That most valuable of human virtues, pride, is also thought by religion to be man's greatest fault, yet I maintain that pride, individual pride in achievement and accomplishment, is the deciding characteristic in whether a 'unit', succeeds or fails.

Someone reposted an archival thread in which some fascinating observations about various political systems were made. The most telling statement was about the general observation that most believe that 'equality' will solve all the problems, that if only that supportive infrastructure were in place to guarantee everyone equal access to resources, where no one had more than anyone else, that all would be well and Utopia would bless the land.

To make the numbers easy, long ago I created a metaphor of one hundred individuals as a unit. That one hundred, taxed themselves at one percent to support one of their numbers to be the 'leader'. He did not work or contribute to the resources of the group, rather he managed their affairs, which left only 99 of the group to work and produce the resources the group needed to survive and prosper.

The group may also 'voluntarily' agreed to devote another percentage point to the common defense and another percent or so to personal protection, fire and police services and another percent or so towards a legal system to adjudicate their differences.

We are now at 96 individuals working and contributing to producing those goods and services, with 4 engaged in providing the leadership and protection outlined above.

Now...if it takes X amount of labor to produce those goods and services to support the 100, then you can begin to see the mathematical application involved as you remove productive workers to perform other tasks. X number of people will have to produce at X plus the factor of removing each contributor from the working force.

Add in other essential services, such as doctors and nurse, we need them of course and even teachers, and of course roads. You can quickly and easily and even rationally arrive at ten percent of the group, ten out of the one hundred, that no longer contribute to the essential production to support the 100, but now you have only 90 working and they must support, by their efforts, the 10 that are not actually working, but 'servicing', the other 90.

Project and extrapolate this scenario to where only 50 of the original 100 are working and at the same time supporting the other 50 of the unit.

You will discover, that in this scenario, in this society of sorts, that, like every collective attempt to direct human action, that you soon arrive at a point of diminishing returns, in other words, the workers left working are unable to support everyone equally.

Just like you, Recidiva, each and every one of that 100, volunarily agreed to pool their resources in a collective effort to provide the basic necessities to all on an equal basis. They, just like you, were honest and sincere in their beliefs and endeavors.

Why then did it and does it not work?

In that old thread, someone said, I paraphrase, 'socialism is a wonderful idea, but humans are not good enough to live that way...'.

That is not true, socialism, collectivism, the sacrifice of the individual to the whole is an obscene concept doomed to failure by reason and logic as people at by nature individuals and not a cog in a collective wheel.

In any group of people anywhere, some will succeed better than others; there will be rich and poor at all levels, those more and less successful at supporting themselves.

If you truly feel a personal concern for the welfare of all men, there is only one real thing you can do to assist them reach their goals. That very simple thing is to protect their individual freedom to achieve their own personal, private goals in life.

You cannot grant that freedom, it is innate and inalienable, but you can act, in mutual cooperation with others, to continue to protect it.

And..you can volunteer to help others if you choose. You may contribute to any charitable concern you wish to alleviate the suffering of others and improve general conditions.

But...you cannot force another to contribute as you do...you must leave it to their individual choice as to whether they see the world as you do.

For example, I might support and contribute to a fund to support young Atheists, or young Capitalists, or create a scholarship fund for kids with a 170 IQ only, the best and brightest.

I would not force you to contribute as I do.

I remain...

Amicus...

 

[Recidiva]

It's never going to work perfectly. It can work better.

And it's worse if those 90% don't pool their resources.

 

[elsol]

The past is a goldmine of treasure, I mean, you know what did and didnt work.

What's psychotic is repeating the failures.

I think it was William Faulkner who observed that the past is never past.

The past is like reality television--at best, semi-scripted.

 

[christabelll]

Isn't that basically what the concept of a Reannisance Man is?

Interresting topic. But it'll take some musing to come up with an answer. I'll be back.

RENAISSANCE .....


skulks away ---

Slinks back ---


Present and accounted for - The past is interesting and informing - leaving the imagination to wonder if our future resembles it or even recreates its.

But today - the past shapes who I am- The present is the sum total of all that I am and have experienced and learned and all that I might be - The future cannot be counted on. Oh sure the world turns the sun rises and sets as does the moon wax and wane.

However, we are truly arrogant if we believe that all the natural wonders of the world (which includes us LOL) will cease to exist merely because we forgot to remember our past and cultivate our present. We dream of the future because that is all that is allowed us - I know what I desire for the future - but thats my ideal - not yours nor any one elses...

Sighing - All these thoughts remain jumbled and filtered through lenses of pain - damnit -

I try to explain myself and end up confusing myself instead -

Be Present - here and now - mindful of the past and care-full of the future - but be here NOW

 

[Recidiva]

The past is like reality television--at best, semi-scripted.

And accounts are written by people who believe themselves to be architects or impartial observers. However, I have yet to encounter much writing that doesn't have AGENDA in the text.

I consider it all to be one big editorial.

Having been through incidents myself and then seen media attempts to portray it is convincing that you just had to be there.

A pictures might be worth a thousand words, but one experience blow words and pictures away and makes them irrelevant other than collecting them like trading cards. Reminders and nostalgia.

 

[elsol]

And accounts are written by people who believe themselves to be architects or impartial observers. However, I have yet to encounter much writing that doesn't have AGENDA on the menu.

Forget agenda... that's requires effort.

I've sat in a room with people who 'remembered' things that they and I did... which NEVER happened... and if they did happen, it just proves the point 'cause I can't remember.

 

[Recidiva]

Forget agenda... that's requires effort.

I've sat in a room with people who 'remembered' things that they and I did... which NEVER happened... and if they did happen, it just proves the point 'cause I can't remember.

If I'm able to watch just one nature show without being reminded in the last seven minutes about how horrible and destructive and evil human beings are, that'd be awesome.

I think archeologists in the future will develop a theory they might call "Cult of the Polar Bear" and how it infiltrated PBS.

 

[rengadeirishman]

I'm not sure i can truly contribute to this discussion save to say that I'm a history major and all my friends say i was born a thousand years too late.

 

[christabelll]

I'm not sure i can truly contribute to this discussion save to say that I'm a history major and all my friends say i was born a thousand years too late.[/QUOTE]

you and me both

 

[CharleyH]

I think people tend to oversimplify and idealize the past.

True, people do. What about historians, archaeologist, anthropologists, governments (the last is a bit non-sequitur)?

 

[Recidiva]

True, people do. What about historians, archaeologist, anthropologists, governments (the last is a bit non-sequitur)?

They're people. Some are brilliant, have insight, have perspective. Some are selfish, narrow minded and only see what they want to see.

There's a joke about getting directions in NYC - "Ask three people, take the average answer."

There are trends that if you gather enough history from enough sources, you can pick out the "average answers" that will get you to where you want to go. But one source will almost always, somewhere along the line, steer you wrong.