Who Wrote our History?

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Being somewhat of a history buff, I've always enjoyed history as a subject.  However recently as a result of some synchronous events, I have been reminded of the fact that the history that we believe occurred, in the past, is actually quite heavily biased. Furthermore, I'm not sure that when we think about history, we always recognize this fact.

The surprise for me here, doesn't come from the fact that history is biased. Rather it comes from the fact that our true history has never been written or told and we don't really know what it is, because of this. 

I have once again been reminded of this fact, as a result of a pair of synchronous events. One having to do with talking about philosophy here in this forum and another having to do with a TED Talks video of Amanda Gorman, also located in this forum.

I have now come across four different sources that seem to support this idea that our history is biased. These 4 sources are: 1) Bart Ehrman – from a study of New Testament historical scholarship, 2) a quote from Seth in UR2, 3) a book on philosophy and 4) a quote from Amanda Gorman, in a TED talks video.

The following 4 spoilers contain the background information on each one of these 4 sources.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

So think about it, who really wrote our history?

-jbseth

[Sena]

Woman have been largely ignored in our recent and past societies, and this includes not only as writers and thinkers of philosophy but also as writers and thinkers of most religious thought as well.

jbseth, Iris Murdoch was a philosopher as well as a novelist. I'll try to find one or two quotes from her. Simone Weil was another woman philosopher.

[T.M.]

Hi All,

I suspect those who wrote and are writing our official history are attempting to drive humanity into a specific direction.

If our true history were known I bet humanity would be healthier, happier, and more united, than ever before. Having abilities that would nearly make it appear as a different species altogether. 

Authors outside official academia, give a truer picture or glimpse of humanity and reality, imho.

[leidl]

Who wrote our history? 

jbseth, I've gotten the impression you like Emerson, and you may be familiar with his statement:  "There is properly no history, only biography."  While I don't know for sure what he meant by this, the way I've always interpreted it is that what we consider our histories, the histories of nation states, is probably more accurately viewed as mythology. 

The biographies of a nation's soldiers, nurses, farmers, slaves and seamstresses represent something more like truth.  (Although if those people become famous, then their biographies are probably better described as mythologies also.) 

Historians may strive for a product that lacks bias, but is there really any "view from nowhere?"  We all create our own realities, and can only describe what we ourselves see.  Perhaps we shouldn't even view bias as bad; it is human.  Inevitable in any creature with limits on their perspective, which is all of us.  Soldiers, slaves and seamstresses have a bias in their perspective, too.  It doesn't mean we shouldn't seek it out those individual perspectives...we absolutely should, because they describe something more real than the mythologies of nation states.  But still...the stories of these individuals are not history, because the kind of overview that we believe history has actually does not exist. 

If anyone wants to offer another interpretation of Emerson, I'm all ears. <>  Pointy ones, apparently.

Authors outside official academia, give a truer picture or glimpse of humanity and reality, imho.

I hear you, T.M.  Historians believe they have an overview that represents the truth, but what they are looking at is a self-constructed reality just like the rest of us.  Perhaps the difference is that historians believe they actually see something bigger and truer, while slave or seamstress has no such delusions. 

[jbseth]

jbseth, I've gotten the impression you like Emerson, and you may be familiar with his statement:  "There is properly no history, only biography."  While I don't know for sure what he meant by this, the way I've always interpreted it is that what we consider our histories, the histories of nation states, is probably more accurately viewed as mythology. 

Hi leidl, Hi All,

Hey, Thanks for your reply. I can honestly say that you're not completely wrong. Seth says that Emerson was a "speaker" and so I do like that about him. Also many of Emerson's ideas were used by the founders of the "New Thought" movement and since I like and have been a member of a New Thought church for 20+ years now, I also like that about him.  The beliefs of Seth and the "New Thought" movement are very similar to each other in many ways.

When I was in 8th grade, in English, we studied literature. This included the stories of the Greek gods, the stories of the Roman gods and the writings of the "Transcendentalists" (Emerson, Thoreau, etc.). For some unknown reason to me, at that time, I found that I was strongly attracted to the ideas of the Transcendentalists. I really liked the idea of going off by yourself and contemplating life such as what Thoreau wrote about in his book "Walden's Pond".

I actually got to visit Walden's Pond, in Mass. in October, 2008, and it's still a very beautiful and meditative place. Not too far from the pond, they actually have a replica of the very small house that Henry David Thoreau lived in, while he was there. As I recall, I'd say the floor space of the entire house was something on the order of 20 feet x 12 feet. It wasn't very big.

I don't know that much about Emerson's actual writings. I've read his writings on the "Oversoul" some time ago, but I'm not sure that I completely understood, how he was interpreting this concept. I had some difficultly in deciphering the old American English that was used by the people of his time. I'm not really sure if he was talking about something that was like Seth's idea of the entity or perhaps something different.

I don't really know what Emerson may have meant by his statement, "There is properly no history, only biography."  My interpretation of this statement, may not in fact be, how he would have meant it to be interpreted.

-jbseth

[Sena]

Seth's idea of history is rather distinctive:

"The [universe] is, as I explained, always coming into existence, and
each present moment bring its own built-in past along with it. You
agree on accepting as fact only a small portion of the large available
data that compose any moment individually or globally. You accept
only those data that fit in with your ideas of motion in time. As a result,
for example, your archaeological evidence usually presents a picture
quite in keeping with your ideas of history, geological eras, and so
forth." (DEVF1)

[Deb]

Who wrote our history? We did. And it's still being written and revised.

I agree that our written history of anything is biased, or maybe on the more innocent side just subjective, from the Bible to anything current anywhere in the world. I'm not sure that can be avoided, especially when you consider probabilities and beliefs.

In a Framework 1 sense, historically (  ) history has been written and rewritten from the perspective, agenda, beliefs about reality at the time, perceived truths of whatever people or group (religious or government) who are writing or rewriting it. I remember reading somewhere in the Seth materials that Speakers would convey same the concepts that he was sharing with various civilizations over and over throughout "time," at a level commensurate with the peoples' ability to understand (based on the current beliefs and myths). The teachings would then get dressed up and distorted to the point of it becoming nonsense. Time for another Speaker visit.

And I have to add that before there was written history, there was oral history. Not hard to imagine stories getting embellished, distorted, information being dropped as the stories were passed from person to person or generation to generation, always being filtered by the beliefs and personalty of the person handing down the message. Remember the old game we used to play in Kindergarten, pass the message? Or two or more people being involved in an event (argument, accident, life in general) that have completely different stories of what really happened.

As far as Framework 2 sense, with time being simultaneous and so we can and do change past and future, I don't know how there can be one "real" history of anything.

And then there's the quote Sena shared. Just a part of it:

The [universe] is, as I explained, always coming into existence, and
each present moment bring its own built-in past along with it. You
agree on accepting as fact only a small portion of the large available
data that compose any moment individually or globally.

That makes one true history impossible. Probable realities, multiverses, and people forever cherry picking information (even in something as serious as scientific and pharma research) makes me think all written history could be called historical fiction, rather than fact.

Does that make me a heretic? 

[jbseth]

Does that make me a heretic?   

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Maybe in some peoples minds. Like in those people who insist that the words written in their historical scriptures, such as the Jewish Scriptures, the Christian Bible, the Quran, the "Pali" Canon, the Bhagavad Gita, etc., are "true" and therefore must be "believed".

But not by me.

-jbseth

[Deb]

I thought about this topic off and on today as I drove up to a little gold rush era town in the mountains (Georgetown) just to get out of the house and away from the computer.

I think the news bias and the history bias are related, in that the news is history in the making and news is also written from the perspective of the news source. I've yet to see a news source that is totally neutral despite their claims. The reporting to me seems to be more op ed than straight "just the news"—not a new problem as I recall seeing a video of JFK speaking to a crowd of reporters and pointing out the press is biased. I suppose that's human nature. We have our beliefs, we tend to be attracted to others that share and support our beliefs, and so a biased press holds the attention of people who lean in that direction. Often one news source will release a story about something that is not accurate, or maybe has been spinned, and a bunch of other news sources pick up and spread the story without fact checking. But that's a whole other topic.

I also had this thought today: Imagine an event of war between two countries. A history book written about the events of the war written by one side would most likely be entirely different than a book written by the other side. Stuff like this makes me understand why we "can't just all get along." Until we can look beyond our own narrow perspectives, set aside our own beliefs for a while and objectively listen to the other side of the story and consider that other views are valid or even possibilities, we are going to continue to have problems of unity.