My approach to "learning" history

[pack3tg0st]

This is for you BE, so we don't derail Waldorf's intro thread any further :P

Anyway, I'm going to try and explain my "method" or my approach to understanding history... Its kind of complex, so let me know if it doesn't make any sense.

First off, there is a difference between learning history and understanding history. IMHO, learning is what most people do... pointless factiods about dates, names, places etc.

However, understanding history is a comprehensive process.

You can't understand any single event in history without understanding the people who made it. Thusly, it is important to understand the moral zeitgeist of the particular time that you're trying to comprehend.

Without understanding the beliefs, philosophies and lifestyles of the people surrounding a time period, you can never understand the reasons of past events.

Thats the crux of it all. History isn't about dates, factoids, or names. Its about understanding why events took place. Classroom history likes to teach by time period. But what they usually fail to teach are the important bits. they tend to gloss over the transitions between time periods, which is more important than the actual time periods themselves.

Now, to understand the zeitgeist takes considerable effort. You have to read journals from people who lived in the same cultures in the same time periods. You also have to make an attempt to read literature that the individuals would have had access to.

There's also another important factor that many forget: You have to read history as it was understood at the time of your subject. People have been trying to learn from history for quite some time now, and the effects of a culture's understanding of history, even if it was incorrect, cannot be understated.

In essence, to understand why the Battle of Mynydd Baddon (Badon Hill) was important, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the people who were there... AND in the shoes of the people surrounding the incident, but not directly involved...

when you look at history in this way, it is no longer a straight timeline of consecutive events... It instead turns into something more nebulous and cloudy... but you will understand history... not just learn it.

Its also important not to look at historical events through the lens of modern morality and values. Looking at it through these glasses will only skew your understanding.

[boycotteverything]

apropos of that- here's something that you may find interesting since it fleshes out the conundrum between certainty and and abstraction in regards to historical analysis. the consideration of history is not a simplistic and trivial study. this is John Dewey- he nails it. i hadn't read this since graduate school- so i thank you for inspiring me to read it again.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/dewey.htm


As long as the notions persist that knowledge is a disclosure of reality, of reality prior to and independent of knowing, and that knowing is independent of a purpose to control the quality of experienced objects, the failure of natural science to disclose significant values in its objects will come as a shock. Those seriously concerned with the validity and authority of value will have a problem on their hands. As long as the notion persists that values are authentic and valid only on condition that they are properties of Being independent of human action, as long as it is supposed that their right to regulate action is dependent upon their being independent of action, so long there will be needed schemes to prove that values are, in spite of the findings of science, genuine and known qualifications of reality in itself. For men will not easily surrender all regulative guidance in action. If they are forbidden to find standards in the course of experience they will seek them somewhere else, if not in revelation, then in the deliverance of a reason that is above experience.

[guinnessford]

Learning is equal to memory retention, what you get in school.

The ability to retain stuff yelled at you, and spewed back on to a test paper.

Understanding, I would try to assimilate as to comprehension, or maybe the ability to complete the process of mapping and following the effects of whatever the learning task is.

I think I understand how youre going about it Pack.

Thats one of the biggest reasons I had problems in school, I could retain anything for a time, spew it back, but at the end of the year couldnt place it all where it needed to be.

That, and not knowing why english class needed to be taken.

Only reason for that was to be another english teacher.

Vicious circle I guess.

[Cogburn]

Dewey is more correct than most people have ever given him credit.

"As long as the notions persist that knowledge is a disclosure of reality, of reality prior to and independent of knowing, and that knowing is independent of a purpose to control the quality of experienced objects, the failure of natural science to disclose significant values in its objects will come as a shock."

The preceding sentence reigns as one of the supreme guiding lights of my personal philosophy.

Ignore it and one risks losing one's credibility every time one elects to opine on the bizarre or the unexplained.

[Ducky]

As of late, I've been having a bit of a run in with historical facts. I still stick to my guns with a lot of things, but am now wondering if what was 'written in the history books' could've been misconstrued. And for what purpose?

Mostly for political power I guess.

(bear with me on this)

Am I just NOW waking up (by reading general shit propoganda - contrary to textbooks?) or is there smoke where there is fire?

Are only the ones that dive into Alice in wonderland's 'pissing hole' seeing things differently than the rest, or should we pull the plug and drain that one out too?

QUESTIONS QUESTIONS QUESTIONS....

Help me with this next phrase?

History is: "Those who can get away with the biggest lie, and put it to rote, will forever be epitomized" - All the REST is non-sequential.

My next question is:

"How can we get past this, and what is the REAL truth?"

Is this all about maintaining 'power' on different sects? Control?

HEY! Don't fuckin laugh at what I just said :shock:

I'm serious here!

What the fuck is it going to take to uncover the bushel of truth?

[pack3tg0st]

There are no "truths" in history Ducks...

There is simply what is...

What the "truth" is depends on what side of the history books your on...

Case in point: the history books talk about manifest destiny in a positive way, describing it as the main reason our country (the US) spans from the Atlantic to the Pacific... Which is true.

Now, go speak to a Native tribe historian, and they will speak of Manifest destiny in terms of genocide... which is also true...

Both views are correct... but who's to say one side contains more "Truth" than the other?

There is simply what is and what was.

"Truth" is too subjective.

[Ducky]

My approach to learning history is to do my homework on ALL FRONTS.

Albeit history books/mags/innernet/etc.

When I want to find out things, I have an innate 'reaching' to cross-check all things divide. And when I find a somewhat common denominator to scrutinize with, I'll throw some 'fun into the action' to see if it pans out. THAT, may or may NOT be my new starting point, but it's sure to stir up the coals for a new spark.

If IT STARTS UP A NEW SPARK, I'll mentally measure it against my previous starting point and move onward.

[Ducky]

There are no "truths" in history Ducks...

Starting to realise this...


There is simply what is...

What the "truth" is depends on what side of the history books your on...

You got that right Pack.


Case in point: the history books talk about manifest destiny in a positive way, describing it as the main reason our country (the US) spans from the Atlantic to the Pacific... Which is true.

Now, go speak to a Native tribe historian, and they will speak of Manifest destiny in terms of genocide... which is also true...

Both views are correct... but who's to say one side contains more "Truth" than the other?

I guess it depends on which side of the page we read (WHAT we want to read)...and when we flip to another...and so forth.

Some folks don't even read the same books. C'est la vie.

The language is the same though. Interpretation is not. Should we fault those who haven't even picked up THAT book?



There is simply what is and what was.

"Truth" is too subjective.

If TRUTH is too subjective, then how are we to flip the correct pages and stay on the same topic enough to make a PROPER connection with each other?

[Cogburn]

If TRUTH is too subjective, then how are we to flip the correct pages and stay on the same topic enough to make a PROPER connection with each other?
The truth is subjective, however reality is not.

Truth is only ever the result of personal experience and validation. You may read a book which says that something is true, however what does it mean if you know such offered facts to be untrue based on your experience?

Either your a) method of analysis is flawed, b) your experience is limited, or c) the book is wrong.

Until you have attempted, to the best of your ability, to validate (a) and (b) above, you have no perspective upon which to judge any information presented to you.

The common mistake that is made on CT forums is the skipping of the validation of (a) and (b).... because that might mean that everything you have come to believe as true is, in fact, completely wrong.

That prospect is so scary that most people simply find it easier to criticize the information as opposed to admitting their own failures in perspective.

[boycotteverything]

whether reality is or is not subjective is an ongoing argument in philosophy. the matter even intrudes on physics.

[Cogburn]

Reality is now commonly accepted as being an observed phenomenon. The argument within physics merely continues from that point forward.

Quantum physics is not the "latest" science; it is the first science.

[boycotteverything]

observed occasions may well be self created occasions. who knows?

[Ducky]

observed occasions may well be self created occasions. who knows?

How do YOU percieve 'history'?

[Cogburn]

Observation is the first act of creation.
- Erwin Schrodinger

[boycotteverything]

exactly my point.

[Cogburn]

It was the "who knows" that I took issue with.

In my opinion we have that one sufficiently sussed out.

The rest is arguing over details.

[boycotteverything]

so you're the guy who duct taped erwin's cat, eh?

[Cogburn]

Guilty.

:(

[Ducky]

It was the "who knows" that I took issue with.

WHO?


In my opinion we have that one sufficiently sussed out.

Are you talking about 'snow crash'?


The rest is arguing over details.

just wanted to know is all.

[boycotteverything]

i say 'who knows' in the sense of Einstein's dice. is mathematics intrinsic to, or a measurement of, reality? who knows?

[Cogburn]

Mathematics only describes, it does not create.

Mathematics allows for exploration without expenditure of resources: it attempts to answer the questions "would this be worth doing?" or "how does this operate?"

The final determination is set by the First Cause: free will.

Science is the method by which we reveal the rules by which God created the universe. Mathematics is it's language.

To know calculus is to know the language in which God wrote the universe and to recognize that we are the variable that makes the equation solvable.

Remove the element of "you" and the universe remains an eternal mystery.

[guinnessford]

2+2=4

[Cogburn]

2 oranges + 2 apples != 4 bananas

[guinnessford]

I know my gazintas too

[eris]

Ozymandias
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".
-Percy Bysshe Shelley

The truth of history never changes. Truth is easy:people are almost always the same, governed for the most part by pettiness, greed and the need for recognition from others. History books within themselves are no more than the mythology of ancient Greeks and Romans. The intent is to teach a lesson under the guise of dates and numbers dead.

[Cogburn]

Nice first contribution. Certainly not something you see every day.

Welcome.

[guinnessford]

The intent is to teach a lesson under the guise of dates and numbers dead.

Very good analysis.

[boycotteverything]

Mathematics only describes, it does not create.

Mathematics allows for exploration without expenditure of resources: it attempts to answer the questions "would this be worth doing?" or "how does this operate?"

The final determination is set by the First Cause: free will.

Science is the method by which we reveal the rules by which God created the universe. Mathematics is it's language.

To know calculus is to know the language in which God wrote the universe and to recognize that we are the variable that makes the equation solvable.

Remove the element of "you" and the universe remains an eternal mystery.that all smacks a bit of creationism. if there is no god there is no language of god. if the language of god is god herself- then all you've expressed is a tautological proposition. what about dialectical process as the bearer of creation?

[boycotteverything]

2+2=41+1=3. two occasions plus the equation

[Cogburn]

that all smacks a bit of creationism. if there is no god there is no language of god. if the language of god is god herself- then all you've expressed is a tautological proposition. what about dialectical process as the bearer of creation?
A bit, yes, but not overly so nor unintentionally.

Remember to whom Einstein attributed a distaste for gambling.

[eris]

Mathematics only describes, it does not create.

Mathematics allows for exploration without expenditure of resources: it attempts to answer the questions "would this be worth doing?" or "how does this operate?"

The final determination is set by the First Cause: free will.

Science is the method by which we reveal the rules by which God created the universe. Mathematics is it's language.

To know calculus is to know the language in which God wrote the universe and to recognize that we are the variable that makes the equation solvable.

Remove the element of "you" and the universe remains an eternal mystery.that all smacks a bit of creationism. if there is no god there is no language of god. if the language of god is god herself- then all you've expressed is a tautological proposition. what about dialectical process as the bearer of creation?

How do you have any fun with an attitude like that?

[boycotteverything]

that all smacks a bit of creationism. if there is no god there is no language of god. if the language of god is god herself- then all you've expressed is a tautological proposition. what about dialectical process as the bearer of creation?
A bit, yes, but not overly so nor unintentionally.

Remember to whom Einstein attributed a distaste for gambling.

of that i'm fully aware. earlier i said this:
i say 'who knows' in the sense of Einstein's dice.neither Einstein nor you nor i- know exactly to whom or what he was referring.

[Lexion]

2+2=41+1=3. two occasions plus the equation

Not if you use protection.

[boycotteverything]

How do you have any fun with an attitude like that?but this is the most exquisite of fun!

[Cogburn]

that all smacks a bit of creationism. if there is no god there is no language of god. if the language of god is god herself- then all you've expressed is a tautological proposition. what about dialectical process as the bearer of creation?
A bit, yes, but not overly so nor unintentionally.

Remember to whom Einstein attributed a distaste for gambling.

of that i'm fully aware. earlier i said this:
i say 'who knows' in the sense of Einstein's dice.neither Einstein nor you nor i- know exactly to whom or what he was referring.
You would seem to employ "God" as a cop out; a reason to ignore any given proposition as even valid should that be included within the scope of the research.

I employ it as a foundation for exploration, which is as I believe it was intended when mentioned by Einstein... repeatedly throughout his works, I might add.

It is his dare, if you will, to those that come after to continue to complete the work begun by our primordial ancestors as they stared in wonder at fire and cowered together against the noises of the dark.

Sitting around and discussing the potential nature of the noises does not serve to dissuade ones fears; leaving the cave and testing the theories against the reality of repeated experience is the only method we have found to make the noises less frightening.

Contrary to popular belief, God doesn't mind (the authority) being questioned or (the intent) interrogated.

EDIT: Left a few thoughts incomplete...

[boycotteverything]

Einstein never referred to a personal (theistical) god; his was at best a deistic concept- and maybe- named just for the lack of a better word to express the meta the resides 'before' physics. He was aware that reason is ultimately a posteriori in the Aristotelian sense (deductive) and that the a priori was none other than the Platonist absurd to be accessed, just as in the case of Socrates, by the Imagination. That applies to the very a priori sense of reality that he struggled to describe. Plato also referred to god. As do I. And in the exact same sense.

[Cogburn]

Yet you attribute a greater meaning in my words when none was ever expressed?

We argue to agree.

I would only add to that the fact that the universe is a foie gras and unfortunately most folk's taste is only so refined enough to appreciate a sandwich.

[Lexion]

We argue to agree.

Such is AmKon.

Yes ?

[boycotteverything]

I've given up the gratuitous use of the word god in deference to her Mood. Mood subsumes the basic substance of the universe, the Ethical. And even the sandwich people have access to that- more so even than the sushi set.

[boycotteverything]

We argue to agree.

Such is AmKon.

Yes ?we argue to grow. oh... and of course because there's nothing better to do with our 4 score and ten.

[Lexion]

we argue to grow.

Agreed.

Edit to add : I fucked up that quote,
but left it as is.

[guinnessford]

2+2=41+1=3. two occasions plus the equation


Thats Worcester math, were using conventional stuff here!

[boycotteverything]

boycotteverything wrote:

we argue to grow.

Agreed.[/quote]hey! put that fucking quote in the box where it belongs. bastard.

[Cogburn]

I've given up the gratuitous use of the word god in deference to her Mood. Mood subsumes the basic substance of the universe, the Ethical. And even the sandwich people have access to that- more so even than the sushi set.Now we're back to what someone said with Shelley earlier in the thread.

To tie it to our running metaphor: "history" is a meal where the full richness of flavors may only be appreciated in the refinement of your tastes.

There's much to be said for the person that walks into a Thai restaurant for the first time and orders something they cannot pronounce nor understand. I've always thought that pa-nang held some keys to understanding the universe. :)

[Lexion]

boycotteverything wrote:

we argue to grow.

Agreed.hey! put that fucking quote in the box where it belongs. bastard.[/quote]

I think it works well, as is.

[boycotteverything]

I've always thought that pa-nang held some keys to understanding the universe.until it gives you gas

[Cogburn]

... and then there is wisdom.

:smokin:

[boycotteverything]

didn't dali say something about reveling in his own flatulence?

[boycotteverything]

boycotteverything wrote:

we argue to grow.

Agreed.hey! put that fucking quote in the box where it belongs. bastard.

I think it works well, as is.[/quote]if you can't follow board protocols i'll have to call the janitor.

[eris]

didn't dali say something about reveling in his own flatulence?
I think it was my dad. On that note, who wants to pull my finger?

[boycotteverything]

put it in your a drive and press 'send.'

[Cogburn]

We argue to agree.

Such is AmKon.

Yes ?we argue to grow. oh... and of course because there's nothing better to do with our 4 score and ten.
I didn't want to let this pass too far because I think that there's a little truth in there that provides a lot of the reason why conspiracy exists... and why we as Westerner's view the world the way we do as a whole.

There are those that do and those that discuss what is done.

This process is nothing more than the gift of our forefathers and the engine of society in our modern age. It is enshrined within the very founding documents of this nation and the reason why "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are platitudes many have judged worthy enough to die for.

Not that I intended to start waving the flag, but given we're deep in the forest of Western philosophy I figured it's worth stopping to note some of the trees that have been planted.

[boycotteverything]

well you're on the precipice of another intellectual burn pit there...

[boycotteverything]

i go see what waldorf is saying now.

[KIWI]

waffles, free waffles.....get your red-hot waffles here at Amkon

we got lyrical wax by the truckload! its all free!

what have the moon hoax, chupacarbras, aliens, lost civilisations, ancient tech and knowledge all have in common?

they are topics to be avoided at all cost...........if you have a genuine interest in these things this is not the site for you

its a coffee shop, my favourite coffee shop......the beans are hot and the patrons retarded, just how I like it 8)

My approach to "learning " history ? ..... :lol:

[boycotteverything]

spoken like a true flightless, hairy bird. now don't you have some choice ewes to diddle?

[KIWI]

spoken like a true flightless, hairy bird. now don't you have some choice ewes to diddle?

Ive booked a class for you.......
u]La5ZxpbE0s4u]

[boycotteverything]

why does every thread end like this when you show up? huh? HUH?? HUHH??? no wonder they burned your pal's books. i piss on the ashes.

[KIWI]

fuck you and the 3 legged Sumerian donkey you rode in on.......... :wink:



[attachment=0:erkjb6to]levi_sylvain.jpg[/attachment:erkjb6to]

"From Persia to the Chinese Sea, from the icy regions of Siberia to the islands of Java and Borneo, from Oceania to Socotra, India has propagated her beliefs, her tales and her civilization. She has left indelible imprints on one-fourth of the human race in the course of a long succession of centuries."

"She has the right to reclaim in universal history the rank that ignorance has refused her for a long time and to hold her place amongst the great nations summarizing and symbolizing the spirit of Humanity.".......Slyvain Levi (1863-1935)

[KIWI]

and by the way......if your gonna leave Mayan temples lying around Indonesia, could you at least throw a towell over them so as not to leave accepted history with Dodo-egg all over its diploma :lol:

[attachment=0:2sps5hxr]chandi_sukh_temple_indonesia.jpg[/attachment:2sps5hxr]

[boycotteverything]

that's the shittiest mayan temple i've ever seen. but i guess it's hard to find mexicans in indonesia.

[Cogburn]

Give it time.

[Martian Exile]

Give it time.

Or as Waldorf said:


Let cultural anthropology teach you about the nature of semi-neolithic people, and perhaps you will have more patience with those invaders from below our southern border.

[boycotteverything]

Give it mime.fixt

http://www.dankamin.com/files/72dpi-s/mime_2.jpg

[KIWI]

[quote]Give it time.

Or as Waldorf said:


Let cultural anthropology teach you about the nature of semi-neolithic people, and perhaps you will have more patience with those invaders from below our southern border.[/quote:3v5tbmov]

those "invaders" sure been waiting a looooooooooooooooooooong time..........lan-sakes.....yesirree....marty-lon-tarm

[attachment=0:3v5tbmov]hammer_klein.jpg[/attachment:3v5tbmov]

[boycotteverything]

a hammer like that will get your ass tossed off any union job site. just so you know.

[KIWI]

there are jobs...? :shock: --------------------------- :lol:

[boycotteverything]

well there were jobs til the chinese started making our hammers.

[KIWI]

be fair, they're eating your burgers

[boycotteverything]

yummy

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/9500/dog-burger-9969.jpg

[KIWI]

..ha ha .....g-nite

[Cogburn]

We had dinner in a Vietnamese noodle house on Saturday night.

From somewhere... and it sounded like it was inside the restaurant... you could hear a dog barking. It would be quiet for a few minutes and then would start in again.

When it finally hit me I didn't want to start laughing, I really didn't.

I failed.

[Lexion]

We had dinner in a Vietnamese noodle house on Saturday night.

From somewhere... and it sounded like it was inside the restaurant... you could hear a dog barking. It would be quiet for a few minutes and then would start in again.

When it finally hit me I didn't want to start laughing, I really didn't.

I failed.

As did I, after reading this.

Priceless.

[pack3tg0st]

Oh I forgot about kiwi...

how do you "learn" history kiwi?

Learn is in quotes because I differentiate learning from understanding...

[GeneralStriker]

it may be, as Plato said, that understanding is a matter of forgetting everything you've learned by any method other than dialectic. and dialectic teaches only principles- all of which are its own.

[pack3tg0st]

Halfway true?

You'll never "learn" history from anyone... even through dialectic conversation... instead, all anyone can do is give you the tools needed to learn it on your own...

You do Have to forget everything you've learned about history... the educational system taught myth...

instead to understand history, IMHO, you have to shut up, and let history talk to you...

put yourself in the shoes of those who were there... understand the motivation of as many players as you can... once you understand a person's thought processes, beliefs, lifestyle etc (all part of the zeitgeist), suddenly the actual "Act" makes sense.

[GeneralStriker]

all anyone can do is give you the tools needed to learn it on your own... even through dialectic conversation blah blah so forth and so on...dialectic is the tool. do you ever tire of your self-taught nihilism? i'm beginning to find it tedious.

[Lexion]

Do you ever really "learn" anything,

or just accept the truths ?

[GeneralStriker]

That's a difficult question. Plato and his pupil, Aristlotle, came to two very different conclusions- the 'given' as opposed to the 'deduced.' we could go on about it here til the Bagram burn pit cools to zero and still never exhaust the possibilities.

[KIWI]

Oh I forgot about kiwi...

how do you "learn" history kiwi?

Learn is in quotes because I differentiate learning from understanding...

....read read and read some more, ...

read it all , then start again....

get off your arse and travel your world.....yeah..."your" world

think of what you've read and balance it with what you see

...and never let your schooling get in the way of your education.......that do? :smokin:

[boycotteverything]

that works

[KIWI]

he he ....cant play today , I have work to do........Im lucky lala is here to remind me.... :whip: :roll: