>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> <snip>
> > "Is being driven by and apparently obsessed with the past a sign of
> > something good? Makes one wonder about the effectiveness
> > of all these techniques people have been practicing for years."
>
> George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember
> history are condemned to repeat it." He was speaking
> of history in a broader sense, of course, but it may
> also be applicable to more personal history.
>
> At what point does "remembering history" become
> "driven by and obsessed" with it?
>
> That may not be such an easy line to draw. As we
> grow (or at least get older), we have an increasing
> body of experience through which to see, interpret,
> and even learn from the past. Is there ever a point
> at which revisiting the past in light of present
> understanding yields no dividends in terms of
> avoiding repetition of that past? If so, how do you
> tell when you've gotten to that point?
I was pondering similar things in wrting this (one post cannot cover
all related thoughts and issues.)
One makes generalizations based on the past -- specifically
experiences, or interactions with others. For example, "When I do
this, I feel better", "when I do that I sleep better", "this person
appears insightful", or "this person is argumentative and time is
better spent not reading him/her " etc.
In a sense, we can view all such experiences and interactions as a
constant flow of "experiments" and "data". As in science, a hypothesis
that has not yet been disproved is useful. But we need to be open to
the fact that it may disproven at some future point as i) new data
roles in (the person changes), or ii) better measurement tools become
available, or iii) better analytical methods are used (consciousness
expands, we view things from a new perspective / conceptual model, etc..)
Same with theories, in the scientific sense. We all have working
theories on how the world works, based on past observations, and a
conceptual model of how such past observations act and interact with
and in the world. As long as the theories predict useful things in our
little realm of the universe, they are useful.
When our theories become less productive in prediction, we look for a
larger "theory". For example, as kids "toys make me happy" is a good
and accurate theroy. It predicted well. When I played with toys, I
became happy. But at some point, I got new data, and larger conceptual
frameworks in which to place those observations and found other things
(learning, sports, girls, hard work, drugs, music, friends etc) that
made me happier than older "toys". Then, some of these things became
"toys" and I moved on to new theories that better predicted what would
make me happy.
So there is a balance between using current theories in living life to
predict what makes us happy, makes us money, makes use healthy,makes
us useful,etc. And with new data (experiences) and better measurement
and analytical methods (consciousness, conceptual models, etc) we
refine, sometimes disgard and create new theories.
The balance one needs to find for themselves. Sometimes, with lots of
new "ideas" and data(like when we go off to college) the balance is
perhaps 20/80. We spend 80% of our time revaluating our world view,
creating new ones -- and have the luxury to do so since we are somehat
sheltered from day to day issues of living inthe world.
In our career phases, the balance may be 80/20. Or sometimes 99/1. The
latter probably indicating some less than useful rigidity to change.
But my original post was about the continual and repeated
reconfirmation of our theories and hypotheses.
>> "Is being driven by and apparently obsessed with the past a sign of
>> something good? Makes one wonder about the effectiveness
>> of all these techniques people have been practicing for years."
One may have a "theory" that a certain poster does not post useful
things (for us). This may be based on a large data set (of past
posts). OK. My point is that there is usually not a need, nor is it
productive, to daily revisit and feel the need to reconfirm this
theory (as it applies in our lives).
But on the other hand, its productive to be open to the possibility
that the data might change (the person changes) or that we might view
their comments from a new angle that may result in their posts being
of some value to us. So an occaisional revisiting of the theory is
productive.
As is constantly being open to new data and new concepts . For
example, maybe we often skip a poster which our theory predicts will
waste our time. BUT, my point of the orignal post was, when we
occaisionally read the post, do so with an open, fresh mind, like you
just met them, not be tied to the past and your prior evaluations of
them, and see if what they write today, the words in themselves, in
the CURRENT post, have any value.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
