While it is true that we are influenced so much by the past I think that it is easy to become a victim of it. The experience we have do affect us so much on a subconscious level as to be able to destroy us if we allow it.

The art is to be more mindful of the moment, which turns into the past immediately that we have registered 'the now.' We are constantly in the immediate now which is suspended between the past and future.

To some extent, we need to look to the past to understand mistakes but it is too easy to dwell on to the point of being trapped in it. This applies in both the examination of history and in the personal.

Freudian psychoanalysis encourages this. The patient may spend many 50 minute sessions regurgitating past traumas. The idea is that this can lead to catharsis but perhaps this may not happen and the person becomes a victim of the entrapment of the past.

It may be different if the past is spoken of in the personal or collective but while both may be slightly different, I would say that we need to think of the past but within the context of the present and the future.

Of course, the past may also be seen as retro, with a sense of nostalgia but even then, it is too easy to live in the past and miss the opportunity of the creative possibilities.

And perhaps we can even time travel mentally to possible worlds of the past to reframe distant past events alongside our future selves.

To tell you the truth, memory is not going to aid us in distinguishing the past from the future simply because, in terms of the experience of recall, there doesn't seem to be difference between it and visions (of the future). I mean if, god forbid, I'm a clairvoyant, my visions of the future can't be told apart from my memories of the past. It's something like having one TV which displays both past events and future events - how the hell would anyone know that they're looking at the future/the past?

Just saying...

it is too easy to live in the past and miss the opportunity of the creative possibilities. — Jack Cummins

I agree with you. It is way too easy to dwell on Past mistakes and make them bigger issues than they actually are. Greatness comes from learning of your past and using it to your advantage. We should not be trapped in the Past, but use it to our advantage. Only then can we realize the greatness that is within every one of us.

The experience we have do affect us so much on a subconscious level as to be able to destroy us if we allow it. — Jack Cummins

I've seen many people destroy their lives, by thinking too much into the past. Even i've been there. It is not a beautiful sight to see someone crumble under the weight of their past. Gladly we have good psychiatrist, which can help those who've had a horrible past. Future is always more important than past and Present is the most important of the three.

Quite interesting. I can relate to what you're saying. My memory is super good, it's like watching video, when i'm recalling my past events. It's also scary, once you dwell too deep into your memories. I also had a clairvoyant period couple of weeks ago. I can only say that it was super weird.

Do you mind explaining a little bit more about your visions etc.? I'm quite interested in hearing more.

I am interested in your remarks about clairvoyant because as a teenager I had lots of premonitions. Some of them were premonitions of people's deaths and having already struggled with worries about the unpardonable sin I had even new problems.

In understanding the premonitions, at one point which could have led to psychosis if I had not found Jung's Memories, Dreams and Reflections, I even questioned whether I was responsible for the deaths I had foreseen. But somehow I puzzled together the importance of the collective unconscious as being part of the issue.

I also remember reading a book by J B Priestly in a library. I did not make notes and have never seen the book again but it seemed to suggest that time was not straightforward, and that we can travel backwards and forwards and this made me wonder about clairvoyance.

Perhaps it is about seeing patterns in the scheme of things. There is so much debate on this site ranging from the cycle of time and quantum reality but perhaps the whole area of the past and the future is not straightforward and we can perceive the future in hidden patterns if we are sensitive enough.

Do you mind explaining a little bit more about your visions etc.? I'm quite interested in hearing more. — Yozhura

clairvoyant — Jack Cummins

To both of you

While the subject of visions and premonitions fascinates me to no end, I'm, to my relief, not the type who'd experience such phenomena. That said, there are times, when I'm alone, I engage in conversations with myself (like the economist Adam Smith was known to do) and I find myself talking nonsense - the words of just come out of my mouth and, mind you, I'm fully aware during these episodes and hence my conclusion that it's nonsense. I feel a compulsion to speak that which I speak and a part of me feels that the words spoken in these trance-like states mean something and that they describe reality truthfully but there's the other part of me that recognizes the nonsensical nature of my soliloquy. :chin:

I'm fully aware during these episodes and hence my conclusion that it's nonsense — TheMadFool

Have you spoken to someone during these trance-like state? I'm wondering if your mind makes you think that they're nonsense, because if you don't have other peoples opinion, your mind easily plays tricks on you.

Have you spoken to someone during these trance-like state? I'm wondering if your mind makes you think that they're nonsense, because if you don't have other peoples opinion, your mind easily plays tricks on you. — Yozhura

This is a waste of your time...I'll say no more. Thanks for your comments though.

Discussion is never a waste of time. You always learn something new.

Besides all said previously, I like adding, one's life story, past or history also depends on the nature of which he is made/created. His nature (his common and personal instincts for a few) directs him to have certain priorities in life to be achieved. So with time, someone 'may' predict, to some extent (on a big image), his own future (as the apostles and first disciples, for example, have already prepared themselves to what will happen to them).

His nature (his common and personal instincts for a few) directs him to have certain priorities in life to be achieved. — KerimF

I agree. We always compare ourselves to others, while also taking good ways to act to our own ways of acting. We are ever evolving species with unlimited thirst for knowledge. Some knowledge is good, but some knowledge can be harmful as well. This is why it is important to learn what kind of actions are good from a very young age. Sadly some humans are forced to grow under bad influence, which then affects their future choices.

I agree. We always compare ourselves to others, while also taking good ways to act to our own ways of acting. We are ever evolving species with unlimited thirst for knowledge. Some knowledge is good, but some knowledge can be harmful as well. This is why it is important to learn what kind of actions are good from a very young age. Sadly some humans are forced to grow under bad influence, which then affects their future choices. — Yozhura

Well said :up:

While it is true that we are influenced so much by the past I think that it is easy to become a victim of it. The experience we have do affect us so much on a subconscious level as to be able to destroy us if we allow it. — Jack Cummins

I love this point. The reason? Because it is a succinct, subtle, and important lesson to learn in life. Every human has good and bad experiences. And these experiences, if we let them, can haunt our minds like you have pointed out. But, the lesson here, in my opinion, comes from Nietzsche's points about embracing one's life and situations, rising above them--aka not letting them trap/hinder us, and moving forward. If we proceed in this fashion, a person can develop, grow, and become stronger. The person can now ascend and do their best to not look back or cling on to 'good' times. This kind of thinking is detrimental to one's life, thus making this lesson extremely important for every individual.

Thanks for sharing your post. I loved it. Cheers!

According to William Faulkner, ""The past is never dead. It's not even past." So there is that.

(The quote is from "Requiem For a Nun". It's not a religious book. The "nun" is a prostitute.)

The Past is definitely an interesting concept to ponder about. Coming from a background in history, I find concepts of the Past as extremely captivating.

It is super interesting indeed. It's intriguing how much our Past defines us. We wouldn't be the men and women we are nowadays, without experiencing exact same experiences that we have had this lifetime. Maybe in the future, we will be able to live multiple lives, meaning we could make ourselves anything we want, due to the knowledge of Past. Interesting times we're living for sure.

Interesting quote. Past is certainly changing with every action we take. You can't change the Past, but you can always make more of it. As long as we're alive, our history keeps on growing.

'While it is true that we are influenced so much by the past I think that it is easy to become a victim of it. The experience we have do affect us so much on a subconscious level as to be able to destroy us if we allow it.

That, in my estimation, is a very meaningful assertion. Discussions curated around the 'past' per se. are bound to illuminate the psychoanalytic implications of its acknowledgement, as you've done.

For all purposes of practicality, an individual's past is a function of their memory. Every prominent or life-defining experience, falsehood, sentiment and relationship that one has either created or committed to is encapsulated in their memory, barring a number of neurological anomalies. Within this faculty of cognition, lies the entirety of one's history and breadth of their life. One of the degenerate consequences of such an idea, and one that Existentialism valorously defends against to this day, is the attitude that knowing one's past is the equivalent of knowing oneself.

If one were to adopt this attitude, nihilistic proclivities are likely to follow almost in immediacy. If one's self-worth and identity is constrained entirely to their past, they're deprived of an ideal by which to orient themselves, and consequently,a meaning to ascribe to their lives altogether.

Consider an individual enslaved by this mentality, whose live has been ridden intermittently by tragedy (such as being bereaved of one's family, or lacking one altogether). When constructing a distinction with regards to themselves and the world, the individual in question will almost necessarily invoke tragedy as a determinant of their identity, and possibly even concede to it. If not, they'll perpetuate it themselves, subsequently completing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Herein, the affirmation of existential value is rendered permanently elusive, only becoming available on the condition of unshackling oneself from one's past.

It is precisely for this reason that the 'past' can become unbelievably pernicious. At the highest degree of philosophical abstraction, it comprises none other than a set of precedents that can disintegrate one's will if left unchecked.

I think that you are entirely correct in saying that repeated negative experiences and tragedy can disintegrate the will and this is the source of mental breakdown, including depression, bipolar effective disorder, psychosis and personality disorders.

Probably the variations mental disorders take is more than biochemical markers but also about the unique development of ego. In particular, there is so much of a recognised link between borderline personality disorder and trauma, to the point that it can be equated with post traumatic stress disorder.

Of course, the question is how can the broken, fragmented be repaired? The most conventional approaches are medication and I would most certainly not deny the importance of medication but I do not think that this will really solve the depths of the broken past and unfortunately individuals are being offered the cheapest, so called cost-effective ones. The trend at present is even computer packages of cognitive behavioral techniques.

Of course there are treatments involving psychotherapy, counselling and the arts psychotherapies. Unfortunately the referrals are lengthy and many find it hard to access the therapies unless they are able to pay and the costs are often beyond many people's means.

Personally, despite the so-called lack of evidence, my sympathies lie with the art therapies. I have seen individuals able to create new ways of seeing the past in visual art and creative writing.
And I would go one step further and recommend philosophical writing as a possible way forward. This is based on a view that many of the insights of the great philosophers were based on mental gymnastics in attempt at recreating the past.

They define you as you are today in the Present. — Yozhura

Something just crossed my mind when I read the above; perhaps you might want to know...

You say the past defines us and, prima facie, almost everyone will give you the nod of approval on that score and with good reason - it's a convention so to speak that people's identities are based on their past.

However, there's the small matter of selfhood before we begin accumlating a history that's unique to us. If the past/our history defines us, does it mean that everyone is identical at the moment we're born and a few moments after? After all not enough time elapses in that short period to develop a unique history that'll go toward giving one an identity? It appears that history/past as a defining feature of a person is not the complete truth about who/what that person is.

I like to look at it as if it's a journey. You start some place, wherever that is, and hop from one location to the another. The received opinion is that these various locales shape a particular identity for you but notice there's a "You" at the beginning of the second sentence in this paragraph. Who is that "You" who is, at the very beginning of the journey, without a past or a history? :chin:

does it mean that everyone is identical at the moment we're born and a few moments after? — TheMadFool

I believe our history starts from the moment we're being fucked to existence. Your being was the one who wanted to win the race of sperm. You have been a winner, from the moment you were born. Being a winner gives you the right to create your history, as it is said, history is a tale written by winners. Your genes begin from the moment when you as a sperm reach the egg. We don't have enough information on the subject, but this is what I believe to be the case.

I like to look at it as if it's a journey — TheMadFool

I agree with this one. We are all on a journey to something greater. We might now know what that greatness is, but we need to survive until that moment happens, when our existence becomes relevant. That moment is when your journey actually begins. Everything before that moment is just a tutorial in life, teaching you all the necessary skills to survive in the world.

The moment when your existence becomes relevant is quite interesting. For me it was a psychosis, which taught me a lot of different things. Everything just became clear in my head, as if our lives are predetermined from the beginning. You might have the illusion of choice in life, but in reality you're just part of a bigger organism called Humanity. You have your place in the history of humankind, which has been predetermined from the moment before you were even born.

I believe our history starts from the moment we're being fucked to existence. — Yozhura

:rofl: No comment! That way funny! Will get back to you. Later, alligator!

I believe our history starts from the moment we're being fucked to existence. Your being was the one who wanted to win the race of sperm. You have been a winner, from the moment you were born. Being a winner gives you the right to create your history, as it is said, history is a tale written by winners. Your genes begin from the moment when you as a sperm reach the egg. We don't have enough information on the subject, but this is what I believe to be the case. — Yozhura

Personally, I wouldn't go that far. In my humble opinion, a person can be said to exist only after sperm meets egg. The information that eventually goes to create you is complete only after that event. What relevance this has to your thesis is not yet clear to me. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to be someone before a certain point in the chain of events that lead up to you whatever that means.

If we go by your logic, everyone is identical before our histories diverge and produce unique worldlines in spacetime. I wish to avoid going down that road for the simple reason that, to me, it looks like a can of worms. However, I will say this: uniqueness seems an arbitray concept and depends on the resolution one chooses. For instance, from space, we're all identical in that we're all on earth but from a place on earth, we're all unique in being at different loci on earth. Just a thought you might want to look into.

What relevance this has to your thesis is not yet clear to me. — TheMadFool

Well, I think of it like this. Humans are nothing but data that has evolved far enough to obtain life. This would mean that you only become a human after your birth. Some would argue against this, but you can't really call an embryo being human. At that point you're just data trying to form life. It's quite a hard topic and my English might not be good enough to explain it clearly.

everyone is identical before our histories diverge and produce unique worldlines in spacetime. — TheMadFool

If we go by the theory that says we came from Adam and Eve. Adam and eve must've come from a single person, a God, which created Humanity from a scratch. We are not yet sure how our beginning actually went. Each one of us has the same biological roots, but we've evolved so far from that point, that we were able to obtain uniqueness in Humanity. Uniqueness only evolves from normalcy with enough time. Are we unique enough as we are, or do we still need to evolve further to actually say we're unique human beings. For now we simply feel quite similar with only few differences that differentiate ourselves from other human beings.

Well, I think of it like this. Humans are nothing but data that has evolved far enough to obtain life. This would mean that you only become a human after your birth. Some would argue against this, but you can't really call an embryo being human. At that point you're just data trying to form life. It's quite a hard topic and my English might not be good enough to explain it clearly. — Yozhura

Well, I'll ask you a simple question. Why do farmers save seeds from one harvest for the coming year? I'm probably barking up the wrong tree but I'd like to hear what you have to say about this age-old agricultural practice.

If we go by the theory that says we came from Adam and Eve. Adam and eve must've come from a single person, a God, which created Humanity from a scratch. We are not yet sure how our beginning actually went. Each one of us has the same biological roots, but we've evolved so far from that point, that we were able to obtain uniqueness in Humanity. Uniqueness only evolves from normalcy with enough time. Are we unique enough as we are, or do we still need to evolve further to actually say we're unique human beings. For now we simply feel quite similar with only few differences that differentiate ourselves from other human beings. — Yozhura

As I mentioned before, uniqueness is an arbitrary concept that depends on the scale we've decided to stop at. At the galactic scale, we're all sun; at the level of the solar system, we're all planet earth; at earth level, we're unique positionally; at cellular level, we're again all same; at the molecular level, we're unique (DNA); at the atomic level, we're again all same. Our uniqueness seems to appear and disappear depending on what level of organization we're interested in. Do you see where I'm going wrong?

Why do farmers save seeds from one harvest for the coming year? — TheMadFool

You can always grow more from a single seed. Same goes for Humanity. We're pretty much biologically coded to mate and grow an offspring. That is the reason why we've got where we are now. Grow faster than our older generation perishes.

Do you see where I'm going wrong? — TheMadFool

I understand what you're meaning. It is a hard concept indeed. Basically we're all unique, but basically we're not.