(2 reader(s) have rated this comic 4.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Thinking Two Step
Wednesday, November 28th, 2007 by admiralWhile running over some ideas for a story that I doubt that I will ever get around to writing, I came across something interesting. It was just a thought and not much of a thought at that. Stand up philosophy is meant to be light. My mind was wondering through the roots of a society that had grown old and begun to rot. Then I came up with the idea that revised history breaks down if you take two steps back. Any product of a single, intelligent creator will have a uniformity that it can be identified by.
I feel that history has to be rational in its own terms. What I mean is that the details of any historical event will result from and result in effects of other historical events. A change in history will put the event into conflict with the events connected to it. No matter how much editing history has to it, there will always be loose threads. History both can be and has been edited.
There does not have to be a central control of history for history to be made malleable enough to alter. You only have to effect what is known about events which are distant enough not to be directly connected to the present time. Change what people believe about reality by changing the perception that people have of the world around them. First, you erase the event to keep people ignorant of the truth that you wish to change. Then you introduce the altered reality as though it made sense in its own time frame.
The Pilgrims left Europe seeking a home for themselves. This makes perfect sense in terms of what they actually did. Revised history reports that, having endured intolerance, they came to establish a tolerant homeland. This is in conflict with their having also fled the tolerance of the Netherlands, but nobody questions it. You should have no problem finding additional inconsistency in history that imply that changes have been made.
Take two steps back. We find it easy to believe in bad things like the hypocrisy of our ancestors, but a closer look shows something different. Maybe there is no editing in some events. What I ask for is a second look at things which we dismiss reflexively. Ask yourself if you are seeing what is actually there or if you are seeing what you want to see.
