Mind Vomit #1

School has started, and this is probably the heaviest workload I've ever had. I need to read three to six books a week, plus around 150 pages of articles or more, plus 30-100 pages in text books, plus write two articles a week, plus keep up with Economics homework. Virtually all free time is spent reading and taking notes. You can probably already tell I both love and hate the situation.

"My head is full of thoughts, my ears are full of stars..."

I'm learning and reading a lot of interesting stuff, and I want to share it, but the act of forcing it into coherent and cogent processes is a bit beyond my capacity while I'm studying and then past my interest when I'm not. The neverending paradox with blogging I've found. So I give you Mind Vomits, hopefully encouraging some discussion, maybe helping me arrive at new thoughts, and maybe just being silly.

First, I give you the idea of "Heritage." The dictionary gives a woefully dull definition involving inheritance that has little to do with the emotional and psychological connotations of the word. Try this one:

"Heritage is that part of the past which we select in the present of contemporary purposes, be they economic, cultural, political or social." (Graham, et al)

See, History does not equal The Past. Historians are not chroniclers in that they objectively write down This Happened, followed by That, ad infinitum.
For one thing, that would be so wretchedly BORING. What historians generate are "historical documents," that is, something about the past. This does not need to be in writing. Museums, artifacts, highway signs, tours, lectures...there really is no difference between academic and public history, whatever the elitists will tell you. And these historical documents much often have more to do with the time period in which they are written than they do with the time period they are written ABOUT.

I think that people have an impression that some are "outside" of their environment. What springs to mind is philosophers, historians and religious writers. I think we work under the presupposition that such people are transcendent, that their circumstances do not touch them. This is easy to understand when you think of how many of our underlying beliefs stem from such individuals. People want to believe their religion is The Truth, and that is much more difficult to swallow if one thinks it was influenced by events thousands of years ago. It stops being so universal then.

But everyone has an argument and the way things are interpreted now is not the same as they will be ten years from now, regardless of the event in question.

Public Historians, those that work outside a classroom or lecture hall or research room think that Academic Historians (those that work INSIDE all those places) live in an ivory tower, with little connection to the real world. Academic Historians think Public Historians are a bunch of crazy SCA/Reenactment buffs out there making them look bad.
Okay, so it's really not that hostile (usually), but there is certainly a perceived difference, which is unfortunate because in the end, they are doing much the same thing.

So that's History 493: Public History.




Intellectual History is the one that is going to kill me. Tons of very dense reading and I'm not sure I'm always thinking about the concepts in the "correct" way. In fact, as I type, I should be reading a hundred pages in my text book. >.>

But a certain concept, a certain way of thinking, what we would call "a climate of opinion" or a zeitgeist has got me thinking. This is called the Great Chain of Being. It is the notion that all of creation falls along a continuum from least perfect to most perfect. Not that anything CAN be perfect, simply more perfect than others. Plato wrote of Matter and Form. Matter was what we perceived with our senses, while Form was where Truth resided, where the real essence of creation was. Aristotle claimed this made him an escapist, but the idea of imperceptible essence is a long perpetuated one. Later, this notion would be Christianized into the Great Chain of Being as it was understood during the Renaissance. Now the continuum was from most material to most spiritual, with Hell being the most materialistic thing (it was at the center of the Earth at the time too) and God being the most spiritual.

As you can imagine, artists LOVE this idea.



One draw was that there is an "everything in its place" mentality, which makes the universe nice and orderly. Of course, it also says that humans are teh uber, and reinforces the notion of domination over the rest of the world, but it meant no one had to wonder about their place in the world, at least on a cosmological scale.



This led me to ponder some elementary but fundamental lines of thinking.

Is the concept of a raison d'etre or "reason for being" or purpose of existence, or whatever way you'd like to contrive it...incompatible with free will?

Can we have a purpose but be required to find it for ourselves?

If we did know it, could we choose not to do it or is it tied into who we ARE, and to not fulfill it would be to stop being ourselves?

If we chose not to fulfill it, would that be considered sinfully wrong?



Obviously, on some level, this is a theological question, dependent on your view about a personal Creator. Maybe our function is dictated by our circumstances. I think most people prefer to think they are here for a reason.

So that's Intellectual History. We're going to be reading Nietchze, Darwin and Freud soon. Be afraid.

Finally, there is History of the Religion in Early America, or How the White Man and the Native Went Like Whoa Over Each Other's Faith.
Right now ,we are reading a biography of a Mohawk from Canada who became a Jesuit. She is actually up for sainthood still, which I think is pretty cool (the process of canonization has always fascinated me). She died at 24, it always seems a prerequisite for holiness, dying young. There are some very interesting discussions about the effect of constant, immediate death on the methods of missionaries. Smallpox was still demolishing the native populations, which caused many well-meaning missionaries to despair, not only out of sympathy for the pain and suffering of the those dying and their loved ones but also for all the souls lost to eternal condemnation.
It is also interesting to note that probably the only reason Catherine Tekakwitha is NOT a saint is because at the time the idea that a "savage" could reach such a high degree of holiness was completely anathema to the understanding of the universe of her contemporaries. Savage and Saint just did not go together. There was an exception. At Catherine's side as she died were two French Jesuit missionaries. One worked fervently to get her sainted, believing her worthy even before she died. The other was far more conservative and skeptical, believing it impossible for God to choose such a person. He respected her, certainly, she was very special. But saintly? Both men knew her, both saw the same things, and both wrote biographies of her life. Same event, two different perspectives, and let me tell you, it makes a radical difference.

Well, I don't think I can justify not doing homework anymore. I hope this has raised some questions in your mind. As always, feel free to comment and we can have a conversation.

~Peace Out~