Remembering or Re-imagining?

[Weeping Sore]

How well do we know our past? When we look back can we ever truly see it as it was or are we re-imagining the past as a narrative that explains our present state? Should we take steps to try to preserve some kind of objectivity or is a malleable memory a healthy mechanism?

[sologdin]

benjamin's most appropriate theses on the philosophy of history:

Quote

 

VI
	To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it ‘the way it really was’ (Ranke). It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger. Historical materialism wishes to retain that image of the past which unexpectedly appears to man singled out by history at a moment of danger. The danger affects both the content of the tradition and its receivers. The same threat hangs over both: that of becoming a tool of the ruling classes. In every era the attempt must be made anew to wrest tradition away from a conformism that is about to overpower it. The Messiah comes not only as the redeemer, he comes as the subduer of Antichrist. Only that historian will have the gift of fanning the spark of hope in the past who is firmly convinced that even the dead will not be safe from the enemy if he wins. And this enemy has not ceased to be victorious.

 

Quote

 

VII
	Consider the darkness and the great cold In this vale which resounds with mystery.
	Brecht, The Threepenny Opera
	To historians who wish to relive an era, Fustel de Coulanges recommends that they blot out everything they know about the later course of history. There is no better way of characterising the method with which historical materialism has broken. It is a process of empathy whose origin is the indolence of the heart, acedia, which despairs of grasping and holding the genuine historical image as it flares up briefly. Among medieval theologians it was regarded as the root cause of sadness. Flaubert, who was familiar with it, wrote: ‘Peu de gens devineront combien il a fallu être triste pour ressusciter Carthage.’* The nature of this sadness stands out more clearly if one asks with whom the adherents of historicism actually empathize. The answer is inevitable: with the victor. And all rulers are the heirs of those who conquered before them. Hence, empathy with the victor invariably benefits the rulers. Historical materialists know what that means. Whoever has emerged victorious participates to this day in the triumphal procession in which the present rulers step over those who are lying prostrate. According to traditional practice, the spoils are carried along in the procession. They are called cultural treasures, and a historical materialist views them with cautious detachment. For without exception the cultural treasures he surveys have an origin which he cannot contemplate without horror. They owe their existence not only to the efforts of the great minds and talents who have created them, but also to the anonymous toil of their contemporaries. There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism. And just as such a document is not free of barbarism, barbarism taints also the manner in which it was transmitted from one owner to another. A historical materialist therefore dissociates himself from it as far as possible. He regards it as his task to brush history against the grain.

 

 

 

[Jo498]

I realized a few days ago that a vague "memory" I thought I had of a certain attempt to climb a mountain had been a (maybe recurring) dream all along. I am still not completely sure but it cannot have taken place during the trip I connect it with and it is overall so vague that it is far more likely that it was a dream all along, maybe with some admixtures of real hiking and mountaineering activities.

[Theda Baratheon]

Are you talking about one persons personal memory or collective history??? Because if it's the latter, then it is ALWAYS going to contain re-imaginings, due to biased historians, or only small pieces of evidence existing, half shrouded in myth. That's exactly why I love Ancient History so much. It's like a big puzzle piece, new theories all the time, new speculation because we can never know FOR CERTAIN. 

[Weeping Sore]

I was talking more about an individual's personal memory of their life, though of course there are analogies to historical memory.

With personal memory one can say "Yes, I remember it as it was, because I was there," yet who exactly is the "I" that was? Is the "I" that was identical to the "I" that is now looking back? Probably not. The present self intrudes into the past and re-shapes those experiences if one is actively remembering, or if relating memories to others, merely repeats stories that have already calcified by re-telling.

That is, the teller is remembering a story they previously constructed rather than trying to dive back into the experience. So maybe the story, even with its inevitable distortions, is the best time capsule of authentic memory if it is constructed close to the time of the event.

[Eric Cartman]

Past is just a set of facts. We add perspective to it based on subsequent experience. In many cases when it doesn't sit well, we may convince ourselves that it was actually how we wanted it to be as against how it actually was. Only the person doing the recalling knows and maybe sometimes they themselves doesn't. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

I think if you are remembering a personal moment that has meaning for you it is also necessarily a reimagining.  And as much as it's history  it's still a living memory (not to get all Stevie Nicks, but I'm about to get all Stevie Nicks) that can change with the seasons of your life.

[Sci-2]

Heh, I just recently got a used copy of Bursen's Dismantling the Memory Machine.

Too early to say much, but in the case of any exciting revelations I'll let you know.

[drawkcabi]

Look up The Mandela Effect and see how much re-imagining it can be.

[maarsen]

Unfortunately, I have one of those memories that does not let me re-imagine the past. Every time an old memory resurfaces there is no rosy glow of nostalgia but the awful truth that constantly reminds me of my fuckups. And yes they have been tested  and I do have an accurate memory of crap that should be long forgotten. Comparing long forgotten stuff to old documentaries that I happen upon confirms what I remember to what actually was recorded.

[Lily Valley]

On 7/13/2016 at 6:42 PM, Sci-2 said:

Heh, I just recently got a used copy of Bursen's Dismantling the Memory Machine.

Too early to say much, but in the case of any exciting revelations I'll let you know.

Hey Sci!  Good to see you man,Happy Birthday.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the book.

I have too often gotten into discussions with old friends recounting our escapades as youngsters.  It's pretty amazing how widely the correlation between our memories varies.  Sometimes we remember nearly the exact same sequence of events and conversations.  Sometimes we have completely different recollections.  Neat topic.   As to trying to recognize the person in the memories as myself, I'm ashamed to say I really haven't changed much in the last 40 odd years.

[Minstral]

The thing is that we tend to think of recalling data that we have been exposed to. But if that is the case then why do we need to re-create the image from scratch? Our senses are faulty and show us truth that is perceived, not innate, and our memory is subject to the same limitations. We might be able to know of past events with extreme detail, but we need to create the image or experience in our head at the moment of "remembering" making it more akin to re-imagining.

[Weeping Sore]

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 11:43 AM, maarsen said:

And yes they have been tested  and I do have an accurate memory of crap that should be long forgotten. Comparing long forgotten stuff to old documentaries that I happen upon confirms what I remember to what actually was recorded.

But had you viewed the documentaries previously during the intervening years? Is there a possibility you were just remembering what you had seen on the recordings rather than the original experience?

[Ormond]

The human brain is not a video recorder and memory is always somewhat a reconstruction.  Memories are often altered and made less accurate over the years by various distortions, including even how others ask us questions about them. Elizabeth Loftus, the psychologist who is most famous for doing research on this, did a well-known experiment where she showed that if you had people view a film of a minor automobile accident (which was originally so minor there was no broken glass on either car) and then asked them either "How fast do you think the two cars were going when they hit each other?" or "How fast do you think the two cars were going when they smashed into each other?", a substantial number of people who are asked the question with the verb "smashed" falsely "remember" there being broken glass in the original video -- and, what is perhaps more disturbing, they have no knowledge at all that their memory has been altered from the original.

[Sci-2]

On 7/16/2016 at 11:39 AM, Lily Valley said:

Hey Sci!  Good to see you man,Happy Birthday.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the book.

I have too often gotten into discussions with old friends recounting our escapades as youngsters.  It's pretty amazing how widely the correlation between our memories varies.  Sometimes we remember nearly the exact same sequence of events and conversations.  Sometimes we have completely different recollections.  Neat topic.   As to trying to recognize the person in the memories as myself, I'm ashamed to say I really haven't changed much in the last 40 odd years.

Thanks, though IIRC my birthday is completely random on my profile.

It's an interesting book, though I have to admit it's hard to understand how memory works if not by leaving traces.

OTOH, if we did store memories in our brains whole-cloth why are they so flawed and easily alterable?

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Can't it be both?

[Elder Sister]

On July 13, 2016 at 6:30 PM, larrytheimp said:

...And as much as it's history  it's still a living memory (not to get all Stevie Nicks, but I'm about to get all Stevie Nicks) that can change with the seasons of your life.

This made me cackle...and then I immediately thought about The Byrds song that quotes Ecclesiastes.  So now I have two cheesy songs stuck in my head.  Thanks a lot.  :/

Regarding the original post, I'm always fascinated by how my family can remember events from our past differently.  We will be sitting at a table, having a nice conversation about something, and then someone will bring up something that happened and we're all correcting the memory, or 'improving' it, I suspect.  I've also noticed a tendency with my family to edit out the more painful/uncomfortable events.  Since I caused some of those, I always appreciate the redaction, but truth is truth.  Or is it?  I catch myself wanting to edit my past as well sometimes.