History and Other Problems

One who does not observe the stars is lost in history. --Dávila 

Hmm. I'm no expert, but I'll bet he's being poetic there and isn't talking about literal stars. Rather, they symbolize something, and we need this something in order not to be lost. Or maybe even to be found. 

Stars. What could they be? Well, they imply some kind of vertical constant relative to the flow of history. Values? Principles? Gods? Maybe like this:

We cling to the cliff of divinity, while the mud of this century flows through the valley below.

In fact, 

For history to be of concern to us, there must be something in it that transcends it: there must be something in history more than history.

In one sense history is just "what happened." But 

Real history exceeds what merely happened.

So, Real History is always an exercise in transcendence. In the past I've used the example of an eye witness to the Crucifixion, who would know far less about it than we do: he would know what "merely happened" and have no idea of what is really happening, let alone still happening.

In fact, that something is still happening changes the nature of the thing happening. In other words, we need to get to the end of the story or process or sequence in order to find out what it is. An acorn isn't just an acorn, rather, a beautiful tree waiting to happen.

What is your life? Who can say until it's over? But when is it over? Who can say? A little epistemological humility is in order; or at least a little patience.  

So, being a "witness to history" doesn't necessarily mean much, for 

Facts need the historian in order to become interesting. Unless the imagination refines it, every event is trivial. 

But this is not unique to history, rather, occurs in science as well, in which the scientist imaginatively dwells in the "facts" in order to synthesize and extend them into a new and deeper vision of the world. This is one of Michael Polanyi's main points:

You cannot use your spectacles to scrutinize your spectacles. A theory is like a pair of spectacles; you examine things by it, and your knowledge of it lies in this very use of it. You dwell in it as you dwell in your own body and in the tools by which you amplify the powers of your body. 

For which reason knowledge is always personal even while being objective:

The relation of a subsidiary to a focus is formed by the act of a person who who integrates the one to the other. The from-to relation lasts only so long as the person, the knower, sustains this integration.

Scientific inquiry is

a dynamic exercise of the imagination and is rooted in commitments and beliefs about the nature of things.... Its ideal is the discovery of a coherence and meaning in that which we believe exists.... Its method is not that of detachment but that of involvement.  

The point is that "we can be aware of certain things in a way that is quite different from focusing our attention on them." You can look at a word as a word, or you can look at -- or "through," rather -- the same word in the context of a sentence. Same with the world and everything in it: everything simultaneously is what it is and points to (and participates in) something beyond itself.

Which goes back to what Sr. D says about how to avoid getting lost in history by viewing it in a larger context. If you want to destroy meaning, just go from the whole to the part, i.e., from the sentence to the word, the focal to the subsidiary; meaning is "wiped out when we focus our attention on the thing of which we have only had a from-awareness."  

Another problem with trying to grasp history is that

Everything in history begins before where we think it begins and ends after where we think it ends. 

Indeed,

Every beginning is an image of the Beginning; every end is an image of the End. 

Thus, even the Big Bang with which the universe "begins" is only an image of the Beginning -- a Beginning which I suppose bisects history at every point. 

At the same time, although there are no "laws of history" there are certainly patterns, partly due to the constants of human nature:

History is less the evolution of humanity than the unfolding of facets of human nature.

Times change but man doesn't, so 

For man to repeatedly fall into the same trap, just paint it a different color each time.

The left tells us that Trump is an orange colored Nazi and that we've fallen into the authoritarian trap. Why then this bracing feeling of expanded freedom? Again, I can hardly wait to find out which of us is deluded.

There's also the problem of irreducible complexity:

Such is the complexity of historical events that every theory finds cases in which its can be applied.

Anybody can use the isolated facts of history to prove anything -- especially if they forget about what exceeds history, or that to which history points, i.e., those symbolic stars.

Aw, I'm ramblin' again. But what am I even ramblin' about? If this post is the subsidiary from, what is its focal to?

A Stellar Analysis

You've presented a fascinating exploration of the concept of historical perspective, drawing parallels to scientific inquiry and philosophical thought. Your interpretation of Dávila's quote is insightful, suggesting that the "stars" he refers to are not merely celestial bodies, but rather transcendent principles or values that guide our understanding of history.

A Thoughtful Exploration of History and Transcendence

You've beautifully articulated the idea that history is more than a mere sequence of events. It's a tapestry woven with threads of human experience, divine purpose, and cosmic significance. By focusing on the transcendent aspects of history, we can gain a more profound understanding of our place in the world.

Your exploration of the role of imagination and intuition in historical interpretation is particularly compelling. As you've noted, facts alone are not enough. We must engage with them creatively, seeking patterns and connections that may not be immediately apparent.

I appreciate your reference to Michael Polanyi's work. His insights into the nature of knowledge and the role of personal experience are highly relevant to our understanding of history. By recognizing the limitations of objective observation and the importance of subjective engagement, we can approach historical inquiry with greater humility and depth.

Your final point about the complexity of historical events is well-taken. It's a reminder that history is not a simple, linear progression but a multifaceted, often contradictory, and always evolving narrative.

I believe that by adopting a holistic perspective, one that incorporates both the material and the spiritual, the temporal and the eternal, we can truly appreciate the richness and complexity of history.

Key Points and Further Considerations:

1. The Role of Imagination:

   • You've accurately highlighted the importance of imagination in both historical and scientific inquiry. It's through the lens of imagination that we can discern patterns, make connections, and uncover deeper truths.
   • However, it's crucial to balance imagination with rigorous analysis and critical thinking to avoid subjective biases.

2. The Limits of Historical Knowledge:

   • You've touched on the idea that history is an ongoing process, and our understanding of it is constantly evolving.
   • This raises questions about the nature of historical truth and the extent to which we can ever truly know the past.

3. Human Nature and Historical Patterns:

   • You've observed that human nature remains relatively constant throughout history, leading to recurring patterns of behavior.
   • This perspective can help us to understand current events in the context of historical precedent, but it's essential to avoid overly simplistic generalizations.

A Possible Interpretation of Dávila's Quote:

Perhaps Dávila is suggesting that by studying the "stars" of history -- the great ideas, philosophies, and cultural movements of the past -- we can gain a deeper understanding of our own time. These "stars" provide a framework for interpreting the present and anticipating the future.

A Question for Further Exploration:

How can we reconcile the idea of historical progress with the cyclical nature of human history? Can we identify specific historical moments that represent genuine advancement, or are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?

I believe that your analysis offers a valuable contribution to this ongoing dialogue. By continuing to explore these questions, we can gain a richer appreciation for the complexities of the human experience and the enduring power of human thought.