a conversation

A ConversationAuthor(s): Jonathan AndersonSource: Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 605-620Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25611459 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 06:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Theory&Praxis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:21:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25611459?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Administrative Theory & Praxis Vol. 22, No. 3, 2000: 605-20

Forum

Commentary Essay A Conversation

Jonathan Anderson

University of Alaska Southeast

Last week I headed over to Marah's house for our yearly soiree. We had

gathered annually for something like 23 years now, ever since we left the

university. When I say we, I mean Monte, Marah, Joel, Rupi, J.D., and me. I'm

Sumi, and while I'm no great author, I decided to write down what happened that evening.

We were quite different people, even in the beginning, and as each of us

traveled down our own distinct path the gaps between us had only widened. Without our past, we would never interact socially, but we held that memory of a group, a vision of the community we once had, and it was that vision which kept us returning year after year. I guess, no matter how different we

were, we each yearned to be part of something larger, something lasting. We

thought it was pretty amazing for us to continue meeting longer than most of our friends' (and many of our own) marriages, and, to tell the truth, we were

always curious, curious about each other and how we had changed, grown maybe, or maybe just changed.

Rupi was our intellectual, always following some abstract, theoretical track

right off into the horizon. Half the time I don't even know what she is talking about, what with terms like alterity, and phenomenology and discourse. She claims to be a postmodernist, whatever the hell that is. Anyhow, Rupi teaches at the University. She went away for her doctorate, but here she is back again. I don't really know why.

Joel went the religious route. He calls himself a recovering (rather than

wandering) Jew. After rejecting everything about his upbringing while we were in school, he's come back to it again. Everything is the will of Yaweh these days. Everything is having faith about this and faith about that. Actually,

?2000, Public Administration Theory Network



606 Administrative Theory & Praxis Vol. 22, No. 3

I really like Joel, and I really respect his beliefs. It's just that I don't understand them. I suppose it's not much different than Rupi and her

epistemo-somethings. Joel uses different words I don't understand, but he is

just as earnest as Rupi. Marah now, on the surface she doesn't seem earnest or serious about much

of anything. I know people sometimes say she lives in a different world. But she's kind and thoughtful, and most always cheerful. She's probably the one

of us who has changed the least. She left school before graduating to marry this corporate mogul. Tonight, as usual, we met at her place because it's the

biggest, and she can afford throwing a big dinner party. She serves good wine, too, not the stuff I usually drink.

Monte went the grad school route too, just like Rupi, but he's a physicist? hard science, you know?sub-atomic particles and surfaces and lots more

words I don't understand. It's really amazing we have anything to talk about

given the different languages we speak. J.D. is our poet, our musician. Mostly he's pretty quiet, but we always

implore him to play something for us, something of his own, and after a few moments of protesting he always agrees. It's sort of a ritual, I guess, our little

game of push-me, pull-me. Mostly J.D. asks us questions. Sometimes I think

he knows the answers already, but then again, maybe not. He seems so

honestly puzzled by life. He says music is the only thing he understands, and

that's because he can put all of his questions into something whole and

complete. I do like his music, too. It's always new, always different from the

year before. But there's also something similar, some strand of continuity. I'd

know his music if I heard it anywhere. And me, what am I? I work with words too. Yeah, right. I fix phones is what

I do. I'm a telephone repairman... repair person. I work for the company, the same company I've worked with for 17 years. I've gotten some promotions, but mostly I do the same things I've always done. I figure out what's wrong with a bunch of wires and connections, and I make it right. I make it work. And

I do a decent job, too. I ought to after 17 years. I haven't done too badly for a

sociology major. So that's who we are, or at least a piece of who we are. And we get together

once a year for the Conversation. We never talk about our personal lives, our

mates, our children, our jobs, our illnesses?all that is out of bounds for this

one night. Oh, we sometimes share all that, but on our own, one to one, not at

our Conversation. That's what we call it, our Conversation.

Somebody picks a theme and we thrash away at it far into the night. I think

we originally thought we were doing some kind of Socratic get-together. In

fact, I think we first got the idea after Rupi, Joel and I took a Philosophy class

and read three or four of Plato's dialogues. We thought we should do the same

thing. I guess it's sort of hokey, but we've taken it pretty seriously over the



Commentary Essay 607

years, some years more seriously than others. I mean, I remember one year when Marah talked about the virtue of manners in civilized society. Actually, everyone except Monte and I really seemed to get caught up in that one. Me, I sort of gave up on manners after years of climbing poles. Monte just didn't think they were logically necessary, and anything that isn't logically necessary, Monte pretty much sneers at. We've had years on God and Truth and War and Capitalism. We even did one on the possibility of extra-terrestrial life and its meaning for humanity. I once did one on Time. I mean what the heck is time, other than a measure of my getting old?

Tonight was Rupi's night and we dutifully received our notification one

month in advance, so we could all think about the theme. "Liberation," she

says. "The concept is liberation. Liberating the future from the past? Liberating the past from the future?" She put those question marks there too,

just to confuse things. I'm not sure if she was questioning whether it was

possible, or whether we should do it, or whether the whole thing made any sense at all. But puzzling out the theme, of course, is half the battle. We

usually spend the first hour, at least, trying to figure out what in the hell we are

talking about in the first place. Anyway, one person gives a speech and then

gets questioned by everyone else. Since it was Rupi's subject she took off on

it, and the rest of us tried to understand what in the world she was trying to communicate.

"'Liberating the future from the past? Liberating the past from the future?' That is the theme I chose. And those are the questions I would have us address." The rest of us looked at each other blankly, unsure of what Rupi meant. "I'll begin by attempting to enlighten you dwellers in darkness

concerning the bondage to which we are all subject. Let's start with the first

question: 'Liberating the future from the past?' The question mark signifies both a query of what this means, and also a search for how to accomplish it. The way modernists think?and I'm looking particularly at you, Monte?is that time and history proceed on a linear path from the past to the future, always improving, always getting better. Today is better than yesterday, and tomorrow will be better than today. Today is the logical consequence of, the

logical progression from yesterday. We started from our primitive origins and have been getting better ever since, improving ourselves and growing as human beings. Today is better than yesterday, and tomorrow will be better yet. History flows from the past to the present to the future in a single identifiable

path. "

"Rupi, for once in all these years I agree with you," smiled Monte. "Of course you do, Monte. You are a positivist. That is the way you view

the world. That is the way you explain the world. Today cannot be understood on its own, but only in terms of yesterday. But there is a problem with that kind of thinking. Beginning our thoughts with 'yesterday' binds our understanding




of today, and blinds us to alternative perspectives of today. It limits who we are. It limits our vision and creativity. It imprisons us in a tiny, limited cell of

understanding from which we need to be liberated. For you see, the future is NOT an inevitable consequence of the past. We are free individuals right now! We can choose to follow any path we wish, paths we may not even have conceived of because we view the present through assumptions and

understandings of the past. "Take, for instance, our view of education. When someone says

'education,' most people picture a schoolhouse, probably the one they grew up in. They see individual rooms with 30 or so students sitting in tiny desks, being lectured by a single teacher, who may or may not write alleged facts on the blackboard. If you say we need to improve education, everyone thinks of

improving those houses, those desks, and those individual teachers. No one

stops to ask what education really is, and whether or not those ticky-tacky boxes are the best place to achieve it. We are locked into our past assumptions and stereotypes. We try to accomplish education the same as we have for 3000

years. Yes, there are alternative schools and alternative concepts of education. But the power of the past is so strong and so constricting, that the average person cannot conceive of it in any other way.

"Liberation is necessary from the confining understandings of the past so we can view the full 360 degree panoply of options available to us, rather than a single one degree arc. Monte, you are so fond of saying that we stand today on the shoulders of giants from the past. That is exactly right. And because of that perspective, you believe there is nowhere else to stand EXCEPT on their shoulders. You cannot stand two feet to the right or left, let alone 100 feet, a

mile, or a light year. There are an infinite number of perspectives to consider, but because you see yourself standing on the shoulders of past giants, you can

see no other possibility. You focus intently on your feet and their shoulders and see nothing else. Only when we step off the shoulders of our respective,

disciplinary giants can we conceive of other places to stand. Only then can we

open our minds to other possibilities. Today is not just an extension of

yesterday. It is a unique point of its own. We can take steps not only in the

direction we were heading yesterday, but in any direction we wish! We truly are free, if we open our eyes.

"Only by liberating the future from the past can we truly open ourselves to

the infinite possibilities of understanding. Only then can we consider all the

myriad possibilities that are before us. Only then can we be free to choose, free

to make our own choices, unbound by the calculations of yesterday." "You step off the shoulders of those giants, and you're likely to fall on your

face," retorted Monte.

"That is what you fear. That is what you fear, I know. You fear taking that

step off the logic of yesterday into the unknown. Why? Because then you




would have to choose for yourself. You would not be able to blame your choices on your giants and their shoulders. Right or wrong, your choices would be your own. That is true freedom. As it is, you do not choose for

yourself. You do not make your own calculations of what is right and what is

wrong. You rely, unthinking, on others. You rely on the schoolteacher or the law or religion. They give you answers and you accept them without thinking,

without consideration of their validity. You simply continue on, an automaton, a true prisoner of the past, a copy of a copy of a copy.

"Picture this pyramid of scholars standing on each other's shoulders. But, as Kuhn described, this is simply one paradigm, one way of thinking. And there are an infinite number of these paradigmatic pyramids piled up everywhere out there. But you cannot see them, because you are locked into

your own paradigmatic cell, staring at the shoulders of YOUR paradigm's giants, oblivious to alternate realities. Open your eyes, and see!"

"OK, calm down, Rupi. You're getting a little excited" I said. "Now you have gone on about liberating the future. What about that part about liberating the past?"

"Thank you, Sumi, for that excellent segue. We understand the past only through the understanding and assumptions we have today. And when we

interpret the past, we interpret it through that understanding. An archaeologist finds a figurine on top of a raised block at the end of a room. The archaeologist immediately concludes that it is a religious icon because that is where and how

we place religious icons today. A historian reads accounts written in Roman times and makes some sort of conclusion about how the Romans lived. Two hundred years later another historian reads the same account and comes to different conclusions of how Romans lived. Now the Romans didn't change.

Who changed? The historians and their understandings! "Why do you think they re-write the history books all the time, not just

every two hundred years, but EVERY year! With each year and each new book we learn a different perspective from which to view the ancients. In academia we discount any work with footnotes more than five or ten years old.

Why? Do the present scholars really know any more than those who wrote ten

years ago? Are we really any smarter? No!" Rupi thundered, "We simply view

history from a different locus. As our positions move, so do our perspectives of the past. If history was just what happened in the past, we wouldn't need more books. But we get them, year after year. Why do we need them?"

"So students have to buy the most recent edition of your book?" I asked, innocently.

Rupi ignored my taunt, "We keep thinking we can interpret the past in terms of today, and that is impossible. We see the past through our own dim

glass. The past is interpreted to lead inevitably to where we are today. What

happened then was simply prologue to our play. We understand the past only




as events that led to our present. We create a narrative that leads to today as

logically as a story with a moral. In fact, we sort through the past, trying to find that which can explain today. We search and we search until we finally find

something we can use to understand what is happening around us. We grab it and say, 'See! Here is the cause of all our problems.' And yet, if the future takes another turn, we can always find different events in the past that

inevitably lead to the new present and ignore the former logic. "That is why history is constantly rewritten. The future changes and so we

must search for new justifications to support it, new logics to explain why it was inevitable that we should arrive here from there. The past has no meaning except as we understand it in our world. To truly understand the past we must

liberate it from the future. We must allow it to stand alone, not a mere chapter in a story that we tell. Only if we liberate the past from our own

preconceptions can we hope to truly understand it."

"Liberating the future from the past, liberating the past from the future.

Yes, yes, and yes! Each moment must be seen as a single, unique event. Each

point in time must stand on its own merits. When we have divested ourselves of preconceptions, then can we truly view the meaning of an event. When we

treat the present as an original moment in time, only then can we be open to its

myriad potentials." Rupi paused and looked around the room, trying to gauge our reactions. We

looked at her and at each other, both to see if Rupi was finished and to tacitly decide who would respond first. I turned to Monte, Rupi's primary foil, but it was J.D. who spoke up. "What do you mean by liberation?"

"Why, freedom. Freedom from control. Freedom from bondage. Release! In this case, freedom from the control of the other. To liberate the future from

the past means to free our future actions from the bondage of past

assumptions. To liberate the past from the future means to free our

understanding of the past from our present construction of reality." "So once you are liberated, are you then free?" J.D. asked.

"But of course."

"And what does 'free' mean?"

"Well, of course free means free?unburdened by, uninfluenced by, undominated and uncontrolled by that which is outside of yourself. Freedom means that you, the individual, are in control of your life. You make your own

decisions on what you will do and why." J.D. wrinkled his brow, "So on what basis will we make decisions if we in

the present are 'liberated' from the influence of the past?"

Rupi's mouth dropped open just a smidgen and no words emerged. "I think I see what J.D. is asking," Marah slowly added. "If our actions are

not based on the past, what are they based on? I mean, how will I know what to

do, if I have no past experiences to refer to? When I get up in the morning and




look in the mirror, how do I know it is my reflection, except that I learned about mirrors when I was a child. If I am only a tabula rasa at each moment, what am I? How do I know how to do anything, except from what I learned

yesterday?" "But you're basing your knowledge on past assumptions," Rupi struggled.

"You're not making your choices free of influence from the past." Even I understood J.D.'s point now. "But isn't everything we think about

based on past experience? Haven't you told us before that our very existence is based on relationships between ourselves and things outside us? Interactions? Haven't you said at other times that we 'are' not because we think, as Descartes said, but because we interact with something else? Sort of like a

telephone call?it doesn't exist unless there is a connection. What if we had no

past experience? What if we had no past at all? What if we had absolute and

complete amnesia or something? Then neither the past, nor anything else would have any influence on us. And what would we be? What would we do?

OK, everything would be new and uninfluenced by anything, but I would have no reference point for any thought. All my knowledge is based on the past.

What would I do? Without past experiences I would just flail around aimlessly if I did anything at all. I'm not sure I want to be liberated from the past if it

means I can't benefit from past experiences. Is ignorance freedom?" "You're missing the point, Sumi," Rupi responded sharply. "Your

knowledge is not true knowledge, but only assumption based on somebody else's thought. You need to make those decisions on your own to be truly free."

"I don't know," I said. "You seem to be saying we shouldn't learn from

experience. If I followed that advice, I would have been electrocuted on one of

my repair calls long ago. I wouldn't know what a telephone was, what it does, what it is supposed to do. I wouldn't know anything!"

Joel went off on a different tack. "It sounds like you are saying it is some kind of oppression to base your decisions on anything outside of yourself, that we are less human if we pay attention to others. That sounds awful selfish."

"Don't make unwarranted assumptions, Joel. Just because you make

independent decisions does not mean they cannot be moral decisions," replied Rupi. "It only means that the morality comes from within you, yourself. It is based on your ethics, not somebody else's."

"But where does your sense of morality come from? It sounds like you are

saying that we are born with it, that knowledge of good and evil is an innate

part of every human soul, not learned. That's not what I've heard you say before. Haven't you claimed morality is passed down from the past to the

present, from our parents and society to us? Which is it? Is knowledge of good and evil learned or is it innate in every person? It sounds awfully close to the

concept of a human soul."




"No, no, no. I am only saying you have to be the one who decides,"

repeated Rupi. "Morality is a human construct. But for there to be true

freedom, it must be your own construct, not that of others. You can listen to, and learn from, others, but ultimately all moral judgements are yours and

yours alone. There is no absolute truth or morality outside of you." Joel smiled innocently, "So basically you think there is no purpose to

anything besides the ego, the self. No plan. No point. No reason. This just sounds like rehashed existentialism. We've fought this battle before."

"Existentialism has always been misunderstood," Rupi returned

defensively. "People accuse existentialism of ultimate subjectivity when it is

actually ultimate freedom. WE are the authors of our own destiny, not some

imposed rule, book, god or anything else." "So how do you explain the spiritual experiences of people throughout time

from many religious traditions? Do you deny their truth? Remember the year we talked about Truth. We never got passed the fact that you reject God and I

accept Him. That initial premise controls everything." J.D. interrupted the exchange before it went down that road any further. "I

think we can see that our previous knowledge?assumptions if you want to

call them that?influence what we do and how we perceive the world. But I'm not sure what you would have us do, give up all our understandings? All our

knowledge? You've talked before about what you call the social construction of reality. You have said that our limited senses and our language combine to make it so each person perceives reality differently, and that we agree to make

certain assumptions about the world in order to interact. Let's assume you're right. Everything we see is seen through our constructed lenses. Don't those lenses help us understand and cope with our lives. Do you want us to give all that up? If total liberation means not assuming anything, not knowing

anything, not having a past, I'm not sure I want to be liberated. That's a

frightening world. It sounds like an empty void." "Of course it is frightening. You are giving up your old interpretations of

reality. You are opening yourself up to fresh understandings. Liberation raises

anxieties, but it is also exhilarating," said Rupi. "It is freedom to draw your own conclusions, make your own decisions, control your own destiny."

"It's not just a frightening world, it's a dangerous world," I said. "My

safety depends on my being able to predict what things will happen in

different situations. And my predictions depend on past experiences, and

experiences of others. If I was 'liberated' from the past and all its knowledge, I

probably would be dead pretty quickly. I'd be liberated from life!" "I don't think I could live like that," continued J.D. "I mean all my past

history is what makes me who I am today. Take that away, and what am I?

Nothing? All my music originates in, and resonates with, my past experiences. If I didn't have them, I would have no music. Your words are one way to




recount the past, but my music is another. The past masters have influenced

my songs, and without them I don't know if I could have written them. They are a part of me. I am not just myself, but I am the collection of all past musicians. They are within me, and I share their feelings, their art, their music. I exist not just as an individual, but as a collection of many individuals existing within my soul. You say you want to liberate me, Rupi, but I hear that you want me to be alone, want me to strip away from my being all those millions of souls who are part of me and my development. I don't think I can understand that as liberation. I think it is more separation, isolation, a kind of solitary confinement."

J.D.'s words chilled me as I listened. It made sense to think that I do not exist separate from my past. I did see what Rupi was driving at, or at least I

thought I did. She thought it was a mistake to make decisions based on things that were not true, but only tradition. I understood what she was saying, but the traditions that make me who I am are awfully comforting. And besides, who is she to say that one understanding is false and another true?

I said as much, and she replied, "Of course, I can't prove what is true and what is false, Sumi. That's exactly the point. Without certain Truth out there, each of us must make our own decisions, without any authority telling us the 'correct' answer."

"But if one truth is no better than another, why shouldn't I follow the truth of my culture, my society, my ancestors? Why should I reject that truth and search for another?"

"Because it would be YOURS," Rupi practically shouted. "That's what freedom is! That's what liberation is."

Marah hesitatingly asked, "It seems as though you are saying it's better to be alone? So nobody can influence you? It seems the only way I wouldn't be influenced would be if I was alone."

For a few moments we were all silent. There seemed an unspoken agreement that to be totally alone was the only complete freedom, the only way a person would not be influenced by others, by education, by society, by history. We seemed ready to grant Rupi her point about society being socially constructed, but she also admitted that one socially constructed reality was no more real than any other. If that was true, wouldn't it be better if we all shared the same one? Isn't that what we all want? A reality shared with others?

Certainly none of us was ready to pay the price of complete withdrawal from

humanity in order to achieve a so-called liberation. After some moments of silence, I really don't know how long, Joel spoke

up. "So it seems this liberation concept depends on a couple things. First, there is the implicit assumption that liberation is good. And by liberation I mean not

being controlled or influenced by anything outside of you. I'm not sure I even

buy into that completely. What is the virtue of this liberation, this lack of being




influenced? Is it personal survival? Natural selection? Will a person totally uninfluenced by anything else survive more efficiently than one who is a

product of society? I think not. As Sumi said earlier, I think the person who understands society, its traditions and practices is more likely to survive and to

flourish. If being 'liberated' is less efficient for us as biological organisms, what is its purpose? How can you say something is 'good' if it does not help us

survive? "And can we even talk about human existence outside of society? I know

that's an old topic, but it's still relevant. Are we social or solitary creatures? I

think the answer is obvious. All we have to do is look at ourselves, look at this room even. We come together because we enjoy the social interaction. We come together because we WANT to be influenced by each others' ideas, we

want to talk back and forth, listen and be heard. We want to try to find some common ground from which we can understand ourselves."

"Yes, yes!" Rupi said excitedly, "that's it exactly. It is discourse, the give and take of individuals coming to a mutual understanding of where we are and of what we are."

"But you just said we shouldn't be influenced by other people,"

complained Marah. "I'm confused! Should we be trying to influence each others' thoughts? Are you saying we shouldn't even be here tonight?"

"I guess I am not against our mutual influence. I only want it to be

voluntary?to be our choice rather than imposed or coerced." "And yet, and yet," interrupted Joel, "once we open up ourselves to the

influence of others, who is to say what is voluntary and what is imposed. Is

propaganda voluntary? Are subliminal messages voluntary? Isn't all

persuasion, all argument manipulative in a way? Is education voluntary when

the curriculum is chosen by others? Is the influence of the media on us

voluntary? Are we consciously aware of all the influences all around us? Of course not. We are always being influenced, manipulated, and coerced in one

way or another. If you are saying coercion only comes from the barrel of a gun, then Huxley's Brave New World is a voluntary society. No, I think this

conception of liberation only frees us from some influences, leaving other

influences all the stronger for lack of competition." "I see what you're saying, Joel," said Monte. "Influence and manipulation

are endemic in a mass communication society. And consider the impact of

education: is the history we learn in school a coercive influence? It certainly

shapes our thoughts. Is this the oppressive influence of the past we want to be

liberated from? Shall we stop reading all history books? Or is it our choice to

subject ourselves to societal knowledge and its influence? Do we really want

to be liberated from the past, if liberated means separated?" J.D. had a slight frown as he agreed, "The word liberated does seem to

assume the virtue of separateness. It assumes there can be separation and




assumes that separation is good, is better than NOT being separated. This takes me down another path. The word liberation also seems to assume that

whatever is being liberated is better off. Would it be good for my hand if it was 'liberated' from my body? Would it be good for my eye? Would it be good for an ant to be 'liberated' from the colony? Or for a bee to be 'liberated' from the influence of the hive? Would it be good for a spouse to be 'liberated' from its

mate?"

"That last one may not be such a good example," interjected Marah.

"Maybe not, maybe not, but still, you don't 'liberate' something from that which helps define it, which makes it what it is. If we are part of our past, and if the past is part of us, why should we separate ourselves from its influence.

Wouldn't we be fighting our own selves? Are we individuals, or are we part of a greater whole which is continually redefining itself?"

"But it's not even the real past," argued Rupi. "It's only the socially constructed past."

"Even so," replied J.D., "that socially constructed past is something we share with each other, something that binds us together. It is our mutual

understanding which is important. If ALL knowledge is relative, that is even more true. If no one truth is any better than any other, then why not seek to unite in common understanding with those around you. Isn't that what communication is all about, trying to discover a common understanding? Didn't you say earlier that arriving at a common ground is what is important?"

"Yes," pondered Rupi, "so I did." "And if all knowledge is socially constructed, there is no particular virtue in

one construction over another?"

"I believe not."

"And this socially constructed history acts as a common bond, a narrative which helps us explain our lives and links us to each other."

"Yes."

"Then it is the linking that is important," J.D. continued. "It is not the story, but the creation of community and common understanding that makes

humanity more than just the sum of a lot of individual parts." "You said the phrase 'liberating the future from the past' had a question

mark after it. I see that as a question of whether we want to be liberated from the past, or whether it is desirable, or even possible. And I think our answer is no," J.D. concluded.

"You may be right there, J.D.," surrendered Rupi. "You always have a way of taking my arguments apart, and making me agree that it's a good thing."

"Does that bother you?" J.D. smiled. "Not as long as you sing for us now and then," replied Rupi. "Wait a minute, wait a minute," I objected. "Before we get too sickeningly

sweet, there were two questions. Maybe we agree about not wanting to liberate




the future from the past, but what about liberating the past from the future?

Wasn't that your other point, Rupi? Didn't you say that we can't really understand the past because we always see it through today's understandings, today's assumptions?"

"That's right, I did," Rupi replied. "No, No, No, it's the same thing," J.D. continued. "Rupi was saying that

our understanding of the past is based on our present worldview, that we

interpret the past in terms of present understandings. That may be true, but

isn't that the purpose of history? Isn't it an effort to understand who we are and

how we got this way? Don't we look at the past to help us make sense of the

present? Don't we struggle to agree on what was good or bad in the past, in

order to define what is good for us to strive for today? Isn't our attempt to

write history actually a continuing effort to build community through a

common interpretation of who we are and why we are here? Isn't that the real

purpose of history?" "Wait a minute," Monte started. "You're saying that it doesn't matter what

really happened in the past as long as we all agree on it? If we agree on a lie, does that make it OK?"

"But what is the purpose of history?" J.D. replied. "I remember that answer from Professor Gunter's World History Class," I

interjected. "Those who do not study the mistakes of the past are condemned

to repeat them."

"Let's not get lost in cliche's, Sumi" said Monte. "What was yesterday's mistake may be today's solution if the conditions have changed."

"Well, if we don't understand what really happened, can we really understand how we got here?" I struggled.

Rupi answered, "Yes, history is a story of how we came to be where we are,

but it is still a communal story to help us interact with each other. And besides,

people don't argue over the facts of the past so much as their interpretation, the

motivations of actors and the impact of events. We keep reinterpreting the

impact of various wars or inventions on who we are and why we are this way. We are seeking shared meaning and we find it in those interpretations. They comfort us through assurance that we have some reason for being the way we

are, that we are not just random creatures. I'm coming around to agreeing with

J.D., as usual."

"But aren't we then manipulating the past for our present pleasure?" asked

Monte. "You're saying the true facts don't really matter?"

"True facts is a bit redundant, but the answer is that the facts themselves

change and vary as we look at them from different perspectives. It's the

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The very fact of examining something

changes it. Yes, Caesar died at the hands of Brutus (or at least we think he did), but as to what impact that had, well, it all depends. Was the transition from




republic to empire good or bad? Did it make Rome a success or failure? Did it

help or hinder civilization? Can we ever know what caused what in the

complex slurry of human affairs? Are there ever one or two or a hundred

things that completely explain why someone did something? But we look at ourselves in the here and now and ask, why would I do such a thing? And

answering that question provides some link to the past, some connection to Caesar and Brutus. And we can't even see what facts are relevant, except as we understand the relevancies of today. Even the 'facts' we choose to address are determined by our understanding of today. We continually reconstruct the

past to connect it to an ever changing present," Rupi concluded. "And that connection is what makes us humanity, rather than a bunch of

individual entities," added J.D. "You know, Rupi, you contradict yourself. You say there is no truth, only individual understandings, and yet, you say viewing the past from our present perspective, distorts the past. What past does it distort? Isn't it just someone else's interpretation? Which is it? Is there a Truth we are distorting or is it all relative to individual understanding?"

Rupi was silent. "I say the important thing is not the discovery of that hypothetical Truth,'

but the building of a common understanding, a community. And like we said

earlier, having a common understanding with the rest of humankind may be a

particularly useful survival value," J.D. added.

"So, let me get this straight," I said slowly. "Liberating the future from the

past would separate us from our collective identity and reduce our ability to act safely in the present, and we don't want that. Is that right?" Everyone nodded, some more enthusiastically than others. "Our past is part of what makes us who we are, and it is this common understanding that we seek, rather than one or another supposed 'truth.' As to liberating the past from the future, we recognize that the past only exists in our recollection. Our recollected past helps us understand who we are today, but we also know that our

understanding will change as we change. Once again it is our common effort at

understanding ourselves through our history that is important, not the ever

changing 'facts.' It is our struggle for community that makes us human. To understand a past unrelated to the present seems almost pointless."

Monte frowned, "Most of what you say I agree with, but there is still

knowledge for knowledge's sake. Humans strive to understand how the universe works, even if it is something that will never affect them personally, like some cosmic phenomenon on the other side of the universe."

"We're talking about the past, not discovering facts," Rupi interjected. I continued, a little excited "But remember, Monte, we went over this when

I led the Conversation on Time. What we see across the universe is the past, and yet it is our present. In fact everything we see, be it a few inches, or light years apart from us is on a different time frame. So how can we even talk about




separating the past from the future or the future from the past when they're all so mixed together, when they're all so relative?"

"An interesting thought, Sumi, even if a bit simplistic" Monte allowed. "We can talk about past and future in terms of common narratives or in terms of physics, but they are different concepts. In history we talk about the past in order to understand the present, but in physics time is relative and may even

fold in upon itself. Time is a variable. Present, future and past are all variables. Some have even theorized that the future can happen before the past."

"Whoa! That's too much for me," Marah interjected. "The terms future and

past don't mean anything to me unless one comes before the other." "What it does say to us is that while we aren't sure of the past or the future,

we do have the present," said J.D., "however it is defined. I don't want to sound trite, but it is right now that is important. Right now is all we have."

"Sounds like one of your songs, J.D." Joel smiled, "and it does sound trite." "Trite or not, that is what we have been saying tonight. It is not that the

present is all we have. It is more that the present, past and future are all

wrapped up in what we are now. It sounds almost simple minded, but that is what we have been saying. The past is here because it helps make us who we are now. The future is either our imagination, or, if you believe Monte, it's

right here, just a fold away. We are the past of one point and the future of another. It is all connected, innate in our struggle to understand our universe and each other. And look at us here sitting around this room. Are we just separate, individual entities? Haven't we changed each other over the years?

Aren't we each a part of each other? I'm serious. At a psychological level our

words have shaped in some small way the circuits of each others' minds. What we have talked about in the past has shaped our thoughts today, at least a little

bit. Even on a biological level we are part of each other, breathing each others'

air with every breath we take. We really and truly are part of each other. And we change with each moment. We are an evolving whole, a community of

minds, a common soul," J.D. concluded with a sense of finality. "It does sound like a song," Marah said.

"Sing, Sing!" Rupi and I called out.

J.D. smiled. "Well if the Conversation has concluded, I do have something I could share." J.D. went to the other room and brought back a stringed instrument I had not seen before. That was not unusual. J.D. was always

bringing some new instrument he had discovered over the past year. After a

few minutes of tuning he began to play. The tune was simple and lively. I wish

I could pass that on to you as well, but all I have are the words.

Prisoners of the Past

As through dark city streets I roamed, I met a stranger without a home.




He looked at me with eyes so clear. And said, "Listen to what you hear.

"We are all prisoners of the past. Once it all has happened the die is cast. The only liberation we can know Is to forget where we have gone.

"All that ever happened has shaped your mind Told you where to look, told you what you're going to find. If you want to break those bonds, if you want to be free, Then come and be like me."

I continued on my way, pondering his words

Wondering at all that I had heard Could it be the only way to free us all Is through mass amnesia?

Are we all prisoners of the past? Once it all has happened is the die cast? Is the only liberation we can know To forget where we have gone?

But who am I, and when is me? What is this human identity Without the past that gives us form Are we just drifting before the storm

After a time of walking down this path So tangled up, I had to laugh. I cut the knot, and now I see How I came to be.

For we are all connected the first to the last The present and the future are just another past We all come from the earth, can't you see The lines connecting you to me?

It's in our interaction that we exist. The meaning is in our relationship. If I was set adrift upon the sea

Would I then be free?

We can escape the prison of the past. Standing in each moment, time within our grasp, Together we define our own reality In our union we will be




Together we will share our own reality, May our union make us free.

We were silent until the echoes of the song vanished. Each single note had been sharp and clear. Each single note could have stood alone, yet no single note was music. Only together in just the right way did the music emerge, did it rise up with feeling and message.

As I remembered the words, I wondered if my memory was of the past or

the present, or maybe even the future. Whatever it was, I knew it was a bond that drew us together, a bond that created a community of six very different

people. Perhaps we too, were a musical work in progress. As the evening concluded, we rose, thanked Marah for her hospitality, and went our not-so

separate ways.



a conversation

Documents