I have always considered that understanding and appreciating one's past, analyzing one's past, and reflecting upon one's past is a means to an end where growth and knowledge of oneself and one's purpose flourish. I have attempted to excavate the terrain of my past, which at times has been very rocky, seeking out my individualism, my purposeful division from other's in order to reevaluate me, my identity. Basically, I am pro-past.
However, I am pro-past as a means of understanding oneself more wholly and purely on an individual basis. I am not a pro-paster who would recommend maintaining an open connection to what was. The process of losing, moving on, or being done is one that has an end-point. Classes in school, books, seminars, lunch dates, relationships; these all have an end and become the past. In my opinion, there is a shelf-life for reflecting: as soon as possible. These times vary depending upon the situation, of course. I say all of this to say that I am pro-past with an understanding that the past must only actively exist for as long as it takes to get what you need out of it, then must be tucked away into a cubbyhole in our brains or hearts so that we may continue with the present.
Tonight I picked up Edward Said's Culture and Imperialism which is some pretty awesome stuff. Heavy thoughts, heavy reading, but phenomenal ideas and explanations. My reading in that book led me an essay by T. S. Eliot entitled "Tradition and the Individual Talent" which discusses the connection between the present and the past regarding poets (it also discusses how all poets are crazy as a steel toed sandal and less emotionally aware than your average Sully cat...on which I totally agree).
Eliot argues that the poet is always affected by the past through the "old, dead poets" and the influences they have had upon him, which is similar to Harold Bloom's ideas in The Anxiety of Influence (except Bloom saw this as a catalyst for anxiety). Eliot argues that "the difference between present and the past is that the conscious present is an awareness of the past in a way and to an extent which the past's awareness of itself cannot show." Okay, so shelf life? To be knowledgeable of what a past encapsulates, but to move forcefully into the present as if the past is history...because it is.
Currently in my life I am struggling with ideas of past becoming too involved with my present and the ways in which that past seems to haunt me, to not let me go. In the application of Eliot's ideas to my own personal problem I think he is supporting my pro-past decision (shelf life, cubby hole)...I think. Or is it better to deny our past the credit it deserves with the universal knowledge that the experiences we have become a part of who we are? I think it is indeed anxiety-inducing to understand that there is a solid, complex connection between the past and the present, and if gone without being attended may seep into our subconscious and twist the tales of history (see slavery in the United States) because often the past is meant to be forgotten, we are meant to 'write another chapter,' and prodding into the depths of what should be forgetfulness can really be gut-wrenching (on both an individual and national level). When though, if we continue to live solely in the present without acknowledging it's friendliness to the past, do we learn? If we aren't learning from our uncomfortable pasts we maintain a static notion of identity, but where do we find the strength to continue to poke the rotting animal within to find answers when this animal suffered a painful death, one that we do not wish to revisit often?
No comments:
Post a Comment