Sacred Number

History is a phenomenon that has largely replaced myth as a record of past, important events. Myth was an attempt to create an explanation of what led to the present state of affairs (i.e how the world came to be) or to portray an archetypal series of events within a memorised structure that was initially delivered through speech. The advent of writing not only allowed the older myths to be recorded and read independent of any story-teller, but it allowed actual events to be recorded and presented as a fact, a story that was "not made up" but actually happened.

History can therefore be viewed as a serious form of story-telling although this does not prevent its being fabulous, just like myth. In fact there are considerable pressures upon factual history that lead to its distortion. One is that "history is written by the victors" and another is that royal, priestly and heroic characters often style themselves in the fabulous trappings of the archetypes found in mythic traditions . Whatever the distortions, however, factual historical stories are treated with the seriousness of fact in that the history becomes idealogical and inflexible. This can reach crisis point where to disagree with official histories can be considered treasonous, a betrayal to the community, the culture or at least its leadership.

In recent centuries, democratic leaders have become convinced that they are making history and in recent decades they announce their work as an historic achievement - just as if they were the pen writing history. This begs the question of where they think such history comes from, and how they judge good history that they might "do". This concept of history has therefore, in the hands of rulers, become a concept of work - a work that they somehow understand like a story-teller might understand the structure of a story, at a given point within the narrative.

Written history has therefore taken on the mantle of a very serious form of story-telling in which the powerful are the story-tellers. This was legitimised as a norm through the ideas of religion when their heroes came to be seen as historical characters, perhaps non greater than Jesus the Son of God. Such a concept had been brewing, as writing created a written history, in a move that was to create this Historical Period, distinct from prehistory.

The kings of the ancient world were styled god kings and so Jesus as Son of God should be no surprise as a religious counterpoint to Roman power. But when a person becomes powerful or influential, then inevitably history becomes written about them and indeed, they appear to be writing the stuff of history with their deeds.  In a sense, with history, the story telling genie is out of its bottle and won't climb back in as it does with myth. History becomes a permanent fixture, not designed as a learning experience and indeed often written to become an over-bearing fixity in perspective.

Behind the god appointed lies the great mystery, God, usually a he god and completely absent unless indeed this god IS the spirit of written history. Monotheistic religions can and often do believe that God is creating His-story as some commentators have quipped. Within written history, writing has also been necessary for a change in human consciousness, not least in the empowerment of the individual sense of things - the power to be able to make stories and receive stories within an expanded culture that is, in fact, only made of stories. But the creation of writing was known by some priests to be a dangerous step since words, especially when written are fixed, they can not only lie, but also manipulate but more simply be misunderstood on their own, sometimes hundreds or thousands of years later. Whilst writing is capable of democratising thought and diversifying consciousness itself, there appears to be this price in terms of the suffering found in world history and its inability to deal with war and poverty - surely an embarrasment if God is making it. A Devil has to be made as an adversary, again projected beyond the human.

In the last 50 years, there has been an increasing manifestation towards alternative historys and futureology. Examples are conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK…), the Knights Templar (Renne le Chateau, Magdalene, Rex Deus) and new Millenial cults (2012, Cyber-mysticism, channelling). At the academic level, where history is being written, this democratisation of meaning is infuriating, whilst at the political level it is viewed as simply making the making of history more difficult since, undoubtedly, history is often made behind closed doors using means justified by the desired ends.

Of the examples cited, most of them concern the serious business of how history is made rather than how facts are recorded. If there is a cover up, there is simply a sufficient period of secrecy required before history often recovers the true and obvious distortions to reveal what was actually going on. Therefore, if history is to be viewed as a process of emergence that is not simply a series of accidents, then one has to turn to the influences at work upon the history makers. Are they members of secret societies with a concept of right history or are they simply under the sway of the cultural stories and beliefs? Or is it just corruption and stupidity? All are familiar stories.

For time to be a story of evolving consciousness then interventions such as writing and hence written history mark the arrival of new opportunities and contingent cultural norms. The god kings of the age of writing assume the mantle of god's representative on earth in the act of writing history. As such, within a story-cycle of development, the human world is still deepening its degree of manifestation with serious histories. To lighten matters would require a history less serious and an appreciation of alternative stories and myth. The modern idea of history is very often causing history because it becomes a political ideology.

History is the process of making it; initially in the creation of events (real or embellished) and then in the recording of the "facts" according to the predispositions of contemporary recorders. History continues to be re-interpreted, amplified or diminished thereafter and the model for this phenomenon is exactly the same as the way the human mind itself works. History may be factual but how we mix and alter fact remains, of necessity, fabulous. This is not to demean facts but it highlights that, as far as consciousness is concerned, the human mind uses facts in a mix with other types of modality such as structural ideas, connections between similars, concepts of value, categories of meaning, and so forth.

History is the past but the possible future will also require many imaginative stories to be made and this is the watershed between the mechanical workings of History and the creative workings of individuals and groups achieving things - that may or may not even be recorded. History is existential whilst story-making is what people can imagine as possible. To step out of history is to start making up your own stories.