Friday, 25 November 2005 - 3:22 PM EST

Your post has recalled repressed memories from a philosophy of history class I took a year ago (incidentally, repressed memories was one of the topics covered).
I affirm the importance of history (I was an honours history student in my undergrad) while at the same time recognizing the complexity of doing history. There is much subjectivity in the recounting of history, from the choice of a topic, to the choice of details to include, to the evaluation of other histories. Yet there remains, I believe, an "objective correlative" (to borrow a term I found in a different context), the events themselves.
In a different vein, did you realize that anachronism was not properly understood until the Renaissance (Petrarch and Boccacio)? This is one of the most significant discoveries of the Renaissance.

Sunday, 27 November 2005 - 4:47 AM EST

I agree that the study of history is important. Just a few comments:

(1) I don't have a clue what you mean by the phrase "objective correlative." Would you care to explain this to me as the phrase makes no sense in the context that you are using it. How are events an "objective correlative?" Are these events an "objective correlative" because they are in some way complementary to each other?

(2) I think your comment re anachronism is wrong....Read Augustine's (I can drop names too) thoughts on reading history and the bible. He will tell you that you need to understand the context, the language that it is written it etc... To suggest that the Renaissance brought the historical-critical method is just wrong. People were already interested is these questions long before that time.

Sunday, 27 November 2005 - 2:41 PM EST

What I mean by the term "objective correlative" (and it's possible I am misusing the term) is that the subject of historical inquiry is not merely elusive, shifting memories. The "objective correlative" in this context is not just my subjective understanding or perception of the events but the events themselves.

Further, I don't know how we jumped from historical anachronism to biblical criticism (though I do see the link). There is a sense of historical relativism in the Middle Ages which was identified and rejected by some Renaissance thinkers (hence, the idea of progress which characterizes modernism was born out of Renaissance ideas).

Sorry for the confusion.

Sunday, 27 November 2005 - 5:32 PM EST

Right now I find history to be one of the most bewildering things to integrate methodologically. With modern sensibilities I agree that history moves towards something. However, has modernism ever revealed its source for that belief? From a theological perspective there seems to be a creative tension between the movement of history and yet it is a movement that never really leaves the 7-day creational paradigm. In this way perhaps history becomes one big analogy. If you can understand well one day, one week, one year, one generation, then you can understand world history with all its substance and ambiguity.

Monday, 28 November 2005 - 2:57 AM EST

Dude, your explanation did not help. How are you using the term "correlative" in relation to the word "objective." This is what I do not understand. I do not understand how the word "correlative" helps me to understand that (I quote) "the subject of historical inquiry is not merely elusive, shifting memories" (tip: clarity is the goal of higher education, and dropping terms that are not clear does not help).

Also, re Augustine, I wasn't talking about biblical criticism. I was talking about historical-critical method. There is a difference. Augustine just so happened to apply historical-critical methods to the bible, but we could just as easily talk about his study on the Manicheans.

Monday, 28 November 2005 - 9:09 AM EST

Dude, I think you are making this harder than it is. If it helps, lets drop the term "objective correlative," apparently it is a stumbling block. Events themselves are things which exist. Historical accounts of events are limited because they are based on subjective human perspective(s). The historian's task is to "correlate" (I'm sorry I can't get away from the terminology--it fits), as best he can, what actually happened (aspects of which could be lost in the past) with his own understanding of the past (tip: another goal of higher education is the attempt to grasp terms and concepts that are unfamiliar without becoming immediately frustrated and blaming the one using the term for such frustration).

It is ironic that you state that Augustine used the historical-critical method in a discussion about anachronism.

A discussion on Augustine and Mani would suit me, though I prefer discus how much Augustine's thinking was influenced by neo-platonism.

Monday, 28 November 2005 - 11:33 AM EST

Hmmm. Interesting, Dave.
In the history of Christianity, some have understood history in terms of seven eras reflecting the seven days of the week. The Bible speaks of eternity as the Eternal Sabbath. Speaking of Augustine, he, if I am remembering correctly, understood history this way. The book of Revelation appears to divide history into seven years (two eras before and after Christ consisting of 3 1/2 years, 42 months, 1260 days, a time, time and half a time).

Tuesday, 29 November 2005 - 3:35 AM EST

Re your tip: I am very familar with the term objective correlative. It is most often used in drama or theatre. Sometimes an actor is given a role to play that has emotional characteristics that are unfamiliar to him or her. So the actor will try to find a correlative experience in in his or her own life to capture the right EMOTION in the role that he or she must play (by the way, this technique has been HEAVILY CRITICISED because it is not all objective). This technique is usually applied to the actor/role relationship, but it has also been applied to the role/audience relationship. So you see, the term is usually applied to a theatrical type setting.

I am frustrated with your use of the term because, at least to me, if feels like you give little thought to what you are actually saying. To me, it sounds like you used the term objective correlative just to sound smart--your explanations of the term and why you chose it lack depth. In your lastest post, you say that the historian must correlate (I quote) as best he can what actually happened with his own understanding of the past. But this is in no way objective (as you state in the previous sentence). So why use the term objective correlative. Hence, our little problem continues.

Also, you are right about the irony in my last post. It was like the time I met the man of my dreams and then I met his beautiful wife and then a I wanted to eat some soup but I just had a fork. Perhaps I should have bracketed the term historical-critical method to show that such a term had not yet been invented in Augustine's day. It is anachronistic to use the term historical-critical to describe Augustine's treatment of history. I think however, that Augustine knew that he was engaged in doing history in a critical way (much the same way that we study history today), but that he just did not call it the historical-critical method. The term therefore is certainly anachronistic, but the phenomenon is not.

And just to be fair, it is also ironic that you should talk about anachronism and then mention Augustine and the "term" neo-platonism.

Finally, I couldn't be bothered to talk about Mani or neo-platonism. The only reason why I brought up Mani in the first place was to show that, at times when Augustine is doing history, he treats the bible the same way that he treats Manicheism (i.e. he has a way, perhaps even a method (!) for doing history that is critical). And, still further, the only reason why I brought up Manicheaism is because you misquoted me.

Tuesday, 29 November 2005 - 3:46 AM EST

Beldman, if I seem heavy handed in my comments, its because I love you....whoever I may be

Tuesday, 29 November 2005 - 5:01 PM EST

You say that the term "objective correlative" is "usually applied to a theatrical type setting." Is that a verifiable fact or is this only your experience? Perhaps it might be helpful to our little problem if you bracket your experience with the term and then reread what I have been trying to say.

Your comments about my last note show that you obviously still misunderstand.
Does this help:

accounts of historical events = subjective *GAP* the events themselves = objective

historian’s job = attempt, as best he can, to bridge the gap (correlate??)

Tuesday, 29 November 2005 - 10:26 PM EST

Okay, thanks . . . I think.
I'm wondering why you hide behind the cloak of anonymity. I think it takes away from your credibility.

Wednesday, 30 November 2005 - 4:31 AM EST

Beldman, my answers are under sentences I've quoted from your last post:

1. "You say that the term "objective correlative is "usually applied to a theatrical type setting. Is that a verifiable fact or is this only your experience?"

--Tricky tricky...using words like "fact" and "experience" in a discussion regarding objectivity. Even a short google search will clarify this term and the context that it has been used in (Unless of course, google is not ojective enough for you in its selection of webpage hits). If you decide to take the plunge, note that this term was coined at the turn of last century. An Era marked by scientific optimism. Elliot actually thought that emotions could be qualitatively objectified.

2. "Perhaps it might be helpful to our little problem if you bracket your experience with the term and then reread what I have been trying to say."

-- So what you are saying is, if I bracket my experiences with this term, I will finally see the light of enlightenment and understand what you are trying to say!!!! I must ask however, how does one bracket their experiences? Do you really believe that this is possible?? I think that my experiences are what makes me who I am and I'm not sure I really can bracket them.

Anyway, I think that I know what you are trying to say regarding the term "objective correlative" and I disagree. I agree with you that the historian must try to bridge the gap between accounts of historical events (subjective) and accounts themselves (objective), BUT the bridge that the historian creates is never objective (hence my disagreement with you).... so If the bridge that the historian creates is never objective, WHY use the term "objective correlative" (Am I flogging a dead horse?). To use a nice divinity school example, just look at how many different opinions exist regarding the historical Jesus or the historical Paul from only the last 20-30 years (i.e. when historians really tried to reach a objective historical account). Jesus a cynic sage. He was an apocalyptic preacher. He was both. He was a prophet. His message political. His message was a apolitical? These conclusions are pretty diverse, wouldn't you say? If all of these scholars are creating an objective bridge, why the diversity in their conclusions? (They are not all bad scholars either--Crossan, Wright, Robinson, Johnson)

We take could this further. Some days I believe that "events themselves" cannot exist. That is, events can only exist because people have remembered them. But now we're getting into language games and I can't discuess this with you...we can't even get passed discussing a basic term.

3. "I'm wondering why you hide behind the cloak of anonymity. I think it takes away from your credibility."
-- Oh Beldman, you are just trying to change the subject rather than admit that I have made some good points. The fact of the matter is, I hide behind the "cloak of anonymity" because I am scared of you. As for my credibiltiy--Do you really believe that anonymity takes away credibility? If you knew my name, would you actually admit that I have made some good points? If you knew my name, would you take seriously my challenge to you to think more critically about the terms you use?

Thursday, 1 December 2005 - 11:07 PM EST

people like you say that "hiding behind the cloak" of anonymity takes away from credibility because you can't see the big picture that the meaningfulness of what a person says has little or nothing to do with their labeled identity.

if you must know a person's given name just to give them credibility, you are clearly that much more insecure in interpreting someone's thoughts regardless of having some label to attach to them.

get over the name problem.