The question begs to be asked; is history not itself pseudo history? Especially, given that changes of viewpoint seem embedded within the very nature of its own internal cycles, namely those of revision of hypothetical thought, previously acquired and emerging data.
While sharing some of the principles of other fields of scientific research, academic historians can often overlook many of these processes. As a result these, perhaps unwitting, individuals subject themselves as agents of propaganda, enforcing institutionalized consensus and false testimony on societal paradigms.
Unscrupulous profit is generally accepted as the cultural consequence.
This idea implies that objective truth is relative and that our access to it is limited, mediated through our senses, prior beliefs, conditioning, experience and other non-objective factors. Truth and reality are subjective interpretations.
It’s possible that agreement determines the nature of knowledge, rendering ‘reality’ uncertain and habitual. As a result we might well pose the question; How do we begin to critically navigate the worlds we find ourselves responsible for projecting and communicating when anyone not subject to the “collective dream” could be said to exist, literally in “another world”?
Within this context, then, consensus attempts to express some degree of validity but by utilizing a currency that is tantamount to nothing more or less than an entity. A vehicle or being constructed to focus an idea of common experience, apprehended and held to be an absolute truth by any group of individuals.
Gene-pool politics may have been, in part, transcended as a result our ‘ascendance’ into the info-world but even here, beliefs modify our relationship to them in order to continue to correspond to the “One True Reality”, an expression of artistic intent. Here we can simply choose to share our personal reality tunnel..or not.
Scientific communities and their conclusions are regularly subject to the unchecked bias of a shared cultural perspective focusing primarily on invented threats aimed at the “integrity of academic rational”, therefore history, as an academic construct, could be in danger of being seen as little more than trivia, social mind control and mental imprinting.
Robert Anton Wilson states that our perceptions are gambles and that very well may be.
Lets hope that mediums of sound and proven insight are motivated by positive, creative and balanced views when holding the future histories of our fictitious pasts in their sweaty little hands. Contrasting historical perspectives as sources of well researched strength could then be effectively enjoyed like great lungfuls of welcome and clean air.