the Persistence of Memory 1

      I have had other experiences, which make me believe that the past still exists somewhere. I don't only mean because we keep records to define ourselves and our antecedents. I don't believe that we can rely upon a memory of the past to define ourselves,  and that's why we do it.

I am very suspicious of memory. I mean that once an event has happened

All that we have left of that event is a subjective idea in our mind, and that could be spurious. So, you say, take a photograph, write down a factual account. 

Written or photographic evidence. 

Which is why that's evidence in a courtroom, whereas different witnesses might have different subjective experiences in their memories, and accounts do differ,

In a sense, having physical evidence is like holding out against entropy. 

When chaos sets in and bit by bit, that evidence is destroyed,

Or you have a book of family photos without enough evidence to piece together 

Which ancestor is which. In the end the evidence decays,  one way or another. 

But the ghosts of that evidence remain.

That is what we are talking about, I think, in a number of instances.

The persistence of the "presence" of the yeti, the lake monsters

 and ghosts.

It's why if you are sensitive, and stand below decks on a ship like the HMS. Victory, 

There you sense the activity, and the smells of shipboard life are present.

I thought of devoting a page for that,  

but I thought there isn't enough to that experience, except for my 

 impressions of the moment which I remember. 

But how much can I rely on my memory?

I do feel that I am prejudiced against memory, as there is simply

So much that I would rather not remember. 

...I'll say more about this. Were the Mayas right to think that time is circular?