The History of Things

"He transposes, reduces, composes, and colors facsimile, like a painter, who in search for the identity of the subject, must discover a patterned set of properties that will elicit recognition all while conveying a new perception of the subject."


While portraying time, he portrays himself just by the way he interprets an event just by creating an awareness from his point of you. Heres when we can say, history is almost like being "personal" and as a commitment that the historian has to make. He bridges the gap between time and telling time.
Talking about time, what a historian tells, is what actually draws interest, by observing change and permanence, by marking the succession of events among stable settings, and by noting the contrast of varying rates of change.


The author makes a comment about the perception of the signal (now) and its impulse and its transmission (then). In my opinion we dont need to know the impulse and transmission of the signal, what is more important is the perception of the signal because that is what will strengthen the signals generated in the past. More than being actual, it is rather real, in the sense that people scoop out "borrowed ideas" from the past, yet at every moment the ideas keep changing and they form a totally new interpretation. So being actual doesnt quite make sense in this case as, its almost like taking away from reality and just sticking to an idea or tradition from the past which is weak to even express about.
Actuality was and probably never will be discovered by us as long as we have historians because its their job to draw our interest in their piece of art! Who wants to know about actuality these days? Time changes our perception and we just tag along...