IndieAgora

It should be noted and understood that History is imaginary, always, and is never directly accessible in any way. Since history is imaginary, in that it can only ever be imagined, other imaginary things can also be likened to history, and it could be suggested that the best sort of imaginary things are those which provide some valuable insight regarding or motivating improved navigation or lessons related to or enhancing our current experience. None of what we ever think about the past can ever really be verified as true, even to our current senses, its really just imagination. Why settle for one imagined thing over another? In acknowledging history is imaginary, we can also embrace the imaginary more, knowingly and honestly. It is only ever happening in your mind, and what did not happen in your mind, you have no part in or access to.

This majorly gives me the creeps:



"


Stories of islands in the Atlantic Ocean, legendary and otherwise, had been reported since classical antiquity.[1] Utopian tales of the Fortunate Isles (or Isles of the Blest) were sung by the poets Homer, Horace, and Pindar.[2] Plato articulated the legend of Atlantis. Ancient writers such as Plutarch, Strabo and, more explicitly, Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy, testified to the real existence of the Canary Islands.

The Middle Ages saw the emergence of a new set of legends about islands deep in the Atlantic Ocean. These were sourced in various places, e.g. the Irish immrama, or missionary sailing voyages (such as the tales of Ui Corra and Saint Brendan[3]) and the sagas of Norse adventurers (such as the Grœnlendinga saga and the saga of Erik the Red). The peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, who were closest to the real Atlantic islands, and whose seafarers and fisherman may have seen and even visited them,[4] articulated their own tales. Medieval Andalusian Arabs related stories of Atlantic island encounters in the legend of the 9th-century navigator Khashkhash of Cordoba (told by al-Masudi)[5] and the 12th-century story of the eight Maghurin (Wanderers) of Lisbon (told by Muhammad al-Idrisi).[6]

From these Greek, Irish, Norse, Arab and Iberian seafaring tales – often cross-fertilizing one another – emerged a myriad of mythical islands in the Atlantic Ocean – Atlantis, the Fortunate Islands, Saint Brendan's Island, Brasil Island, Antillia (or Sete Cidades, the island of the Seven Cities), Satanazes, the Ilhas Azuis (Blue Islands), the Terra dos Bacalhaus (Land of Codfish), and so on, which, however uncertain, became so ubiquitous that they were considered fact.

According to Bartolomé de las Casas, two dead bodies that looked like those of Amerindians were found on Flores. He said he found that fact in Christopher Columbus's notes, and that it was one reason why Columbus presumed that India was on the other side of the ocean.[7]

In A History of the Azores (1813), by Thomas Ashe, the author talks of the discovery of the islands by Joshua Vander Berg of Bruges,[8] who landed there during a storm on his way to Lisbon. This claim is generally discredited among academics today.[citation needed] So were local stories of a mysterious equestrian statue and coins with Carthaginian writing that were purportedly discovered on the island of Corvo, or the strange inscriptions found along the coast of Quatro Ribeiras (on Terceira): all unsubstantiated stories that supported the claims of human visitation to the islands before the official record.

But there was some basis in fact, since the Medici maps of 1351 contained seven islands off the Portuguese coast, which were arranged in groups of three; there were the southern group, or the Goat Islands (Cabreras), the middle group, or the Wind or Dove Islands (De Ventura Sive de Columbis), and the western islands, or the Brazil Island (De Brazil). The Catalan Atlas (1375) also identifies three islands with the names of Corvo, Flores, and São Jorge, and it was thought that maybe the Genovese had discovered the Azores, and given them those names. But, generally, these stories highlighted that sightings were being made at the end of the 14th century, or, at least, that the peoples of Europe had a passing knowledge of islands in the Atlantic.
Hypogea

Vikings
edit

Although it was traditionally believed that Portuguese explorers were the first humans to arrive on the Azores, there is evidence to suggest otherwise. In particular, researchers have discovered that 5-beta-stigmasterol is present in sediment samples from between 700 and 850 CE. This compound is found in the feces of livestock, such as sheep and cattle, neither of which are native to the islands. The researchers also found evidence of fires from this period being used to clear land for livestock. They also discovered non-native ryegrass in the Azores.[12] Additionally, mice on the Azores were discovered to have mitochondrial DNA suggesting they first arrived from Northern Europe, suggesting that they were brought to the islands by Norwegian Vikings.[13]

However, geographer Simon Connor comments that a Viking settlement is not certain: "Thanks to widespread trade routes, a mouse from Scandinavia could easily have boarded a ship in what today is Portugal and sailed over to the Azores."[14]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatrum_Orbis_Terrarum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Netherlands

The present [i]passes.[/i]

Haha, interesting lol. I am thinking of so many ways of processing that sentence.

I liked tje analogy that time is like a sheet. The sheet can be pinched in one or many places at once and pulled upwards.

The pinch point is the present always moving with a larger expensive portion at the bottom like a triangle- this is the past and the present in motion.

This is what is know as Duration.

Is there any argument that suggests it can be interacted with, realized, or experienced (directly), or is the stronger argument, from what you've looked into and may currently believe, that only a concept of it may ever be experienced by people, so that all they have are their sensory filtered experiences, thoughts, and memories which may not strongly resemble anything verifiably real, at least that time can't be directly experienced in any way so is at best an idea and explanation for us.

Deleuze's reading of Nietzsche's Eternal Return is probably the closest to what you describe . That Difference always eternally returns in the present and therefore is a productive force of sorts, the active will.

That is the future.

Deleuze uses Nietzsche to think the future not as something predicted or planned, but as something created through forces that affirm life. Nietzsche is decisive for Deleuze because he breaks philosophy away from transcendence, moral teleology, and historical destiny, and replaces them with an immanent, experimental conception of becoming. The future, for Deleuze via Nietzsche, is not what will happen; it is what can be made to happen by new configurations of forces.

First, Deleuze takes from Nietzsche the shift from “what should be” to “what might be lived.” After the death of God, there is no transcendent standard to orient action or history. This means the future cannot be grounded in universal norms, progress narratives, or final ends. Instead, the future opens as a field of untested possibilities. Deleuze reads Nietzsche’s question—what can a body do?—as a question about the future capacities of life itself, not about moral improvement or historical fulfillment .

Second, Nietzsche’s distinction between active and reactive forces becomes, for Deleuze, a way of distinguishing futures. Reactive forces cling to the past: resentment, guilt, negation, and preservation. They reproduce the present by judging it against what has already been. Active forces, by contrast, affirm difference and create. A future dominated by reactive forces is merely a rearranged present; a future produced by active forces is genuinely new. Deleuze thus treats the future as something that only exists where affirmation displaces resentment .

Third, Deleuze reinterprets Nietzsche’s eternal return as a selective principle rather than a cosmological repetition. What returns is not everything that happens, but only what can be affirmed without appeal to transcendence. The future, in this sense, belongs only to forms of life capable of willing their own repetition. This makes the future a test: not “will this occur?” but “is this way of living strong enough to return?” Weak, reactive forms of life are filtered out; creative differences endure .

Fourth, Nietzsche allows Deleuze to detach the future from historical progress. History, for Deleuze, is largely reactive: it organizes memory, guilt, and identity. The future does not arise from history’s continuation but from lines of flight that break with it. Nietzsche’s critique of historical consciousness supports Deleuze’s idea that the future emerges through events, experiments, and becomings that cannot be derived from the past .

Finally, Nietzsche enables Deleuze to think the future as impersonal and non-humanist. The “one” that lives into the future need not be a subject or a person; it can be a relation, a style, a collective, a body, or a practice. The future belongs to life wherever life increases its power to differ. In this way, Deleuze transforms Nietzsche into a philosopher of ontological futurity: the future is not awaited, judged, or guaranteed—it is constructed through the affirmation of difference itself .

In short, Deleuze uses Nietzsche to describe the future as an open, immanent field of creation, produced by affirmative forces, filtered by the eternal return, and irreducible to progress, morality, or historical destiny.

[url=https://indieagora.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/5BTodd_May5D_Gilles_Deleuze_An_IntroductionBook_260123_141653.pdf]%5BTodd_May%5D_Gilles_Deleuze_An_Introduction(Book_260123_141653.pdf[/url]

[ia_attachments]W3sidXJsIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9pbmRpZWFnb3JhLmNvbS93cC1jb250ZW50L3VwbG9hZHMvMjAyNi8wMS81QlRvZGRfTWF5NURfR2lsbGVzX0RlbGV1emVfQW5fSW50cm9kdWN0aW9uQm9va18yNjAxMjNfMTQxNjUzLnBkZiIsIm1pbWUiOiJhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi9wZGYiLCJmaWxlbmFtZSI6IiU1QlRvZGRfTWF5JTVEX0dpbGxlc19EZWxldXplX0FuX0ludHJvZHVjdGlvbihCb29rXzI2MDEyM18xNDE2NTMucGRmIiwic2l6ZSI6MTE1NjY3N31d