In Pieces

History is by far one of my most favorite of subjects. I have always enjoyed learning of the different places, the lands, it peoples, the cultures and customs, and ways of social life. In turn as the years passed I would find myself increasingly more confused. An obvious confound would be why we were still propagating those things from which we should have learned the lessons of years ago, but my main focus was that there was no consolidation, no overview.
Our lessons would jump all over the place and year-to-year we would learn about the American Revolution, then Mesopotamia, and then something else non-sequentially related. We were given no interplay from one to another, and without order we had no concept of the influence of overlap, the phases of transition, which were just as important. Alike to this I also had in my church teachings no reference to its context within the history as our church teachers would not reference history, as if religious happenings occurred in its own special place and time away from the rest. Here I would be left with the wonder; the questions of what order or affect one culture had upon the next, and if so what piece of the whole was it? I was learning in school about civilizations (I believe that church and state should always be separated), but as religions are a part of history they can be mentioned without preference or getting into validity and coherency. An objective mentioning is okay for the start, rise, purpose, and popularity of them as is done with countries, leaders, traditions, and cultures.
Within my years of college I was thrilled to be taking an art history class where my instructor was perceptive to this need (as it may have been one of his own). He would always explain the overview and slot that the period we would study fit among. It was nice to have an objective as well as immersive standpoint. It also integrated influence, and reasons, as well as the multitude of religions that have come to be (of course in relation to culture and the cultures inclusion of it in iconography, i.e. popular art of the period).
I believe that in my brief study of philosophy I have seen the same problem emerge. I understand that in all fields that there needs to be a focus so that in-depth study can occur and conclusive and well-supported data might emerge. However, there was a lacking in the overview of these sciences and how they fit together in this great big puzzle. There was never anything satisfying to me about being an exclusivist to anything. I believe that in all studies there are some truths and that it is not the only truth, but is one of many. This is why I am so glad that Mr. Ken Wilbur has decided to start lining the pieces up to see what we have. I find his work for An Integral Theory of Consciousness wonderfully surprising and a fill to a very gaping hole.