PowerOfLogic/907 202 O68

907.202.O68: It is simple to derive for the finiteness of historians that the telling of histories must necessarily contain both the act of reporting an event, and the act of choosing which events not to report. Surely both my [Sister of History] and my [Brother of Stories] (for in the telling, history is transformed into an abstracted version of the truth, i.e., a story) could agree upon said conclusion, though they may choose to be offended at my encroachment upon their respective domains. Were the historians to attempt to detail every event that had happened, then they would spend all of eternity detailing extreme minutiae. As there exist a limited number of historians, and they are, for the most part, limited mortal beings, then it must be a necessary part of the historical act that abstraction and deletion is as central to any telling as reporting. To arrive at the same conclusion through a different argument, consider the audience of a history, wherein every activity is told in the minutest detail. Such a history, regardless of how interesting it was to hear or read, would take infinitely long to learn the events of note that the audience desired knowledge of. The writing of history, therefore, must involve the choosing a threshold of significance, which governs the inclusion or exclusion of events in a given treatise depending upon their rising above said delimitor, or falling short thereof.

Occasionally, the events are not chosen so much by objective significance, but due to the shortcomings of the historian recording the events, who has already been established to typically be limited and mortal. While those specific restrictions do not apply to me, or at the least not in the same quantity or of the same quality, I must regretfully inform the reader of this Thought-Record, whoever that individual may come to be, that my own limitations are going to need me to choose to report some events based more upon temporal proximity than atemporal importance. Some of the events promised at the conclusion of the previous entry may not be detailed for some time, if at all, as other events of approximately the same interest have come to pass. The banquet that was referenced previously has been followed by various other banquets and eating of various other comestibles of various varieties. When your one of your immediate associates has divine power over food, it would seem like banquets will be a common occurrence, if a variety of forms.

While it is worth noting that the remaining human inhabitants of our recently created Chancel have been dealt with acceptably for the time being, the most significant event of the recent past was an issue involving my associate, the [Power Of Cooking], and his human spouse. More specifically, the aforementioned [Power Of Cooking] made certain statements regarding said mortal while in the presence of Hector Rodriguez Ornelas, which might not be in the best interest of my Brother or our Chancel's general safety. Further detailing of said statements in this thought record is likely inadvisable, in that you, dear reader, are currently unknown to me, and so let me merely say that we have agreed to grant Ornelas kingship of Norway in exchange for his assistance in hiding his knowledge and in keeping others from said knowledge. The near future will likely involve our Familias traveling to Norway to affect this change, likely in a manner involving another banquet, and some manipulation of people decisions.