Why history repeats itself

We have all seen examples while studying history that humanity makes the same mistakes again and again. Probably Thucidides was the first one to accurately note it and describe it. And there's a very good reason why this behavioral pattern happens again and again... And we're going to explain it via the Noesis theory!

The idea is simple: history repeats itself because the "context" of each individual (the onion layers around the DFs) dies along with him/her and does not get transferred to the next generation. In other words, all the thoughts and action, all the teachings of past experience, all the pain from wrongdoing get lost once a person dies.
Do you remember when I said that death is the tool of evolution? And that this is a good thing, because it pruns the tree, keeping only the good things of each generation?
Well, that is true but not 100% accurate. It needs further elaboration to explain my point better: although in the field of genome this is accurate, in the knowledge world it is not.
Because in the genes world, the biological mechanisms of evolution have been set in such a way in this world so that they promote the beneficial genes and the individuals carrying them will most likely lead longer lives and have healthier offspring. This is the mechanism of nature (ok, it has been overriden slightly by man and medicine, but that's another topic), we don't have to do anything for it to be enacted on this world. So in this field, death is the instrument of evolution and the system should converge to better and healthier genes.
Now, on the knowledge world, the problem is that this process of keeping the best is optional! It is upon the individuals of the next generation to judge what good did the previous generation create as new knowledge and try to preserve it for the next. And it is also discretionary to them whether they'll study it and "own it", make it a part of their own thought process, as if they were the ones that discovered it (in Noesis terms: equalizing the "context" of the minds of the previous generation with the context of their own minds).
On a side note, this is the reason why writing and science are two great achievements that resulted in exponential growth of knowledge in the human world. Writing because it provides the mean to transfer context from one dying generation to another (much better and more massively than story-telling) and science because it provides the means of judging objectively what is a new advancement and should be included in the generally accepted theories and what is not and can be safely discarded.Writing and science are the two most important tools for transferring context from one brain to the other and it resulted in amazing progression of our capabilities (hundreds of years) whereas previously we needed hundreds of thousands of years for simple advancements. Side note ends...
Going back to the knowledge world, hopefully we have understood by now that humans now have the tools to converge to better and better knowledge as generations progress in time but, compared to the genes world where enactment of these tools is automatic, in the knowledge world the usage of these tools is discretionary. The next generation will try to judge all the knowledge contributions of the previous era and if it likes it, it will try to integrate it into "history" and "generally accepted theory". There is no guarantee that the judgement will be correct, no guarantee that it will be recorded/understood right, no guarantee that someone will actually study it and own it, in order to essentially integrate into its own mind and learn the teachings and the mistakes of the past.
And there's a final flaw as well: even if someone fully describes to you a theory, the context that will be built into your brain is much more shallow (with less interconnections of neurons) than the one the inventor of this theory has into his own brain. So for example this text for my context is 100% descriptive (even the side-notes or the comments in parentheses) because when I read the words-patterns, a whole set of other patterns get lit up into my brain and "I get it". On the other hand, someone who is quite new to the Noesis theory does not have this whole context into his mind and might need to read some parts of it 2-3 times in order to "fully get it". Not because he is not smart or capable! It is just because he is missing the appropriate context. So, final word on this: even if you describe to someone with words and illustrations some previous knowledge, there is no real comparison of the context that you're forging into his brain with the context that experience has forged into your context.

As it becomes clear now, with every new generation we are losing knowledge from the generation that passes away. And it is the responsibility of the new generation to safeguard the best part of this lost context and integrate it into its own context and thinking processes. This is a duty no doubt, but its enactment is optional. And the tools humans have for this are also imperfect. And the assurance that the preserved context (even if we assume that the best parts were identified and preserved) will be studied is non-existent.

The result of the above paragraph is that... history repeats itself! Humans of the new generation do not have their context embodied with the teachings of past mistakes. And even if they have, it has not been done "the hard way", i.e. living it, experiencing the pain yourself and building strong neural connections with the DFs. You may have only read about it, so you might recognize the pattern, but the connection is not very strong, so you will not recognize it soon enough and you might not have associated it with a DF of pain, in order to try and avoid it.
Thus, you will make the same mistakes as your ancestors. Your children might not, because you, still in pain from your previous mistakes, will make sure that you transfer the context to them well enough, but regarding your grandchildren... it's not certain any more. They are too far from the source of knowledge and if they haven't studied history well enough, they might go down the same paths.