Continued Studies; 01/27/2006

PROXIMITY
GESTATION


01/27/2006




Continued Notes
From The
Independent Studies

Of

David A. Archer
02/15/1968




Observations
Pertaining To
Social Consistencies
Within The Idea

Of

Proximity Gestation
(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-27-2006



Reading Condorcet’s “Human Mind,” in my recent frame of mind is proving to be rather enjoyable. It has also brought some considerable inspiration in thought which I am sure to miss in not having been writing it all down. But, if it were that I picked up my pen with each of those moments, I would hardly ever find time to read.

The more I study, the more I take heart in the validity and solid balance of my ideology concerning Proximity Gestation.

That is pleasing but isn’t the main body of pleasure I derive from my studies.

So much it is a comedy of errors and tragic failing in our modern politics and society – that itself through studies has confirmed some long held opinions throughout my lifetime. There are so many efforts and “movements” put forward in society by people posturing importance and a superiority of some fashion – that are truly sorry and embarrassing displays within that comedy.

For instance, there is a contingency that hopes to “dumb” society down.

As I have addressed in other works, such an effort is their own undoing in many ways (beyond the frivolous action of heaping “dumb” upon “dumb” already existing as per dynamic) – especially in the immense effort and destruction it would require to accomplish it in a manner efficient to the needs and wants of those proposing it.

All other results are simply fueling the fire they seek to contain which, not so coincidentally, began to rage in the detrimental directions directly as result of other similar “movements.”

There are several versions of a few basic tactics being used to propagate the desperate jostling from one place to another in those attempts at social “movement” – as well as in the “dumbing down” – Misinformation, censorship, black out.

These basic tactics are used frequently in various forms. The laugh in this is that the justification is always said to be in protecting some other information – the “truth” as it were, but – what has come to be seen as “truth” in our “instant,” modern day is transient at best.

What this means to me in a real sense, is that those involved in the opinion that “truth” is relative to that degree, that instant degree – are actually those desperate censors and poseurs so prevalent in modern society. They are very much those who still are not sure of any truth of their own realization.

I happen upon this train of thought momentarily, in reading a comment Condorcet stated pertaining to the advent of printing and how positive it would be in society.

The phrase is stated as “….transient fluctuations of opinion.”

In a very real sense, that is as close to any "truth" that can be found post electricity and most definitely in the modern society in general. Especially considering the effect and influence of the modern media and the saturation there-in.

It possess an interesting picture of the social dynamic in the recent course of human development. It would appear we as a society have found ourselves in the same type of problems as Condorcet addresses and suggests that such advance as printing, would quell.

In that day he is referring to before such efficiency, "communities" were "displaced" from one another, creating an ease of that "transient fluctuation of opinion." Given, I see precisely where he is referring to in solving that problem, as society experienced the benefit of for some time – but, I also see where, in that progression of development, the ease of our most modern communications has provided for an even more "transient fluctuation of opinion," to the point even of granting the subtle ability in small percentages – to have that transient opinion – in the "smear" and unstable condition of it, be looked at as "truth."

08-25-2006 As a further note here, it is as well that the ease of modern communications has allowed for the possibility of multiple layers of information simultaneously within that "transient" dynamic. Essentially meaning that there are several different areas within those problematic aspects which are "in motion" simultaneously – at any given time. Of course, as things have progressed, such has rendered itself to a few consistent patterns of inconsistency, but the fact remains that with the advent of said mediums, the scope within that linear perspective has been divided to some degree and further has presented the opportunity for "multiple transient fluctuations of opinion." Really incredibly interesting as thought, while simple and predictable in the same respect. Of course, that is from a perspective within that modern dynamic.

The speed and efficiency of modern communications on the large scale has actually produced similar inefficiencies that human advance had already remedied to some degree – more interesting is this then creates an illusion of some cyclical motion in society, when really it is as result of certain combinations of excess. “Greed, envy, corruption (amplified as I have described), the want to “dumb down society”.…. And of course the dynamic in motion of all those variations mentioned as per “transient,” combined.

The actual truth is from what I can tell pertaining to this, is that in atmospheres of that sort – none of the “extremes” could give a sh*t about the “truth.” As I consider this, it then plays well into the idea that such corruptions are entirely intended.

Unfortunately in that dynamic, humans have progressed to a degree in some instances where even the most basic “truths” have been mutated and even replaced after being lost, with that moment to moment “transient fluctuation of multiple opinions,” fueled with un-ruled competition within various forms of amplified and mutated corruptions – for things those knowing their “transient opinions” as “truth,” know not the most basic value of in that basic sense. Only that they will be seen as “victorious where there is no actual competition – even if there were, they aren’t even in the “ball park” so to speak… or the “sand lot” or even the same planet for that matter.

It is as if the suspended and sustained atmosphere created within the designs of our society has been transformed into an undulating mass of various forms of motion…. Then seeing themselves in a competition of some sort, even within the efforts to exist within a state of said society – which has no use, need or natural presence of said competitions. As if the very “Utopian” areas created as per result of said larger design, are converted unwittingly into areas of useless competition. Missing the point entirely of the potentials within them.

Transforming areas easily and most efficiently used in that “Utopian” sense, into relatively similar areas of confusion as per a lack of understanding or insight into their true purpose and use. This again is more than likely a direct result of that growing consumer mentality through the exhibition of such lack of “knowledge” as it were. It is as though those attempting such “heights” from the direction of those postured claims in that consumer mentality, have never even considered the designed result and potential within those areas. Further exposing the ignorance in said mentality as it permeates society.

They know nothing else of the design, so it is that what they know – having been supported and promoted through that “reinforcement” strategy within the consumer mentality – must be the only way to do things from their perspective. Losing within that, the best fruits and states of existence as per said design to the destruction of that limited consumer mentality– as per efficient placement and function of said areas.

To think we have all this incredible technology, but somehow, somewhere along the way, the very concepts most of those advances are based on have been left by the way. Failed to be applied as it were.

I do feel that as is that larger consistency, perhaps –even through the retarded effect said advances have had on human interaction – that dynamic is one of a “generational” aspect. Meaning that in a cycle of so many generations, such aspects are put aside in favor of other options, only to be reintroduced again at a later date. But that, oddly enough is in direct contradiction with the obvious dynamic within said “multiple transient truths” and the obvious consistency of multiple occurrences simultaneously – again presenting the result and proofs of an over stated and focused “linearly perceived” aspect.

I do contend that “truth” is malleable to some degree – that is, flexible.

I do not believe it to be the transient opinion product of modern, bulging hordes of people laying hold of an “opinion” momentarily as convenience happens to warrant as being that “malleable, flexible” truth.

“That is just what we will say” does not constitute “truth.”


08-25-2006 – In a metaphor sans the very limited aspects in use of the symbolism as per “containment” and suggested “linear” motion; The effects of what I observe as Proximity Gestation within that larger process and as well, within the effects of it through said structures and perception of human existence, it can be likened to the result (in a continuous manner) which is achieved in the human act of “splicing” two different fruit tree types together, then rendering a different variety of a similar fruit. Again, this is not meant to be interpreted as “linear” in motion or effect, nor in the rigid manners which such example might suggest – being physical in nature. As well, within my belief, the larger process does not transpire in such exacting and exclusive ways. Then further, as I have mentioned and am currently considering – as a species we must account for the effect of said mutations having been introduced within perception and that process in effect we have upon reality in said “multiple layers” as result. Many of which being synthetic, though still quite influential upon our existence and influential as per concentrated electromagnetism beyond that.

Continued Studies; 01/20/2006

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

01/20/2006

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Of

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-20-2006

I happen upon another passage which I find particularly interesting – albeit, I find much of these works compelling to say the least. The paragraph I am speaking of is in Book XXIX in Chapter XVI.

I quote; “The laws ought not be subtle; they are designed for people of common understanding; not as an art of logic, but as the plain reason of a father of a family.”

There is so much in this statement that piques my interest, that it is difficult to find the place to begin describing those thoughts.

The first thing I noticed was the truth within the whole of it – more how far it is that such subject matter has gone from such simple and applicable truth. “For people of common understanding” is a myriad of essay material in and of itself, in many directions.

When coupled with the early tendency within these earlier societies to actually teach law to young children, it becomes readily apparent as to a substantial part of the origins of our modern nursery rhymes.

To convey simple but useful “ideology” in the form of entertainment for small children is truly one of the attributes and compliments to humanity.

I am curious to see the results in my lifetime at least, of the non-sense imbued in the stead of such, today. Further in the comment of “common understanding” is the barrage of unnecessary complexity found in the modern version of legalities. “Unnecessary” in regard to that commonality, but very much developed as necessity to those most associated with the area of legal interpretations. This obviously having been done in the same spirit of “need to be needed,” though from my simple perspective that as well, is quite unnecessary as those positions would still have been filled were it that our society had gone the path of maintaining simplicity relatively.

Factually, that aspect has grown so grotesque that even most of those in the “legal” areas in society, do not even know the full of their developed complexities… which have instigated – more over insured their own security.

Further it is then, that this mandates in that complexity, the need for “scientific,” factual interpretation making what should have been the simple tools within society (being laws) to actually become combative elements toward that “common body” supposedly putting them forth to provide more safety and efficiency – acting only to make themselves the greater enemy of themselves through unchecked ignorance derived from unchecked perpetuated complexity in the actions of their accidental co-conspirators against their very own liberties. Further in this dysfunction, there has grown to be a substantial amount of “common good” in the form of business/fiscal gains derived from the broken motion of this dynamic – further encouraging the dependence on not only those now “knowing-less” interpreters.

The façade those in the legal areas have constructed of complexity for the purpose of insuring their personal prosperity is now just as much a detriment to themselves and is used quite frequently as a “monkey wrench” threat and ploy with which to “get a piece of the action.” This being done in a manner as to threaten the horrors of that complexity upon potential clientele unless remittance is fulfilled.

In that “common good” there has been attached many facets of society, which in turn has the ready potential of directly effecting other areas of “common good” – which means, that again the public and its continued effort to attain fantasies of certain types of fictitious “ease” – which essentially equate to creative use of the very ignorance they employ and perpetuate – becomes yet again, its own worst enemy.

Even further in this, as I have touched on, is the element of just as much ignorance on the “wielding” side of that complex façade – essentially being the manifestation of that effort to attain fictitious ease of living, but in the ranks of those supposedly wielding that complexity.

The laugh in this is in the fact that in an effort to obtain a certain goal as an ease in common living – there has been an exorbitant amount of effort put forward to complicate things. In turn the results of that dysfunctional complexity being seen as the “fruits of labor” for which to attain an ease of living. To complicate the common and attainable ease and prosperity in order to put forward the façade of fictitious ease of living.

That direction of “productivity,” especially in the haste of our modern day seems to me to lead directly to those problems which have felled cultures and societies through out history.

Montesquieu then states that such “understanding” should “not be as an art of logic, but as plain reason of a father of a family.” Again, so much simple truth. And again, our modern version of such interpretation seems to have gone entirely toward the “logic” version. The “mathematically literal” as opposed to human interpretation.

And in regard to that statement pertaining to the father of a family – I feel it is as such to a mother as well – the philosophic aspects of being and interpreting as a father or mother, not the machine like logic of literal mathematics (which I must say have plenty of variables).

Mathematical logic even can be sent to have inconsistencies in every form of it. To speak as though I were addressing a mathematician about this – those inconsistencies might serve to represent in human terms, the flexibility logically of human interpretation. And even in that as example, I would not omit the abusive father or mother surely to be used as a literal argument against such leanings – so long as they were only a part of the sum total of mothers and fathers there-in. This being simply because such is as the progress of society.

It is no more sensible to force=ably hasten the removal of such elements un-naturally as is it to use them conversely as points of focus (most times in both examples the effort of substantiating the “need to be needed” and unnecessarily complex elements).

There are already things in place within society to address and cope with the more abrasive elements without abusing those standards or violating even more standards for the purpose of forcibly altering the eco-atmosphere and progress of society.

To commit such violations is worse in effect on the whole and result than is the normal common progress of the mechanism which is “common society” itself. Persecution is persecution in that respect, and persecution, the effect of it – knows no boundaries in its destruction – and can easily be manipulated as has any lynch mob in history.

In essence is it that I see such a comment pertaining more to the use of a sum total of “fatherly” and “motherly” philosophical dispositions which might serve as guideline for such interpretations in our modern day.

That is my simple view there-in, but then again I have trouble understanding why so much of our human capacity is dedicated to the goose chase of complexity. That, if I could describe it, is an unnecessary limitation and very much lacking in the use of our potentials.

A very two dimensional use and direction…. And laughably all supposedly in the effort of convenience and ease.

I am not suggesting some posture against modernisms – only it is that I am attempting to address the growing imbalance there-in.

The thought occurs to me pertaining to another aspect of the effect yielded in such unnecessary complexities of law, within society. The thought is that such effect has given rise to the flow of common society (both sides of that façade) to be formed from blind and ignorant groping.

Trial and error being the means for which to have worn a path through those self imposed complexities – as if that were the function and direction of life. Thus yielding the most often times detrimental social trait of ‘path of least resistance.” Making it seem as if such were the only acceptable and safe “path.”

Continued Studies; 01/14/2006

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

01/14/2006

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Of

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-14-2006

Further in Book XXVIII, Montesquieu approaches the subject more in depth of early established law and its structure – He compares, mostly in central Europe and Italy, the differences between “barbaric” laws and the “Roman” laws.

This is really quite interesting as he describes the “barbaric” laws as more “free flowing” and the Roman laws as more “rigid,” citing that with the fall of the Roman law, the only places that maintained it were the clergy.

This brings several very curious things to light. Firstly that of the notoriously corrupt Roman law structures being maintained within the church at the time of their fall. Further that a person can see echoes of these differences still playing our in modern society.

A “grand” example being that those posing as officials within or associated with the government, tend to lean toward the despotic Roman law dynamic of pretending adherence to law while doing anything they can get away with quite to the contrary, while the bodies of citizens in different areas greatly reflect the more harmonious and less rigid “barbarian law” structures.

The church reflects this as well in some degree. The interaction of this produces an atmosphere of deceit and envy. Those posturing within that pseudo righteous stance of supposedly adhering strictly to written law (while misinterpreting it and using it out of context in every way from one moment to the next) seeing those within the population as “getting away with something” or “failing to adhere to law” in not doing so themselves. As if it were written law and posturing of it that maintained society as opposed to the body of citizens that put forward the “ideas” which constitute those laws, in their everyday life. As if the purpose in establishing such standards is to weigh and be wielded heavily upon the population, by the population in the manner of daily literal execution of them, as opposed to being what they are in use and practicality.

As if they should bind forcefully, in every manner and conceivable context – the population which put them forward. Insisting those laws are weapons instead of productive tools. Weapons which most time are wielded in manners un-intended for their use by those “posturing a Roman stance,” against and on the population itself for various unhealthy reasons. As if the “government” were for them, in some righteous manner and not for the body of citizens which allow it to govern them – optimally, through their own standards and voices.

Strangely the tone of this posturing is used in an attempt to justify in some abstract way, the corruptions that are perpetrated within that governing structure – as if that were the use of such office. The “lackadaisical” approach in everyday life being seen as some form of further justification in such corruptions and uses out of context of those achieved standards.

It is a rather good study in looking at that area between use and tyrannical usurpation. Many social dangers… one of which being class warfare.

I’ll not be so naïve as to suggest that laws should be seen solely as guidelines, but I will not side with the despotic, corrupt usurpation either.

In my opinion such writ and dictation should firstly be used to reflect and promote the society envisioned and experienced daily by those that live under said law. It should be the “playground” in which we exist with common sense and the simplicity of the very reasons for which such laws were first wrought.

I do admit that a large portion of the game on that “playground” is in politics – but what sort of a game is it when it is no longer for any purpose other than politics – the sake of being, or being seen as political? Especially when the tools for maintaining society become clumsy weapons for the desperate.

Continued Studies; 01/11/2006

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

01/11/2006

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Of

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-11-2006

In Book XXVI of The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu addresses the idea of marriage.

It is incredibly curious as he is speaking of things which are still quite prominent in the modern day. He mentions certain instances where marriage is encouraged with rewards even, and yet greater percentages of people remain un-married.

He speaks of other instances where people are discouraged from marriage, but the numbers remain very similar.

It is more than curious that such consistencies would remain throughout the ages of human history – even as such, as I mentioned, in the modern day. This maintaining its cyclical occurrences through all that has oppressed humanity, including those instances where-in that larger cycle begat multitudes of people in bastard like manners – thus effecting and becoming part of that cycle.

He reasons that rural families are larger for the reason of productivity – which makes sense however topically.

In then examining his description of smaller families and fewer marriages in urban areas, a person then discovers the over all consistency through history. Such a description is very much applicable in our modern day to a surprising extent – save, I might say for the “rural” standard of large families for the obvious reasons, but further I suggest, as part of that larger progression. What’s more is in realizing the smaller family consistency (if any at all) in the urban setting, a person must then put thought to the question of how these larger cities maintain a populous, at times even bursting…beyond of course, immigration and relocation – as these are somewhat of a non-issue in the larger sense, unless of course that re-location is en-masse and/or en masse to the rural areas.

What could it be that has maintained such a remarkable consistency in both procreation and mating habits for so long? Accepting of course in the effect of the modern technological explosion (though that even seems to play very little here-in).

Emperors, dictators, kings, queens, presidents and every other type of leader have made documented attempts at altering those habits at any given time, yet even with their efforts in promissory reward or punishment – it has remained quite consistent.

This suggests that, insofar as this subject is concerned, the usurpation and command of the masses has been a farce to some extent. An empty roll portrayed and an illusion perpetrated time and again as to the engineering aspects of mating habits. The more grand attempts seem to have been the larger failures in the end.

It seems, from my observation that the current version of this ill produced play is geared more toward encouraging the illusion of self sufficient choice. Promoting the illusion that the people themselves are choosing.

I am not suggesting any sort of predestination in this comment. Only that there is a notable consistency and similarity.

It is very much that such efforts to control as per dictate, do have some effect which can be easily seen in modern divorce rates (which is part of that modern illusion).

What I have noticed in difference when comparing different ages (history), is that our modern society accommodates more of a disjointed representation of that consistency through being actively within the display of several smaller variations of that larger process.

This means, for instance that our society is displaying different versions of that consistency simultaneously in a disjointed fashion – as if the “gears” aren’t properly aligned so to speak. But that could only be my opinion.

It is factual that certain areas of our society are booming with procreation in an unbalanced manner, while simultaneously many other areas of society are well within that consistency.

Metaphorically, it would look as though the larger progress, process, consistency were recently ruptured – forced to blossom in a way and in a manner that isn’t entirely within the syncopation of the rest of it.

Now, further I have to consider several things about this. Is it as from the ill effect of the despotic versions of our modern governing in those respects – as from misunderstood and misapplied “law” and social dynamic?

Logically from what I have realized pertaining to the larger consistency, I have to say no to that. All other attempts at such effect on a large scale have failed. Why then would this modern application of the concept of governing in that sense, have such a pronounced result? Then again, I must realize that I am comparing a rather small space in time with a much larger consistency.

That then suggests that we could be witnessing the very changes within that process itself, in our modern day.

As well I must consider the effect of modern convenience and technology.

I am a single male with no plans for marriage yet having no aversion to the idea either. From my personal perspective, I can’t see putting effort into such direction given the standards which are embraced and as well the greater percent chance of divorce in our modern setting.

Factually, in reading Montesquieu’s description of marriage and similar institutions throughout history, it becomes readily apparent that the concept itself is based on nothing much more than convenience (laughably enough as per comparison with “convenience”) in most instances and civilizations.

In many examples throughout history, even the religious connotations are secondary to such other motives- and having usually been “bestowed” upon the concept as opposed to religion being a reason for marriage.

This raises the question with myself as to why, in our modern illusion, the idea of marriage is even embraced? It is an extremely small proportion of people that strictly adhere to it anyhow.

Again, convenience.

It would seem that even in the grand idea and experiment which is modern government, there, there still exists the attempt to influence the movement of the populous in such ways.

It is very much an amplification of solely the convenience aspects of such a concept as marriage.

Looking at the consistency through history it is safe to say that people would still couple even without the institution of matrimony. Even more in that modern version, is the attempt to influence such decisions in the other direction, as well.

There is very much a large effort through that modern convenience, to not only discourage such unions, but to dissolve and dismantle existing marriages. The temptation has never in history been so great to divorce ones chosen mate. It is even encouraged within some political circles as simply a matter of course in life. There has even become an assembly line aspect to modern relationships. On the larger area, it is as if productivity in longevity has all but been abandoned for the new assembly line version of society.

It is beginning to move in waves so to speak. As one generation reaches a certain age, the couples separate in a considerable percentage while another generation is entering into said marriage arrangements – many with the expectations of reaching the “goal” of eventual separation.

Unfortunately the laws have not moved much with this social change. The laws are still very much geared toward the idea of marriage being associated with longevity.

Continued Studies; 01/08/2006

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

01/08/2006

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Of

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-08-2006

Reading further in the second volume of Montesquieu’s Complete Works.

In Book XXIII he addresses the subject of propagation – more directly, the different effects that various economic structures and social situations have on the multiplication of the human species.

If he were alive today, I am sure he would fall over dead with horrific laughter – especially in the United States.

He cites many instances and effects of those instances – but I am curious if he ever would have dreamed that societies would become so safe and abundant as to introduce fictitious “drama” as problems within them in such manners?

It is as he describes, in his day that certain “classes” of people would more easily produce more off spring for several reasons – some of which being to have more readily the ease of efficiency and productivity in the agricultural areas of society – as well as an ease of propagation in poorer areas within city structures – for which to sell of indenture into labor.

In modern society, there is a different area to be considered which consists of those not so much in need, but more in a mental instability which dictates a fictitious want.

I am referring to a “class” of people that purposefully mis-interpret and apply laws and standards meant for the health of society – many of those people simply seeing some type of misconstrued “free ride.” Most of them already having substantial incomes to begin with. Some of them even going to great lengths in procuring the identities of others (in lower tax brackets) to procure further monies in their persona, from the government and other sources.

It is that many females in these “ranks” even use each others children to bolster already ill gotten funds. This while the desolate areas of society which they create in such actions, are largely ignored as non-existent. Left to erode and corrode with and under this pseudo “class” of society.

I have seen many instances where-in the “Roman” dynamic of exclusion has been even wrongfully employed (as well as incorrectly used) in justifying these desperate measures.

It is very much that these type of people have been left un-checked (in some cases even supported) for such a time as this action has been fitted with an air of “standard” and normality.

It is a toxin on even itself, though anyone in the modern day that sees it must keep silent for fear of becoming its waste product in that false dynamic… some even targeted through the misuse of such influence as is/are government affiliations, or worse.

It seems to have sprung from efforts in placing standards for equality – but in the course of those standards and laws being wrested from those with proper understanding – they have been left in the hands of the ignorant and greedy, now touting some mantra about seeking individual freedom and economic self sufficiency.

Laughably there is none to be had and very much from their own posturing, flailing and actions.

They are their own prison.

The tragedy in the larger sense of all this, is many fold.

Firstly that the actual mechanism itself is in no way complicated, especially to the degree of presenting any justification for such mis-employed action.

I know this quite simply because I can see it.

I can see the efforts in abuse being blatantly obvious and I can see the potential benefits of the mechanism itself.

I can see how wonderfully simple and productive it is meant to be.

I am not of any “superior” intellect or upbringing.

In a simple description, there is simply no reciprocation – at levels throughout. Then further, this misuse has presented the effect of removing those with a common and simple interest in existing. Replacing them with people claiming a “superior” understanding and intellect in perpetuating and perpetrating the actions which have imprisoned them.

Again, I believe this aspect is due to displacing actual understanding with the ignorance and posturing which in turn fuels the desperation creating the self imprisonment. It is very much “functioning despotism.” An “athletic leper, as it were.

What could be a finely tuned, productive for many type of “mechanism – is a clambering, clunky production somewhere between the Marx Bros. and The Three Stooges.

Perhaps in the speedy onset of technology (and all – including the amplified effect of corruptions), it was needed to introduce something for which to use in breaking a cycle not dissimilar to what it is now…. That, in turn lost sight of its purpose and became even worse than that corrupt impasse it was set forward to rectify – to compensate for?

Mayhaps, what is being seen now is only remnants of the aforementioned corruptions – even further devolved from even the level of understanding from which they originate in the initial use of such corruptions?

I still hold that the prevailing, topical though quite literal atmosphere which modern communications technology has created – that removal of human element and understanding, has at the least helped to create such a rift in the social climate.

The simple understanding I possess and experience in my studies isn’t in those workings at all from what I can see. It is as if someone simply implemented a computer program wrought with corruptive elements as well, as per said uses – then called its result “right and good” if not, quite laughably – “just.”

I personally would rather find myself addressing the problems of maintaining a civilized society – addressing the age old troubles of keeping prosperity at an optimum as to avoid downfall, than I would to find myself wondering how to keep an abused old, uncared for jalopy running so as to avoid similar ends. Both examples being potentials of the very same mechanism we as humanity have designed and implemented – and find ourselves now shackled in the effort and desperation of even just getting the old jalopy to idle a few minutes per day in hopes of some trinket like, valueless prize.