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.