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.”