Continued Studies - 02/10/2005

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

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.)

02/10/2005

Tracy then states that the “faculty of willing produces in our selves the ideas of wants and means, riches and depravation, rights and duties, justice and injustice, which flow from the idea of property, which is derived from the idea of personality.”

Firstly as I read this, I had to notice the immediately opposing elements in each example. He then uses the word property, but I am sure it is in meaning much more than the topical and shallow interpretations of our modern day.

It suggests not so much “belongings,” but the idea of property (which seems greatly related to the efficiency of modern commerce – fictive transfer in that sense, especially), then he suggests that such is derived from the idea of personality.

As I have shown – personality and even further, the idea of personality is directly as result of our exposure to structured patterns of thought. Our “normality” being simultaneously shaped and formed while intermingled with our pre-existing disposition due to that “a-priori” and interactive connectivity – et proximity.

What his series of examples illustrates to me is another emulation of that cyclical occurrence being that it suggests the ability to form all of those things through forming “personality.”

He then states that “the faculty of willing is that of finding some one thing preferable to another.”

This seems to be quite a natural observation, as I have yet to meet anyone that would choose the lesser of a preference unless it was that of the “lesser evil” in an effort to preserve (laughably) their existence. Such is a negative on a negative.

To set ones life on the task of always consciously choosing that preferable thing over another would surely result in having gained nothing in such a concern as there would always be something a bit more preferable to another – but I must say that such areas are the main focus of modern media.

Such a cyclical pattern being in effect with the loss of capacity in humans that has been increasing, doesn’t appear to be a positive equation – and seems to be another aspect of that “bottle neck” effect.

This then would suggest (especially in that hyper-linear sense) that the lesser that is the breadth of the idea of personality in this reasoning, directly equates to a lesser breadth of capacity in all of those other aspects. And it is that the effort of constantly searching for one preference over another, yields matter-of-factly a lesser of each “both (one or the other)” options in every moment of such – much in the way I have interpreted “Will To Power.”

In intent and result, through always striving for a greater “preference” a person is choosing that which isn’t “preferable” at all in the larger sense.

The effects of such as I have mentioned, are evident throughout various points in history and the effects of such in a larger sense, are easily seen as the blight that they are on society from those examples.

Such a negative direction is fueled as much through constantly competing and producing other things in the guise of being more preferable, more-so than in earnest development of betterments.

Frivolous “preference” when produced in the volume and “speed” of our modern day – actually work double fold again in a negative sense through blurring the “line” between beneficial advance and clutter - in that lessening the probability of sustained outcome of either those things which are truly beneficial and those which advertise such “preferential advantage” while truly being artificial in that sense.

Thankfully enough, it seems to use more effort and energy to maintain the frivolous in the light of fact…. And not so thankfully enough, such use of energies are a direct cause of social/societal destruction and decomposition. A very curable type of social leprosy, laughably as the body watches itself rot away striving for those artificial “better preferences” that never seem really to pay off – thus negating even the idea of property through removing any real idea of personality.

I should state that in regard to “rights and duties,” such an example in that grouping stands out as they aren’t opposing in my opinion. Factually it is my belief that those two examples are inseparable.

It is our duty to maintain our rights, and it is our right to perform that duty.

Unfortunately in our modern day, that erosion of artificial preferences has damaged the reality and effect of that combination.