Continued Studies - 02/11/2005

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.)

02-11-2005

Tracy states early in this work, in section 3 – that “Desire is always in itself a pain.”

This must be the early versions of beliefs that rendered existentialism?

I still don’t see how directly related “want” is with “pain.”

The “anguish” of desire is much different than is the “anguish” of despair.

This difference obviously has very much to do with perception. A place of understanding from where it is experienced. That place being a factor in the perception and then the feeling that is produced.

This then could illustrate in another sense, the relationship and mechanism within the idea and certain applications of Proximity Gestation.

Tracy states that “willing” is a “mode and consequence of the faculty of feeling.”

If there were no difference between desire and despair, there would be no inspiration for the mentioned quest of preferences.

In classifying desire with pain in the existential sense, it seems to negate the process so diligently noted. Again, I feel the difference is in the vantage point – physically the reaction of great desire and excitement may be similar to that of fear, but within the subjects perception is the beginning of the difference. Further becoming different in the process of interactive connectivity (thought/interaction).

I believe the ability to discern that difference, is entirely due to cognitive thought and the process of interpreting essence (as a part of that larger process – condensed), within that “process of thought.”

Desire and pleasure – anguish, pain may produce similar physical reaction but differ entirely at that initial, basic level as per perception. When it happens that a person gets pleasure from inflicting pain, then all that really transpires is a change in “placement/perspective.” Likewise when an individual gets pleasure from being in pain.

Such can easily be illustrated with the use of “fringe” depictions I presented in my current abstract/theory of Proximity Gestation – On The Perspicacity of Species - applying it in a formula like manner in relation with the larger consistencies.

When examined for what they are in those instances, such combinations become different (if not more) than simply “desire” and “pain.” They become their own feeling within those given instances;

They are much different from one another though comprised of similar “value.” And they differ from even themselves in different situations and level of “feeling.”

Given level of desire/given level of excitement (“anguish”) yields given different versions of said combinations – and similarly with pain and anguish.

Pain being derived and administered in a sexual encounter for example, is still pain. The result differs because of chosen perspective. Pain is still very much pain. Desire is still desire but desire cannot be seen as pain even when it is that pain is desired (from the subjects perspective). And though it may be that another’s pain may be your desire – inflicting it is the place of origin for that type of desire.

Count Tracy then continues in stating within section 5 that “Liberty is the power of executing our will.” He states that it is our first “good” – being that “whatsoever contributes to the satisfaction of our wants is for each a good.”

He then states that “constraint” includes our “evils.”

He cites it as a depravation to satisfy our “wants.”

He then continues to state that “Our sole duty is to augment our liberty and its value. The object of society is solely the fulfillment of this duty.”

In my opinion, it is then the duty of society to remove those within it that hold “constraint” of others as their immediate “good,” while claiming it as “liberty.” This being a type of slavery past shackles due largely to a purposeful misinterpretation of such philosophy.

Somehow it is in the false progress of things, that many modern societies have undertaken the role of imposing “constraint” guised as an effort at attaining liberty. Entire governmental mechanisms have been diminished and mutated to nothing more than such roles upon society. This being due to the instigation of misinterpretation of real (intended, efficient) meanings within such philosophical writ in effort to justify imposition of un-needed “constraints.”

Most of this is done from those who have chosen the “ill” path and misinterpreted direction of claiming the “constraint” of others as profitable “good.” Such has been proven time and again to be faulty in the most innate sense – any type of slavery only is profitable when there are those to purchase the “goods” produced in such atmospheres. Given that no-one wants to be enslaved to such a degree, such suggests then that everyone would side to the area of “dictating” in such an environment, leaving no-one to produce the means of the “good” that is supposedly derived – and within the attitude of greed from where such stems.

There then would be no-one to purchase that “good” either – being that all would be within that area of dictating, and there-fore “superior.”

If it were that such “slavery” were the answer, interpretive direction and proper direction – it again would negate itself, as all that would exist are those being constrained as “good” and those claiming to be of liberty as their dictators.

This again leaves no-one to purchase the “good” supposedly produced – and thus yielding no commerce and no value to that which those imposing “constraints” on others seek to maintain as “theirs” and further amass.

Stagnation.

This direction omits much pertaining to actual liberty – a contradiction to itself through ignoring the importance of “quality,” failing immediately in their own efforts their in, in the effort of topically satisfying their “will.” Forsaking their own desire in immediately imposing upon themselves simultaneously with imposing such undue constraint upon others – of always finding that “one preferable over another.” Unless of course it is their preference to fill their existence with eroding “quality” – if any at all. (as a note I do acknowledge certain directions and ideas of “impermanence” being introduced, which I will explore in other areas).