Continued Studies - 02/15/2005 (Ideas to beget ideas, among other things)

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.)

02-15-2005

In a passage Tracy dedicated to the laws of probability, he states at the end of it “I have not thought that I was giving a good work, but merely a work calculated to give birth to better ones…..” Such is an attitude that I realize I have thought that most work in such directions was done within. I then find that when approaching my thoughts and developments pertaining to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – I am much of a similar attitude in my explorations. Comically enough, Darwin’s writings and opinions were very much of the realm of probability.

What I find amusing is that his writing is 146 years old – people in our modern society defend it in a manner that very much violates the very spirit I believe it was written in. Again being very similar to the quote from Tracy pertaining to his insight into the workings of probability.

I think maybe part of the reason such adamant “defense” of Darwin exists, is very much relative to the movement of the day in which he lived – and then even later when his writings gained attention. Such was a time when philosophers were touting the idea of “no god” and I think somehow one attached itself to the other where really there is little relation between the two.

I have found that if a person speaks of something pertaining to Darwin’s theory that may cast some other angle on it…make it appear as it is (being somewhat based on probability of the time) – that a person is immediately met with a type of onslaught consisting of everything from being labeled a religious zealot or other tactics of defamation.

It is my belief that such stems from those of the “no god” philosophies who have nothing and nowhere of their own to substantiate their claims. Such isn’t, in my belief – the reason or use for his theories.

To think that any new idea would be more than ignored – even hidden or procured for other application – which could show a bit more of a truth just because it threatened some ill perceived correctness or usage of other ideas, is an absurdity in itself.

I would imagine, given the disposition and attitudes as I have just referred to of most of the authors of the general time period, that Darwin himself would be rather displeased at the stifling of even some of his own ideas – much less the stifling of other ideas that could give a different view and insight into such subject matter.

Its political value – whether used truthfully or not, now outweighs what truth may have been in it pertaining to the origin of species.

People would rather teach their children that humans were once apes, with no corroborating substance except the creative placement of fossils and a 146 year old estimation.

I still hold that any similarity between humans and apes is due to the human element influencing their development. It is the only thing that really makes sense to me, especially considering cognitive thought and its varying amounts perceivable in creatures other than humans – again, such possession of faculty is due, in my opinion to the human element and influence within existence.

Such did not develop and was in no way derived from lesser primates or any other animal. Only that there is an elemental level of presence from said, within the human species, and likewise human elemental presence within animal variations.