Continued Studies - 03/05/2005

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

03-05-2005

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.)

03-05-2005

Tracy again addresses “Rich” and “Poor,” making a very interesting statement that “it is ‘poor’ nations where the people are at their ease, and ‘rich’ nations where people are commonly poor.”

First I think that “at their ease” doesn’t necessarily pertain to the quality of living. Any poor nations population do not experience a very high level of quality in life – save of course for any that may possess some wealth within them, or those with greater ingenuity.

As for “finding the poor in rich nations,” this in my opinion is criminal. It is very indicative of greed in the extreme examples.

People without a decent quality of life in a rich nation are far worse off than are people of a poor nation – mainly because they have obviously been kept from liberty and freedoms that wealth of a nation is of, because of and to maintain throughout society.

To find a very large number of poor in a wealthy nation seems indicative of those holding the wealth being ignorant of the things that made and maintain the value of what they may see as wealth… and further indicate the control of that value being from somewhere outside of their own nation.

He then states that “the interest of the poor is that of society.”

This seems to insist that there are always to be those without a quality of living within a wealthy nation – among the obvious meanings put forward.

This poses a rather interesting thought when considered; Wealth is then directly attached to poverty in that sense.

If there is no poverty, then what will be seen as wealth in the eyes of those who strive for material possessions? – Even while ignoring and being ignorant of that which lends value? Even more so within such a relationship in function being the standard and norm of perceived “value?”

Is it in such a statement, that many believe the existence of poverty is that which lends value to their own level of wealth? That which lends value even to scrip and exchange?

Our modern social structures seem to indicate that such was the interpretation of such statements more readily employed. There is much of said social leanings throughout the United States. As if through generations people have failed to fully examine such standards and interpretations in their tact and meaning, but utilizing them and established “social pathways” of familiarity in a “rat feeder” mentality.

07-25-2006 - As a note, this may be something to do with an effect I am currently observing and exploring in regard to the loss of “substance” over generations in the ever growing “automation” of society and within the ever growing ease of living there-in.

It seems there is the aspect, as I have mentioned of the government influence being a part of creating and maintaining a population of impoverished – if for nothing more than to insure that related parts of government will still be “needed” – at least in appearance, utilized.

Immediately such direction poses danger of simply becoming a version of failed governing bodies from history in creating a “ruling class” and those who are “ruled.”

From my studies, such doesn’t seem to have been the idea of this United States Governmental structure design as it was first presented.

Quite basically as example, the body of laws meant to govern it are and were meant to be easily augmented and diminished with the changing atmosphere of society and through time… as progress was made to no longer need a given example of “law,” being that society will have progressed socially beyond the need of given example dictation.

From my perspective such possibilities were meant to extend to added parts of the structure itself once said “added parts” were no longer needed – and there-in freeing up even more of the tax dollar for things more immediate – perhaps even removing the need for taxation eventually.

Programs such as welfare and social security have failed to be augmented and changed efficiently with the changing needs of modern :progress,” which I feel is part of the reason that poverty remains and grows – whether this is intentional or not.

Social security for instance, is still a large program encompassing many different and unrelated issues that shouldn’t be lumped together (in my opinion – and further “diversification” of currencies may aid this), and is still the main governmental program to supply aid to those who have retired and those with disabilities – in themselves, obviously different issues.

It seems a waste of such a flexible and pliable governmental structure, to fail in addressing and re-structuring such programs to meet the needs of the times.

In some aspects this “lumping” serves to maintain a level of the impoverished as impoverished and actually limits the need of said programs – a back fire so to say.

It seems to be maintained as a “heap” to fight over, where people shouldn’t have to fight for that which they have earned over their life time.