Continued Studies - 04/26/2005

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

04-26-2005

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.)

4-26-2005

After having finished reading “Faguet’s” work entitled “Cult Of Incompetence” and “The Dread Of Responsibility,” I immediately find a sort of contradiction – in consideration, this contradiction may only be “apparent, topically.”

When I consider both works in tandem so to speak, I get a glimpse of what may be an attempt at the exercise of the benefits of small pockets – working democracy on a large scale.

This being attempted through the “brain wash” aspects in one instance and the praise of that which has been criticized in another. I consider this knowing that it is very difficult to attain the efficiency and benefits of democracy on a large scale.

It seems to attempt a form of containment – through that containment, establishing smaller “state” areas. In looking at just the short period of history between now and when these works were published – there are quite a few examples of a type of “forced containment.” Even within the United States, at the hands of “military – politico’s.”

That direction I see as a misdirection. Misinterpretation in action. The function that I perceive in these two works as “structure of thought,” is to achieve a type of voluntary containment socially – unspoken (not forced) – in a much different sense than “forced” occurrence from which ever influence. I see that attempt as being more in the effort to create the type of ignorance which begets “bliss,” the everyday “liberty” so to speak – the “room” for it. The type of places where knowledge of larger workings exist, but aren’t of a great concern because the quality of existence has been achieved – that level of “liberty,” through that layer of “ignorance.”

This type of “ignorance” I refer to in this passage, isn’t “ignorance” as in “stupid.” It is ignorance of the particular nit-picky, substance-less detail. This type of ignorance is in no way unknowledgeable or inferior – it is quite factually very knowledgeable and efficient in its element, and there-in contributes to a large efficiency through exercising its own dynamic in said efficiency and productivity – again, through exercising elements of “liberty.” It seems to be more a sort of variety of knowledge as opposed to quantity.

I can see where this attempt may well have been meant to allow ones personal responsibility in the exercise of said “liberty” to resonate and contribute beyond that layer of ignorance (within the whole) of which those participating are without knowledge of.

I don’t necessarily agree with Faguet on many points, though admittedly he has many others that a person must consider. I can see this respect as an effort to impose “bliss” through “ignorance” – what seems to have happened is the removal of understanding through such imposition – depriving “depth of understanding” within existence, as well as – beyond what I feel was the desired effect. Creating “prison cells” as apposed to areas of efficiency through the natural process of living within that larger mechanism – exercising the notion of true liberty within ignorance itself – self sufficient, productive liberty.

When that ignorance is shattered and there remains no depth of understanding with which to address the depth of existence beyond said ignorance – it seems to be reduced to spiteful, artificial existence.

If ever there were an efficient progression within this tactic, all a person need to do is observe modern society to realize it has been obscured for what ever reasons. Leaving empty demands fueled with confusion, for most part.

This result I see as very much a part of the artificial emulations I have described. It is through my perspective and understanding of the presence of that larger process I call Proximity Gestation, That I can see some intended result in such a logic of direction – no more complicated really, than utilizing the existing emulation that we are – of that larger process within said effect. Knowingly or not, as a type of series of “conveyors” so to speak – with the movement of society.

Normal needs, wants and that exercise of liberty itself actually then tending the mechanism of society.

Who could have foreseen the magnitude of the onset of that two dimensional influence with the advent of the electric age and industrial revolution? Who could have foreseen the degree of its impact on such a naturally occurring dynamic?

Where then is it, that the responsibility of maintaining the :proper type” of ignorance was overshadowed? Abandoned even?

How then to address it if it would do any good at all presently?

It is established that unchecked “progress” in the direction of those artificial influences, is most certainly a path to stagnation and demise. How then to re-establish the intended efficiency while maintaining modern productivity at the level that is now standard?

Some years ago, I had considered an idea of my own, pertaining to a rather un-usual use of the internet capacity. This idea was centered on a “computer game (as I have briefly described)” of sorts. Not a video game, but an interactive, “roll playing” type of game.

The idea was that from one central body of information (I had sought to copy and utilize information available in the “Freedom of information act”), multitudes of people could “roll play” political situations – eras, positions from throughout history – in real time as they transpired or in shorter, quicker versions. Each participant meeting daily with the same situations (as recorded), decisions, problems, subjects – as did their “figure” of choice to play – not being limited to the decisions which the given “figure” had made.

The “program” then continuing the next entry based on logical developments in those situations from the participants “play.” A particular game could last years – the participants having the luxury of fabricated advisors (which could be information from other “players” games, game results – unknowingly to either – as well)- then further as access to summaries of actual decisions and advisory statements. The game database would perpetually build itself from the initial body of information and then further from participation.

I don’t see this as necessarily being utilized for actual decision making – but it could serve to provide for a reprieve of sorts in that “bottle necking” effect, as well as reference to the populations actual opinions on given subjects as per results of combined statistics – this of course being relevant only to those users of such communication devices. Further it might be a way to replace a bit of depth while preserving that are and cushion of a semblance of “ignorance” in the productive form. Re-instating with the virtual, two dimensional realm, the element of daily exercise of “productive” liberty.

Eventually it could prove to give a point of stability in an area that is currently very unstable – provided of course, it was approached with some form of dignity and integrity.

In a daring statement, I can see where something of this order could eventually become stable enough to actually be utilized for decision making as reference when said results and percentages are tallied and averaged for example. It may even prove to be invaluable in researching “big questions” – type in a given situation for instance or a question pertaining to an issue – get averaged results of similar information pertaining to situations within the accumulated “game histories” as well as actual, historical representations. Being that no individual would be limited to any single historical figure as – or number of “games” to be played even simultaneously – it could even eventually serve as a moving map of the social atmosphere and “progress” of society and said societies social opinion(s).