Continued Studies - 05/12/2005

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

05/12/2005

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.)

05-12-2005

In a passage within Condorcet’s “The Human Mind,” he states that “The progress of the sciences secures the progress of the art of instruction, which again accelerates in its turn, that of the sciences…..” then stating that this cycle is of the most “prolific of the improvements of the human race.”

This I find to be true in a linear sense – to the degree of approaching that “bottle neck” and the other detriments I have pointed out in amassing such information.

I must also point out, that this only holds true in regard to the specific path and direction which our cultures started out upon, again in that linear sense and among all of the innumerable other possibilities.

What this means to me is that in many respects, there are still untold perspectives from which to document existence in that similar manner.

This notion I can support simply by citing the differences within levels, types and depths of communication in those that exist in our world.

Though they may be quite subtle and seen very much as commonplace in our “normality,” the differences still serve to establish the existence of uncharted “breadth” within our reality and existence.

The Asians, as example – in their version of writing – artistic characters were derived which symbolize specific, though flexible and “poetic” meanings. Entire spoken phrases in a single character representation, which translates into an entire series of specific (and many times varied) exchanges within the mind – breadth, action, depth.

This was established and utilized in a very consistent (though flowing) manner.

A word in English has very specific meaning as well – but is comprised of a series of particular characters which hold no specific meaning of themselves.

This is not to say that either is better than the other in this example, only that they each serve as proof of two very different perspectives in the same physical reality. Two very different approaches to very similar tasks of communicating.

They were each derived due to those mentioned directions from inception, and serve further in factual proof of our ability to attain new/different information through as of yet developed perspectives such as those examples illustrate.

What we “know” to be, and the way that we know it to be, is only because of the ways in which we have explored it so to speak. As vast as is our accumulation of “information” – it is still very much only one “perspectives,” – one set of possibilities as it were – as per the efforts of and from the containment within said existing structures.

This is especially readily demonstrated with the effect and advent of the sciences and mathematics in particular.

This same sort of “progression” within that “linear” perception, we as a “world” and reality have yet to again develop.

Within the observation of consistencies, and further within the combined observation of said consistencies in conjunction with the observable truths in such consistencies as that which Condorcet had suggested in “progress” being accompanied with extraordinary circumstances, it can be a safe projection to assert that such “advance” as which we have yet to know is still very much possible. Particularly in regard to realizations that are “outside” of that contained, linear direction we have maintained.

This isn’t in regard to the idea of something or something itself that would concern a translator for instance. It is to address the very much possible (in my opinion) existence of insight and enlightenment – still unfound and beyond those confines of our rather standardized perception and use of capacity. Perhaps through the development of different perspectives. Perhaps through no controlling factor or predictability of our own… simply within the resulting effect of that larger ongoing process.