Continued Studies - 05/13/2005

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

05/13/2005

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.)

05-13-2005

In the very same chapter (Epoch), Condorcet states the use of languages and topically explores those – he then goes on to address “universal” languages which are used to communicate certain aspects of things – mathematics for instance.

He continues to states that those in possession of such language “hold the key” to sciences and those without such language “find themselves reduced to an absolute impossibility of acquiring knowledge.”

This is very much an example of the chasm I have earlier explored. It is as well an example of the types of misunderstandings humans have placed within their forms of communications.

A person does not need to know algebra as it has developed, to possess the knowledge of that which it was developed to describe and illustrate.

The language is NOT possessive of the substance which it is pertaining to. The substance is NOT because of or as result of the language.

That which is suggested in his statement and throughout science, is akin to claiming the acts of velocity and gravity act upon a projectile because humans devised a way to measure the parabolic curve.

It is also as preposterous as granting the Earth permission to continue its rotation and orbit.

This is also what very much substantiates my assertion toward yet to be discovered aspects through different “perspectives.”

Though it is that such things humans have developed with which to explore and document existing “elements” – it is as well, that such development is limited in its scope in that very same respect.

08-19-2006 Recently I have explored this further in some ways. Especially regarding a “cusp” I have happened on pertaining to the possible shift in realization within perspective, as per recognizing a given example in reference to “all” as no longer being a limitation so to speak. No longer using a “finite” depiction of the infinite, as representative of such a vast and un-ending potential. Further, it is very much that through the application of any sort of explanation in the form of “definitive” documentation – in a very real sense, we then have attached limitation to it as well. At least so, within our perspective and understanding of it – which I believe is part of that digression and increasing sense of confinement with each generational loss of said substance through conveying said “limitations” as the have been defined.

It is a limited representation to the “amount” it will reveal of the vast, potentially infinite “amount” which I feel there is to eventual realize as creatures – as said is consistent within its “mechanism.”

That consistency is also a limitation.

That isn’t to say that I wish to forsake consistency (or that which contains the idea of sanity, for instance).

Factually it is that I believe the same type of “consistency” will again be the standard in the next “developed” level of understanding, language and “perspective” in use of capacity.

In a metaphor some such as mathematics; even in all of the facets – it is only a glimpse of the picture – a limited perspective however consistent it may seem to be.

If you step away from any reaction to this series of statements – you will see a truth in them. Especially when compared to the over all consistencies within existence as it has “developed” and “traversed.”

08-19-2006 Again, this is relative to the idea of “corruption” as I further explore in notes I will include. All “advance” is very much a corruption of some sort. This being relevant to even the very idea of the human species. - Knowledge itself is a form of corruption in all of its types. In essence then, so to speak, we as creatures are very much a violation – beyond even our tendencies to “limit” the potentially limitless and infinite. If through nothing more than through our existence and perception, without even addressing the limitations of understanding.

Seeing such “truths” takes really nothing more than applying the idea of basic physics into given situations – as example – outside of the “physical” application.

Though it still may then remain a form of limitation to some degree, it is easier then to see the perspective I am attempting to convey here; The consistencies very much remain, throughout.

It is really not much more than applying basic laws we have established – from a different perspective and without “physical” confines. That “quarter turn” in perspective I have suggested in earlier exploration, so to speak. But I do think, even within that, that said results would still be nothing more than a resulting emulation of and in relation to other aspects of that larger process.

It is applying them to existence in a “comparative” and “explorative” sense. As per a “philosophical” bent, as it were – in the place of a “physical” realism.

Consider applying the laws of acceleration in regard to gravity – with and unto the occurrence of thought for instance.

Though it is that the measurable speed may be different of and within both examples – it is very much that the consistencies of occurrence are similar.

A stone accelerates up to a certain point as it plummets – a thought can be found with acceleration of to a certain “velocity” from its onset, as well. This occurring mostly within the act of “realization” – “discovery” – “epiphany” – when happening upon a solution.