Continued Studies - 07/12/2005

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

07/12/2005

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.)

07-12-2005

After having a break in studies (to some extent), it is that through other exploration I have made firm to some degree, the realization that “perfection” is very much undeniably a human concept.

Even those cultures which (as has been brought to my attention) do not even have a “word” in regard to the concept of perfection – still acknowledge it in that very same respect and action. More so, lack of action.

To purposefully deny such, is in fact only another way of acknowledging it.

In putting effort toward, in attempt, to find perfection (as I have established) – a person immediately fails to do so. This fact, I believe is very much corroboration to the truth within such a statement as is what I have issued in claim of “purposefully denying perfection,” being very much in support of the concept itself (this being similar to the idea of the “devil” corroborating the idea of “god” – and further, attentions toward the “devil” actually bolstering the idea of the contrary idea – being “god”).

In my belief, the only way to even get close to such a goal as “perfection,” is very much not to attempt it in a conscious manner.

The dichotomy itself, is yet another of those which effortlessly distract a persons attention without even their knowledge of it.

To consider it, or to purposefully omit it is to be caught within the idea and concept itself. There-in then, supporting it entirely either way. Within that then, is the act of inadvertently and without knowledge, placing limitations upon ones self. Limitations being those of the sort I have addressed concerning the expression of “all” for instance.

This leads then, to an interesting “linear” aspect. Neither of the ideas being “pro” or “con” concerning the concept, can actually ever attain it within respects to themselves or the other – and especially within the dynamic of their interaction.

Many would argue that “perfection” can be attained through use of the opinion of others – “If someone says ‘it’ is perfect, then it is” sort of thing.

In my opinion, such is no more true than being able to “attain” it as a purposeful goal. Further in my opinion – those sparks of “perfection” which have and “do” manifest in the world, might never even be acknowledged in that sense of being “perfect.” Which really, might not be such a bad thing.

I will return to Monro’s translation of “Justinian Law,” after I have read another translation of some work with annotations written by William A. Hunter, translated by J Ashton Cross.

There is no particular reason for this small change in study, other than returning from “leave” to find these other examples as well. It isn’t a preferential issue at this point.

While reading the preface, I had to notice that it is stated that no translation from Latin into English could entirely embody the meaning extended in that language in which it was initially presented.

This I can see as truthful in many aspects of existence. Even from one person to another speaking the same language.

The farther that humans “progress” from “connectivity,” the more that it seems is actually lost in many respects. Such meaning that is perceived in written and spoken Latin for instance, is altered more than topically in translation.

It is my belief that this has much to do with influx and structure.

Those “tones” and “timbres” of a given language, hold more than topical value in the communication of information embodied in their given use.

In an extreme example for the purpose of illustration – translation is similar to trying to play a cellists second chair lines within a given piece, with the percussion section.

Even more to illustrate the importance I feel is of connectivity, is in the aspect of that amount of lost “information” even in communication between people within the same language.

A violinist of today can play precisely what is written from a classic work, but in no way could that which was initially put forward be precisely reproduced – further then, it is that no other after the “modern” violinist could precisely reproduce that persons performance of it.

From another perspective this innate “imperfection” within our existence can be utilized in a very beneficial manner.

It can be magnified to produce other forms of subtle stimulation within that leeway – especially in conjunction with connectivity. I might add that this imperfection is very much proof that our existence is not finite, and very much of an “infinite” capacity.

In that, it is even more to the effect that our perceived imperfections provide opportunity for those whisping moments of “perfection” to manifest – many of which un-realized until after the fact, if at all.

Failures can produce “perfections” of a different sort as much as does perceived “success (if not even more).”

In “failures” there is proof of the infinite – proof of “tomorrows” as it were. Perfections in ways other than the perceived “subject matter.”

In honest attempt, connectivity and involvement (per given instance) is the place that I feel “perfection” most often “flashes” and “glints.” And each time, with no conscious concern for such or against it.

I do personally believe that human “connectivity” is vital.

I find in the introduction of “Roman Law,” a statement that very much defines the difference between “Simple Democracy” and “Representative Democracy” from my own perspective.

In the effort to define the difference between “Law” and “Civil Law,” it is stated that concerning both, the inspiration for compliance is in fear of some “sovereign” then “visiting them with some evil.” This I see as entirely “Simple Democracy.”

In my opinion, inspiration to comply with “Laws” in the given example and all other places within a “Representative Democracy” – should be in the persons interest in promoting a healthy society and preserving their own quality of life along with that.

There are those which would say that “busy bodies” are then “correct” – but such is much the same as is the erosion of society through other means.

It is as much a violation to society and harmonious existence, to be of the entity which would “busy body” about, as it is to be of the entity which schemes and contrives purposeful harm and violations.

It also states that “promoting good” is harder than “preventing harm.”

From my perspective, promoting good is as easy as is civility. Simple existing.

“Preventing harm” insists that there is always something to prevent.

It seems it would be much more laborious to “prevent harm” as much as it would tend to become violations of “inalienable rights,” themselves. Insofar even, of having to continuously labor at creating harm eventually.

08-21-2006 I am currently exploring the facets of this design called the “Third Degree” of civilization which obviously utilize the human tendency toward corruption as a sort of maintenance mechanism. And again, I will include those explorations in further documents I transpose.

Even the most hard of criminals really seeks nothing except their own “civil” atmosphere as a creature.

In our modern day, it would seem that such law is misused to perpetrate the need to “prevent harm.” To perpetrate the need of government, but this interpretation of what “government” is seems to be nested in times before such a beauty as is the “Representative Democracy” was conceived. Even more, it would seem to be before the advent of modern technological advances and resulting saturation of said within society.

Such an attitude is very much contradictory to the possibilities of “Representative Democracy” from what I can tell.

A government body acting as if it were of that “Third Degree” of civilization, while very much being a detriment to it, must be a species of despotism of its own. The misuse of such a malleable structure to instill inspiration of “fear” for compliance – is indicative of substantial loss through generations – of “philosophical” substance which forms its very workings.

It seems that such loss has been promoted through the misapplication, over expressed/hard line application of law, not dissimilar to levels of tyranny.

This “tyranny” is then “self perpetuated” in the effort to maintain that :perceived importance” as well as to maintain some “station” within it. The effect of this cycle, in addition to what I have already stated, seems very much to be the production of ignorant, hurtful individuals. That is entirely contrary to what I perceive to have been the designed result and optimum function of such philosophies, applied.

Such misuse of such ancient law, seems to negate the very foundation of those that wield it in such a manner in our modern day. It effectively reduces common civility to “the biggest guy wins,” a social barbarism that is highlighted with hateful forms of insanity – as can be illustrated in the examples more recently of people “going postal” - Both the result of their insanity, and that of those participating in such misuses.

Again, in my opinion it is as much the over bearing application of laws…the purposeful “militant” use of them in extremes that has created such an atmosphere, as it is (even more-so) “criminal element.”

This cycle is further perpetuated in the regards of promoting ignorance it would seem – in that further skewing perceptions of civility.

It seems that the philosophical substance of such law, has been excluded almost entirely – imposing its mis-interpreted, substance less meaning in a manner in which to imprison society such misuse has created. “Preventing harm” while simultaneously creating it as opposed to tending to “promoting the good” through simple existence.