Continued Studies; 12/27/2005

PROXIMITY
GESTATION


12/27/2005



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.)

12-27-2005

Further in considering our modern form of Democracy, I see great gaps in considering very influential aspects of our modern day.

As I have stated in other essays and small works, it is that the human civilization has undergone unprecedented changes in a drastically short period of time. This with the advent of the industrial revolution and as well, technological advance beginning with electricity (and telegraphy).

These are commonly only viewed as “advance,” betterment as it were. Hardly (if ever) have I seen them examined and considered for the drastic change of which they were/are. Even further, I personally have yet to see attentions given for what those changes represent and potentially represent in that context – again other than being seen as “advance.”

Where are the considerations to the effect of such a drastic change on all that was- as it was, in our natural pace and state of existence – as well as the effect and apparent struggle to maintain those aspects through the break neck pace of which we are in and now have become accustomed to?

As I ponder it, I see the challenge to humanity as being more in the direction of surviving what we are currently calling “advance” in that very short amount of time, until it can and does again become less of a detriment to much of our existence.

Perhaps that is our charge? To effectively insulate humanity until again we can exist in our true capacity and development – then with the advantage of that which we will have developed. Shielding those more sensitive aspects from the harsh levels of what we deem “safe” in the interest of perceived gain.

As a personal note, in my own belief I see the more conducive direction to be that of “light.” To use and develop efficiencies we now pile into electrical functions – with light as an energy source – perhaps localizing electrical functions more – as well as in communication applications.

I suppose the most difficult part of such will be in shifting the dependence – in coddling the “established” economic influences there-in.

It is amazing to think of how harmonious it could actually be, in what we have actually developed – and then just as astonishing when examining the reasons it is not yet employed.

Returning to Justinianus, though it is obvious – I cannot help but point out the area of interest in such being the first writ to employ “fiction,” “hypothesis’s” within “exchange” and sale.

We do so with every transaction today – but hardly, if ever consider the meaning.

You effect a “sale” at a fast food joint when placing an order and receiving a voucher/receipt. Such is fictitious until you receive the goods.

Such is even more evident with the “exchange” in a telephone call for similar purposes. Nothing has actually been exchanged beyond words in that instance – it is still fictitious until the exchange is physically made.
Rather amusing in a lighthearted manner, and very much an indicator of our societies advance in several respects. The most obvious being that it isn’t even noticed.

In beginning the study of Montesquieu’s Complete Works, Volume IV – I see more of the damage from that onset of technology – more of a snow balling effect at the same rapid pace.

Based on my personal beliefs, it gives me some concern – not in the irreconcilable onset and progress, so much as what I have observed it to have amplified for many reasons – one of which being to fuel ignorance so to speak. That concern centers around a social dynamic that was beginning near the same time as those advances.
Please note, this is not a religious stance as much as social observation.

For what ever political reasons (many of which I am sure to find in further study), near the time of Montesquieu in prominence, France and England were at odds. France seems to have been seen as Matriarchic for the majority – even as strange as it may seem, during Patriarchic reigns – where England seems to have had its “rounds.”

Germany as well at this time, was on the verge of political change. Germany has always been seen much in the versions of patriarchic.

Being that France has/had matriarchic leanings, this meant that the “church” would have tended to sway with it (the Catholic church- being the predominant presence of the “mother” figure in it) due to much focus on the matriarchic in the religious hierarchy there-in. Politically then, this meant a diversion from such leanings in the English atmosphere simply as a matter of course.

What this seems to have translated into, is a fall away from the importance not only of the matriarchic (and further, the “womb” as it were), but as well from the patriarchic AND the relationship there-in.

Granted, this is simply my observation from the here and now, but it seems to have promoted what could be likened to a confusion and further misunderstanding as to the reasons for such symbolic and social importance to begin with – aside from religious (and most times topical) connotations.

It seems that such leanings only proved to further the element of misunderstanding and confusion.
This then, as resonation, seems was amplified with that incredibly fast “social change” with technology. And further was failed to be addressed – resulting in the atmosphere in our modern day and the “modern” matriarchic dynamic which amounts to advertising ploys at best. In worst cases then developed the demand for some expected servitude which is unfounded – more so founded on non-existent reasoning in fictitious ways.

Further in this confusion and conversely – it has promoted misunderstandings and misinterpretations in that atmosphere which are not “pro” matriarchic though postured as such.

From what I can discern, much of that is simply due to that confusion – they are simply not “pro” matriarchic in the sense of what is proposed as such in our modern day. That modern matriarchic being nothing more than fallacies and fabrications that will “turn a quick buck.” Misguided myth and other misplaced importance, most times serving the immediate desire – stopping at no ends in promotion of such. In turn, substantiating the confusion and misdirection with immediate reward, then failing to acknowledge the relationship between matriarchic and patriarchic beyond those topical – consumer related things.

As political observation I have to consider that such may be purposeful in the attempt to remove or restructure an “area” that fell victim to the stress of instantly combining the realities of “pre-electrical age” and “post” introduction and further saturation of said electrical age.

It does appear more to be amplified confusion from the stress of that introduction having been on a large scale, itself.

Perhaps the modern unification within Europe was made possible through that confusion and the removal of importance on either matriarchic or patriarchic specifically? As I have noted and as the world has experienced, such relationships were at odds in that time frame.

What seems unfortunate about that amplification and confusion beyond two world wars – within my humble and simple observation, is that in those areas of victory and defeat – much was lost. Lost in destruction as well as lost in the blur of that technological onset.

Consider that world wars were fought and ended within that very short period of time and within that confusion. Things changed (and keep changing) so fast, that even those having found themselves “victorious” were no longer the same people. No longer the same civilizations.

What this means for example, is that the defeat of the then newly restructured “Father land” didn’t mean that any matriarchic structure prevailed as we know them to be. It was only then - something no longer the same, and having less of the perspective and atmosphere which made it/them “matriarchic.”

08-24-2006 Further in observance of these occurrences could be the comparison to those “extraordinary circumstances” having been observed to accompany each dramatic advance of the human species? Though these “circumstances” were of human fabrication, they were no less extraordinary by any means. Which might then lead a person to ponder the “difference” in result between said human derived occurrence, and those previously of the more naturally occurring sort?

This essentially leaves us nothing as individuals to look to for wisdom in many respects – beyond said examples and ourselves. Our lives now being firmly commanded by the media, which can be and is most times, programmed months in advance.

What use then is superior technology if it is only to promote more ignorance of that sort? Used only to maintain a “status quo” of that ignorance?

I cannot save files of my own productivity and studies from public computers in one of the best libraries in the United States – but there is never a problem with those viewing pornography or playing video games.

I have nothing against either of those in the proper context, but I don’t experience the same respects – even in regard to my own work. How can that be seen as “advanced?” Much less democratic?

How then can that be seen as in the interest of society in any manner?