Continued Studies; 02/03/2005 ~ 01/27/2006

Continued Studies; 01/27/2006

2006-10-27T12:16:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY
GESTATION

01/27/2006

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.)

01-27-2006

Reading Condorcet’s “Human Mind,” in my recent frame of mind is proving to be rather enjoyable. It has also brought some considerable inspiration in thought which I am sure to miss in not having been writing it all down. But, if it were that I picked up my pen with each of those moments, I would hardly ever find time to read.

The more I study, the more I take heart in the validity and solid balance of my ideology concerning Proximity Gestation.

That is pleasing but isn’t the main body of pleasure I derive from my studies.

So much it is a comedy of errors and tragic failing in our modern politics and society – that itself through studies has confirmed some long held opinions throughout my lifetime. There are so many efforts and “movements” put forward in society by people posturing importance and a superiority of some fashion – that are truly sorry and embarrassing displays within that comedy.

For instance, there is a contingency that hopes to “dumb” society down.

As I have addressed in other works, such an effort is their own undoing in many ways (beyond the frivolous action of heaping “dumb” upon “dumb” already existing as per dynamic) – especially in the immense effort and destruction it would require to accomplish it in a manner efficient to the needs and wants of those proposing it.

All other results are simply fueling the fire they seek to contain which, not so coincidentally, began to rage in the detrimental directions directly as result of other similar “movements.”

There are several versions of a few basic tactics being used to propagate the desperate jostling from one place to another in those attempts at social “movement” – as well as in the “dumbing down” – Misinformation, censorship, black out.

These basic tactics are used frequently in various forms. The laugh in this is that the justification is always said to be in protecting some other information – the “truth” as it were, but – what has come to be seen as “truth” in our “instant,” modern day is transient at best.

What this means to me in a real sense, is that those involved in the opinion that “truth” is relative to that degree, that instant degree – are actually those desperate censors and poseurs so prevalent in modern society. They are very much those who still are not sure of any truth of their own realization.

I happen upon this train of thought momentarily, in reading a comment Condorcet stated pertaining to the advent of printing and how positive it would be in society.

The phrase is stated as “….transient fluctuations of opinion.”

In a very real sense, that is as close to any "truth" that can be found post electricity and most definitely in the modern society in general. Especially considering the effect and influence of the modern media and the saturation there-in.

It possess an interesting picture of the social dynamic in the recent course of human development. It would appear we as a society have found ourselves in the same type of problems as Condorcet addresses and suggests that such advance as printing, would quell.

In that day he is referring to before such efficiency, "communities" were "displaced" from one another, creating an ease of that "transient fluctuation of opinion." Given, I see precisely where he is referring to in solving that problem, as society experienced the benefit of for some time – but, I also see where, in that progression of development, the ease of our most modern communications has provided for an even more "transient fluctuation of opinion," to the point even of granting the subtle ability in small percentages – to have that transient opinion – in the "smear" and unstable condition of it, be looked at as "truth."

08-25-2006 As a further note here, it is as well that the ease of modern communications has allowed for the possibility of multiple layers of information simultaneously within that "transient" dynamic. Essentially meaning that there are several different areas within those problematic aspects which are "in motion" simultaneously – at any given time. Of course, as things have progressed, such has rendered itself to a few consistent patterns of inconsistency, but the fact remains that with the advent of said mediums, the scope within that linear perspective has been divided to some degree and further has presented the opportunity for "multiple transient fluctuations of opinion." Really incredibly interesting as thought, while simple and predictable in the same respect. Of course, that is from a perspective within that modern dynamic.

The speed and efficiency of modern communications on the large scale has actually produced similar inefficiencies that human advance had already remedied to some degree – more interesting is this then creates an illusion of some cyclical motion in society, when really it is as result of certain combinations of excess. “Greed, envy, corruption (amplified as I have described), the want to “dumb down society”.…. And of course the dynamic in motion of all those variations mentioned as per “transient,” combined.

The actual truth is from what I can tell pertaining to this, is that in atmospheres of that sort – none of the “extremes” could give a sh*t about the “truth.” As I consider this, it then plays well into the idea that such corruptions are entirely intended.

Unfortunately in that dynamic, humans have progressed to a degree in some instances where even the most basic “truths” have been mutated and even replaced after being lost, with that moment to moment “transient fluctuation of multiple opinions,” fueled with un-ruled competition within various forms of amplified and mutated corruptions – for things those knowing their “transient opinions” as “truth,” know not the most basic value of in that basic sense. Only that they will be seen as “victorious where there is no actual competition – even if there were, they aren’t even in the “ball park” so to speak… or the “sand lot” or even the same planet for that matter.

It is as if the suspended and sustained atmosphere created within the designs of our society has been transformed into an undulating mass of various forms of motion…. Then seeing themselves in a competition of some sort, even within the efforts to exist within a state of said society – which has no use, need or natural presence of said competitions. As if the very “Utopian” areas created as per result of said larger design, are converted unwittingly into areas of useless competition. Missing the point entirely of the potentials within them.

Transforming areas easily and most efficiently used in that “Utopian” sense, into relatively similar areas of confusion as per a lack of understanding or insight into their true purpose and use. This again is more than likely a direct result of that growing consumer mentality through the exhibition of such lack of “knowledge” as it were. It is as though those attempting such “heights” from the direction of those postured claims in that consumer mentality, have never even considered the designed result and potential within those areas. Further exposing the ignorance in said mentality as it permeates society.

They know nothing else of the design, so it is that what they know – having been supported and promoted through that “reinforcement” strategy within the consumer mentality – must be the only way to do things from their perspective. Losing within that, the best fruits and states of existence as per said design to the destruction of that limited consumer mentality– as per efficient placement and function of said areas.

To think we have all this incredible technology, but somehow, somewhere along the way, the very concepts most of those advances are based on have been left by the way. Failed to be applied as it were.

I do feel that as is that larger consistency, perhaps –even through the retarded effect said advances have had on human interaction – that dynamic is one of a “generational” aspect. Meaning that in a cycle of so many generations, such aspects are put aside in favor of other options, only to be reintroduced again at a later date. But that, oddly enough is in direct contradiction with the obvious dynamic within said “multiple transient truths” and the obvious consistency of multiple occurrences simultaneously – again presenting the result and proofs of an over stated and focused “linearly perceived” aspect.

I do contend that “truth” is malleable to some degree – that is, flexible.

I do not believe it to be the transient opinion product of modern, bulging hordes of people laying hold of an “opinion” momentarily as convenience happens to warrant as being that “malleable, flexible” truth.

“That is just what we will say” does not constitute “truth.”

08-25-2006 – In a metaphor sans the very limited aspects in use of the symbolism as per “containment” and suggested “linear” motion; The effects of what I observe as Proximity Gestation within that larger process and as well, within the effects of it through said structures and perception of human existence, it can be likened to the result (in a continuous manner) which is achieved in the human act of “splicing” two different fruit tree types together, then rendering a different variety of a similar fruit. Again, this is not meant to be interpreted as “linear” in motion or effect, nor in the rigid manners which such example might suggest – being physical in nature. As well, within my belief, the larger process does not transpire in such exacting and exclusive ways. Then further, as I have mentioned and am currently considering – as a species we must account for the effect of said mutations having been introduced within perception and that process in effect we have upon reality in said “multiple layers” as result. Many of which being synthetic, though still quite influential upon our existence and influential as per concentrated electromagnetism beyond that.

Continued Studies; 01/20/2006

2006-10-27T12:12:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

01/20/2006

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-20-2006

I happen upon another passage which I find particularly interesting – albeit, I find much of these works compelling to say the least. The paragraph I am speaking of is in Book XXIX in Chapter XVI.

I quote; “The laws ought not be subtle; they are designed for people of common understanding; not as an art of logic, but as the plain reason of a father of a family.”

There is so much in this statement that piques my interest, that it is difficult to find the place to begin describing those thoughts.

The first thing I noticed was the truth within the whole of it – more how far it is that such subject matter has gone from such simple and applicable truth. “For people of common understanding” is a myriad of essay material in and of itself, in many directions.

When coupled with the early tendency within these earlier societies to actually teach law to young children, it becomes readily apparent as to a substantial part of the origins of our modern nursery rhymes.

To convey simple but useful “ideology” in the form of entertainment for small children is truly one of the attributes and compliments to humanity.

I am curious to see the results in my lifetime at least, of the non-sense imbued in the stead of such, today. Further in the comment of “common understanding” is the barrage of unnecessary complexity found in the modern version of legalities. “Unnecessary” in regard to that commonality, but very much developed as necessity to those most associated with the area of legal interpretations. This obviously having been done in the same spirit of “need to be needed,” though from my simple perspective that as well, is quite unnecessary as those positions would still have been filled were it that our society had gone the path of maintaining simplicity relatively.

Factually, that aspect has grown so grotesque that even most of those in the “legal” areas in society, do not even know the full of their developed complexities… which have instigated – more over insured their own security.

Further it is then, that this mandates in that complexity, the need for “scientific,” factual interpretation making what should have been the simple tools within society (being laws) to actually become combative elements toward that “common body” supposedly putting them forth to provide more safety and efficiency – acting only to make themselves the greater enemy of themselves through unchecked ignorance derived from unchecked perpetuated complexity in the actions of their accidental co-conspirators against their very own liberties. Further in this dysfunction, there has grown to be a substantial amount of “common good” in the form of business/fiscal gains derived from the broken motion of this dynamic – further encouraging the dependence on not only those now “knowing-less” interpreters.

The façade those in the legal areas have constructed of complexity for the purpose of insuring their personal prosperity is now just as much a detriment to themselves and is used quite frequently as a “monkey wrench” threat and ploy with which to “get a piece of the action.” This being done in a manner as to threaten the horrors of that complexity upon potential clientele unless remittance is fulfilled.

In that “common good” there has been attached many facets of society, which in turn has the ready potential of directly effecting other areas of “common good” – which means, that again the public and its continued effort to attain fantasies of certain types of fictitious “ease” – which essentially equate to creative use of the very ignorance they employ and perpetuate – becomes yet again, its own worst enemy.

Even further in this, as I have touched on, is the element of just as much ignorance on the “wielding” side of that complex façade – essentially being the manifestation of that effort to attain fictitious ease of living, but in the ranks of those supposedly wielding that complexity.

The laugh in this is in the fact that in an effort to obtain a certain goal as an ease in common living – there has been an exorbitant amount of effort put forward to complicate things. In turn the results of that dysfunctional complexity being seen as the “fruits of labor” for which to attain an ease of living. To complicate the common and attainable ease and prosperity in order to put forward the façade of fictitious ease of living.

That direction of “productivity,” especially in the haste of our modern day seems to me to lead directly to those problems which have felled cultures and societies through out history.

Montesquieu then states that such “understanding” should “not be as an art of logic, but as plain reason of a father of a family.” Again, so much simple truth. And again, our modern version of such interpretation seems to have gone entirely toward the “logic” version. The “mathematically literal” as opposed to human interpretation.

And in regard to that statement pertaining to the father of a family – I feel it is as such to a mother as well – the philosophic aspects of being and interpreting as a father or mother, not the machine like logic of literal mathematics (which I must say have plenty of variables).

Mathematical logic even can be sent to have inconsistencies in every form of it. To speak as though I were addressing a mathematician about this – those inconsistencies might serve to represent in human terms, the flexibility logically of human interpretation. And even in that as example, I would not omit the abusive father or mother surely to be used as a literal argument against such leanings – so long as they were only a part of the sum total of mothers and fathers there-in. This being simply because such is as the progress of society.

It is no more sensible to force=ably hasten the removal of such elements un-naturally as is it to use them conversely as points of focus (most times in both examples the effort of substantiating the “need to be needed” and unnecessarily complex elements).

There are already things in place within society to address and cope with the more abrasive elements without abusing those standards or violating even more standards for the purpose of forcibly altering the eco-atmosphere and progress of society.

To commit such violations is worse in effect on the whole and result than is the normal common progress of the mechanism which is “common society” itself. Persecution is persecution in that respect, and persecution, the effect of it – knows no boundaries in its destruction – and can easily be manipulated as has any lynch mob in history.

In essence is it that I see such a comment pertaining more to the use of a sum total of “fatherly” and “motherly” philosophical dispositions which might serve as guideline for such interpretations in our modern day.

That is my simple view there-in, but then again I have trouble understanding why so much of our human capacity is dedicated to the goose chase of complexity. That, if I could describe it, is an unnecessary limitation and very much lacking in the use of our potentials.

A very two dimensional use and direction…. And laughably all supposedly in the effort of convenience and ease.

I am not suggesting some posture against modernisms – only it is that I am attempting to address the growing imbalance there-in.

The thought occurs to me pertaining to another aspect of the effect yielded in such unnecessary complexities of law, within society. The thought is that such effect has given rise to the flow of common society (both sides of that façade) to be formed from blind and ignorant groping.

Trial and error being the means for which to have worn a path through those self imposed complexities – as if that were the function and direction of life. Thus yielding the most often times detrimental social trait of ‘path of least resistance.” Making it seem as if such were the only acceptable and safe “path.”

Continued Studies; 01/14/2006

2006-10-27T12:10:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

01/14/2006

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-14-2006

Further in Book XXVIII, Montesquieu approaches the subject more in depth of early established law and its structure – He compares, mostly in central Europe and Italy, the differences between “barbaric” laws and the “Roman” laws.

This is really quite interesting as he describes the “barbaric” laws as more “free flowing” and the Roman laws as more “rigid,” citing that with the fall of the Roman law, the only places that maintained it were the clergy.

This brings several very curious things to light. Firstly that of the notoriously corrupt Roman law structures being maintained within the church at the time of their fall. Further that a person can see echoes of these differences still playing our in modern society.

A “grand” example being that those posing as officials within or associated with the government, tend to lean toward the despotic Roman law dynamic of pretending adherence to law while doing anything they can get away with quite to the contrary, while the bodies of citizens in different areas greatly reflect the more harmonious and less rigid “barbarian law” structures.

The church reflects this as well in some degree. The interaction of this produces an atmosphere of deceit and envy. Those posturing within that pseudo righteous stance of supposedly adhering strictly to written law (while misinterpreting it and using it out of context in every way from one moment to the next) seeing those within the population as “getting away with something” or “failing to adhere to law” in not doing so themselves. As if it were written law and posturing of it that maintained society as opposed to the body of citizens that put forward the “ideas” which constitute those laws, in their everyday life. As if the purpose in establishing such standards is to weigh and be wielded heavily upon the population, by the population in the manner of daily literal execution of them, as opposed to being what they are in use and practicality.

As if they should bind forcefully, in every manner and conceivable context – the population which put them forward. Insisting those laws are weapons instead of productive tools. Weapons which most time are wielded in manners un-intended for their use by those “posturing a Roman stance,” against and on the population itself for various unhealthy reasons. As if the “government” were for them, in some righteous manner and not for the body of citizens which allow it to govern them – optimally, through their own standards and voices.

Strangely the tone of this posturing is used in an attempt to justify in some abstract way, the corruptions that are perpetrated within that governing structure – as if that were the use of such office. The “lackadaisical” approach in everyday life being seen as some form of further justification in such corruptions and uses out of context of those achieved standards.

It is a rather good study in looking at that area between use and tyrannical usurpation. Many social dangers… one of which being class warfare.

I’ll not be so naïve as to suggest that laws should be seen solely as guidelines, but I will not side with the despotic, corrupt usurpation either.

In my opinion such writ and dictation should firstly be used to reflect and promote the society envisioned and experienced daily by those that live under said law. It should be the “playground” in which we exist with common sense and the simplicity of the very reasons for which such laws were first wrought.

I do admit that a large portion of the game on that “playground” is in politics – but what sort of a game is it when it is no longer for any purpose other than politics – the sake of being, or being seen as political? Especially when the tools for maintaining society become clumsy weapons for the desperate.

Continued Studies; 01/11/2006

2006-10-27T12:08:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

01/11/2006

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-11-2006

In Book XXVI of The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu addresses the idea of marriage.

It is incredibly curious as he is speaking of things which are still quite prominent in the modern day. He mentions certain instances where marriage is encouraged with rewards even, and yet greater percentages of people remain un-married.

He speaks of other instances where people are discouraged from marriage, but the numbers remain very similar.

It is more than curious that such consistencies would remain throughout the ages of human history – even as such, as I mentioned, in the modern day. This maintaining its cyclical occurrences through all that has oppressed humanity, including those instances where-in that larger cycle begat multitudes of people in bastard like manners – thus effecting and becoming part of that cycle.

He reasons that rural families are larger for the reason of productivity – which makes sense however topically.

In then examining his description of smaller families and fewer marriages in urban areas, a person then discovers the over all consistency through history. Such a description is very much applicable in our modern day to a surprising extent – save, I might say for the “rural” standard of large families for the obvious reasons, but further I suggest, as part of that larger progression. What’s more is in realizing the smaller family consistency (if any at all) in the urban setting, a person must then put thought to the question of how these larger cities maintain a populous, at times even bursting…beyond of course, immigration and relocation – as these are somewhat of a non-issue in the larger sense, unless of course that re-location is en-masse and/or en masse to the rural areas.

What could it be that has maintained such a remarkable consistency in both procreation and mating habits for so long? Accepting of course in the effect of the modern technological explosion (though that even seems to play very little here-in).

Emperors, dictators, kings, queens, presidents and every other type of leader have made documented attempts at altering those habits at any given time, yet even with their efforts in promissory reward or punishment – it has remained quite consistent.

This suggests that, insofar as this subject is concerned, the usurpation and command of the masses has been a farce to some extent. An empty roll portrayed and an illusion perpetrated time and again as to the engineering aspects of mating habits. The more grand attempts seem to have been the larger failures in the end.

It seems, from my observation that the current version of this ill produced play is geared more toward encouraging the illusion of self sufficient choice. Promoting the illusion that the people themselves are choosing.

I am not suggesting any sort of predestination in this comment. Only that there is a notable consistency and similarity.

It is very much that such efforts to control as per dictate, do have some effect which can be easily seen in modern divorce rates (which is part of that modern illusion).

What I have noticed in difference when comparing different ages (history), is that our modern society accommodates more of a disjointed representation of that consistency through being actively within the display of several smaller variations of that larger process.

This means, for instance that our society is displaying different versions of that consistency simultaneously in a disjointed fashion – as if the “gears” aren’t properly aligned so to speak. But that could only be my opinion.

It is factual that certain areas of our society are booming with procreation in an unbalanced manner, while simultaneously many other areas of society are well within that consistency.

Metaphorically, it would look as though the larger progress, process, consistency were recently ruptured – forced to blossom in a way and in a manner that isn’t entirely within the syncopation of the rest of it.

Now, further I have to consider several things about this. Is it as from the ill effect of the despotic versions of our modern governing in those respects – as from misunderstood and misapplied “law” and social dynamic?

Logically from what I have realized pertaining to the larger consistency, I have to say no to that. All other attempts at such effect on a large scale have failed. Why then would this modern application of the concept of governing in that sense, have such a pronounced result? Then again, I must realize that I am comparing a rather small space in time with a much larger consistency.

That then suggests that we could be witnessing the very changes within that process itself, in our modern day.

As well I must consider the effect of modern convenience and technology.

I am a single male with no plans for marriage yet having no aversion to the idea either. From my personal perspective, I can’t see putting effort into such direction given the standards which are embraced and as well the greater percent chance of divorce in our modern setting.

Factually, in reading Montesquieu’s description of marriage and similar institutions throughout history, it becomes readily apparent that the concept itself is based on nothing much more than convenience (laughably enough as per comparison with “convenience”) in most instances and civilizations.

In many examples throughout history, even the religious connotations are secondary to such other motives- and having usually been “bestowed” upon the concept as opposed to religion being a reason for marriage.

This raises the question with myself as to why, in our modern illusion, the idea of marriage is even embraced? It is an extremely small proportion of people that strictly adhere to it anyhow.

Again, convenience.

It would seem that even in the grand idea and experiment which is modern government, there, there still exists the attempt to influence the movement of the populous in such ways.

It is very much an amplification of solely the convenience aspects of such a concept as marriage.

Looking at the consistency through history it is safe to say that people would still couple even without the institution of matrimony. Even more in that modern version, is the attempt to influence such decisions in the other direction, as well.

There is very much a large effort through that modern convenience, to not only discourage such unions, but to dissolve and dismantle existing marriages. The temptation has never in history been so great to divorce ones chosen mate. It is even encouraged within some political circles as simply a matter of course in life. There has even become an assembly line aspect to modern relationships. On the larger area, it is as if productivity in longevity has all but been abandoned for the new assembly line version of society.

It is beginning to move in waves so to speak. As one generation reaches a certain age, the couples separate in a considerable percentage while another generation is entering into said marriage arrangements – many with the expectations of reaching the “goal” of eventual separation.

Unfortunately the laws have not moved much with this social change. The laws are still very much geared toward the idea of marriage being associated with longevity.

Continued Studies; 01/08/2006

2006-10-27T12:06:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

01/08/2006

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-08-2006

Reading further in the second volume of Montesquieu’s Complete Works.

In Book XXIII he addresses the subject of propagation – more directly, the different effects that various economic structures and social situations have on the multiplication of the human species.

If he were alive today, I am sure he would fall over dead with horrific laughter – especially in the United States.

He cites many instances and effects of those instances – but I am curious if he ever would have dreamed that societies would become so safe and abundant as to introduce fictitious “drama” as problems within them in such manners?

It is as he describes, in his day that certain “classes” of people would more easily produce more off spring for several reasons – some of which being to have more readily the ease of efficiency and productivity in the agricultural areas of society – as well as an ease of propagation in poorer areas within city structures – for which to sell of indenture into labor.

In modern society, there is a different area to be considered which consists of those not so much in need, but more in a mental instability which dictates a fictitious want.

I am referring to a “class” of people that purposefully mis-interpret and apply laws and standards meant for the health of society – many of those people simply seeing some type of misconstrued “free ride.” Most of them already having substantial incomes to begin with. Some of them even going to great lengths in procuring the identities of others (in lower tax brackets) to procure further monies in their persona, from the government and other sources.

It is that many females in these “ranks” even use each others children to bolster already ill gotten funds. This while the desolate areas of society which they create in such actions, are largely ignored as non-existent. Left to erode and corrode with and under this pseudo “class” of society.

I have seen many instances where-in the “Roman” dynamic of exclusion has been even wrongfully employed (as well as incorrectly used) in justifying these desperate measures.

It is very much that these type of people have been left un-checked (in some cases even supported) for such a time as this action has been fitted with an air of “standard” and normality.

It is a toxin on even itself, though anyone in the modern day that sees it must keep silent for fear of becoming its waste product in that false dynamic… some even targeted through the misuse of such influence as is/are government affiliations, or worse.

It seems to have sprung from efforts in placing standards for equality – but in the course of those standards and laws being wrested from those with proper understanding – they have been left in the hands of the ignorant and greedy, now touting some mantra about seeking individual freedom and economic self sufficiency.

Laughably there is none to be had and very much from their own posturing, flailing and actions.

They are their own prison.

The tragedy in the larger sense of all this, is many fold.

Firstly that the actual mechanism itself is in no way complicated, especially to the degree of presenting any justification for such mis-employed action.

I know this quite simply because I can see it.

I can see the efforts in abuse being blatantly obvious and I can see the potential benefits of the mechanism itself.

I can see how wonderfully simple and productive it is meant to be.

I am not of any “superior” intellect or upbringing.

In a simple description, there is simply no reciprocation – at levels throughout. Then further, this misuse has presented the effect of removing those with a common and simple interest in existing. Replacing them with people claiming a “superior” understanding and intellect in perpetuating and perpetrating the actions which have imprisoned them.

Again, I believe this aspect is due to displacing actual understanding with the ignorance and posturing which in turn fuels the desperation creating the self imprisonment. It is very much “functioning despotism.” An “athletic leper, as it were.

What could be a finely tuned, productive for many type of “mechanism – is a clambering, clunky production somewhere between the Marx Bros. and The Three Stooges.

Perhaps in the speedy onset of technology (and all – including the amplified effect of corruptions), it was needed to introduce something for which to use in breaking a cycle not dissimilar to what it is now…. That, in turn lost sight of its purpose and became even worse than that corrupt impasse it was set forward to rectify – to compensate for?

Mayhaps, what is being seen now is only remnants of the aforementioned corruptions – even further devolved from even the level of understanding from which they originate in the initial use of such corruptions?

I still hold that the prevailing, topical though quite literal atmosphere which modern communications technology has created – that removal of human element and understanding, has at the least helped to create such a rift in the social climate.

The simple understanding I possess and experience in my studies isn’t in those workings at all from what I can see. It is as if someone simply implemented a computer program wrought with corruptive elements as well, as per said uses – then called its result “right and good” if not, quite laughably – “just.”

I personally would rather find myself addressing the problems of maintaining a civilized society – addressing the age old troubles of keeping prosperity at an optimum as to avoid downfall, than I would to find myself wondering how to keep an abused old, uncared for jalopy running so as to avoid similar ends. Both examples being potentials of the very same mechanism we as humanity have designed and implemented – and find ourselves now shackled in the effort and desperation of even just getting the old jalopy to idle a few minutes per day in hopes of some trinket like, valueless prize.

Continued Studies; 01/05/2006

2006-10-27T12:04:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

01/05/2006

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-05-2006

In Book XXI, Chapters XX thru XXIII, Montesquieu discusses several factors which influenced the development and maintenance of European commerce.

Something that strikes me particularly, is the blindness and considerable ignorance with which Spain and Portugal acted upon the discovery of “riches” in the “New World.”

What is described in these chapters is a mistake that is so incredibly obvious that anyone can point it out. That mistake being the oversight of the effect when introducing large quantities of something seen as valuable.

It is so blatant that a person has to consider other, perhaps political motives in such actions. Were such actions in the effort to gain control politically through a form of coercive measure?

I can’t see it as entirely as such, in the dependence which is depicted of Spain in regard to its need of the Indies in the period described. In my uninformed state, I fail to see where any benefit of such economic “floods” could be of more use and outweigh a sort of “indentured” relationship (submissive) with the smaller area of the Indies.

Was it an effort to bolster the value outright in other forms and means of trade? Effort to supersede the focal point in use of boullions as standard in exchange for some other…..? Perhaps it was just that though it isn’t depicted as such.

Further such attempt seems as though it would place Spain in even a more compromising position, having far less of those “other” commodities than much of the rest of Europe. Meaning that supposing the action was in effort to shift those standards, Spain was ill equipped to sustain itself with that change. More to the point, less able than the rest of Europe to weather such a downturn with other commodities.

Factually, from what I can see so far in that dynamic – it it weren’t for the East Indies at that time, Spain would have been far worse off being that it was the Indies appetite which permitted the movement of those other commodities (already over abundant in Europe) at all – This perhaps, in conjunction with the self consuming Roman influence, may be the origins of what we now see as “consumer economy.”

Those acting as producers being entirely at the mercy of the consuming element – which we know, and quite obviously to be a grave imbalance. An imbalance that is the birthplace it would seem, of many social and economic ills. The first of which being the inspiration and reason for dangerously rapid growth of any sort of supply, then having no other option but desperation when it reaches an apex of sorts in regard to demand. That desperation then leads to a dysfunctional and disjointed relationship. Ill quality among other things as one of the results within that desperation. Amplifying the detrimental effects from otherwise healthy abundance – converting it into apparent over abundance, and in that yet again the loss of value and demand.

This effect is quite prominent in the speed of our modern day – though has developed as course within the smaller nature of business economics, just as detrimental a dynamic in providing false justifications for conglomerations through buyouts of “burn outs” – removing competition which promotes healthy economy for all. Combining the self consuming aspects I have mentioned with perpetuating a “down turn” progression, which actually gives an illusion of “growing” or getting larger.

It is really nothing more than self perpetuating demise of economic health and growth.

In that direction, sooner than later there will be only one large conglomeration of corporate entities – all related. No healthy trade in the least. Virtual monopolies which skirt written laws in forming, while producing the ill effects of monopolies. Themselves eventually crumbling under the strain of false value. Further bolstering and supporting the “need to be needed” aspects of the “Roman” standards and practices.

It leads entirely to subjugation and desperation. Collapse.

Reading further I find I divert in some degree from Montesquieu in the idea of what lends “value” to precious metals.

He states, quite physically correct in my opinion, that metal money are easier to exchange for goods/some other thing. Personally, as I have addressed, I think that the reason such “value” is placed on something such as precious metals, is very much because of what I refer to as the “loadstone quality and effect.”

At a deeper level, there is something about it that is connected with and to our existence.

For instance, the “magnetic qualities” in varying degrees between types of precious metals. Some people naturally gravitate toward one or the other, or a combination of them. With this direction and combined with the ample amounts of it – it would appear as though we have kept from ourselves a great pleasure in being able to exist surrounded with quantities of precious metals.

Essentially, from a different point of view than is basing economic value on it, we could all be living in structures lavishly laden with precious metals and there-in satisfying that natural inclination.

In many respects our civilizations and their development, have placed ourselves on a treadmill of sorts in cheating our lives of such very possible and quite simple pleasures being fulfilled. We have done so in affixing meaning to those precious metals in a direction which mandates both their scarcity and demand, unnecessarily. Unnecessarily that is, in the respect that there is very much an abundance of it and no need other than that which we have imposed on it to make it seem important beyond that natural function.

In our modern day there are several other ways in which to establish (and maintain) value within economy without having to continue such an imprisonment and vacancy of such a possible attribute within it – that being the use freely of those precious metals. It would simply be one less frivolous concern being transformed into common life experience – and in that allowing for our modern “value base” to become more diversified with other elements of value for which to base scrip on.

Sure, the over all transition might prove to be somewhat burdensome given the social conditioning on a large scale which we all have been subject to…. But it is a thought to consider the ability of living among the comforts of the most precious metals known.

An amusing thought.

Continued Studies; 12/31/2005

2006-10-27T12:01:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

12/31/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

12-31-2005

In Book XXI, Chapter XV, Montesquieu addresses something that I see as rather interesting pertaining to Roman commerce.

He cites that commerce between Romans and barbarians as non-existent firstly due to Rome not wanting their skills at war to be "learned" through such trade.

If they couldn't conquer a nation, they did no trade with them.

This means they were "cannibalistic" in a social sense and as well pertaining to commerce.

They "ate" only of "themselves" and traded only with themselves.

He further cites the aspect of conquered people's populating "their" society being a main reason that the Roman empire stayed together at all. Being that their actual weakness served as binding socially out of fear of anything else.

The Roman empire "neglected enriching themselves out of the fear of carrying to nations they had not subdued – the art of conquering."

They did not even communicate with nations other than their own.

"The weakness of the people and the tyranny of their laws united all the parts of this immense body."

This paints an entirely different picture of the Roman empire than is most widely promoted and believed in the modern day.

Essentially the Romans bullied anyone they could and kept away from any they couldn't.

Conquering an "uniting" the weak nations in one large pathetic body so to speak – a body surely to "need" any sort of governing (and safety) the Romans chose to employ upon them.

This gives a different perspective to various things pertaining to Roman Law and Justinianus as well.

Even more in regard to how such has influenced the modern American dynamic within government and law – seeing as such writ is such an obvious influence there-in.

Sadly, in a humorous note – it would seem that such “need to be needed” tactics to unify the weak is one of the more efficient governing tactics in regard to the longevity of a given example government.

To “snivel” at the top of you lungs so as to insure your government remains seen as “needed” to remain a government.

It makes sense that such would be an influence on the U.S. government in the degree it seems to have.

“Give us your weak…..,” I suppose it only becomes problematic then, when (as is it’s nature from what I can tell) it begins to demand more of the “stage” within combination of so many other incredible elements put forward in the concept itself – within that proposed third degree of civilization. Overshadowing other, more modern efficiencies through overstepping its own optimum efficiencies in combinations with others.

Continued Studies; 12/28/2005

2006-10-27T11:54:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

12/28/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

12-28-2005

In beginning Montesquieu’s “Spirit Of Laws, Book XX,” it is less than the first four paragraphs before I am struck with near comical comparisons of his shadow in our modern day.

Montesquieu begins Book XX with the subject of commerce and immediately cites the value of commerce beyond fiscal wealth. He even attributes good manners to commerce. He then cites that such is because of the very same reasons that commerce destroys those “good manners,” acting to eventually corrupt the purest morals – then giving reference to the Gauls having experienced such success there-in as to make tem complacent and inferior to even those they had conquered consistently.

08-24-2006 Again I feel I should point out where it is in my observations and opinion, that part of the brilliance in the design of what is supposed to be our modern government, is in effect to employ those tendencies toward said “corruptions” and others, in the interest and health of the society as a whole. This, as I have mentioned, I go into further detail about in my more recent notes.

He cites as well a reference to Plato; “…and we every day see, that they polish and refine the most barbarous.”

This does present a rather interesting cyclical notion. From observation – of what I know of history and what I know of our modern day (admittedly not “masters degree” in either example) – it (commerce) then could be said to be responsible for the perpetuation of ignorance as well.

In fact, it has been stated in regard to the bi-polar effects it yields on societies – polishing one extreme while acting as corrosive to the other – it promotes the passing of ill information from one generation to the next.

This is the only option in that series of events as it is very much NOT the case that those corrupted area ever find a level of existence which could again be considered “un-refined.” It isn’t as though the “corrupted” areas ever lose their “station” so to speak – which means that over generations said “polishing” aspect is simply the corrupt passing what is then “social illness” to the next generation as well as the “un-refined.” Distorting with each cycle, those things which are mandatory in sustaining healthy commerce.

Soon enough, as can be observed in modern society – the cycle itself becomes nothing but parroting a mimicking with no sense of even the most rudimentary aspects of actual value much less healthy commerce.

He then states, in the second chapter that; “Peace is the natural effect of trade.”

Such must be true of complacency derived from said – and must put forward great efforts in finding reasons for war. Even within that compromised cycle of commerce.

It is no surprise in the speed with which the corruption, complacency and ill information (parroting) has become the normal, given that incredible instance within the past 100 years or so.

08-24-2006 As per my current studies and observations, as I have mentioned pertaining to the use of corruption – it is that this cycle has become so wide spread and of the “standard” in occurrence, that said “parroting” makes up the whole. I see this as per design to some degree – even the growth and spread of the consumer mentality populating much of the social structure currently. Within the ignorance of said consumer mentality is assurance of continued forms of corruption in various ways. With that then, is the assured continuance of the sustained prosperity – IF said cycle is maintained and the mechanism itself isn’t derailed. Those ill effects from commerce, are in effect utilized in this design to police themselves on that larger scale. In a personal opinion, noting the brilliance of said design, this then yields an effect where a Utopian society can be maintained – “Utopian” being represented much in what we currently experience as a society even considering all of the apparent mishaps. What we exist within in our current day, is far and away beyond any level of human society ever achieved much less sustained.

Those problematic elements can never manifest to the degree which brings carnage and down fall within this design… as long as those other and various forms of corruption can be tolerated. Even the efforts in removing the worst forms of those corruptions from the direction of the now ignorant (consumer mentality) within said society, are again a part of that social motion sustaining the entirety of it and the efficiency.

To destroy the sustaining effects would take an entire overthrow and removal of not only the base structure, but the concepts it is based on as well…even further so, where ever they may have already again begun to manifest in other civilizations.

I personally cannot see how anyone could think it better to exist within despotic and dilapidated examples of other forms of failed social structures. Isn’t it better to deal and cope with social changes as well as those seemingly perpetual and inherent flaws of humanity through a social structure designed to utilize the predominant tendencies of humans within any society?

As further note, a person can see where it is actually progressing to some degree in its success, being that early on it was warring and destruction that propelled it as forms of corruption, where now it is more subtle forms of those various corruptions – much in the manner of corporate and business as well as social demonstration and change. As per the form of corruption associated with the idea of education itself, another example of that progress can be seen in the fact that less actual corruption is transpiring within said education – being the saturation of said consumer mentality/ignorance replacing actual intellectual advance and learning – which then in turn acts to feed the cycle of corruptions involved as result of said ignorance then permeating society in the form of that expanded ignorance and consumer mentality.

Such advances have even apparently made possible the sustaining of such despotism and façade, while maintaining a relatively healthy society in the topical/physical sense.

A curious dichotomy in the fact that the very same advances which have brought about “light speed” corrosion of standards and corruption to the levels of no longer possessing the actual knowledge beyond mimicry – acts to check the overt and obvious effects of those erosions upon the greater cycle of “hand to mouth” which we call a healthy society.

In any other time in history, the levels of complacency and corruption which are now normal, would have brought about the demise of the society which embodied them – either through civil unrest, disease, being conquered or various other reasons.

How much can it stand?

He then continues in chapter II to examine privation, the spirit of trade, the effects of such and different relationships regarding individuals and nations.

It brings the thought and question to mind as to why, in our modern day, there has been devised no stage for the “commoners” international trade? A “co-op” of sorts open to all citizens of any nationality for corresponding goods and wares within international laws, of course – giving opportunity for “individuals” to exercise their capacity in representing on a nations level, those benefits put forward and examined within the “spirit of laws?”

This could even give way for the base on which to establish a new set of “trade” categories within the larger “market.”

In my simple view, I see no ill effect in such toward the existing categories, given that all but the select interests of very few are ignored within them.

Such an establishment would really only provide a more precise means with which to measure already existing form of commerce, and would promote those positive effects illustrated with “The Spirit Of Laws” pertaining to commerce.

I do believe something as such would be capable of embodying the simple pleasures of prosperity though the volume may be of little concern to those modern behemoths – it is in that, within my belief – where in the true pleasures in life reside. Those simple examples of uncomplicated prosperity. And, as Montesquieu states; “It can hardly be carried out by a people swallowed up in luxury who spend much, and see nothing but objects of grandeur.”

Such are the type of people addressing individuals through the market place – as groups as large as nations – sending literal boat loads of product to factories and other anonymous destinations for just as anonymous applications and uses.

In thought while reading, I happen upon a puzzle of sorts.

Even in the time of Montesquieu, he refers to Plato, Aristotle…. And other early philosophers I am sure I will find – but here I sit toward the end of 2005 and much of what Montesquieu has put forward still firmly resonates – in varying degrees – within our modern societies, as does those things put forward in the early stages of cognitive intellect.

It is stated time and again that “everything has been said” even in reference to those very early great minds. If this is so, how then is it that we continue with implied advance?

How so then, even in Montesquieu’s day?

How is it then, that within all that we know, it is very much possible to have attained that level of civilization where-in all of life is each moment for the benefit and pleasure of those within it as put forward in such wisdoms, but somehow we have and continue to fail in achieving such an atmosphere? Further we seem to continue to strive in almost completely opposite directions from it at every turn, including the hobbling of societies in social senses which actually promote ill atmospheres for such a decadent level of civilization to manifest.

How is it possible that we as creatures can be so advanced in so many ways, but only wield it with the ignorant grunts and lunges of meat heads? Further only pursuing fleeting moments of “power” with which to exercise those lunges in subjugating any and all else that happen to fall prey to those intentions within all of the other possibilities.

Thank goodness for “sport” in many respects!

How is it that we can claim advance while demonstrating the restraints upon ourselves as wild beasts – for very wrong reasons?

What curse is it truly, to exist with the capacity and ability for so much beyond what we sustain laboriously as a sort of personal flogging?

To truly be beyond our day and age within the capacity of our mind, while mired in the fallacy of our age. Shackled to the splintering and empty forms of reality bombarding us in each moment.

How did we fool ourselves?

O sit in a public reading room now, which predates the façade of our modern day – such a dwelling could not have been produced in 2005.

I sense a curiosity to muse on it. Where did our society “lose that trail?” That timbre? That “civility?”

How did we forget such simple elegance – forget to bring it along?

How would it have developed along its “natural course?” Its course, that is, sans the modern “speed” at which we have traversed in such a short period of time?

Have we then cast ourselves even further from that supposed goal of realizing extended bliss within our existence? Heaping upon its doorway the repeated failures in the desperate flailing for any satisfaction in our “modern times.”

Is it simply that I “romance” my personal leanings in such musing? Show myself as a “sentimental” creature to some degree, in recognizing common majesty – recognizing the ground work of majesty meant for all to embody and employ? To spend this life surrounded with the decadence fir for kings, nobility common for one and all?

We can exchange messages with one another instantly in our modern day – all of the way around the world. But much of those exchanges are without substance.

What is it then, which has been lost in our speedy transition?

In chapter V of book XXI, I find a greatly pleasing passage pertaining to commerce; “The history of commerce, is that of the communication of people: Their numerous defeats, and the flux and reflux of populations and devastations, here form the most extraordinary events.”

I see this as quite the giggle in illustrating the “comedy of errors” which is modern humanity!

The statement is true enough I suppose, in my opinion – and I find no comedy there so much as I do in the fact that it is truthful.

If you apply that to modern communication, it presents something near hilarity.

Very factually, we are cheating ourselves of life experience and actual developments through our heightened speed of communications – and there-in “instant commerce.”

We cheat ourselves of those "extraordinary events" through cheating those "events" of a place in which to develop, unless it can do so "instantly." Granted, that is only one perspective and interpretation of that passage – but the comedy in it, is that it holds true for the most part in our modern world.

"Extraordinary events" become diffuse and polarized before they can even develop entirely.

In that haste as a society, we devour instantly – as embryonic – those things which in all other respects should have continued to develop and "played out" of their own meter – if it weren't for that aspect of "instant" exchange.

How much potential then, has been cast aside for failing to develop "instantly?"

How amusing we are as creatures.

Continued Studies; 12/27/2005

2006-10-27T11:53:00.000-07:00

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?

Continued Studies - 07/27/2005

2006-10-26T16:23:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

07/27/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

07-27-2005

Something that occurs to me directly while reading Hunt’s Translation Of Justinian Law Of Sale, is the structure of Roman civilization in that age. Very segregated though having multiple “levels” within society being present. Each then having very separate workings though still similar.

Such rigidity in social structure being different from our modern society in regard to firm structures, firm segregations – each having a definite place. Rigid. Cog like.

The “Third degree of civilization” as it was presented pertaining to the beginnings of the United States of America, having advanced to a point as to be more “flowing” than said “segregations.” No longer rigid structure performing but more “inter-working” classes in place of class warfare.

Strange enough, with the advent of technology- especially in communications, this “third degree of civilization” has again gained a mechanized characteristic. This may be part of the emulation I have addressed previously. That which is an emulation (artificially) within our existence, and emulation itself.

It seems to be somewhat of an inversion in that sense – achieving segregation and rigid mechanical attributes through over saturation of technology as opposed to purposeful social segregation. It has a very similar effect, regardless. Especially in sustaining class warfare in place of a flowing motion within society. “Have and have-not’s” where there seems should be a progression of process.

08-23-2006 Again, I should note that I have made some rather interesting explorations in regard to different perspectives pertaining to this social dynamic and occurrence. One of which being something I have discovered perhaps to have been of design within the structure which was presented beginning the United States.. as I have mentioned, being the use of various forms of corruption as a social fuel so to speak.

It appears to be preventing opportunity in the same manner as rigid segregation, as well. Upon observation as example, the public school systems have long since succumbed to such structure. Most “emulate” a process of progression, but convey no substance to place those “graduates” in any position for success other than compliance with a continued rigid segregation.

Many that even graduate from college are ill prepared for anything beyond entering society in the “slave” capacity as is depicted in this book of Roman Law.

It is a given, that “everyone” cannot enter the world as established – but to covertly promote mechanical segregation if even happenstance – is truly failing to utilize the potentials of existence.

As a species, we have witnessed and recorded where that leads. Time and again.

As result, as is quite predictable, “the public” in this “third degree of civilization” is quickly becoming a pit of hopelessness – victimized from several directions as well as corporate entities instead of recognized as being the institution that it should be with all of its potentials.

The larger “private” corporate interests forcing dependence upon themselves through promoting the same desperation within that rigidity, which the government itself has become as a standard.

The “need” to be “needed” superseding the potentials of its design. This through and result of that ignorant population (which I have come to call the consumer mentality) being produced en-mass. Few ever even realizing that which should be common knowledge. Finding themselves “sold” as market share to the entity which is most frightening in a hack job protection racket on allot of levels, not least being financially.

08-23-2006 Again… it is that this is simply my personal observations. Further it is that, as I have disclosed in other study notes, we as a society have been very much taken in an overwhelming series of developments which few have even considered in regard to that larger social process– that being the onset of the electrical age and the industrial revolution. It is very much that there is and always will be a need for several different denominations of “class” – especially within the atmosphere we currently reside, and further with the continual rise in population. It just doesn’t seem possible to consciously produce the idea of Utopia for everyone in the sense that it is most commonly understood. BUT, if a person considers all of the facets within our modern use and dynamic – it could be said that a Utopian Society is precisely what we exist within…now combating the ill effects of such a level in social developmental successes – the tendency toward ignorance being one of those ills developing from the ease and automation in which we most commonly exist.

Continued Studies - 07/12/2005

2006-10-26T16:18:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

07/12/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

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.

Continued Studies - 05/18/2005

2006-10-26T16:00:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

05/18/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

05-18-2005

In beginning to read Monro’s translation of “The Digest Of Justinian – Justinianus Law,” I happen upon another question with which to occupy my slower moments – Recently I have been considering the various reasons that humans may have realized the concept of immortality – In this same manner, I am compelled to put thought toward what may have introduced the concept of perfection to the human species as well.

These are very profound concepts.

What need could ever there have been in manifesting these concepts?

Perfection. What use of the concept was there ever to begin with?

What is it that could have inspired the slightest need for such a concept much less the want to attain its definition incarnate – as it is perceived?

I happen on this thought based on a few lines in the Digest of Justinian where the author refers to what seems to be common occupants of an urban setting as “the eminent man who is perfect of his genial city.”

The meaning here-in seems to refer to any persons born of a given city or area… as “natives” to the area having a preference because of such…but it struck me that even such a concept as “perfection” would ever have arisen of its own within the consciousness of humans. Granted, this is an entirely different use in context of the idea and word “perfection,” but it is still relative to the larger intangible, just the same.

Continued Studies - 05/14/2005

2006-10-26T15:58:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

05/14/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

05-14-2005

Likewise in regard to the concept of immortality having been introduced into the human process of existence; It must be that something just as specific introduced the fear of death.

An animal can fear – though it doesn’t necessarily fear death specifically – while it is that a human can specifically fear death.

All an animal knows in “fight of flight” is that it is afraid – I would even argue that it doesn’t know it is afraid – it only experiences it.

The human which experiences fear can acknowledge that fear as well as that which it fears.

In that, it supports even further that something introduced the fear of death.

When you examine a dead person it is simply that they are no longer the animate creature that they were prior to death. There really is nothing to fear when you consider that.

Where then does the fear of it stem from at such a level as it does? Especially given the presence of the concept of immortality?

Where does that fear arise from? Where does then does the idea of immortality come from?

Logically, people should be more afraid of being alive.

There is no observable or recorded pain in death. There is no discomfort. There is no fear.

Quite literally from a given perspective, there is more to fear while walking down the street that there is to fear of being dead – but people continue to walk down the street every day without regard for those overwhelming possibilities.

Granted, physical death is quite final as it would seem (at least it appears to be) – but even in that is a larger portion of the type of “security” that many people seem to seek to establish in their daily lives.

With many of the different types of people “contending” for influence upon human existence, in my opinion it is sad that more people don’t opt exercise their fears of death a bit more – and even choose it…. Sparing the rest of humanity the trouble of coping with their existences as social hypochondriacs, while pretending to be of station with which to lead anything.

Continued Studies - 05/13/2005 (continued)

2006-10-25T11:51:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

05/13/2005

(continued)

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

05-13-2005

Something I have been pondering lately – is what it was exactly which introduced the concept of immortality, to the human thought?

How and what is it which brought light to, and formed such a concept?

Given the overall consistencies within existence – it would have to have been one of two possibilities I can see at the moment, perhaps a combination there-in; Example, or epiphany.

Given the level of emulation within several different cultures pertaining to immortality – I would immediately venture that it was “example” of some sort. Perhaps in conjunction with the realization of connectivity?

When considering this in depth, I am brought to even more serious consideration of the possibility of “inter-dimensional” existences, and a breadth of connectivity there-in as well.

Symbolism and ritual were developed from more than superstition. Any given symbol was more than topical representation.

In this consideration such symbolism performed function and functional duties as well – much within this proposed parallel, “inter-dimensional” element. This beyond the obvious limitations such symbolism instantly applies. I arrive at such conclusions again, through observing the consistencies of and within ancient cultures an symbolisms – then compared with the level of connectivity I have observed in “modern primitives” such as “Native Americans (i.e.- the ability to summon weather patterns - I should note with this, that I have observed the modern technological emulation of said connectivity as well, being “seeding clouds.”).”

When such is considered in conjunction with one another, there becomes much to consider in respect to such possibilities as “inter-dimensional co-existence.” This then being bolstered through the existence of the very concept of immortality within our conceptualization.

In these “less complicated” forms of connectivity with which I am somewhat familiar, is for me an area with which to attain a perspective to then begin to consider the more complex symbolisms in those “more complicated” cultures.

For instance the Ankh is widely known to symbolize “persons” – the essence (soul as it were) of persons (as is “Thet” in different pose). It takes very little imagination to see a similarity (however basic) with the famous illustration of “man” being arms and legs extended – as if in motion.

Even further is a similarity with the crucifix.

When I examine that, I immediately see a comparison and similarity in intersecting lines. Then further can see similarity in that intersection and the apex of a pyramid from the proper perspective. Applied then, in a three dimensional respect – these intersecting lines – at the inverted “four corners,” become the tip of a pyramid.

Perhaps that chasm, that distance our “progress” has placed between ourselves and that “eternal source,” is as much evidentiary of some distance between our reality now and neighboring “dimensions.”

That lack of connectivity “signal” being representative of not only our insulation from that source – but some sort of proverbial space we have moved away from in a paralleling reality.

Both (perhaps more) having begun in similar manners simultaneously – developing as do the branches of a tree.

Continued Studies - 05/13/2005

2006-10-25T11:49:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

05/13/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

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.

Continued Studies - 05/12/2005

2006-10-25T11:45:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

05/12/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

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.

Continued Studies - 05/11/2005

2006-10-25T11:19:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

05/11/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

05-11-2005

I have happened upon another thought, another area of our reality which wasn’t foreseen in the age of such brilliant minds as Condorcet… in that age and as well that of culmination and creation pertaining to those elements which were to become the body and mind of our “third degree” of civilization.

That unforeseen thought and aspect is in the breeding ground for corruption which the safety and comfort of an enlightened civilization holds.

It differs from the tyranny and corruption which a person expects in monarchies, dictatorships as it is the manifestation of those who set out to conquer such – exploitation and tyranny actually becoming worse than many of the worst examples of despotism and criminal corruption – this much in the pace of modern communication technology.

It looks to be an odd cycle really. To vanquish those yokes of oppression only to command them in the place of those deposed – but with far less insight or information.

Within that amplified version of modern technology, such is all really that “Representative Democracy” has become. It is very much hardly a shadow of simple democracy here in 2005.

There are so many superstitions acting as large influences that it is in no way possible to achieve, much less maintain Liberty and Freedom – daring not to speak of the subject such as justice so as not to burst out in laughter.

It is very much the “largest criminal element” dictating what it thinks to be fair, with little or no regard to hard won standards of such social progress.

Fortunately enough, regardless of the type of despotism or its placement – it always rots and falls eventually – especially in the representative democracy structure.

Sadly enough with that, such churns the cycle into exchanges of desperate, despotic haphazard organizations – calling it democracy.

08-18-2006 As I have mentioned previously, I am currently exploring the brilliance in the intended usages of various forms of corruptions – it is again, that unseen extreme in advance which seems to have over loaded an otherwise rather efficient mechanism. Even then though, it still functions much in the manner designed, even within the growing amount of consumer mentality.

The ignorance of the lack of insight I have addressed leading, more-so demanding to be followed – most commonly driven through short sighted greed(s) – with none of the substance or connection with which to actually guide.

No real progress – only the occasional change of hands for larger shares of the “market.”

This without even genuine production including a lack of the other things which truly beget value.

Admittedly – and quite sadly that I say – these are dangerous words in 2005 p which means we have really “progressed” no-where.

They aren’t dangerous because such is a secret.

They are dangerous because the ignorant find offense in such truths. They find fear in those words. The same type of fear that inspired every tyrant from history.

That is why those words are dangerous.

To watch the recent political atmosphere in the hands of such ignorant pretenders – is a comedy itself. But even those words are dangerous as no ignorant, greedy tyrant savors being laughed at either.

The humor is in the fact that they seem to think they are profiting and benefiting somehow, which means they can’t even do basic math, either.

The numerical, monetary sums which have been lost (and especially devalued) – especially in potential, is immense. Almost incalculable in comparison to that which these types feel they have gained – what is more, is that through their tactic – it is very much stationary – non reciprocating. It vanishes faster than they can attain it. It is false.

The idea seems to be to pilfer from one area and pile it in another – this produces false numbers as there is no production, no value, no actual worth or wealth being produced.

There is no actual growth – but plenty of loss.

It is artificial. Imitation. Counterfeit.

Continued Studies - 05/10/2005

2006-10-24T11:13:00.000-07:00

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

05/10/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

05-10-2005

Continuing in “The Human Mind,” Condorcet touches again on something that proves to be a wonderful support for that somewhat wishful inclination of a “city of minds” which I have expressed in previous notes.

He states “but if it be true, as every prospect assures us, that the human race shall not again relapse into it’s ancient barbarity; If everything ought to assure us against that pusillanimous and corrupt system which condemns man to eternal oscillations between truth and falsehood, Liberty and servitude, we must, at the same time, perceive that the light of information is spread over a small part of our globe; and the number of those who possess real instruction, seems to vanish in comparison with the mass of men (and women) consigned over to ignorance and prejudice.”

This is stated in regard to the advent of information “highways” such as printing.

At a brief contention – this type of attitude is what seems to have dwindled the already scarce population of those with understanding beyond the topical – those possessing grasp of substance.

I am in no way saying that such a statement holds no truth – I am however citing the fact (and tendency) that within the “corrupt system” humans tend to go to extremes in many regards – both voluntary and non- voluntary.

In those extremes, have manifested the likenesses of things I have already mentioned such as the difference in the age of exposure to enlightenment between our modern day and even that as recent as Condorcet’s.

Notably, in our modern day, in an extreme percentage – that enlightenment is never set forward.

A “mid-teen” in the time of Condorcet and before, was already pondering such substance.

I have met people with doctorates (masters degrees) in our own day, that have yet to even realize beyond what has been topically presented to them as “information.” Most of these people posture (as is expected to some degree) as if they are in possession of some power within their collection of topical information. Unaware almost entirely of existence in some cases – even more so, of existence beyond their opinion and political motive…their perspective. Trusting entirely that topical information without their own affirmations.

Immediately, I could see what could be a beauty about this. It is a form of self containment fueled through some need of the acceptance of some other thing. That acceptance being popularly defined as “success.”

In a given perspective it is really very little (if any) success at all – which is another contradiction and contradiction of that which they seek in a very literal sense.

This effect on a larger scale seems as part of what could then lead to that “relapse.”

Another aspect of such an extreme is the advance of corruption within those smaller ranks of enlightenment. Corruption of the sort that is not in the direction of enlightenment (directly anyhow, as enlightenment itself is a form of corruption) – rendering null their purpose and dwindling their numbers even farther.

In my own opinion, I very much think that a more saturated exposure to such enlightenment would be the (or a sufficient) remedy to counteract that re-establishment of rampant ignorance.

I do not mean exposing every human to the heights of enlightenment.

I do however, suggest exposing every human to the beginnings of their own path which could lead to such enlightenment – should they find themselves of such interest. This in the place of massive, over exposure at a university level – then hoping that some may actually make realizations. I would do so very early on.

Granted, many such insights are the responsibility of personal relation and even community – but in the public setting, within these communities, access and exposure to the beginnings of those insights should be made available – as per my own opinion.

Philosophy for instance, in regimented, incremental stages should become a part of very early education, and done so in various manners. Perhaps further becoming a more prominent premise with children’s stories.

Again, I am not referring to the heaping of information or worn out tales with a moral to the story… but more different avenues with which to explore various approaches to even thinking itself.

Condorcet then continues with a statement assuring that such a group of “enlightened” and their existence “shall not fall below a point to which it has been carried” – presumably doing this through assurance and confidence in the sciences, their theories, the growing numbers of those involved and of course the printing press – from his then current perspective.

08-18-2006 As I’ve touched on and will further explore, this has actually developed a pattern which is consistently becoming more narrow in perspective for various reason.

In many ways, all that those things have done is to create much opportunity for despotism, corruption and definitely being some importance; the detracting of the amount of people which are of an “enlightened” sort.

I think this effect was not expected.

I believe that the speedy onset of perceived progress in those areas acted to over shadow the very importance of that substantial enlightenment – rendering the efforts of accumulated information empty of depth in substance and understanding. In effect, rendering itself ignorant in many respects. In that then becoming part of those “consigned over to ignorance and prejudice.”

This being true in many regards as can be seen when perceived as a challenge or threat to popular ideas and current existing stance. When really, in the larger picture, it is only a given perspective which may be seen as being challenged.

When a different view from commonality is presented in our modern day – it is immediately met with said ignorance in various forms, spite, even forms of masked jealousy.

All being forms of ignorance and prejudice.

Most being leveled from the direction of many within that established structure meant to promote enlightenment.

Most being directed from many posturing of such enlightenment – many times without even consideration.

The internet itself is a good barometer of the existing level of that ignorance and prejudice – even more an example of the levels of corruption with the accumulated example of supposedly enlightened minds.

When considering the potentials of such a tool as the internet, it is truly staggering – until that is, a person becomes knowledgeable of how useless it has been rendered with the existence of that posturing. It is another example of the overshadowing effect of technology and its rapid, supposed progress.

It is exemplary in metaphor regarding the misdirection of our supposed progress.

To compile astonishing amounts of what amount to “characters” arranged in some semblance of order – christening it knowledge – opposed to the development of our true capacities.

Incredible amounts of information packed into the mind without substance, chosen over depth and potential of our existences.

A stream of data as opposed to actual thought - interactive connectivity – through enlightenment.