Continued Studies; 03/04/2006

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

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

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

03/04/2006

Continuing with "The Analysis Of The Spirit Of Laws" by D'Alembert, I read across a passage early on in which he states and lists that there are only "three forms of government; The Republican, The Monarchical and The Despotic." he then continues - predictably to state that most governments are a mixture of these dynamics. He as well states that the Republican government places sovereignty in "the people," in the monarchical - in one single person, in the despotic - "no other law is known but the will of a tyrant master."

When considering this I find incredible amounts of fascination in knowing that such opinion was before (for the most part) and "just as" (in the lesser) such incredible concepts as is the "Third Degree Of Civilization as we know it, were being developed. Further it is that such rests within the same or similar placement in relation to the idea in the shift of "power base" from "sovereign" to "commerce."

Immediately this contributes several more layers of civilization "post" such concepts, in at least potential. The most obvious to me immediately is in further shifting the "power base" with "the people" as well to that focus on commerce as opposed to social interest and hierarchy.

As anyone can see, that dynamic has produced a considerable amount of inertia within and for the mechanism itself if employed properly. That is to say, that the combination of both perspectives and potentials from the view of any within a "Republic," will act to "supercharge" even the efficiency of society itself as being a substantial area from which to fuel it. When this isn't understood, as in many cases within our modern society - including falsification and topical emulations of this dynamic - it (within those emulations) loses that potency. It essentially seems to degrade into some form of despotism or another. Entirely removing any importance of that former "sovereign" populous (the people) in both manifestations (sovereign/power, commerce/power) - rendering it and placing it entirely within the facet of "consumer," and further entirely dependent on the misused structure of established "government," the "federal" areas for example - further rendering it as dead weight so to speak... as well as continuing to promote the dependence on the dysfunctional motion within it.

Within the dynamic I described of commerce/power over reaching its use - then develops, simply through connection, an overbearing and despotic "Federal" government. "Connection" as per "purse strings" and influence, usually.

This then paints a picture not of a Republic, not of a monarchy, but more of a dysfunction of dead weight being purchased by corporations giving the illusion that the "dead weight" society is doing the "purchasing" and in that, somehow governing itself. This laughably in the face of facts such as those corporations being entities setting the prices they sell their products at.

How is anyone to believe that people are governing themselves through such impedance?

If it were, as a rather rambunctious thought, that these corporate entities could be placed into - convinced to conform to - the design and dynamic of a larger example of Republic, then perhaps even given the higher resistance and impedance as it were, such might be manageable to an extent. But within that marriage of commerce and power, are a few checks and balances - AND to place such constraints on that commerce, is in effect defeating the original shift to begin with pertaining to its value in application within the larger mechanism. That is to say, the "free trade" elements as commonly established, should not be fettered in being required to fill those burdensome tasks and services.

In thinking about it, that tendency seems to be most of what crashes itself to begin with.

Such removes efficiencies from both areas in this example through rendering the populous as dead weight consumers, as well as then placing the burden of social movement and efficiency on private entities which mostly cannot fulfill them accept to great loss of that efficiency to themselves, as well as that mechanism.

I can easily see where within an efficient application of that duality I cited pertaining to the "sovereignty of the people" and the "power of the people" within that modern commerce/power - there is fertile ground so to speak, for actual opportunity and further - healthy stimulation of that larger, functioning mechanism.

In regard to corporate entities roping themselves in the burdens of maintaining society through ways I have described - within this modern dynamic of commerce'power. should they become too large (or monopolistic), they then can easily be described as the modern example of various degrees between the despotic governments described - as well as a fairly new version of tyranny/despotism - placing the former "citizen" now powerful within commerce, as an emulation of the former tyrannical despotic, monarchical ruler - sans of course, any actual sovereignty. Much of which is imposed having no other option within the consumer dynamic and that dependence.

Again, I see a paradox here in these larger corporate influences actually making things worse for themselves through exciting the desperation at "federal" levels to be "needed," and further to pander to the overwhelming and over bearing "consumer mentality."

In essence from some perspectives, through attempt to control that "governing body" too strictly from such directions - it forces the emulation within it to take on the attributes of a "ruled" private corporation, regardless of the "fluid" variables and elemental combinations of "governmental traits" that make themselves present. To put it more simply, the dynamic I see in such directions is akin to placing the back wheels of a car up on blocks and running the engine to remove mileage from the odometer.

Yes, the wheels turn.

Yes, the engine is running.

But, no - the end result of "wag the dog" among other cute names and tactics which are purposeful manifestations of the dynamic and paradox I am addressing, are anything but efficient or satisfactory.

This as well acts to create and support the idea and dynamic of "haves and have nots" in place of efficient, productive societal existence and actual opportunity.

It essentially sets the "corporate" entities in the position of "governing body" so to speak - on individual levels. Meaning that as much or more attention and importance is given by an individual to the wants of the corporate body they affiliate with, as there is to the actual "governing body."

This I see as reminiscent and resonant of bodies of the populous engaged in social structures which are dictated by/from contractual agreements with given corporate interests. A "rock star" for instance, usually exists entirely within a given corporate affiliation as per contract.. then considering other facets around "celebrity" including influence.... it is no surprise really that such tendencies move into society itself.

Continued Studies; 03/01/2006

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

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

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

03/01/2006

To further address this interesting development within that third degree of civilization, I feel that I should compare the two types of failures as well as the positive attributes of both, more in depth. Such is an entire work in itself when a person considers the subtleties within especially the movement of that mechanism we have named representative democracy - in all of its manifestations and forms, even beyond the popular moniker.

In as much as an efficient application of such an ideology seems to require that it not be forced to appear as have other manifestations of it (as per rigid emulation), so it would stand to reason that developed defects should be considered more individually as well. Even though it is, or more appears, that such failings stem from the same mis-step(s).

Something further to consider is the ill result of excess in prosperity. More the failed action of directing and utilizing that prosperity. Such is more than is topically discerned - which is to say that the "fruit" isn't necessarily just rotting on the vine so to speak. It isn't simply from the topical understanding of over abundance. It is as much the failed application of those "freedoms" and productivity (as I have addressed in other words). ~

To further address how I perceive that "shift" in power base and its effect, I have only to draw on simple observation to make an arguable point.

I find myself a bit puzzled though, when I consider how it is that what seems to me the natural direction of development within and of that mechanism beyond such transformations - ceased to progress.

I cannot readily believe that such problematic areas were not foreseen at least to some extent. I find myself immediately drawn to the example of technological advance as justifiable reasons for such seizure - but I recognize a "crutch" element to this that tends to instinctively force me to explore other avenues of reasoning for such apparent oversights. This especially when it is presentable that the technological blossom (however sudden and fast), was an extension of that area of transformed human combativeness. That is to say that for all it is worth, that technological advance is merely an extension in emulation of and within that power base shift, and further - in a hyper-linear sense, comparatively.

Again, a person could cite "too much of a good thing" as the fault even within the technological "race." Such attributes are easily argued in citing the decline of large (conventional and otherwise) conflicts of war simultaneously with the advent of technological progress. But in that again, we meet the failure to "ascend" that next plateau as a species in sustaining that "achieved" progress - falling in that area as well, into that chasm which it seems we have created with "progress" - most oft in haste - now further I realize, with failing to address further the elements and characteristics of the direction within the mechanism and result of "commerce/power."

It isn't as though such engineering is impossible. No more impossible that is, than it was to conceive and utilize those incredible ideas at the time such a concept was initially birthed and sculpted. In my native "lay terms," it seems it would be as simple as fitting it with an adapter of sorts, or even more directly, making (sculpting as it were) another "part" - extension if you will, to serve the need and purpose.

As a metaphor the thought appears to me as comparison hypothetically; The mechanism and initial concept(s) of representative democracy could be likened if you will, to a metal workers lathe. Such a mechanism as is a metal workers lathe is one of the only machines which can actually be used to make replacement parts for itself.

Such is a perspective with which to view what this problematic area is.

Why then could we not use that mechanism to "make" that extension area which is apparently needed?

We can use it to repair itself so to speak.

We can use it to make other mechanisms.

We can use it to make "parts" for other mechanisms (and for itself).

Why is it that we fail in utilizing its potential to extend its own value, worth and applicable uses beyond war and "regimes?"

It is lofty I know, and perhaps a bit selfish and irresponsible to pose such a question without immediately having a solution. But I cannot help such thoughts, especially knowing that I exist within something so incredible as our modern day and many of the positive results from efforts of brilliant minds past - whether or not I agree whole heartedly with them all. From my own perspective it is something that is far beyond the common concerns of "nationality" and origin. I truly believe those things and ideas were manifest for a larger reason. A much larger reason than some territorial, ego driven disputes about pride.

I do embrace that awareness and am grateful for it and further, in that spirit, would not yield it if it were possible that I could - however rudimentary is seen my lot within it and of it.

The mechanism itself has manifested in several ways within the United States of America, alone. As well it has manifested in as many different ways (if not even more) in other places and countries around the world - though as stated, in different ways and with different attributes and those subtleties.

I will be greatly interested when it is that I find the opportunity to look more closely at other examples of which I speak, beyond my native United States of America. Perhaps I may find inspiration within those other examples? I know that the opportunity alone, will be quite a wonderful experience.

It is that I have already seen inklings of those examples play out in my studies pertaining to the development of much of the worlds telecommunications. The progress and dynamic of those developments serve readily to illustrate other results (functionally) of that concept within the larger influence of what I have labeled Proximity Gestation, simply as a matter of course as to have been shaped from the initial source of progress - through the innate motion and that modern "mold" being the concept(s) for that "third degree of civilization."

The continent of Europe stands as a wonderful example there- pertaining to the natural result having been achieved without purposeful effort to do so. Sadly though, in the same respect - within the United States, and within that mechanism itself with conscious effort - we have managed only the examples of monopolies and despotism's in various forms, in that area, which more resemble the failings of waring, monarchical tribes. Again, reaching those results in the extremes (and various results) of and within the social direction of "commerce" united with perceived "power," within that mechanism. This having become more the standard than simply an existing movement as attribute.

Continued Studies - 02/28/2006

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

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

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

02/28/2006

I have continued in reading the fourth volume in Montesquieu's complete works, and happen upon yet another intriguing comment which is issued in D'Alebert's Analysis Of The Spirit Of Laws.

He is addressing what he states as "men in a state of nature" when he refers to what I have come to know as the "First Degree Of Civilization," being a rudimentary and barbaric form of "democracy" derived from "right of the strongest." He addresses as a loose paraphrase, the contracts and treaties of law as one designed to establish an "equilibrium" within society.

He then continues to cite the inherent (and re-occurring) imperfections within such treaties, and as well cites them as source of many disputes - this being seen as true enough through out history, I am still compelled to state that it is just as true to suggest that many strengths and advances have been derived from such treaties (properly employed), as well.

So as not to stray too far from the point of interest, it is then that he states that these same motives which are inspirations for, as well as derived from such developments as laws and other such treaties - bring them together as much as pull them apart. It is the tendency he cites for such contract to place interested parties in opposition with the larger spectrum, which I find so interesting at the moment.

To quote D'Alembert; "The same motives push them continually to want to enjoy the advantages of society without bearing the burdens of it."

He then states that the establishment of such agreements essentially pits the interested parties "from the time they enter into society, are in a state of war."

I find this interesting on many levels as well as the obvious humor which is human folly.

Here it is that humans have derived a means for which to erect a more efficient society - which, through the "natural barbarism" and other tendencies of humans , leads supposedly and directly to war. Albeit, and as he has stated, a more "equal" state of war.

Further this interests me in the fact that it supports my observations pertaining to deeper reasoning in the bold, social engineering step of coupling commerce with the idea of power.

A person can see where it is that such a social move made sense at the point in time when these realizations were made concerning the dynamics of structured societies. In seeing the longer term effect, I have to wonder to some degree, if such a decision was entirely thought through or if, in the novelty of such realizations and inspired thought - and tendency of humans - such steps were hastily made in any degree?

When considering it, such is entirely logical for the purpose of furthering the prosperity and progress of "peaceable" and tranquil societies - that is to say - civilized societies without the bloodshed and carnage of war being made a real state of existence - to move, or realign the focus of social power into the realm of commerce and business.

Obviously I am not saying such was un-successful - as that is not the case. Factually in my opinion, it is a stroke of genius unmatched in history from the perspective of social interests pertaining to civility. My concern, again, is the effect in the long term upon humanity in various ways.

first of which seems to me being as I have already explored in the devaluation aspects, through that re-arranged social dynamic, even the very act of procreating.

Then further even, as "hard" as it may sound, what of the effects from over population? What of the issues which arise concerning such problems, within said established civility?

Already we see signs of problematic areas pertaining to sustenance as well as other resources. Such puts humanity in the position to need a "bad guy" figure simply to stem that tide.

I am of a personal opinion that such isn't the best option or even entirely necessary, and is as result of our failures in addressing the real dynamic and resonation effect of that "shift" in "power" focus. Yes, I do believe such was a brilliant stroke in many degrees.... but I feel that we have yet to continue with that structuring development to meet its entire potential.

In plain terms, its seems that something else should be attached to it in its workings, or more that it should be augmented - modified to address the detrimental "side effects" of the initial intended results that I can discern. Something which will work with it in just as a sublime and positive manner, to check the to date unchecked aspects of it which have ballooned out of control it would seem - becoming even a detriment to that initial stroke of brilliance. It is as if within the aspect of built in ability to augment, we somehow have lost the deeper attention and meaning of that.

I do hold that should the mechanism within the concept of the third degree of civilization be more readily adhered to as it naturally manifests (I do realize this statement can be used out of context in a myriad of ways), we would already have - or perhaps begin to see and be inspired into the directions of that mechanisms progression, containing its own solution there-in.

At least perhaps presenting it.. and perhaps again setting into motion the reaction of those human tendencies.

We as a species tend to "develop" toward the area of complicating things to feel as though we have progressed - I believe those mishaps and missed detrimental effects are as result of such distractions as well.

The effect of those detrimental aspects seems essentially to play through dysfunction and despotism, the same or similar results as would have been achieved within a singular tyranny rule. though in such an instance, it is the potential for prosperity and even prosperity itself which has fallen on itself as that yoke of tyranny.

It seems similar to a monarchical or empirical despotism and tyranny, yet it differs - as different species of dogs, I imagine.

Continued Studies; 02/24/2006

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

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

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

02/24/2006

I happened upon another thought toward methods in which to establish real value for the virtual realm. This thought was pertaining to the employ of a similar system as I have explained, but using the area of popular music as well as its various fan base combinations.

This would provide for a dichotomy within the dynamic of "performer/fan base" which would possibly be more versatile than the previous example - given the various aspects of motion within such relationships and that there is a "two way" relationship also between modern popular performers (and even not so popular performers), which might lend flexibility to the desired result provided "both sides" of that barrier participated in something similar in structure to the example previously presented.

The "motion" between performers, and between performers and the variations and intermixed fan bases could prove a usable social dynamic.

It seems that this would give for more versatility within the vast many different performers as well as their fan bases - taking into account conceivably as yet another attribute, the interaction having been mentioned of those various fan bases.

I will most likely again touch on this subject in the future. ~

Another thought has occurred to me regarding the saturation of modern technology in every day life, being that once it is that such man made standards are solidified as unsurpassable - we then have limited the infinite capabilities and capacities of even human cognitive thought.

Once such standards become the "outer most," it is then all that can ever be so to speak - further tightening that bottle neck within the narrow scope (comparatively) of reality and existence which it is of.

A person can easily see the effects of this tendency within the motion and development of society, and more readily within the dynamic of its governing body. Especially as more and more becomes relegated to automation within such technological "advance."

Again, I do not propose to rail against modern technology - such would be outright folly at best and greater farce than is insisting it is of the "outer most" of existence - only that I see what may be a wiser path ( no big surprise or accomplishment, I am sure) in ceasing the attempt at cramming "one into the other" so to speak.

The limitations such would (and does) produce in surrendering all to such machinery - produces the social rigor mortise which humans have seen so many times before with the fall of societies and cultures - though- in this version, it has been imposed artificially. ~

In my studies, I am now reading some of Montesquieu's essays, and find inspiration in his works on "pleasures."

He states, in a paraphrase that essentially humans organize chaos to their own ends. He refers to art as well as nature in giving example of this innate tendency. ("chaos" of course being a subjective description of entirely human origin - that obviously there is no such thing as "chaos" beyond human perception, within nature).

What I understand his gist to mean, is that we as creatures seek to find order of some sort, even in the purposefully chaotic - those situations purposefully designed of human effort to be chaotic. What I think this actually means more in depth, is that chaos is sorted in a multitude of ways, into what is perceived as immediate order of some sort - given and from the perspective of each individual.

Factually, as we have seen through out history - even that tendency to organize, if left to its natural inclinations - will still eventually only yield a different type of chaos. If left unchecked, it progresses only to different forms of its former self in successions - which essentially is all that we know of reality anyhow. We only exist within certain "stop points" of that process - that progressing chaos so to speak - as again with each individual and a different order - perspective. Such goes with generations and that cumulative perspective, as well.

All that we entail and are of, is simply a procession of different levels and arrangements of said "chaos," disorganization (that "natural state of things) transformed temporarily (and subjectively) with our effort and perceived existence.

Again, I see the very firm indications of that larger process I have attempted to describe in my observations and within the idea of Proximity Gestation.

Politically, within my belief - the proper use of that concept involving the "Third Degree Of Civilization," makes productive use of that natural motion as well as our natural inclinations toward corruptions and organizing into a given, perceived order. it provides the checks and balances to stave off the "return" to "chaos" through "over-organizing" as well.

Again, both politically and socially - said mechanism is rather efficient provided it isn't FORCED into any predisposed leanings or usage, toward previous results for instance.

This isn't to say that similar positive results cannot occur as per previous results - only that such desired results and out comes cannot be force-ably reproduced or attained - as with all else, that mechanism is subject to the subtle degrees of progress within existence.

At best, such forced result seems always to end with some labor some farce, void of any true values within either "order" or productivity.

As with different people and their perspectives when viewing a contrived confusion or that natural disorder within the order of nature do find different results in prioritizing such "organization" and perceived "order" - so is that within the mechanism I speak of, and that which I feel it was designed to accommodate and even unify to a great extent in an acceptable manner, yielding a symmetry which is acceptable and very much in relation with the unique aspects of current surroundings which most influence the initial inputs - and represents their variety in various forms.

Continued Studies; 02/22/2006

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

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

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

02/22/2006

In my reading today, I happened upon a quote which I find to be very informative as to much of the dysfunction within modern "democracies" as they are acknowledged.

While it is that I am none too familiar with any of his works, the quote itself speaks volumes and is as follows;

Henry Miller from 1941 speaking on democracy and equality.

"It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd."

Firstly, besides this being the prevailing understanding of "equality" within our modern democracies - it is factually, very much not the result of the version of democracy which is the "third degree of civilization," being representative democracy.

It is quite factually, as is proved throughout history, to be as result of the version of "democracy" which entails the "first degree of civilization," being "primitive democracy."

Further, in regard to this result being from failed application of representative democracy, that result has been compounded and amplified in the blur which was and is the "advent" and "progress" of modern technology. Such haste in social development acted to encourage the promotion of that first degree version - as well, as much from result of a "path of least resistance" within the sudden speed of society.

When I think of the concept of "equality" itself, my experience and observation gives me a vastly different definition than that which is more widely upheld within that failed emulation of the "third degree of civilization" being really only a modern example of that "first degree."

Within the modern dynamic and those other influences, is as stated in that quote and readily observed, an idea that "equality" is the taking away of things as opposed to the presentation of opportunity. As if the understanding of its meaning within the actual mechanism of representative democracy is just that - to be focused on taking from one area or individual that which has been earned, to give it to another that may very well know nothing pertaining to the area(s) such an exchange may effect.

As if all people should be born without appendages, because there are those within society who are without them or their use.

Again, within what seems to be popular opinion - such is meant to be the focus, meaning and function of "equality."

Obviously and quite literally, such is a gross misinterpretation and a rave point on which to focus effort or the meaning of "equality."

There is nothing within even the concept of the "third degree of civilization" (being representative democracy) that I can see, which even suggests much less substantiates such a grotesque misinterpretation... that is, to my knowledge and understanding.

10/26/2006 In the interest of fairness, I do admit that the mechanism we exist within is not exclusively of any one idea or design. In fact, from what I can tell such is very much purposeful.

I personally cannot see the worth in sacrificing all of which genuine opportunity provides at even the individual level, for the misapplied dysfunction of such destructive and negative measures as the seemingly popular definition of "equality" does hold and dispense.

Again, from my understanding and personal experience, the word equality applied onto and into society means opportunity to progress within ones own capacity.

I have never even dreamed of thinking it was in any way the version which seems most widely upheld, much less insisting on any fictitious guarantees of successes there-in.

Such misuse is in no way "equality."

It likens more to its antithesis and extremely to prejudice in its worst form. How can we allow ourselves to falsely promote "equality" while producing an extreme lack of it, even within the facade and illusion of immediate benefits it brings to some - while damaging more, and more specifically their chance at enjoying actual equality?

Especially when the more proper application of such a concept as is equality, is so much more fruitful for all in their own right.

Even the life lived and failed as an individual within such a concept, is worth far more than a life (or part) taken from one and given to another to display as their own.

Such a thought again brings me to the subject of "value" and all such entails.

In our modern day there are those, particularly those specifically associated with the "virtual" realm - who- similarly to the misconceived understanding of equality, seem to think that "value" is gained simply through getting many to say something holds value. Such opinion, even en masse, bespeaks origins within and from consumer perspectives. Very much a consumer mentality.

To address "value" pertaining to the virtual realm more specifically, it is that such is directly attached to things of "value" which do not originate in the "virtual" sense. That is to say, within modern communications technology, as the concept of scrip dates even farther than Justinian and those ground breaking concepts of REM and Phsyical sale.

To be more precise, the Internet depends entirely on other value systems applied to itself.

This is not unique in any form, other than that of the direction and potentials of Internet communications. Such dependency coupled with the "desire" of those other directions has served to create a tension which is not necessary, between the two different "worlds." It is only "necessary" as far as that dependency.

This tension has also resulted in a competition of supplanted or perceived "need"..... a contest for some sort of dominance, which I see as entirely un-necessary - further even becoming a detriment to the potentials of both "worlds."

If it were that the "virtual realm," meaning Internet and Internet commerce established its own true version of sustained value independently of a direct attachment to others, that "contested" area would be freed up for actual development - progress and pleasure of living. Relieving as well, the other detrimental aspects of the non-essential clash between "worlds." Such seems as though it would quite factually permit the establishment of healthy trade between the two areas of existence.... this further acting to maintain an already established "value system" with the newer, "virtual" economy.

I do hold it to be true that such a development will still have to have some connection with the "physical" world, but I see devising and establishing a separate and unique point of connection as part of that economy building.

firstly it seems that there must be established a consistent, constant which is not relative to already established value systems or scrip - something which is not in effect at this point in time.

I readily see this opportunity to lay in using areas which need development and resolve, that have found dead ends due to the rigidity and lack of "space" in areas too far in motion to be of use. This of course would entail choosing such areas that are the least used in regard to the "negative" effect in sustaining the social aspects of something else. Some area where it is that such a shift could not only be beneficial, but efficient in such a use as well.

For instance, here in the United States of America, it has long been a point of contention in regard to restitution for the descendants of former slaves. I see this as a potential area to establish such a "micro' effect in "value" base as per the "virtual realm."

The biggest problematic areas with this plight, seem to be as I have stated pertaining to little efficient opportunity within the motion which already exists. It is a potential point of contention.. which indicates a deeper use perhaps.

In other words, it would be a larger detriment to all should such a large quantity (prospectively) of monetary remittance be issued at once in the direction of a "direct" restitution, than it would be to employ that "need" and motion into other uses peripherally, even as an emulation of said traditional "succor" to a new (though virtual) economy.

The damage to the existing economy with such a large scale and polarized disbursement could prove to be overly problematic, where to use such an opportunity in establishing a consistent and constant flow in "launching" a separate economy system, could be greatly beneficial to all.

This combined with similar efforts within other nations, simultaneously - as well. Thus rendering the potential for an independent, virtual, international economy containing new, raw elements for which to establish and maintain real value. Independent, though still in touch with the other, existing economies of the various interests.

Essentially incorporating the various different nationality participants as the beginnings, and "value" base.

Applying the efficiency of a "democratic" economy (in that "floating" sense), on a large scale.

In essence again, this would be similar to creating an entirely different country consisting of a "virtual" populous from several different countries - still residing within those countries of their origin. A dual citizenship of sorts.

Think of it, a big, diverse country (or even several as it develops) which exist on no land what so ever, or sea for that matter.

Of course, this would mean that those participating (especially at that "base" area) would again need to be regarded as people holding dual citizenship's - that of their country of residence/origin, and that of the virtual realm.

Continued Studies; 02/21/2006

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

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

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

02/21/2006

In considering further, the concept of "democracy," I find great comfort in my interpretation and as well find great insights when applying it through observation.

I consider the elements which I know of and as well those that I have discovered through study, and I do so in a comparative manner for this instance. That is to say, I apply insight and observations pertaining to it as I look to modern American cities and how they have developed, for instance - within that perceived mechanism - through out the small amount of time in which such "developments" have taken place.

The initial result upon this applied observation, I find serve to bolster my perspective and even encourage the direction of it in study and consideration. This does so to the degree that such observations and comparative studies (though still somewhat topical), are surely to be in my future.

Topically at this point, I can easily see the following;

Philadelphia; Seems to have progressed in a manner that would suggest the basis of its governing tactic within loose mechanism dubbed "democracy" was and is one of a "pro-active" manner. that is to say that the workings and relationships within it in Philadelphia were and are more "meddlesome" with that mechanism. Meaning it was approached more from "making it" conform to wants, so to speak. "What can be gotten out of it?" as it were. Efforts to make changes more than promote changes in several ways.

I see this as having formed a sort of social smear which has manifested - To describe it in a geometrical term and metaphor, it seems to be "horizontal" and "cyclical" within that pattern of development.

Boston; I see as having developed differently within the same loose mechanism (as I have described my perspective of said workings of "mechanism"), though still within that initial influence as said "loose" social mechanism. I see it as having mainly developed from a "pro-active" motion as well, though within certain "segregation" of that initial mechanism yielding geometrically speaking- more of a "vertical, oblong." I see a large influence from Roman social structures (being "social level segregation"), which tend to interact fairly smoothly while remaining "individual" so to speak, in their "groupings."

I see much of that influence having stemmed from a large Italian and Irish immigrant population. Both being fairly influenced from said Roman ideologies through the Catholic influence, obviously - though just as obviously both carrying differences unique to themselves. This served in my opinion, to add a more pronounced aspect of that Roman structure into the mechanism of "democracy."

This obviously took place after the founding of the city and its initial populous... even and especially after the establishment of that concept of "democracy." Such I see very much as part of the designs in many ways.

When considering New York City; I immediately see the Roman segregation in the larger sense, overlaying and interacting with a more free flowing element "below/within" that. both being within that larger mechanism. It seems to be more of a tiered effect and social motion, combined geometrically speaking (as metaphor) with a horizontal, oblong or spherical shape... "bubbled" so to speak.

In looking at the historic movement of those overlaying "segregations"... a person can see the larger, natural progression within the larger mechanism. The observation of interaction between them, being more an example of the "immediate" motion within that larger mechanism, and underlying it.

Consider the difference in motion, between an "hour hand" on a clock and a "minute hand" on a the same time piece. Both are in motion so to speak... representing various "levels" in this example... but moving at different rates as per "developmental direction and speed."

I look at Detroit; in a topical manner and from this perspective can see the results of the "expansion" elements with the concept and mechanism of "democracy."

This obviously has transpired in a rather horizontal way, garnering social "peaks" around the edges of it as it attempts to continue to progress "outward" from a "center."

This "pattern" if viewed in a time elapsed manner, seems metaphorically to have the characteristics of a "splash" so to speak. While comparatively the New York atmosphere "moves."

The initial "direction" and result of the elemental combinations of the area, within that mechanism (and the electricity/industrial revolution boom) being very nearly "straight upward" geometrically speaking.... reaching an apex and then tumbling back down... thus moving the "social inertia" from "vertical" to another extreme of horizontal and "outward."

This isn't to say that the area has "crashed" or "failed" or anything presumptuous. Only that it has progressed and reacted within that mechanism accordingly it would seem, and according to the elemental components of the area, within the natural inclination and workings of that mechanism we call modern (representative) democracy.

Further, when I choose to mentally combine these examples of hypothetical, social geometric dynamic and shape, the visual becomes rather interesting and lends insight into the larger mechanism itself.. and its potentials.

I must say that I do look forward to further research and study on this mind toy - especially pertaining to the "older" cities within the North American example of said "Third Degree Of Civilization."

Continued Studies - 02/18/2006

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

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

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

02/18/2006

Again in reference to the developed double standard, it would appear that such is directly as result of that newer process/union - essentially becoming a thorn of sorts, in its own side given the ease of "commonality" attaining considerable wealth without having to know the more intricate details of the social and commerce structure which they benefit from. This may not sound like it is something that would make sense, but such seems very much to be as result of specific designs there-in - at least to some level of occurrence.

It is possible in the modern day for those entirely ignorant of the reasons and subtleties with and within modern business, to obtain a rather considerable amount of social "sway" within the "commerce/power" ideology. It is possible to become wealthy with no previous insight into even the most basic of knowledge pertaining to "value" and/or wealth.

This makes for more confusion when time arises that the "presented" limits in that direction manifest themselves. It almost entirely then creates a need for outside support to the structure itself. It also provide ample opportunity for various parabolic developments to transpire in regard to said social sway and even within the manifested perception of what may have and does presumably, maintain wealth and value.

Something else that it seems to promote, especially within the common ignorance of the given example situations - is the pursuit of out and out monopolies in some instances. Many times in the said attempt at transition of their "station" and mode of existence from the modern "commerce/power (in which they "ascended")" union.

It also presents the want in apparent lack, of further direction of "always more," and "bigger" as it were.

This likens to building a fine tuned motor, only to always want it to be bigger instead of attention to maintaining the fine tuned performance of existing efficiency. It could be likened to a fighter in one weight class always wanting to become bigger instead of celebrating the success and efficiency it has attained while maintaining a fine tuned existence.

Given, it is not necessarily a bad goal to aspire to such heights as "larger," more prominent size, in that commerce arena - but efficiency must also be considered. Efficiency in more than just the topical sense.

"Size" then becomes a detriment to more than just the "company" concerned. Further, it is much more efficient and profitable to remain a fine tuned element of a smaller stature, than it is to become a large and loosely efficient, larger one. Especially concerning the very important aspect of maintaining "value." Even further it is more probable that the "smaller" more efficient example within that modern "marriage" will in effect posses more "sway" than that of the behemoth with that structure. this it seems would be due to that "quality" and actual "value" element as opposed to "girth" and saturation - which also equate to negatives as well.

Again, "girth" is its own worst enemy in respect to being a very limited entity.

Something can only get "so big" before there is nothing left to "expand." Then oft times given that, within such examples the goal - and therefore "mechanical" focus and workings within it - were "geared" solely for the purpose of attaining size - it possesses the problem of no longer being applicable even to itself in regard to that "maximum size."

Factually, it then begins to deteriorate causing all of its peripherals developed or attained during "growth" to deteriorate, as well.

Once something "geared" to "get big" then does so, it has no other options.

It seizes up.

Perhaps a person could apply the "laws of gravity" in such situations?

such design will only go "so high" before feeling the effects of their own designs. A "stone" can be propelled across the surface of a body of water - but once that inertia falls below the level to influence it efficiently any longer - the stone sinks quite naturally.

In these observations, it then becomes rather obvious that the design of the marriage between "commerce and power" was specifically intended to promote efficiency and quality, not so much size and girth (which could be seen to emulate that want and dynamic of despotic power structures; Kingdoms, Monarchies).

This makes allot of sense when examining the area from which and in which such was implemented. Before hand, such "positions" of import were "designated," awarded so to speak with no guarantee beyond "honor" for results.

Within the "commerce/power" union, such positions became attainable to the "best producer" of a given example.

In that, the aspect of yielding quality was magnified for the interest of maintaining that area and place within the market, so to speak.

Most definitely, from what I can tell - this was devised to promote quality as well as diversity and sustainable forms of both.

This had also given rise to the problematic areas of "size" I have briefly explored. It seems to me that such is easily counter-able in the use of the very same concept over again, in promoting a healthy "unity" and exchange between the more common "individual," smaller aspects.

Even within the larger examples, such could be applied to remove many unhealthy aspects of those other "size" goals. It seems to me that it very much presents and embodies an emulation of that over-laying concept politically, of "democracy" - which in turn, from my personal perspective is the manifestation in emulation of a much larger and ongoing process.

When functioning "properly," it very much exemplifies the result of such applied ideology. the concept of democracy itself is designed to accommodate many areas within existence - which brings me briefly to the subject of "expanding democracy."

There again, simply in that term from my perspective, is a mis-step in its use and most effective manifestations. The idea to "force" a version of democracy on any other culture is defeating the purpose of it, before it begins. the design of it, from my perspective, is much more flexible and more efficient when it is addressed as such, for the potentials it holds. that is to say that when the basic ideology and various elements of the larger concept are allowed to "play out" within different social and cultural dynamics - the results, again - manifest toward that efficiency and diversity/quality in the larger picture.

To "force" one version (more the perceived results of one version) from one culture onto another, is not properly using the tool of human advance which is the concept itself - from what I can discern.

In so many words, it is idiot proof if it is utilized in a conducive manner. The results are very much as per natural course when it is that certain basic things are introduced. That which has been titled the "third Degree Of Civilization," is very much a natural course of existence with little influence of structure to promote it.

In that again, it is simply brilliant. A person can see various "versions" of it having manifested in various forms and areas around the world. Most times being the most successful, when it is that the series of developments has been left to its own natural course in development. The results may not be a "cookie cutter" replication of that which we commonly perceive as "democracy," but in looking around at our society I cannot help but think that to not be such a bad thing.

In examining the ideology, it would seem that the desired result is to magnify and utilize the existing diverse elements within those given different cultural examples - very much as per those having been introduced (and welcomed) within our version.

To attempt to impose the perceived result of one version of said "democracy" from one example/cultur area - any given "state" for example - into another culture entirely, is absurd. an absurdity that does not fall into the realm of efficient absurdity within the concept itself- in my opinion.

It is the type of "absurd" that serves but to waste.

It is a process that - again within my opinion - is and should be a process utilizing the inherent and natural cultural elements of the given area in which it is "introduced."

It isn't a mold so to speak in that "cookie cutter" sense. It is a living process.

If, within the example of something which has become "large" within the marriage of commerce and power, that functioning social dynamic does not employ the very concept itself being geared toward those "quality" and "diversity" goals - that is to say, if said examples fail to utilize the social dynamic if employed in gaining that size, those problematic elements manifest and in some cases could cause a destructive direction in making the whole of it become more of a "consumer," than a "producer."

Essentially rendering it a despotic vacuum.

An inefficient emulation of a despotic monarchical structure for example, with none of the "sovereign" elements to counter such directions in the least.

Of course, many other "side steps" have been employed to attempt to avoid these inevitable results, but never in history have those attempts been successful. It is possible to see several in our modern society. One of which, and the most obvious is that of "re-assigning" the idea of "quality," as if such "standard" existed on a numberless slide rule, as opposed to a standard.

Much of this resulting from, ironically, the attempt at "standardizing" the "concept" of quality itself. As if in some ill perspective, such was the intended use of the mechanism and union between "commerce/power."

It is a form of "wag the dog" pertaining to social values for the sake of reasons I have presented and many more, I am sure, I am thankfully not aware of.

the act of influencing social opinion as a means of avoiding the result of this misapplied concept - further acts as a mis-application of it unto all that it is which is of you, so to speak - and should it be that you are not of the "sovereign" element - you have, in effect poisoned your own existence in that sense.

Continued Studies - 02/17/2006 continued

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

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

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

02/17/2006 continued

In looking a bit more closely at the social concept of that marragie between "commerce" and the idea of "power," I see other immediate results; It creates a "tread mill" effect with society in certain directions, and even accross "party lines," which sets in motion another dynamic within that to "not serve the others purpose" in too much effort toward ones own priority and prosperity.

This "tread mill" effect does serve in some senses, to maintain value of things such as scrip through the "inertia" within that aggitation, that motion so to speak. But, as with a treadmill, it only serves such a purpose to a certain limit which I am not at the moment prepared to define or address - the "limit" that is within that "treadmill," that is.

I do note however, that such is rather beneficial to the "floating" aspects of the modern dollar, but again for some reason I have as of yet to explore such directions specifically - that is, only having done so to a certain degree as can be seen within this body of notes.

I would immediately "guess" that such a limit of effectiveness has something to do with the internal aspects of trade and relationships there-in - but even in that as a thought, if it were that every economy existed entirely on such a treadmill, such a limitation would still be the case - and further in a much more detrimental manner.

I tend to think that such is highly problematic in the "virtual realm" of commerce, even more-so. Once there is "no one else" to trade with not of the given example limitation - to lend that "succor" so referred to in the classic sense, all that is left is "self consumption" and an immediate end to most of that "value" element beyond ones own self serving perspective.

10/25/2006 This presents the immediate and obvious need to not only promote healthy commerce from ones own directions - but as well to maintain those other aspects which lend in a contrary manner, to said established value in that larger sense. "You can't keep logging if all of the trees have been cut down." Then further, it becomes a different dynamic when it is that the only trees left are overtly tended and well within the limitations of ones own design, as well.

This element of "treadmill" effect exists both from the "consumption" dynamic as well as the "greed" or "ambition" dynamic. Niether being entirely different from the other for all intent and purposes in regard to this aspect, and both being very limited and "finite" as it were.

Another result in the social change brought on by the marraige of commerce and the concept of power - is that directly related to war, itself.

The movement of that "power seat," the point of focus for said recognized "power" to that of "commerce," effectively provided means for which to move the idea of war into the "fiscal" realm almost entirely - further providing for an element from which to resolve disputes in less brutal though highly competative manners. That is, if it is that such a mechanism is recognized and used in such a way. Just as observably with that "move," is the potential for more war.

The seemingly "natural" element of competition which that marraige produced in society has proven to be very efficient in channeling the human tendency toward competition and dominance into a more "civilized" arena.

More that the potentials for such were born, and refined to beome more efficient in their own right, though sadly (in my opinion) not always utilized.

This again, ties back into the elements of "treadmill" as well as those concerning "attraction."

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, if it is that the previous "sovereign" element is entirely ignored - so then the whole of the commerce/power union loses all efficiency and real value - falling into a state of counterfeit existence in a similar effect as described concerning the individual attempting to transition from the common commerce/power arena, into being seen and recognized as "sovereign" themselves.

It is a tempting double standard which, in my opinion, should always be noted. And notably in the modern social arena, it is not always known as to why one is not the other.

Continued Studies - 02/17/2006

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

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

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

02/17/2006

It would seem that with the ease and commonality of such possibilities as "ascending" social structures monetarily, that it has been forgotten of the "union" they are of to begin with - which has no relation what so ever with the recognition of a sovereign relation.

The overwhelming growth of such as was and is that marriage of "commerce" and the perceived embodiment of power, has brought forth several other social dilemmas as well as that catch 22 the ignorant female exists within, without her knowledge. That is firstly, through mismanagement of polarized wealth or conversely that same of too concentrated, begets yet another great loss of value as has been demonstrated in the recent history since the inception of such a social structure. This has been much through that insistence in being falsely recognized as of a sovereign line as well.

That isn't to say that I believe the problem to be a person enjoying life and the benefits of their success - only that I see problematic areas in those people reaching a point where they choose to abandon that which has permitted their inclusion for "greener pastures" as it were. More the perceived illusion that such transformation is at all possible.

Even further in the upheaval of social mechanics is the attempted abandonment of the one progression which they rode to success, with the supplanting of it with entirely new ideology to that which their "fiscal" body is accustomed - this most often times being of some emulation in regard to "sovereignty."

Such serves in a real sense to play out as a violent coupe to ones own self, while then acting again as a new "governing body" unto ones own self, which has also abandoned all of that which was productive in the former "governing" sense.

This as well acts to remove real value in the sense of displacing the "contraption of society" which maintained it prior to the attempted transition.

In other words, it would seem that in establishing wealth and the value of that wealth through the marriage of "commerce and power," one can not them "divorce" them so to speak, within their own lives in order to replace the "horse" of power in that instance, with the "horse" of feigned (purchased) sovereignty.

He who would seek and find his success in "tending his shop," should then maintain that stance in order to be true to even himself. His value then remains as the integrity of his trade as opposed to the novelty of his presence.

I can readily see the brilliance within the concept which was of that "Third Degree Of Civilization;" representative democracy, that is - set forward within the combined motion of interacting elements of "commerce/power" and the former "sovereign/power."

in a very simple explanation, it seems to combine those two elements, and rather efficiently and productively when done in and from the po=roper perspective and intent, it would seem.

In terms I can more readily understand and communicate beyond words to any others which have the knowledge; it is very much meant to exist as is an emulsification - naturally, from what I can tell. A "transient" emulsification at that. One that flows in an ethereal manner even.

that isn't to say that "sovereignty" is capable of being embodied in such a manner, only that the "qualities" so to speak, of sovereign "integrity" are briefly combined - utilized - and distributed with that marriage of commerce and power.

This means directly, that given the ease of misinterpretation for what ever reasons - and of course the tendency of the human creature toward corruptions of various forms - and the obvious ease of corruptablility, that all of those elements cannot be seen or acted as inherent in such stations. Further, it is that they are very much a part of the larger motion within it. A bit of a paradox... but one that is most enjoyable to ponder.

My meaning in such a statement is as much to convey my opinion that such tendencies probably should not become the reasons or focus of executing any executive office - or position in relation to that larger concern within "power/commerce."

From what I can discern, this effect would be most efficient and productive given the "sovereign" element were of an "un-known" un-known source - thus maintaining a barrier from that temptation to again attempt the combination within a democratic structure, to combine the elements of perceived sovereignty with un-checked power. It would seem this would serve many facets including the assurance of a balance and inspiration to maintain the committed and utilized structure of "commerce and power."

That then, further combined with the checks and balances on commerce and power, respectively - set forward in the areas of "government" meant to do so - strikes then, an acceptable level of efficiency and arena in which to exercise all of those facets in an equal manner. that element of "sovereignty" remaining "faceless" within it, and thusly accessible for all, especially those lacking the authority of commerce in this arena (and subsequently "law" should it be unchecked) to use in maintaining both stability (much through aggravation in a "physical" sense - "progressive corruptions") and productivity as well as maintaining a "floating" and frictionless element of the whole -while satisfying the needs of "value" and opportunity nearly simultaneously.

Within this "Democratic" structure, the use of "sovereignty" as in a dictatorial fashion... that is, once it is attempted to be used as if it there would be a King - all within it seems to fail.

To be more clear, it doesn't seem possible with the modern democratic structure as we know it based on commerce and power unions, to effectively sport the "leadership" of a "King" or "Queen" where it is that a "President" should be in office.

10/25/2006 As a note, this dynamic within the larger social motion of said structure.. then seems to beget a form of controlled demise, so to speak. A regulated "burn" to insure yet again, the healthy movement of society. Of course, when it is that this becomes imbalanced, then that regulated "burn" advances and becomes much more than simply a social maintainence mechanism. It seems to be yet another aspect in utilizing the innate tendency of people toward various forms of corruption (including those where such "wants" would find themselves a part of), in that it seems anticipatory of those wants toward recognition as "sovereign" and thusly, anticipatory of the resulting social discourse of it.

In effect, it seems that there should be something always seen as superior in some way, to even the higher office which is regarded in effect with the government structure, as the citizens of the nation all silently and unknowingly wearing the station of sovereign to some degree. Excercising it only through the mechanism provided in the other aspects of the "democratic" government structure.

Such can be readily misconstrued as meaning "popular opinion" or even further the "majority" voice (that is, those who complain more or yell louder), but such is as detrimental as forsaking the path an individual may have chosen in that of the marriage between commerce and power. ~

Continued Studies - 02/16/2006

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

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

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

02/16/2006

After having completed my composition titled Proximity Gestation; On The Perspicacity Of Species, to some degree - It is that I have continued my studies as well as a few other projects including a work of fiction I fancy as a "Romance" in a classic sense. This in addition to various short fictions as well as some essays further supporting the idea presented within POroximity Gestation.

Most of my studies have been concerning bits of political philosophy and some Theology in a topical sense - the political aspects have drawn me to reading more of Montesquieu himself - his publications that is to say, including the Spirit Of Laws in several forms - translations, as well as what I have access to of his complete works. This includes the publication and translation of his work titled "Persian Letters," which is itself a fine yet subtle study in political philosophy, in action.

The work is largely fictitious but is used many times as a tool to convey his underlying theme in relation to the "Spirit Of Laws." This being done both directly with the use of similar subject matter and as well, in a negative/suggestive sense which reinforces the wealth of logical sense he puts forward in the "Spirit Of Laws."

In short, he successfully propagated his own good points in the form of fiction. Entertaining to some degree as well I might add, and with an ease in seeing the novelty of it for its time in utilizing an existing "mystique" about an unknown as host for reinforcing his larger body of non-fiction - vicariously.

I have just finished the actual correspondence of his which have been published and am now beginning with some of his essays and works in defense of the "Spirit Of Laws."

I immediately note that there existed in his time, many of the same challenges and questions which still exist today in one form or another pertaining to that element which is our essence and existence. I find this refreshing to know that we are still quite the mystery to ourselves regardless of all of the intrusions and advances we lay claim to in other ways.

I happened on a thought the other day. More a realization about some of the differences between our modern day and even just in the 1700's. That is, that we seem to spend much more time and energy looking backwards now than did they even such a short period of time, ago. History, events, findings through out that history.

It gives me pause in considering why and where then, is evidence to the volumous level such is done in our modern day, of early cognitive man giving to the same considerations?

Was there not as much "history" to consider then? Even just that short period of time ago respectively and in those times - various - through out our past?

It seems that the most brilliant minds from history were the least distracted with such "backwards vision."

Factually, in today's standards they (those brilliant minds) could very well be considered "un-educated" within that standard which has been derived from even their own lives and "history" as we know it. That singular direction so to speak.

How then is it that the large percentage of "un-educated" (comparatively) minds thought "forward" and taught to us a firm, "unchangeable (apparently)" knowledge?

How is it that the comparatively "un-educated" have been and continue to be used as the standard of achievement? Especially given the main focus of "brilliance" today being measured in capacity to "look backwards."

The vast extensive body of knowledge we now possess and are capable of augmenting, serves firstly to hold our focus on that which has already come to pass.

Those from history on which it is directed and from which it is derived, having had considerably less "knowledge" while still held as standards of today.

Those examples in and of themselves hardly ever delved, much less focused on "their" past beyond their own beginnings and achievements, and then for only reference it would seem.

is it not to be held just as "true" for them as it is purported now, that there is "nothing new under the sun?"

I look at the many similarities and similar questions which have still remained unanswered entirely, which I can observe of my own existence and surroundings, and those they have clearly documented as of concern then - and I have to wonder why it would be any different then concerning the illusion which blind folds humanity within its snail like progression and capacity in regard to "nothing new?"

It is true that many of those questions remain. Largely, in my opinion, due to the fact that many of them are highly individual and relate only loosely to each person the same - much in the manner I have put forward in Proximity Gestation. It is simply easier to distract the masses with use of those loose affiliations in our modern day, than it is or would be to lead so many to a path of self discovery beyond that which is within those groupings (within the masses) and the media.

There have been changes and answers from what I can discern, as well as answers from changes - not always positive answers, but telling results all the same.

I found specific curiosity in a certain point of focus that M. Montesquieu made concerning one of those social changes. He spoke of the time when it was that commerce was "married to the idea of power."

This is incredibly significant and still resonates in the modern day, in several ways. Firstly, in regard to the change itself up until that conscious social decision for such a marriage - development if you will - birthright and order solely dictated the hierarchy of power (save for "appointments" of course), as well as the basis and form of "value."

With that development, the "value" of procreation - that of breeding "fell." It lost much of that which made it important - relegated it to novelty in many respects.

What I can see from my vantage here, is that such a development and devaluation of procreation acted to begin the imprisonment of the female in a catch 22, as well as provided avenue for unchecked population growth - Which, under that "new union" was quite a welcomed thing so long as there was commercial elements and productivity within it.

In regard to the female, this development shifted a particular area of the social structure which allowed for what could have been no more of an active sexual activity to become instant devaluation, socially. That is to say, the "promiscuity" which was normal and active (considered healthy, even) within a hierarchy "rank and file" before such development - which in turn acted to impart "value" as per inclusion, then suddenly became the "promiscuity" of devaluation in such concerns.

This as well became effected when those of a previous "common clothe" were suddenly vested with that "power" of commerce - being vaulted to levels of perceived importance. This "promiscuity" as well, acted to "devalue" the female in causing such recognition to then be associated directly with monetary wealth.

It essentially removed the sexual options and freedoms for females, in directly associating interactions which were previously perceived as "favor," or even "blessings" as it were, to that of being nothing more than a purchase on many levels. the social elements were reduced to those concerning "commerce" (if even in the peripheral sense), disregarding bloodlines or birth order - even among the "common" element in favor of the "commerce/power" dynamic.

"Commerce," the possession of monetary wealth became the standard "mark" as opposed to that of "sovereign," station, bloodlines, personal merit. Again, even among those not of "blue blood."

Curiosly enough, in the modern resonated effects of this social migration and movement, many of those attaining or obtaining such recognition in wealth - tend to insist that they then be permitted to transgress that social movement which provided the path to their fortunes for themselves, in being seen and/or recognized as if to actually be of a "sovereign" bloodline.