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.