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. ~