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.