Continued Studies ; 03/15/2006

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

03/15/2006

D'Alembert contends that e as a species are governed by different kinds of laws as follows; "Natural Law" - common to each individual, "Divine Law" - that of religion, "Ecclesiastical Law" - that of the policy of religion ( developing into meaning "interpretations" perhaps in modern society?), "Civil Law" - that of the members of the same society, "Political Law" - that of the government of that society. "Law Of Nations" - that of societies with respect to each other.

He then contends that the distinct objects within those groupings should not be confounded. "One should not regulate the other" for fear of injustice, and a spirit of moderation as much as possible, should be employed.

I understand that statement as pertaining to "just" and "reasonable" interpretations of such standards. Something which can (and has been) problematic in the age old "church" and "state" battle field.

In my opinion, "church" should be reasonably checked, NOT as to say limiting the freedom to worship, but more to maintain reasonable and "respect" for those other areas in society(ies). Esspecially in the fact that it is usually the current "Ecclesiastic" areas which move to further their influence in a given station - and usually with little or no respect to the other facets. Hardly ever has an ecclesiastical change in the guard gone in the direction of maintaining the current directions within the church. Even given the over all consistency perceived of such organizations. This of course and quite obviously being none too different than is leadership changes in government. This includes the various dangers of cult developments - some even transcending modern humanitarian aspects - as if they will somehow find some "new" way in which to go with various oddities.

Knowing then that it is the "Ecclesiastic" areas within religious law which are responsible for such "movements" within that area and under the design of religious right of way, it can be said then, that such "Ecclesiastic Law" becomes inherently a facet in the "political" arena - and in doing so - in my opinion - should be treated as such, being political more than "religious" - keeping in mind the "moderate" aspect in checking as well any damage to the "church" as per the result of "ecclesiastic" upheaval. Meaning that the "ignorant" on either side of such "movement" should not be excluded - those within "religion" per say, but not as part of the political, ecclesiastic uprising.

I realize that sounds odd and as well I realize the problems such would pose - within that, I must say that the movement of something such as the ecclesiastic aspects/opinions - should not act to deprive the same due of the "divine" and "natural," which they and all other examples should remain vested with within said ideology.

In the United States - in my opinion - such would mean that something such as one of the newer examples of organized religion should not be held responsible for the ecclesiastic violations (movements) of one or more of their "members" - much less entire other organizations. The "religious" body isn't necessarily the elements of given radical interpretations.

I believe this is much the reason for it (ecclesiastic) being seen as separate even in the time of D'Alembert.

Something else this subject mater raises to question in my mind, is the "status" of "divine" - the meaning itself, in our modern day? Is it as alterable as are the directions of the "church" from those ecclesiastic influences?

Not to "beat a dead horse" but I have to wonder - as it is a rather large and pertinent "dead horse" in my mind - If it is that such perceptions should be "re-evaluated" within the respect to our very different, and very differently real reality with the onset and saturation of electricity in our modern day?

It is firm in my mind that even within the modern advance in which we exist, that a large process is still very much in effect - though drastically concentrated if not changed to some degree with such amplification and sheer "speed" of our modern, electric reality.

Truthfully, within many of the existing religious structures - the presence of electricity itself would have been considered witchcraft even only short centuries ago.

Immediately I would cite that it isn't to the direction and degree of change m=one might assume - which from my perspective, is perceived as "advance." Factually, I see the human creature as having become more "stupid" in those advances and concentration of information - more topical that is to say - as well as from the resulting compression of and within our perception and capacity. Perhaps "stupid" is too strong and limited a word - more precisely it would then be a reduced level of apparent innate understanding and a limitation of capacity to the extent only of the most advanced of technology - comparatively speaking. This meaning that perhaps there is a relationship between that level of "advance" and the loss of said capacity - perhaps almost a direct correlation?

I see it as a containment of sorts within one "strand" of possible perception within capacity and developed reality. As if we have contained our potential within that applied limitation - setting now the outer most "potential" of that only being that which has been seen as the outer most supposed "advance."

Surely such an extreme change in simply being human would garner a re-assessment and re-examination of the idea of "divinity?"

Granted, in that level of developed "stupidity," such could prove to be dangerous - if for nothing more than accidental omission of pertinent aspects and considerations due to the long (short in comparison, really) automation of certain, basic life traits.

Truly, when a person considers it, the result and effect of electricity could (and has been in some cases) be regarded as divine in its own right. More a movement of divinity, than an entity itself.

To the "primitive mind," something we take for granted daily can be revered as god-like itself.

How is it that we, living with it, fail to acknowledge what must have been a similar effect on our own area within our species when first exposed to its effects?

How is it that we have already forgotten the very extreme change and effect of it on society (and reality) itself? Both immediately physical (as per a light bulb turning on) and atmospheric (as per the level of consistency in frequency it has progressively added? This not even then considering the effect in change to the psyche and perceived normality.

Could it even be said that there are those who have developed, through the result of and from such experiences - the social and personal opinions that electricity is some form of "divinity manifest?" Even to the point of such considerations no longer being of conscious sort?

What of the very probable in the direction of people now existing which have never even questioned the presence of electricity (and its effects in use) as not being a natural element of existence?

I have been electrocuted severely and can attest to the sheer power and concentration of power within that apparently simple development - Especially in regard to/of that which I speak.

In that I realize that it is quite simply only a small part of a much larger, ongoing process within our existence - if not "development."

In examining the "supercharger" effect on our reality and especially our social and governing aspects in motion - I have to again ask if it is that we as a species, happened upon such a wonderful tool too soon?

Is it that we will ever again recognize it as a tool, and again move beyond it as cognitive creatures - to further our existence in the immeasurable amounts of areas we seemingly have systematically excluded as we "progress" in a very narrow manner?

Will we ever again exist outside of it and its limitations - its effect on our perception and capacity?

Can we ever again dwell beyond it while depending so extensively upon it?

Basic electricity hasn't changed that much in its production or various uses.

The modern "developments" we praise are all based on/within that very basic, and sometimes detrimental - perhaps even primitive level of power source.

Why has electricity itself, not been further "developed" at a comparable rate as that within it... if only more than refined and made more efficient?