Continued Studies - 03/19/2006 (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

03/19/2006 (continued)

As long as there are "groups" of people - "societies," then it seems that there will always be a "group" competition. And given that any having individual attributes within such groupings are usually set aside in some way if not even ostracized - in an effort to maintain the "group," then it is through these reasoning's that there will always be war in some degree. Especially when such groups are blind of such a simple understanding.

11/06/2006 Incredible paradox from my point of view. Stranding ourselves in the area of warring, for the sake of "safety in numbers" to begin with. As long as the tendency to group is, then is the tendency to compete, and further is the tendency not only to war with one another, but to actually promote it. Refine it and further it in various aspects. To "celebrate it" in the manner of sport for instance, is on one hand a wonderful way to exercise those tendencies, yet another is an incredible assurance that such tendencies will remain. Perhpas this yet again illustrates that area within existence where in humans reside - suspended to some degree between the physical, physiological and of course the metaphysical? Really an interesting dynamic.

In my opinion, the celebration of the individual is the path to peaceful existence through out the "society." But how is it that such individualism can possibly exist within a dynamic dependent upon the group mentality?

This doesn't mean that such developments will be immediate - especially given the common tendency and fears within groupings to "out" any individual - consequently seen as threatening. This is especially problematic in more "primitive" social dynamics where it is that one or a few are seen as archetypical and/or "in command" and are to be exalted and unchallenged with such attentions.

Such hierarchical leanings seem to be remnants of a combination in sorts - the presence of those more primitive elements and that alluring ideology of a sovereign hierarchical structure - every one of course envisioning themselves as the "top" of it. this even being displayed quite desperately in some instances.

A good example of this is in the misuse (within my opinion(, misapplied attempts at converting the "polarized" measure of "sovereignty" within the modern "commerce/power" structure, into emulations of such hierarchical social elements.

I am speaking in broad terms here, and am addressing the "progress" of "societies" in a larger sense.

This means to me that if it truly is still held as a social goal to establish "utopia," then it is that such "geometrics" within society must progressively fade - which, as I have addressed in the area of "competition," isn't going to be any time soon. Perhaps we already live within the best presented version of "utopia" to date, and have simply become so accustomed to it that it again seems brutish?

This leads me to think that as a species, we may have produced far more advance than we are.were prepared to utilize or understand entirely. As if we happened upon insights which on the whole, we are as of yet prepared or able to efficiently employ?

We have out paved ourselves so to speak in that line of thought. Perhaps even caused a flux in our "human progress" with the speed of progress in other areas, within it. De-volved ourselves even, in some ways - so to speak through cheating a natural progression... more in "skipping" parts of it through the accelerated aspects of others (as I have addressed in other notes, concerning different aspects).

In many respects within that same "dysfunction" we have presented more problems perhaps to overcome - we maintain competition, to sustain a peaceable existence and interaction. Within that distraction is a loss of understanding and "progressive development," within the ideas which have lead to those peaceable outlets.

I am in no way putting forward any idea or leaning to do away with competition, simply examining the relationship and influence it has on society.

I am in no way stating that organized competitions are the reasons we still have war - as has been established - as long as there is "society" in that grouping mentality, and especially without progress in/within those ideas upon which modern society is based - then there will always be a waring mentality to some degree. Cultivated, even in different measures than once before, but present all the same.

Further, as long as there are those that "group" in such a sense, as has been presented even those short centuries ago, there will always be war.

Yet even further, as long as there are those that seek safety in large groups - again will be sustained that competitive mentality. Especially in regard to male/femal relationships.

The female seeks safety and a sense of security. Such is found in being part of a group. This becoming very alluring in the instances where it is that the female is celebrated as a deity like presence - as opposed to the equal part in society as has been relatively recently presented within representative democracy..

This then dictates that men must compete within that group to establish any mating potential. Oddly enough, if it is that a male is seen as too much potential, it (he) is then seen as a threat and historically has been exiled or worse.

In many ways historically, this has presented the opportunity for actual human progress on his part within the potentials beyond the grouping and further within the results of said exile. Unfortunately such exile also promotes waring actions in the establishment of mating potentials when such is sought from any within the "group" mentality.

Outside of that mentality, the potentials are very near limitless provided those potentials are recognized as well by others in dissension of the previous "group" environment.

To maintain the "secure" of a group environment is to insure impending war and destruction as well as perhaps the demise of said "group" or "society" - especially in regard to response to fears within it given the potential cycle which can be set within the human tendency toward corruptions to begin with.

This as well can be established in more ways that the "group choice" given other influences and human tendencies within it and outside of it..

It can be forced upon a "group" for instance, containing it so as to promote such reaction and action within it, upon itself. More, those that tend to group altogether to firmly in a rigidity that betrays their fears and weaknesses.

The tendency for people to "group" is itself an interesting observational subject matter.

How then to conquer fears within a "society?" Would such itself then lead to the demise of that society? More than likely I imagine, within the current capacity of humans and given the sheer numbers of the species.

Who would endeavor to remove such handy areas of control in allowing "advance" to continue? Especially within the areas of lost insight and understanding which in turn has lead to deeper areas of "groupings" - the automatic aspects of our modern societies?

Perhaps such automation was implemented too soon as well? Far before we were ready to maximize its benefits. Far before we as a species were finished with the more primitive experiences and dispositions which we still embody and exercise? Perhaps the version we have cast ourselves in is now possibly all that we will ever know of the potentials within such incredible concepts?

How then do we address it in any other way beyond our own cognitive capacity from where we exist and our present perspectives? Especially given the aspects of "radical thinking" being immediate reason for said social isolation as is ostracization?

Is it that only certain areas of society (are) will be permitted to experience and explore those brilliant ideas in application? Foresaking the larger brilliance (and intention from my perspective to "bring humanity along its way") in making such an "exclusive club?"

Who then and how is it to be decided, are the people to experience such a level of existence? How should they be chosen (if acknowledged at all)? Respect and understanding regarding the idea(s) presented within the concept of "utopia" for instance?

How could any "choosing" be just within the ideas presented to begin with?

Should it be people that "conquer" their way into a "group setting?" Though directly and again contradictory to the idea(s) itself?

It could never be the impoverished which were "selected" as exclusive members and likewise it could never be the "wealthy" for much the same reason and for fear of losing their fortunes on top of that.

It could never be the middle class as there is always a competition of some sort to pay attention to.

It could never be any of these social areas within existence, exclusively.

Should it just be forgotten and erased until some further development beyond our modern limitations allows it to be unearthed and then possibly yet again, fought over?

Perhaps, as has been presented, we are living the remnants of it now? the tattered and shredded remains while we clamber around insisting on being seen as victorious in some more primitive way - one day to the next.... and in that, effectively again locking ourselves OUT of the very concept(s) itself - being "winners" or "losers" in each decision an thought. Desperately clinging to action for the perceived results of "win" or "loss," instead of in celebration of even the actions themselves and what they entail within this grand apex we call society. Adding in that to the steady erosion of all we have called "progress" - while being as far away from the idea of utopia, while existing within it, as have been the more hellish examples of societies from history. Only having established perhaps subtly different cracks and crevices to hide within.... to hide from utopia itself and all of those potentials.

Such direction and direction of thought calls to mind personal explorative thought regarding study notes and essays concerning a comparison between the idea of Christ and even the concept of Utopia through representative democracy as a metaphor. I am exploring such elements as observational though none too surprisingly, quite functional given the comparison.

Within the idea of Christ for instance, are the potentials of extremes from "heaven on earth" to "a living hell on earth" and various combinations between... all within such an applied concept. When compared with the idea of representative democracy, there are un arguable similarities between desired outcomes.

Within the concept of Christ through the ages, human societies have granted themselves the freedom and area, as well as the responsibilities of producing the world we most want to spend our days in. As well it has happened within that concept, that the more hellish of human social examples have come to pass.

It is as if through the ages, that the idea of a "highest point of focus" has passed from the individual - being sovereigns - to deities, being outside of human influence - then to the body of populous as representative to and of itself.

In each of these examples I see a consistency of almost squandering the potentials in the nit-picking complaining and competition to gain some funding from some perceived governing body and other wastes, within some misconstrued and misapplied mechanism as result of innate human tendency rendering it as such.

In my opinion, the idea in action of representative democracy, very much is to be counted as a success in the area of utilizing and balancing those human tendencies. It is as though it actually employs the less than potential elements within said tendencies - to in turn maintain itself and society to some degree. Utilizing the tendencies toward various corruptions even within the lofty and most obvious/promoted aspects of human existence.

I should hope to publish some of these works soon.