Continued Studies - 06/01/2006

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

06/01/2006

Further having considered the action and result within the structural relationships - within the presented dynamic, I again can see where it is that the "collective" perception has been confined to a degree that must be directly related in proportion to that level of distraction and magnified "advance" which I have addressed. This would explain the change in efficiency of the result within that area not concerned with "sin" or "lose" as these developments have progressed.

This is readily observable here in the U.S. with the subtle changes of "qualities" as well as simply attention (and timbre) within the public arena of every day life. This as well gives a bit more insight into the area I have described between "modern speed/dynamic" and the initial intent, in motion. Perhaps even establish-able in measure pertaining to that area of discord.

When further considering the "motion" of this exchange I have described between the "divisions" of "win" and "lose" and those areas existing without concern for such, I have to consider that such areas are not "constant" or "firm" in exact or timed division.

For instance, a person leaving a ball game after having momentarily established a "position" within "win" or "lose," then progresses (even physically if traversing public areas) from "win" or "lose" into and through as result of travel, that area of no concern for such - and most times subconsciously. That is, without acknowledging such change in social respects.

It is then possible for that person to exist in a duality (on cusps and fringe areas momentarily) though still within a segregation of sorts between those "areas."

As the "travel," still concerned with "sin" or "lose," they are not of that area which is not concerned with such, though they very much are within the result of it as per the use and transformation of result, from the "win" or "lose" areas.

Again, as example I cite the use of public walkways going to or leaving a sporting even for instance - this in the effort to illustrate the intangible movement within that exchange from "area" to "area."

There seems to be an optimum balance as well for relation between these "perpetual results."

In some areas where it is that too much focus on "win" or "loss" has been maintained, it is that the result within those areas of "no concern" loses quality. Social erosion for instance, so to speak. That is again as example - the public areas for instance begin to fall into disrepair when it is that those living in those areas fail to allow themselves time for having no concern with "win" or "loss." Or again, even attempt to force a misconstrued negligence as that "area" without concern in the effort to maintain the appearance of some form of "superiority" within the ideas of "win" or "lose."

Again, it seems that such attempts only serve to solidify more a position within the "win" or "Lose" areas - and even more against the natural flow of un-noticeable change within the movement of and between them. To "solidify" and/or "seize" that subconscious interaction and motion in one of those two areas - being "win" or "loss" - seems to promote social decay.

From what I can discern, one of the effects of that "hyper-focus" of "cumulative" perception (as I have explored it) and that area of disjointed discord is a similar result to such "slowing" and even seizing of that motion and exchange.

Another example in a broader sense of where this exchange takes place in part, is again within the example of parents raising children. Their concern through such "labor" and "task" isn't for "win" or "lose," but in providing quality and opportunity through the time and effort invested for a more desired field of options for the children concerned.

Most times after some time, and results of these efforts begin to show themselves - there is a sense of accomplishment (or even failure) which then manifests as perceived (though partial) result. This culminates from no concern of "sin" or "lose" within those specific areas of such relationships.

This isn't to say that healthy competition isn't a part of those exchanges, simply that "win" or"lose" isn't the prioritized goal within the majority of that process.

I should say that I have yet to raise my own children - but what experience I do have with them as well as observations gives me substantial confidence in such statements.

As well I suppose I should say that immediate concerns of "did I do the right thing" do place such relationships within that area of "win/lose" to some extent, but from my perspective, such doesn't remain in that tone unless it is then augmented with anxieties pertaining to such concerns of "win/lose." Most times it would seem, arising out of concern for ones self in maintaining a "win" that is not out of concern for that exchange and process consciously.

"How am I" or "how are we going to look" removes those actual potentials within that area of no concern, and replaces them with that "hyper-limitation" within one modern pace of "win/lose" - obviously then forsaking the very relationship itself, much more so the potentials of greater actual success in the larger outcome.

So as not to confuse issues here, I am in no way suggesting, again, that healthy competition is not part of that larger process in the example of parent/child - in fact as has been proved competing together - that is, entering that "win/lose" area as a unit for activities, is quite healthy as is/are even subtle competitions within entering that area, as a unit. Different sports team options - for instance.

These examples beyond being a personal view, serve to illustrate in another way the dynamic (possibilities) within the motion and exchange of that ongoing process within "win/lose" and the un-noticed area of "no concern for such" in those moments where obviously such concerns are not readily present.

Further within my opinion, to attempt to place ones self within any of the "three areas" (in this example), is to again and without control, be within the area(s) of "win/lose," thus annulling any opportunity of "existence" with such efforts beyond that dichotomy of "win/lose."

As you can see within this dynamic process, it very much is that the hare never over takes the tortoise. The "effort" to do so, never results in successful attainment of such goal. In fact, even having such as a goal in this example, not only maintains a position within "win/lose," but even puts those with such intent farther behind so to speak. Always within that "win/lose" - the "intent" presumably being to maintain some superiority over/within an area having no concern for "win/lose."

That want of, and even obtaining "win/loss" then transforms those with such effort and concern directly and immediately from that un-noticed area of no such concerns (the tortoise, for instance) for such "goals" - for no less than the duration of such "win/lose" concerns.

this is readily illustrated on a very large scale through using human existence (and supposed progress) as example. Such "perceived" progress and existence; being the "hare" - and that larger, ongoing process which we "emulate" - then being representative of the "tortoise."

Each time we successfully "emulate" or "solidify" a development (thus rendering an imposed limitation) - we are then fallen behind the larger motion simply with the solidification of that "development."

In that, we as a species, and even further - our reality - are always "trailing" and even falling farther behind with each "solidified" advance/area, as it were.

I have addressed what I have observed pertaining to this effect I discern, in different ways previously, but within this example is a different perspective to consider within the solidified emulation we are, as a sort of motion - a "motion always attempting to become still" in some respects, through said solidification's (imposed limitations) we call advance.

As another example to illustrate the "hyper-focus" effect of our perception and reality acting to remove us farther from that ongoing process and motion; It is that if a building were designed and built in our modern day using ancient methods - it is very much that even the "progress" of architecture itself will have progressed in bounds from the "current" - modern - ideas and levels at which they were when the building using ancient methods began, compared to where they would be when it was finished.

This is not to say that such shows our "advance" and "progress" - it is to say that the use of "old methods" stands to represent our current level of existence for instance - and that "hyper-focus," where within this specific example, the actual advance of modern architecture in that time frame used to employ the "ancient methods" could then hypothetically represent the motion of that larger process - in comparison and regard to the larger motion in relation to our perceived progress.

This example as well, serves again to illustrate the interactions (relationship) I am addressing. In lesser extremes it even serves to illustrate the finer (smaller) areas and movement of our relationship with that larger process.

Even further it could be said (and is true in my opinion), that several buildings could be completed using "modern methods" during the time it takes to complete one using "ancient methods." - but just as true, we as a species and "reality," are no less "behind" in either case as per that element of focus on that which we have "procured" from the emulation of and within that larger process.

In fact, those concerned with producing more buildings for the purpose of "winning" something, are even further at a loss for having further removed themselves from more of the existence potentials within and as result of that area with no concern for "win/lose."

Most assuredly a person could argue that in the "old methods," with each "brick" for instance which is placed, is the concern for precision and thus a "win/lose" designation - where actually, from my opinion and perspective - such is a matter which more relates to the parent/child example than to immediate concerns for "win/loss." But again, within the idea of reality and the human species, both are "points of focus" while the larger process continues on.

Ourselves anchored firmly in that which we have managed to solidify in emulation of it. Doing so over and again with each perceived "advance."