Continued Studies - 11/13/2006 (supplemental)

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

11/13/2006 (supplemental)

A note having again found myself in thought pertaining to the extremes and effect of the "win/lose" frame of mind.

On a larger scale, when considered cumulatively and as a hypothetic geometrical design... the effect of such extremes in focus would firstly create a sort of pyramid shape - socially. This particularly in regard to the early "sovereign" despotism's, being that there is seen as "one (one set)" of "most high" - most extreme "winners," and then subsequently a hierarchy "down" from there.

When it is that this "win/lose" mind set becomes really extreme - and saturated through the populous, it then transforms the "pyramid" into a more confined and more parallel configuration, though not quite entirely "squared" given that there is still a place considered "un-equaled" within the dynamic of "win/lose."

This then considered in the more healthy "sovereign" social dynamics - yields a less extreme result in such geometries. Especially when it is that the "highest point" is more diversified in distribution of "power/focus."

Further then as consideration, when it is that this mind set is applied within the more modern "commerce/power," the tendency is again to go to those extremes within such social atmospheres as are the separate corporate interests for example. This usually being based upon a more diverse "topmost point," which then seems to yield a "frustrum" effect... which, over time and development, then seems to gravitate toward a more parallel shape given the tendency to establish consistencies within the given example "atmosphere."

As strange as it seems, this all then looks to be contained within a spherical shape of sorts, which continues to add to the imposed limitations within it (as per said social results), very much from the existing consistency and extremes of that "win/lose" consistency.... even in the outermost points of it, seeming to consistently attempt to draw anything not of the win or lose interests, into the area itself - much I imagine, to then allow the established perceptions of "win/lose" to become a valid influence on those previously not of such extremes in concern for said ideas of "win/lose." This then, tends to appear as a "packing" sort of effect.... insuring the sustained aspects of the "win/lose" dynamic through attempting to remove any other options within that "sphere of influence." This effect acting as a smoothing aspect on the existing "shape" as well over time, creating more cylindrical - smoothed - aspects instead of hard edges so to speak.

In this sense then, the consistent focus on "win/lose" in such extremes actually results in loss in a larger sense (thus creating a social flow within itself as well). The loss immediately out of any other option - and in that then as well, the social dynamic within existence for those of such committed levels of consideration for said ideas of "win/lose."

I discern that within the transition into extremes of such concerns, a given example entity goes through a series of geometrically representable "shapes," as it were.

Initially, there is that "pyramid" effect, which then through the tendency of growing concerns saturating the atmosphere with the participation of such dynamics - then sort of curves in the sides of the "pyramid" so to speak, within the tendency and effort to then conform to the presented standards of "win/lose."

This then, in the full event of such a cycle - presumably eventually ridding itself of any not concerned with, and conforming to the presented dynamic (being representative of the wider area of the geometric shape)... then become parallel in a more extreme sense, through the conformity to said extremes of imposed limitation(s).

I would imagine then, that this would hold somewhat true in the common social sense as well... even in regard to other ideas/concepts beyond that being presented as "win/lose."

In yet another perspective, this tendency has a direct opposite. Immediately obvious is the idea of presenting "one" extreme and unmatched "loser" so to speak... which then yields initially an upside down "pyramid" sort of shape. This then, through similar social motions as within the other example goes through a transition with and within the same innate human tendencies which effect the other presented example - but it would seem, because of those given tendencies within this "biggest loser" dynamic - it never quite becomes a parallel sort of shape. In fact, as I consider it, it seems that it would at best become a sort of oblong in an extreme sense, consisting eventually of two extremes - the most loser like, and the most winner like, with a plump of sorts in the middle of it as result of the initial social aspects pertaining to a "most low" point already having been established.

With no reason for extreme concern of perhaps becoming - or surpassing an established "most low" point, there then is less reason to push into an extreme of win/lose in the previous sense of striving to advance as "winner." This then even producing a slight area within it that is similar to the area of "no concern for win or lose," but being immediately influenced and susceptible to those concerns of win/lose through the social progression and motion within it.

When I consider these two examples of extremes in their initial states simultaneously - it gives me rise for great interest given the similarity it presents symbolically of and in relation to other areas of my present studies (theology). One example being the "pyramid" and the other being the upside down "pyramid." this as well presents some rather interesting speculations simply as a matter of simultaneous existence and consideration of said motions transpiring at the same time.

This then seems as though it would progress to yield a sort of "tear drop" shape with a slightly wider "top" than the common tear drop shape due to the tension between said duality in effect. This example of course has nothing to do with the religious connotations attached to this configuration...though I am sure that such is inevitable as per influence simply as a matter of course in regard to applied ideology and the social similarity initially of both extremes of concern WITHIN the idea of "win/lose."

Then of course are the aspects of dynamic further WITHIN these sets of dynamic, meaning that those at the perceived "top" are interested in an inverted sort of "want" than are those located at other points within said examples.... then rendering an interaction between the two very much linearly directional wants - being want of "winning" and want to maintain a dominance at the "top" of said resulting dynamic., within the examples areas of "win/lose."