STUDIES IN THEOLOGY - Popular Christianity 09/04/2006

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity -09/04/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

09/04/2006

Before I begin to topically address the popular work titled "The Holy Bible," I again will stress my approach to this being as from a metaphoric interpretive effort - with no "effort" other than my own perception.

It is within the fact that many similar efforts such as the "Holy Bible" exist within humanity that in the interest of clarity, I will approach it from such perspective. I will try not to read anything into it - as per said various interpretations - but will simply seek to express some understanding of my own perspective. This as well to further the other projects I have mentioned, such as various degrees of a "Moon Bible." ~

As I read through Genesis, I find many points of interest which support the idea of such a writing being metaphoric. One which immediately indicates the presence of something outside of this metaphor, is in Genesis 3:22, being the "Lord God" conversing with someone/something of "his own stature," not having been included until this point.

Then beyond that, is the reference to Cain being banished and then having a wife.

Obviously this "wife" is of some other society beyond the scope of this work. ~

In a broad interpretation and admittedly a bit radical as per - it would seem possible at this point in this work, that it itself, represents the possibility of culture and civilization of considerable advance - perhaps a Kingdom of sorts - of which it describes.

For instance "Adam" and "Eve" being representative of "adopted specimen" from one "culture/civilization" into another. Then being "re-introduced," more so ex-communicated rather purposefully from said "civilization of considerable advance." Especially given that indicative moment in Genesis 3:22, pertaining to "multiple" godlike entities.

It again shows itself further as metaphor from Genesis 4:17 - pertaining to rapid (most considerably) reproduction if it were that such were not a metaphor. It very much indicates something at least similar to what I suggest as per "adoptive culture." It further, with Genesis 4 - very much could be an indicator of the beginnings of "class lines." Being that the "line" of Cain, could produce nothing for themselves, thus yielding a purely "consumer" class, no longer able to "produce" if only even for themselves.

Perhaps even, as pure speculation - being representative of divergence between "ruling" and "ruled" classes. The consuming element of their existence, now cursed to be such - among other elements such as producers, beyond the scope thus far, of this work - and obviously not of the previous "adoptive culture." ~

It then goes on to describe other descendants of Cain - living in "Nod" - which means "wandering." After Cain had founded a city, there-in.

This of course further indicates others outside of the scope of this work and its metaphoric account - being that someone populated that city - and further each of his offspring had children of their own. Some of which being noted as the "first" within this account of things such as raising livestock while living in tents, another being the first of "harp and Flute," another at forging tools from bronze and iron. ~

In Genesis II, it suggests existence before "known civilizations" as well - in "all" people speaking the same language. Further it then suggests and exclusionary perspective of "self" as community in stating "will make us famous" - while implying "all people" a;ready co-habitate so to speak - a "contradiction" which does seem to suggest a decided "difference" being recognized metaphorically, then literally being the only inhabitants of a known civilization.

Then come the accounts of Noah and the flood, but in that within a rather short period somehow an olive branch grew as the waters receded.

My thought at this point is given to a sort of "focal placement" as per perspective within the "story line." Only that which is "within" the scope of the depiction, is regarded - as per "existence." ~

From Noah, then comes organization with "clan," territory, language - which again suggest metaphor being that all supposedly spoke the same language until the "Tower of Babel" - where again it is suggested that a "plural" influence then strikes down the tower. This plurality even after it is stated people "worshiping the Lord by name." ~

Something further I find of interest within the first few pages of Genesis, is the reference to Sun and Moon - said to "govern" day and night - further is the reference to the stars for the purpose - "to govern the day and night" and "to separate light from darkness." ~

Further, thus far seems a tendency to "gather" and then "separate." ~

To apply such in a consistent manner - simply in regard to that apparent tendency, is itself to insure inconsistency - within a larger consistency.

Further, pertaining to the various influences set forward to "govern the day and the night," is very much the same result in consistent, literal application. It seems to me that literal, hard line interpretation of this work would render inconsistency abound - which of course, may not be entirely all bad - especially in regard to the various other interpretations simultaneously transpiring with and within their own consistencies and inconsistencies as result. ~

I am rather excited with the thought in consideration of "metaphor" concerning that speculation regarding an "adoptive culture" element - this as much in the prospect of what I see being a re-occurring endeavor through civilization - as per a progressive motion - in even simple exchange - in relation to the excitement in speculation of some greater example of existence/civilizxation at the time period concerning this work.

This further then sup[ports my personal leanings regarding the idea of "bettering humanity" as opposed to refining the "human animal." That "re-occurrence" itself being as result to some degree, of the given similar metaphors in such works - a larger dynamic as it were, through out "civilization" - transpiring itself in similar tendencies of focus and cyclical movement in emulation of and within that larger, ongoing process. The consistencies and inconsistencies reappearing one within the other and as well in no relation to any specific "work" at all. Simply utilizing the consistencies and inconsistencies of our existence. This work being an example in that larger sense, of said.

The ebb and flow within that larger process itself - manifesting in folds throughout civilization in many ways. Even as early as is depicted within this body of work. ~

In so many words, anyone could extend similar intentions of such an endeavor - simply of and through their own existence. ~

Admittedly being somewhat of a grand musing and in regard to other musings I have presented concerning "governance," it seems quite sensible within those parameters I have presented in said musings, that employing certain points of focus being themselves - ignorant of such - would serve a great function.

That of course, is for other subject entries as I have begun. !

I may add though, that the reference to "celestial governance" hearkens even to more ancient forms of worship employing such consistencies as are said constellations - Sun and Moon. But as I have stated within my own belief, such representations are similar in comparison, to road signs as it were within the depth and capacity they are employed - in regard to our potential of and within that which is. ~

It could be observed that even in regard to modern recognition of such "standards," it has been diluted even in the limitations such "indicators" represent in the automated and "removed" sense that they are now perceived as in our modern day. ~

The presence and use of such older methods of worship, again indicates the possibility of said "adoptive culture" - this then further substantiating the idea of such a larger motion in progress as is the idea of Proximity Gestation in all of its facets.

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity -09/01/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

09/01/2006

As I have just noted in my personal entry for the day - it is that I now have a sufficient copy of the most popular version of the "Bible," currently. I will begin a topical study of it soon as exploration of my existing understanding of said works.

Given the variety and variations within society as per interpretations of said works - I feel it will prove interesting at least to solidify through exploration, a more sound representation of my own understanding and interpretation.

"Solidify" being that to represent my understanding in writing will give me a more firm perspective of it directly. I in no way mean "solidify" as being "carved in stone" belief. ~

Further, it is my intention to produce as exploration, a direct "opposite" copy of the "Bible" I have, in the interest of better understanding the perception and dynamic of dichotomy and such consistencies within society.

Again, given the various interpretations of the bible in society - this as well should prove interesting. ~

Further in that direction, when it is I have grown to a better understanding - I am given to produce another "copy" with an attempt to represent that which I perceive as in said larger motion - knowing from observation (as I have noted) that it consists of much more than the "opposites" we as a species commonly embrace - and there fore limit ourselves within.

It is, as I have stated - that I want my understanding to be somewhat less limited in various respects when I set to this project being that I will want to maintain a consistency in "transference" pertaining to "litteral" and "interpreted" meaning then "converted" in various respects to represent in effect, that larger motion.

Though it may sound outlandish and very well may render something similar to gibberish, it might just the same - render a reference for at least myself in the interest of examining from a common and consistent reference point... hopefully rendering a version of that "three dimensional aspect" I have refered to as it may have occured - having been placed as concept, directly in relation to the depictions rendered in description within the consistent and common work known as the "bible."

Like looking at something "known" from and through a different "filter" as itwere. ~

In regard to current perceptions as per said "scripture," I feel that I shoudl attempt to note the various sorts as per "gist," which I currently am aware of. This simply to present myself a place from which to begin to explore my own understanding as per said works.

It is surprisingly common within our species to find variations within this body of works called the "bible." Mostly in regard to what is believed to be representative of the idea of "God."

Some people see it as being a "father" figure - the masculine.

Some as a "mother" figure - the feminine.

Some as even a direct reference to the vaginal orifice.

Some see said references as being the "Christ" figure - "God" incarnate. Then further some even attach the idea of "Christ" with some symbolism of the vaginal orifice.

Some, it has been suggested, even see this work as being representative of intercourse, sexually.

My personal opinion is that most all of thosefail to recognize beyond topical representations - which are then used in turn, for other purposes anchored firmly in the efforts to procure. They miss the essence of what I believe were efforts in describing perhaps, some understanding of and in the effect of that larger process. The process of which I believe we are an emulation of.~

Further, I will again note that "Christianity" is not the only belief structure within humanity. Nor is it the oldest.

The fact that there are so many variations within "Christianity" itself, then lends validity to the idea having been presented of those various belief structures in humanity, actually being as result (and validly) of that larger process which I have described tosome degree, my own perception of.

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity -08/06/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

08/06/2006

Thinking more about the "diversity" aspect prior to the advent of a single (less diversified) point of focus - It further solidifies my perspective currently, pertaining to the bottle necking effect "advance" seems to have, this as well being evident in the nature of such a shift in perception upon perhaps even the capacity of most humanity. This simply being from memory of what I have known in my life time pertaining to organized religions - I will seek to further substantiate (or disprove) my current perspective through studies when I feel I have matured enough and experienced enough to do so with efficiency. ~

Further in regard to my perspective from memory - it is that I see some definite similarities and rather interesting directions of development on both sides of that "line" (being the single focal point and the multiple). ~

As I have stated, the "earlier" religious belief structures were largely based on the multiple deities. Within those time periods, it is widely known that the Roman structure was essentially a mimic of the Greek structure. ~

Then of course, the Egyptian multiple deity structure as well - which is said to have met the beginnings of its "end" so to speak - with the introduction of said single point of focus, and of course the exodus of the Hebrew slaves. ~

This then, is where I begin to see some rather interesting "similarities" which "connect" as it were - "across" that line of perception. Perhaps even another example of a more direct form of aposematic mimicry. This being in the development of diversification among the populous instead of diversification in points of focus for said populous.

This diversification of course - is readily seen in the separation into the "houses of Israel."

This then, bears another similarity to the segregation aspects of the Roman diversification within the populous socially - this being a similarity "across" that line of perception as it were. With the Romans employing multiple deities which were accessible from which ever area of segregation a person may have been in.~

The Hebrew separation as well, could all access that single point of focus.~

Another similarity here, is that both types of segregation had to do with some sort of "station" so to say - a difference being the Roman segregation was a social hierarchy more so than the Hebrew separation into "houses" - each performing a given "task" or purpose as per that single point of focus. ~

Further still, this Hebrew version of said diversification - as with the different "manifestations" of Catholisism in application - then displays differences as per the proximity in representation to this "structure" - meaning that which is practiced in Russia for example within the Hebrew structure, differs (to which ever degree) with that of Central Europe for example. Further again, from those of Canadian and those of/from the United States versions, though in no real measurable amount of difference.

I do not see those differences as "inconsistency" per say. Personally I see such as a consistency itself, for reasons I have already put forward.~

That aspect aside then. ~

The similarity in said diversification into houses among the populous, can then, and is then similar to that early Greek structure in like ways as per the Roman emulation though obviously differing from it in its own ways. ~

I should note that I am not drawing direct comparisons as per a relation to any given deity or hierarchy of deities in said structures and similarities - only the diversification's.

This then, across that "line" is a sort of an inversion of previous social dynamics as result. Instead of "looking to" diversity in various combinations within/from "society" in those previous popular structures of Greek and Rome (and several others as well) - the Hebrew social structure "looked to" a less diverse point of focus, while embodying diversity (separation into house for example) within the populous/society. ~

As a note, this "series of similarities" in applied dynamic simultaneously, could then mean that the single point of focus could be represented with a person having multiple points of focus themselves. That peculiar hypothetical example, then lends an interesting light to modern social dynamics in regard to the celebrity population - many of which seeing themselves as some form of deity (in "cult" fashion, I presume), focal point.

Of course then, is the interaction of the "houses" as apposed to the perceived interaction of various deities and or individual perspectives - that is to say, the "diversification" within social interaction with the "houses" is a sort of mimicry and a filtration, simultaneously - where there was no filtration of the same derivative when an individual accessed deities themselves while interacting socially. ~

Then of course there is the "go between" being the figure of "Moses." ~

Again, currently it isn't my belief that the houses were meant to directly correspond to a given "deity" - only that there is an inverted similarity in structure there. If it were that said houses were to correspond to a given "deity" through said singular point of focus - it is then that they would need that point of focus to at least be afflicted with multiple personality disorder (as a musing). ~

In a larger sense when observing this sort of structure, it is then that within it socially, is again repeated said diversification. Meaning within a given example "house," is then repeated the base structure of diversification (perhaps in variations), and then again within those divisions is applied that base diversification per each "area" as before, again - rendering a rather interesting dynamic as per my current perspective. Especially given interactions and inter-relations of such a proposed dynamic. ~

I can see where - barring any specific cultural leanings - such a structure employed within society - even reintroducing singular points of focus as per each "diversification," could be a great tool in thwarting social stagnation. Conversely then, in other uses, it could very well bring about greater stagnation. ~

Again, this without actual study yet, in such directions - and only of my personal perspective and thought. ~

On further thought, such a social structure being reintroduced and further diversified within itself time and again, presents some interesting possibilities for "freedoms" and greater equalities - meaning that focus can be shifted from any to any other, at any point within any given area and time span - all others then being of the same "relation" to it as before - regardless of change in "social" direction. ~

Conversely again, in other approaches to such a structure, certain areas of it - even within and through said multiple diversification's - could be "enslaved" through applying said relation "across the line" to more segregated ideologies such as the Roman hierarchical structures - this through assigning the "slave class" as per the Roman structure for instance, with those "houses" said to be forbidden of certain ritual tasks and knowledge.

Thus promoting "segregation" as opposed to promoting diversification and social efficiency. Those being "forbidden" of certain ritual tasks, aren't necessarily forbidden of social right or freedoms in the optimum usage example - where the other, "across the line" in association and usage - does promote such boundaries and limitations as found in a slave class.

A "pauper" could sup with kings in the one example, but be limited to servitude, in the other. ~

And I might say, any sovereign worth their station would be embarrassed in being associated with the subjugation, within the segregation example within the modern day - and of course, within my own opinion. ~

Further then, it would seem (even as detrimental as it would be to itself), that any problematic element arising in the more efficient use - as per social integrations - would actually arise from desperation's produced from the other. Meaning within the one example, a "pauper" supping with kings is quite safe of mishap - where in the other, should such integration be attempted, the desperation in sudden perceived possibility would most likely result in similar desperate actions - not knowing other potentials or use of such interaction - "take what you can get while you can get it" in the result of said desperation, as opposed to " dinner was great, see you next week" as it were.

"Show me your stuff" on one hand so to speak, opposed to "March or die" on the other. ~

When I then consider the idea of Christianity, the sort of social result tends to be void of individualism when it is looked at from certain perspectives - many mistaking this lack of "special" recognition as something to implement in a misdirected fashion to squash any actual personal potential - when, from my perspective, such lack of "special" treatment is meant to be liberating to the potentials of everyone. Allowing the exercise of such potentials without them being seen as "better" than someone else - removing the need for envy or useless, self imposed competition due to personal insecurities arising from having been "out shined." Being just as much a contributor to your "best efforts" to do so, as those which may "tally more bushels" so to speak, within their best efforts.

Of course, modern mutated interpretations of such structures, tend to depend almost entirely on the implementation of such competition for attentions as a means for control. ~

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity -08/05/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

08/05/2006

As a broad and generalized observation - it is safe to say that every culture which has ever existed in human history, has worshiped one form of "deity" or another - this even in the modern "efforts" of disclaiming such forms of adulation within the preoccupation of those social areas, with the common form of monies.

Further, as I have mentioned elsewhere, the act in participation of vehemence toward anything, could actually be seen as a form of worship, as well. Serving very much the same purpose as actual worship, in promoting it and sustaining its importance, what ever the focus of such hatred may be. ~

In more specifics then, when considering it, within that consistency of all civilizations and cultures having "worshiped" a "god" of some sort - the majority of them have had multiple deities simultaneously. As I have briefly noted elsewhere here-in, it wasn't until the effort in combining the aspects of those multiple representations into one point of focus, that the idea of one "God" existed. ~

Within that observation of each culture having had "deities" - and then further most commonly having had multiple "deities," it then obvious to see similarities within those different representations as per even vastly different cultures and societies - even separated by thousands of miles and even centuries.

This, besides being incredibly interesting, supports the suggested "connectivity" which I have put forward as well as a recognizable "flow" - even further a motion within it - still further, different effects in result as per proximity. ~

To cite another fascinating aspect of such common occurrences, the early Chinese in the development of "Tao's," seem to be somewhat unique within this consistency, in not assigning meaning to "deities" as much (in that direction of "Tao") as assigning meaning to representation of meaning in effect, so to speak. ~

Most all show separation - similarities in "division" with other multiple structures - but the Chinese "ideologies" in representation - as well show similarity in division - but sans the "deity" aspect as it were. ~

So let us say that this is incredibly obvious. In that then, from where and why did the movement of combining those different aspects so common in just about every culture, into one "deity," focal point - arise? Was it conscious effort to do so? Was it simply as a matter of an inversion to be expected within that larger movement and process? Is it evidence of an unavoidable paradox - dichotomy in contradicting elements, to some degree?

Until that point, as observation from memory - it seems the only other "thing" worshiped as a singular point - in any similar manner - was a "king" - or "Pharaoh"... or "Queen"... on and so forth... even within societies already "worshiping" multiple deities.

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity -08/01/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

08/01/2006

There seems to be two common directions in a general sense, pertaining to humanity and "Theology." One being "progressive" and the other being "digressive" at this point. "Digressive" usually transpiring in the guise of "progressive."

The "progressive," of which I feel that I am more inclined toward - is one of addressing existence and that which is, while using established structures as reference to that which has been perceived, and further as to how it was perceived in comparison to what has since been realized.

The "regressive" seems set on containing humanity within those established structures put forward - some even thousands of years ago - more to the point in my opinion, of containing humanity within a computerized interpretation of said standards and structures in a rigid form - insisting that such rigidity is and always has been, even in the face of easily modified "interpretations" to fit what ever political need is present.

The "regressive" seems quite dispassionate about considering them - said structures and developments - beyond themselves as a central point and issue. To consider their (said structures) relationship with humanity as only that, isn't readily accepted as consideration it would seem, within the "regressive." As if to consider the complicated "math" equation, for instance, as the cause instead of a possible manner from which to interpret.

I see this as something definitely to look into in further studies. It is as well, perhaps an example of that area of transition concerning "concept" into "application," in a larger sense - which would immediately indicate, that even after the firmness of "application" has set in, that it is more than possible for the continued progression of said conceptual matter in other ways - as and after it has become rigid - outside of that "firmed" perspective value as example. ~

It would seem that there are those dreadfully opposed to the "change" of said structures - even and especially in the sense of interpretive values more than physical augmentation - which is of course in an extreme and resides firmly within the direction of "regression."

I agree that stability in consistency isn't a bad thing in many ways. But, from my experience it is change within those structures which occurs from the attempt to force those structures in that larger sense - given that it is obvious that a certain amount of "change" is a normal and irresistible occurrence - which is all the more obvious when examining history.

In my opinion, to fail to acknowledge the progress of even simple human capacity, is to fail to acknowledge the successes - in whichever degree - of those structures themselves.

In some ways, it is similar to "parents" unwilling to see children grow into their own - as a metaphor. Which in turn seems to contribute to the dynamic I have described in the larger motion of "progress." This especially with the potentials and effect of modern media. ~

I have just experienced an occurrence in result of said media effect - with the display of paranoia so easily placed in society in our modern day - A "gentleman" with obvious mental issues, just approached me and ranted something about "Al-Qaeda" in a manner as to suggest that I may have some affiliation with such an extremist group, as I lay there in the park studying and writing - this I assume is because I happen to have a full beard - which is greatly affiliated (though in an unfounded way) with such through the media and constant imagery depictions.

As a person can see through my writing and personal presence - such affiliation isn't even possible as the group which the "gentleman" referred to is not only extremist, but incredibly seated in the rigidity of those tradition leanings and structures affiliated with certain religious bents.

THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ME as affiliation simply based on that, but of course such would have to be surmised at a personal level, which is entirely contrary to the direction and more common intended usage of the modern media.

If the general public had the slightest clue beyond some sensationalized use of "fear" in the media, the country would actually be safer.

This display puts forward another issue as well, pertaining to those efforts of containing humanity within said structures - without knowing it, in his blind direction and action, he is actually providing opportunity in such reactionary displays, for the advance of other versions he seems to be so concerned with - again within that tendency and attempt to "contain" that which cannot be fully contained - being humanity and of course, cognitive thought. ~

Within Catholisism alone, as I have briefly addressed elsewhere, there are several examples of the "change" to said structures through it being forced upon and into other cultures and societies.

As I presented before, one example is the result in said within the Tropics south of Florida - another of course is in having forcibly introduced it to natives in Central and South America - Even between those two locales, is a vast difference in application, having developed as per their own differences initially, I would imagine - then further with the progress of humanity itself. Their interpretations differ from one another, both then differ from the Italians, then as well from the Spanish - on and so forth - all displaying those differences, even from one rather considerable, consistent point of focus. ~

I should note that this as well further demonstrates the effect and dynamic within that larger process concerning Proximity Gestation, as it were - and the emulation of it within human existence. ~

I should further note that I don't see those differences as "wrong" beyond the "incorrect" aspect in perception of not being within the suggested (and at times forced) consistency of structure. Again, from my personal perspective such is a very common and irresistible part of the motion within existence - it is more a testimony to that larger consistency in the motion of the smaller inconsistencies and differences within the motion and "progress" of humanity.

To fail to acknowledge it is somewhat a violation of such teachings to begin with (in my opinion).

Knowing of those naturally occurring differences within such a rigid structure as is Catholisism, how then could it possibly be discounted in said differences not being altogether too different than the more pronounced differences of "interpretation" between different "structures" in other areas of existence? Only in a larger, more removed sense.

The consistency in comparison is obvious when seen from such a perspective.

Further then, how could it be denied that examining that sort of relationship from other perspectives beyond those structures, is acceptable?

How is it justified to say that such would be un-acceptable?

To be "lost in the mire" of embattlement over which of the existing rigid structures should be dominant, in my opinion is to miss the opportunity which they provide in aiding the actual observation and addressing of the actual substance of our existence.

I do not believe at this point in my life that stifling our potentials was the initial intention of such examples in writ - I do not believe they were intended as applications of and for limitations exclusively - including subject matter of the more philosophical sense.

But again, such is my opinion -whether I am alone in it or not, I choose to acknowledge my own opinion. If only for my own personal self discovery.

I feel that I owe that honesty at least, to myself and the efforts of humanity - myself being a part of it however distant and/or insignificant. ~

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity- 07/22/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

07/22/2006

Further in the effort of documenting my present understanding and perspective in regard to the idea of "religion" and "Theology" - as per modern Christianity at this point - It is as I have stated, that I perceive such as having been developed in the effort to better "understand." Obviously there is the aspect of population control as well - this I see as having been a byproduct of the initial intent although such is very much status quo in modern applications of such solidified social structures - this as well resulting in things such as immediate changes I have described in other notes and as well being due to a type of numbed familiarity as per said over application and solidification of imposed limitations - such losing a considerable degree in the interpretive value which was initially intended (in my opinion). ~

I can imagine that this tendency was being addressed even centuries ago with the advance in human intellect and understanding from different areas of approach.

As I observe it, it readily becomes my belief that the idea of this "Third Degree Of Civilization" was as result to some degree, of such explorations and developments as much as it was of a naturally occurring result as per said larger process. Simply put - as result of alternative efforts to address our relationship with existence beyond those already rigid and overly familiar structures of thought within society.

Further as I look to the ideologies set forward and embodied within the version of that "concept" being "Third Degree Of Civilization" - more so, directions within its development, I recognize a purposeful area which seems to have been created as much in the interest of further exploration of that relationship as much as insuring an individuals "right" to recognize beliefs within given boundaries of civility within and of, society.

That potential is rather promising even today as I consider it - but obviously creates an area of concern and even perceived danger from those who may perceive it as effort in removing said existing belief structures. There are those who have employed it as such and as well there are those who have employed it in the always ill fated effort of forcing their belief structure onto the given example society.

In my opinion, such a check and balance was by design - but more for the sake of allowing for that area of further exploration of said relationship.

Laughably, within that supposed battle there are even those in our society who proclaim there is no such thing as "God" while simultaneously demanding within that area, to be seen and treated as though they personally (and perhaps even exclusively) embody such a vast concept and idea as is "God."

In my personal perspective, such is a misuse beyond the result of insuring "boundaries" and then further insuring that area meant to be used in such explorations.

To proclaim the non-existence of an omnipotent idea/concept - then to lay claim to such omnipotence is rather amusing in my opinion and entirely misses the point with such a structure and concept as is that idea of "Third Degree Of Civilization" under which ever name it is described with.

Personally, I find the idea and results in allowing for such an area to be no less than brilliant in the broadest sense - and for more reasons than are topically perceived in our modern day. ~

As I have observed and noted - within those established and now rigid structures, there is a numb and somewhat trite majority within them - I have explained my beliefs as to why, even beyond "familiarity."

At some point it is obvious that the stagnating results of attempting a relationship through such removed means solely, was recognized as was the need for other means with which to approach said relationship.

This isn't in an effort to discount those structures - in my opinion they have done so of their own, and further need such an area as much for their survival as does that relationship - and further our existence - itself.

I am also not referring to topical schisms of cultural fad.

I am referring more to an area where it is that such a relationship (and those established structures) can churn, and flow, and gestate as it were - in the observed larger process and motion - though admittedly as I have stated - not in a frivolous "cultural fad" manner.

True enough, such schisms are healthy in some degrees, but just as stagnation is a detriment, so then is over saturation of such schisms. ~

This direction of exploration pertaining to our "relationship," compliments my analogy in comparison with a metaphorical representation of the idea of "Christ," being that within said reference is the "wage" to comply with those stagnating structures effortlessly provided - and applying said explorations within the freedoms of existence from them, there-in. Further then in such a metaphor and hypothetical action - provides metaphorically a sort of "eternal life" for said area as well as said concept in emulation of the idea and concept of "Christ."

Even further then, and in regard to those rigid structures, such is safely done relatively within the body and that "wage" having been "paid" in full - provides safety for the mis-steps and innate short comings of humanity in general. Such appeases the requirements of those long rigid structures without being of them entirely or at all in some cases. Doing so in a removed fashion, unobtrusively and within a designed efficiency utilizing even levels of inefficiency.

Further in regard to those needs of said stagnating structures - such developments and motion of said explorations (as well as other "corruptions") then contribute vicariously to and through the health of a vibrant society and said relationships.

This isn't to say that the "Government" be worshiped as "God" or "Christ."

It is to say that, whether intentional or as result of a process similar to that which I have observed, the comparison is quite interesting.

I am sure, given the consistencies of our reality, that other comparisons could be drawn as well - and within said area produced of that "Third Degree Of Civilization" be just as applicable with no conflict in "interest" what so ever. In fact, I tend to see this aspect as "by design."

Further I feel I should note that I am not referring to a specific body of "government" employees or buildings - but more so to the intangible idea in which - of which, they reside. ~

As a note in observation as I transpose these notes, it is observable that within the developmental direction of that "consumer mentality" combined with the common belief that such structures of religion are inherently meant as population control - "people movers," as it were - that such a direction of speculation as per said designs and metaphoric representation are not entirely unfounded. In fact, given the observable path of said social developments toward that more topical aspect we reside in today, such an idea is very much supported within that modern consistent usage of such structures comparatively speaking in reference to the consistency in said path of development in other social aspects.

They are often used in that sense, though within that modern approach of having lost insight through the generations and changes, that "use" is seen as all it was to be without consideration of larger, deeper and more profound ideologies and applied concepts. Concepts which I suspect are very much where the ease in "automation" was made possible, which in turn (whether for the better or worse) created that progressing loss of understanding within the growing consumer mentality.

This then would mean that the success of such directions depends almost entirely on addressing that area of "concept" into "application." If only in the effort to avoid hastening the effects of that process into solidification as to say.

This "area" further provides for the possibility of said explorations while absolving those existing structures of "responsibility" within their own structure and likewise absolving those explorations of "offense" to those existing structures, simultaneously.

I do not believe that "one" is specifically for the other to "consume," but more to sustain a healthy existence and relationship with existence - again, vicariously.

Then of course, is the modern loss in efficiency with the application of the frivolities within the consumer mentality and the provided ease of said automation, most times in the interest of fiscal designs.

This though, in our day has been very much relative to those proclaiming no existing "omnipotence" while demanding themselves to be seen as of such a station. "Omnipotence" being a reference even to the idea of a larger process in which and of which we exist, much less the idea or concept of something now as limited in perception as "God" for instance.

Then of course are the numerous other less than efficient applications of such potential in a governing structure - many of which being perpetrated in the name of a given, trite and empty pseudo social movement, most times based upon and working within the topical designs of some other - or simply in the name of frivolity itself as representation of an existing rigid, and then obviously desperate structure.

Funny as it may seem, within these more frivolous movements are often times individuals seeking recognition which actually posture as (and some even becoming self absorbed enough to believe they are) "Christ" in representation. But, and again in an entertaining note, this if it were a truthful embodiment, most times would only result and even implement that "Self Adulation Paradox" I have described - but within their desperation there always seems to be an excuse to keep from addressing it, if in fact they have recognized it in their direction of action at all.

Perhaps a use of mimicry, and perhaps a bit of seepage from a mentally unstable fictive transfer which served to convince only themselves of such embodied qualities as per transformation. ~

Further I have observed within the frivolous "Christ" representation, seems to be a pronounced concern with being seen as "truthful."

Again, this must be more unintended humor as most of their existence is based on fictitious fabrications - even outright fictive transfer, and further is largely done so for nothing more than the pursuit of money - which itself within our modern society, is based upon a form of fictive transfer. The use of fiction-fabrication, to represent something else entirely. ~ Then of course is the aspect of attempting to embody "Christ" while being concerned with being truthful, which immediately contradicts much of the design in that idea and concept as well - being predominantly a concern as per "image"within the populous. ~

It is as if, within the direction of such misuses (in my opinion), that such possibilities and "relationships" are systematically relegated to nothing more than "mechanical" excuses through which to pass ones life without meaning - or reason other than "that is what it says to do" - which to me, seems a bit of a waste. A burdensome waste at that - regardless of which or who's "Christ" claims righteousness while declaring the absence of any such existence or validity - or even that ongoing relationship with/within existence itself. ~

Something else I find curious about our modern society is the ease with which self proclaimed "atheists" participate in the worship of said "Frivolous Christ" representations. But even in such practices is the evidence in emulation of a larger relationship - if only in the act of said emulation and tendencies.

It is evidence itself of that innate human want and tendency toward such exploration of something greater than ourselves. That version of adulation is simply removed from the capacity realization/exploration - of something beyond said "frivolous" representations.

Perhaps such is just as well in many respects for several reasons? One of which being the preservation of value of such actual opportunities for said exploration within that now seemingly "disposable" atmosphere and topical areas of our society - distractions as it were, to satisfy those leanings while providing an insulation to "that which is" - in a subconscious effort of sorts - potential and very possible.

Let's face it. The "Frivolous" representations are enough for some people - on both sides of that relationship and within that "area" in which such should be allowed (in my opinion). But likewise, should in no way be allowed to command those with differing interests pertaining to said relationship. Especially under the guise of being "holy."

How funny! "Holy, Frivolous Jesus!" ~

In regard to a given level of "cult" application... to a given level, such is even a healthy part of our emulation within that larger process, in my own opinion.

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity- 07/11/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

07/11/2006

In a social sense - sans religious opinion and connotation associated with this given example - would it be possible to create an "Adam and Eve" society? Utilizing the diversities existing within a given society as elements of a larger metaphoric representation of such a "paradise?" this being much in the same way as described within the comparison to Christ, though perhaps then being introduced within it.

Attaining a social harmony which then in turn depicted on a larger scale, the movement and interaction of those two presented examples - being "Adam" and "Eve?"

It could even be possible to then introduce other emulations as social movement, again in the interest of absurdity and even consistency within that. Perhaps then introducing theater and musical compositions into that larger movement within each established consistent dynamic?

It may sound as touched with a little insanity - but such consideration is entertaining as thought. Especially if it were that those involved were "privy" so as to benefit in the pleasures or failings if such an orchestrated social endeavor!

Perhaps someday when humans surpass the small minded hurdles we continue to stumble on (especially in positions of power) - such could become a possibility - even in the terrifying aspects of the idea in blind compliance. but maybe those dangers will pass with the passing of those other stumbling blocks.

No time soon, I am sure, given the want and tendency to keep people ignorant of even themselves.

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity - 07/08/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

07/08/2006

I have recently made a rather peculiar realization pertaining to myself and my relationship with/within society; I am somewhat of an abnormality and unique example in a curious way.

I am the youngest of five children (all now well into adulthood) naturally - and an additional pair as "step" sibling - rather removed, but I have no incestuous leanings from my youth - no incestuous relationship to speak of in that situation.

My mother died when it was my fifth or sixth year, so I can't be directly faulted for not having had oedipal leanings.

My only sister was already married in my first of memories of her.

I did all of that early, young exploration with neighbor girls my own age. Strange as it may seem, this sets me aside as a sort of social abnormality it would seem. Especially given the number of children in my family. ~

This strikes me as odd in several ways - one of which being the thought and question of where it is then that such inter-familial relationships gain such negative social connotations? Sure, as intelligent creatures and from experience as a species we know that such relationships produce ill effects within the species- But why then, is it still such a common occurrence, then further socially frowned upon in the "light of day?"

In every measurable way except that detrimental effect we as a species have experienced, such tendencies are very much a seeming normality so to speak - though very much limited to the human creature.

is this yet again an area similar to that I have described between "conceptualization" and "application?"

How is it, especially given modern advance in medicine, that such tendencies have not yet lost the mysterious shackles of the social negativity associated with such actions?

I have personally witnessed those with such tendencies actually being rewarded within society much for said leanings in a preferential manner - why does their example in being more forthright about it, not serve to set a standard in having obtained social gains? I have trouble understanding from where it is that this obvious (or seemingly so) majority of the population continues to exist racked with guilt and under a social stigma and hush. ~

This then brings me to consider other supposed "taboos" in the social sense. One of which being bestiality.

Looking back through history, and in the context of social standards and structures - even under the yoke of hard line religions and oppression - the very common coupling with "slave classes" very much, within the mind set and social scope of the time periods where such transpired - represents such violations and "abominations." As much as were the actual examples of human/animal inter-relations at the time. That is just how slaves were considered.

Given then those "leanings," where then do such "lofty" standards as are now posed, actually come from?

Even as far back as Egyptians copulating with Hebrews in the slave class - such can be literally cited, as per the understanding of the time, as bestiality.

Other early Mediteranian cultures even actually accepted such activities - as stated, even to the level of inter-species relationships. That is to say in no uncertain terms, sex with animals was at one point in time accepted.

Odd then, that we can find several examples in social movements and ploys which list such activities as wrongful. Some even while simultaneously promoting such activities in other forms, and even rewarding them.

Some of these social movements even vehemently demanding separation of races, while actively promoting philosophical bents rooted deeply in areas of humanity which were to the contrary.

Much of humanity then, is a product of such forms of bestiality - even as it was considered under those social constraints and persecutions. ~

Again, in considering it (incest) as a majority which it exists as in society - I again have trouble understanding the continued direction in self loathing. I imagine massive amounts of mental illnesses are derived from such torn existences. Especially considering that such incestuous relationships are even celebrated in some modern cultures in various ways. As a loose example, the reference to all in existence being "brothers and sisters."

What an odd duality - ethical dilemma within the human potential and capacity.

How is it that we seem so suspended in that sense, between tendencies and the ability to conceptualize. What we are capable of understanding and those things we continue to actualize.

Considering this, actually brings me yet again to speculate that perhaps - if it couldn't be said that humanity "went the wrong way," then perhaps certain ideas within introduced structures were mishandled?

Again, perhaps example of that consistent human failing between conceptualization and application? Again, in my opinion, directly exemplifying what I have asserted pertaining to hasty and over zealous implementation of those conceptualizations and proposed ideologies (then resulting in a distorted effect perhaps).

Maybe even such a consistent "failing" is example of the rigidity I have referred to as result of our over bearing want to "control." As a given concept or idea begins to "manifest" through such over amplified application - it then gains "mass" so to speak which in turn equates to a form of "drag" in that larger process and motion of existence. This then perhaps acts as a confining space as it were, which in turn is then within and part of our "reality."

In other words, as a given "concept" is transformed into our "reality," it solidifies - more is "cast" in that transformation through that cumulative perception -

This strikes me as interesting in this given example of our seemingly "natural" sexual tendencies, and those hard line ethical standards which are nowhere near the "normality" within even their own societies as per said "conceptualization."

The interesting part of this, is that said "solidification" continues within that process of perception and continued perception (even through change of said concept), while the real tendency is separate from the over bearing social standards.

Can there then be cited (as being attributable) any actual human progress as result of the over bearing, controlled application of those over imposed structures and limitations? this in light of that established tendency in failings within that transformation process through explicit rigidity and applied control?

It would again seem that we are very much suspended between conceptual capacity and that of it which has manifested as "reality" through our existence and those dwindling variables of and within perspective/perception.

Is it then that our existence is an amalgamated conduit of sorts (as previously presented)- consistently losing more and more flexibility?

This then would lead to the consideration that it isn't any "idea" being introduced which may be hurtful or a detriment - but more that tendency in haste and control which produces the ill effects. "Half baked" as it were then being implemented on a grand scale as established and firm, while in effect then firming in said efforts.

The idea of a cartoon rat running the world may be absurd, but the idea of it is very much harmless, entertaining even. It is the effort and results of over applying such designs and solidifying said as described, which then produces the "harmful" result and effect on humanity - per say. In that solidification it then gains said "density" within reality - which is just as detrimental to the "idea" itself - being the "idea" is from where said benefits began.

Absurdity is very much more than a part of existence, it is vital in many ways.

The idea of a cartoon rat running the world definitely serves such a purpose. The solidification of it, is rather detrimental to say the least.

"Nazi's" with Rat Ear Hats is rather absurd in concept and visual depiction no less, but once it becomes rigid, regimented through implementation etc... it is brittle so to speak - no longer even serving the purpose of absurdity.

I would even venture that through such a hypothetical introduction of rigid structuring, that humanity in real tendency would still remain quite similar to that which it was before "Adolph Mouse" and the "SS-kateers club."

such just seems to have remained the consistency through the ages, regardless of the implemented, more so imposed structures. ~

From another perspective there is a great level of safety - and even more potential - in such a tendency - even given the "perved" aspects of sex with your mother for instance, and overly explorative spankings from "daddy."

To consider what has been done to humanity, and then realize how little much at all has changed within it, even the "mommy love" and "daddies good girl" aspects - it then presents a huge amount of forgiveness in that ongoing process within the introduction and exploration of concepts and ideologies.

Why would anyone choose to re-introduce rigid and tired directions?

Through centuries of their failed attempts, people still are just as perverted and rather insane as were early civilizations screwing their goats for entertainment while dictating what would become base standards for early modern social structures and laws. And what is more, is they choose these things - even contrary to said want of introducing said rigid directions, and after centuries of conditioned existence within them.

has "religion" then failed in that respect?

Was the "mis-step" in demonizing things which seem to be inherent tendencies - further, tendencies which are subconsciously promoted within even many religious structures?

It is as if such structuring is utilized in continuing to label what is obviously otherwise "normal" behavior- as per said tendencies, as "bad." Really achieving nothing more than promoting mental instabilities, the perceived need for said structure, and even further promoting more grotesque developments as per mutations in such respects. This especially in considering another tendency toward said "mis-interpretations, then re-applied" even while still wearing the "really old costume."

all the while posturing a righteous and "in compliance" stance which then adds more toward the mental instabilities.

A form of imposed narcissism in many regards.

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity - 07/07/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

07/07/2006

Thinking more about the metaphoric comparison I have been toying with pertaining to the "Third Degree Of Civilization" as it was put forward in the United States being comparable to the idea of "Christ" - I find it even more compelling as I explore such a comparison.

Artistically speaking, it is easily unmatched if it were that such had been purposeful - but in my personal belief, I find more sense in seeing it as a product of that larger process - Proximity Gestation - and resonations, as well - as I have described.

The concept of "Christ" is itself a sort of gateway through which to attain residence in "heaven."

From the perspective of an immigrant, the idea of said degree of civilization as it is presented, embodied in the country and government of the United States, serves much the same purpose in a practical form. ~

Before I go any further I will state that I in no way intend to imply that our government is solely Christian or should be such - I only see a rather marvelous comparison which I find illustrates yet another aspect of that larger ongoing process. ~

From a commerce perspective - being/meaning from a business point of view, the government could be compared to Christ in his display at the market place. ~

Of course our present version of the government is somewhat different than initially intended, but such was very much the intention as well, and as well that is to be seen as in comparison to some degree.

The "Third Degree Of Civilization" - our version - is based on that "commerce/power" shift in structure - the idea of "commerce" was first begun to be firmed up with the introduction of Justinianus - Roman Law Of Sale.

Metaphorically then, it is upon those "rules" which commerce/power was first "displayed" so to speak. Those rules could be likened to the rigidity of the Roman Empire and even the cross on which Christ was crucified in a metaphoric sense.

Within that introduced rigidity - limitation as it were, was first introduced in such a form, the idea of fictive transfer in practicality - monetarily so to speak. Though the idea and "science" of value had yet to be explored entirely (and still remains much as such).

Within that established consistency then began another between the concepts of "sovereignty" and "commerce," which then could be likened to that age old "battle" between the "church (where in is the idea of Christ, per say)," and "sovereign rule - which if you consider it, then proposes a subtle shift in "residence" so to speak of "church" - then resting it within the idea of "commerce" as well, in comparison and placement in regard to the older "battle" of "sovereign" rule and the "church."

this then, even more interestingly, poses the stage for our self perpetuating and ongoing point of interest between "church" and "state."

Further in that direction then, is the realization that the initial concept of said "Third Degree Of Civilization" was to produce and insure the sovereignty of the people - the "state" as it were.

This then all transpiring, hypothetically for the sake of this illustration, within the metaphoric "body of Christ" which could be represented by the body of government and the interaction with/of and for the people themselves then becoming a part of it through citizenship. No longer being a larger problem in former areas of tremendous bloodletting regarding such issues as "church" and "state," while continuing and continuing to be settled and reintroduced as the initial body of guidelines (laws) was amended and changed.

This as well represents the motion in emulation of that larger process, especially in regard to the "slight turn" I have mentioned as progress is revealed through hind sight. ~

As those initial laws pertaining to commerce have been changed within the "commerce/power" structure, modified or even driven out, this could be likened then to having removed Christ from said rigid structure (being the hypothetical, metaphoric "cross" of initial law) - to then be re-introduced anew.

Further comparisons are the likes of it being that some people get their sustenance directly from and as result of the government. some people within the idea of Christ, find similar sustenance as well.

The military, for instance could be likened to those "ranks" which "soldier" for Christ. the military existing to further, uphold (supposedly) and protect the idea which is our version of that "Third Degree Of Civilization."

Those "soldiering" for Christ doing much the same thing for that ideology.

Further within this large comparison, are problematic representations as well.

The first I notice being likened to a self adulation paradox which would occur if Christ either were, or reborn - as many believe will happen - as a Christian of any sort.

The comparison here is that ongoing "battle" of "Church" and "State," and further then the existence of such religious beliefs within said "body" - especially in a "governing sense" - which interestingly enough provides yet another check and balance in regard to "commerce" being comparable to "church" within that older example point of conflict.

It exists as a paradox.

it is really incredible when you think about it, even if you may have trouble seeing the metaphor I am currently presenting. ~

As I sat here again, considering this, I momentarily thought that perhaps introducing such a concept into application as is that "Third Degree Of Civilization," from a "Christian" perspective, could have been an initial flaw - as per said "self adulation" - but the more I think about it, the more I see said paradox as somewhat pertinent within such a comparison.

As I have mentioned, since its introduction - much of the older and more violent conflicts pertaining to "sovereign rule" and "church control," has been very much diffused so to speak, through playing out within and upon the stage of "commerce/power." ~

It is a rather interesting comparison if I do say. Incredibly interesting. ~

As I have touched on, within this comparison and metaphor is obviously our choice as to living within a "Heaven on Earth" or conversely a "living Hell." Both are greatly possible - though neither can exist solely of themselves, especially in an extreme.

I find it entertaining as per said comparison that within the concept of Christ, such seems to present similar possibilities in the prospective "Heaven" said to be beyond/through Christ, as well. Most people in their topical perspectives, think that "Heaven" through Christ is reserved for the "pretty" or the "righteous," or only the "most upstanding" people - and in that is a giggle in watching many posture as such hoping for such "ends" to be more potentially theirs.

The fact, from my knowledge of the concept of Christ, is that said prospective "Heaven" is populated with any that accepted Christ as their savior, so to speak. As far as I know, there are very few "offenses" which can serve as reason to deny said entry into said prospective "Heaven."

Not being born of station, isn't one of them. Nor is failing to brag about having the proper connections.

Further in this immediate comparison proposes the possibility of "Hell" actually being more "livable" than "Heaven" - if it were that enough transpired in said populous in "Heaven" to make being in the presence of said "Lord" unbearable due to lack of their own personal interests.

That is to say - if that "consumer mentality" became predominant in said prospective "Heaven," residence in Hell might just be more acceptable. ~

I will definitely be considering this comparison further.

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity - 6/30/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1068

6/30/2006

As I have intended, I am to begin the study of Theology to some degree, though I intend to keep such fairly lite until I feel my years have brought some level of wisdom and perhaps greater insight. This quite simply, as such a subject warrants at least such consideration from my personal perspective.

I will begin in noting things I have observed through my personal experiences and do what I can to express my opinions and insights to date - this, without having had any schooling or overly implied structuring pertaining to such subject matter. For this I am quite grateful seeing that it was all too posible along the path of my life for several ideologies to have been forced onto my existence - though thankfully enough, those around me saw fit and were wise enough in their own lives to refrain from such forced dispositions.

Simply as a reference point for myself, I will attempt to express my initial perspective on such, in general. ~

From my own perspective when considering the idea of "Theology" and "Religion," it firstoccurs to me that such "structures" were initially developed in the human want and effort to understand more about our existence and relationship(s) with that "phenomenon" we have referred to in many different ways. In considering it on the whole, I see where such "belief" structures immediately support my perspective of "proximity" and resulting effects as per - which I am sure to address through out this body of notes.

Initially, as I think back from "their" prospective "future," I can see a progression of sorts, obviously. This "progression" transpiring in several different facets - then appearing to be cyclical within those facets, as well.

The first type of "progression" within this body of different structures which I see as quite notable and obvious, is that pertaining to the changes which then seem to become cyclical to some degree in regard to "meaning" and "usage" of said structures. For instance, initially such structures were devised for that purpose of understanding. Then as such became common place and even mundane, said structures had then progressed into a state of being a topical "tool" of sorts for the purpose of regulating the movement of societies.

This seems to have transpired in all of the major "belief structures," and as I mentioned, appears to have done so in a cyclical sense.

This "cyclical sense" being more in depth than simply the extremes in opinion of "it is real" and "it is mumbo jumbo" meant only to control the populous.

In my personal opinion it seems that such structures would be most efficient sans either of those extremes and then approached as per that means for understanding.

As a side note here, it is rather interesting that within our modern social directions, it has become much more pronounced within that cyclical pattern, that both extremes are quite common within even the larger structure pertaining to "belief," itself. Something perhaps which is attributable to the modern advance of said social stucturing and social engenering, which then makes for a type of "fuel" to actually maintain healthy movement within society.

This then seems to become problematic in the sense that ur tendency as creatures, is simply as I have described in other writings/notes - in other words, "why understand when it obviously isn't necessary to fulfill those topical and immediate wants?"

This seems as though it would eventually approach a form of the automated ignorance which is similar to that "consumer mentality" approach I have described pertaining to our modern society in the United States.

When I then consider what little I know about early human established "religion," it is then obvious as per the similarities in "distrobution" within that larger process I have observed.

Most all early structures of that sort (being "religious"), related to said understanding through the use of several dieties as representation. This was done in several "different" though quite similar ways - something about this I find great interest in was the manner in which the Roman Empire "procured" and mimicked the Greek structure of religion - which is something I will research more in depth as my studies progress, knowing immediately that it is a form of aposematic mimicry on a large scale, though I have yet to surmise for myself what reasons beyond the common understanding of the Roman method(s) may have been contributing factors. (Roman methods being akin to keeping anything "out" which they had not conquered). I suspect I may find great similarities in said development and the more modern example of such proximity mutation as per gestative aspects, as I have noted pertaining to Catholic religiouus beliefs, and several cultures it has been introduced to.

In those earlier structures, as I have mentioned and is quite common knowledge, there were several representative dieties - yet another consistency in those structures was hierarchical division. This even being present in the more "primitive" examples of religious structures.

As humans "progressed" and societies changed, this type of structure was then condensed into fewer representative dieties, but maintained the "hierarchical" aspects - perhaps as much for the reason of convienience as anything else.

In this period as I consider it from my rather limited perspective at the moment, there seem to be two distinct directions - one of which was the "condensed version" of representation, and the other was an extreme effort in said condensing. Meaning that the "normal" progression seems to have been a process which began with multiple dieties, and then progressively became fewer and fewer, while the other most pronounced (and rather unique in comparison to the consistencies) structure as per reference "extreme," looked to focus more from a less diverse focal point. This "extreme" version is essentially one focal point and all else was then inconsequential.

Immediately it is obvious through such efforts, that the ability toward "understanding" is then limited to some degree - this as per imposed limitations rednering an immediate perceived efficiency while removing some aspect of depth in understanding.

This transpiring to one degree or another, in both "condensed" versions as they progressed.

This isn't to say that said "understanding" is then unattainable within the condensed versions - only that it becomes less available - it limits the scope of said understanding and tends toward a more topical sense. Then when the "automated" aspect of such structuring is added, it becomes even less efficient with the tendency for its "topical" use in that limmited manner.

(r.f.p.p.s.h.!)

As another observation, it seems that in both examples of that transformation - those earlier and seperate representations are still present though they have been regulated to less than divinity in many instances. The major difference between the two developments and directions, is that one of them still permits "divinity" in more than one main focal point.

Even in early Asian directions, a person can see several distinct and different representations - and again those different representations then being condensed into fewer.

A further problematic area I can see within that tendency toward condensing and extreme focal point, is in allowing if not promoting the perceived idea of an omnipotent being as an individual - This immediately places incredible limitations on the idea of such a concept, itself - if only through the human tendency I have described. This much in the same manner as limiting the "area" and idea of "perfection."

This isn't to say that said "larger body of influence" shouldn't be considered as a whole, but only that in promoting the topical understanding in such a manner as has transpired, so much about it is instantly limited in extreme ways, if not lost entirely. ~

As another direction of observation, the "progress" has even produced directly contradictory opinions (much utilized, as stated, within the modern form of social governing) - which in turn serve to keep it "fed" so to speak. Insuring its own existence with said contradictions for which ever "direction" they may lead it.

Unfortunatly it would seem that said efforts are predominantly dirived from a want to combat that "misunderstanding" - more so a "perceived" misunderstanding of the given point in time - that limited idea of an omnipotent being then serving only within the dynamic of said efforts, to keep misconception alive as it were - if not even to further it.

In so many words, those efforts to combat what is their "misconcstrued" perception of that larger process, which is - immediatly, through said mutated perceptions translates into claiming that which actually is, which humans have attempted to understand for eons - actually isn't because they find personal fault with that limited, misconstrued perception of something which was put forward (in my opinion) and representative for the purpose of understanding.

Essentially, within their limited scope in contradiction - they attempt unknowingly to negate the entirety of human existence in that regard. A cross cancellation effect that is un-intentional.

Laughably, the tendency within such efforts has been as much an emulation of that misconstrued understanding, or even more so than those following said directions as belief, in the tendency to lump everything they don't entirely understand into one "label" as it were - with no further effort to understand that which slips their immediate and topical grasp. Most of such efforts don't even see themselves as "fuel" in that sense, for misconception and then relatively the larger movement within even understanding itself.

I hesitate to say "misrepresentation" simply because it is more a lack of understanding in perception, than in the effort at representation which promotes the problematic results.

As a note; This also indicates that larger motion in process, as well. Though it does so through illustrating the effects of established structures within the effect of said process and existing social aspects. In that attempt to maintain a rigid structure, it still becomes something else within the motion and influence of all aspects of that larger process. In some cases this is noted then as "progress" while in others it is recognized as diversion and other forms of "undesirable" mutation. Many examples socially, in history and modern social dynamics, of a migration effect can be noted within this phenomenon as well - given that it is obviously more preferable to be part of a more successful understanding (and thus perceived progress) than to remain a part of perceived mutation. This then renders other proximity effects through the analidic aspects of such tendencies to even "take over" in some instances, those areas of success which are more desirable - then further rendering a cycle of regression being introduced into that larger process.

Further as an entertaining thought - in some social circles I could be condemned as a heretic for these simple explorations, and simulataniously targeted and labeled as a religious zealot. In some social circles within our modern day, if you are not prepared to vehemently hate a misconstrued perception and representation (most times put forward with grotesque lack in their own understanding), or blindly promote a given example of such mutation - you are quite simply cast aside.

Essentially, I would say that such is because there is no immediate profitability in any sense if it is that you are not of one extreme, topical perspective or another. ~

As yet another thought in regard to the motion of asigned meaning, and the hierarchical status of said representation of dieties - The establishment and organization of the houses of Israel is/was representative of such, as well. Though very much from a rudamentary asignment.

That comparison is something that will be well worth exploration in itself. No longer was it several different "points of focus" as representation, but now - within that structuring, it was several different asigned meanings of "bodies" within human existence which stood as representative of various facets - though not entirely "diety" per say.

Rather interesting.

It sems as though such could be seen as an immediate inversion of sorts, though simultaniously representative of those multiple "dieties," in the "multiple" sense - "real time" as it were, and "diffused" in a simmilar manner as per said distrobution of previous dieties, and within that structuring, is again a hierarchical aspect - which I am of the mind is really nothing more than as result of human perception and action within the larger emulation. This being in more respects than are topically available.~

To clarify my stance somewhat on my observation pertaining to the houses of Israel - regardless of whether or not such is purposefully assigned as it were - the effect of such a structure in comparison to previous structures utilizing individual focal points as representation per diety, is that in making such focal points, entire familial strains as it were - then such is a form of inversion and representation of the previous focal points - though again, not so much in the form of recognition as "diety" per say, but more in the form of representation as per emulation in some regard. This being "through" a consolidated point of focus, being the reference to a single source.~

Something occuring to me even further in such an application, is the similarity of it and that Roman mimicry of assuming the Greek structure as representative of their own dieties and points of focus. In many ways, the representation through familial structure is very similar - again in said inverted manner.

Instead of points of focus for all to interpret as individual - independent "dieties" - they then exist within each familial representation segregated as it were, then acting as a body on the whole. But again, in an inverted sense being that the representation is now in living form as per said segregations - from "within" said consolidated point of focus - where before such an introduction, as is widely known, such points of focus were "other."

I would be curious to know what of each "house" has been employed throughout the others over the years? As well, I would be curious to the effect of that technological amplification upon basic structure within those consistencies?

I am not claiming Jewish beliefs as better than others, only that an obvious consistency has been maintained - but again, perhaps only in so far as with all other examples.

It does differ though, from others - in that sense of structure and application.

Further it would seem similar to the Roman social structuring as per said "segregation."

In the "old testament," the houses of Israel were divided and distinguished using color schemes in many instances - patterns and colors of cloth. Each "division" had its primary purpose as per function.

This as well within the Roman social structure - being each social class remained as such, and as service to its purpose.

I will be interested to see further similarities in social dynamic - as well as differences.

The Romans set forward rules for the inter-mingling of social classes - even and especially in regard to propagation with different classes - slave classes especially. I will be interested to see the similarities of such Roman rules and those dictating the inter-breeding between the houses of Israel - if any exist.~

I look forward to more closely examining the progression and development of such similarities as well, given that the majority of Hebrews came out of Egyptian culture predominantly, after some cconsiderable time there - where the Roman empire could be said to be no where near such influences of the time. This then perhaps indicating another aspect within that process and result of proximity as well as interactive connectivity.~

Something further I find curious, is finding the area and point within humanity that the idea of "slavery" began - immediately I could cite Egypt, but it seems slavery has existed since recorded history in one form or another, and even beyond.

It has only been in our modern existence that the idea of slavery has been frowned upon and conciously objected to. But in another sense, if it is that modern ideologies and social structures aren't minded and manned with such intent - it is very much that slavery continues - but in different forms and larger social cages.

As peculiar as it may seem - such usage of social architecture would in many ways negate the benefits of that brilliant stroke through the shift from "soveriegn/poer" to "commerce/power."

If it only results in allowing for different masters - then it would seem there is greater efficiency and even more freedoms in continuing the other forms as per development - this in maximizing the progress within that long established relationship between "slave" and "master."

Such would be much more efficient than the dynamic of former slaves becoming slave masters in a larger sense. Only ever having a slaves perspective from which to rule and lord over their own slaves.