An Ongoing Speculation In Progress

An Ongoing Speculation In Progress:
Theory of Physical and Spatial Proximity
In Regard To Human Interaction.

Humans have tended to initiate relationships based upon physical proximity: in the cave, the neighborhood, the school, the workplace, and so forth; from a purely objective glance at this phenomenon, I find these relational bonds quite similar to those of molecular, particulate behavior, in that there is a gravitational pull from any particle involved--a dance of movement, within a relatively fixed orbit, with variances in temperaturement (driving them to move away or closer in their orbit), and other such parameters. Groups of people exhibit these ties, as do molecules comprising a particularte entity, such as a defined organ in one’s body that serves a specific function--for example, the particles comprising a human heart.

Associations are usually “forced” upon us in some way--the main mode being sheer propinquity; with any precise “object” to be found in materiality, this circumstance seems to be analogous; even when people avoid one another within a set situation, they are still in interaction and proximity to one another, but the gravitational pull is of a different nature of magnitude and force. Even when cancer cells overtake neighboring cells, they “know” and imbibe those closest, in their immediate vicinity first.

When particles are extracted from their former environment, and set into a fresh one, they begin to exert force within that new context, as they are transformed by those elements surrounding them as well; it is more difficult to sustain continuity with the former “molecules,” no longer being bound by former context, because the gravitational pull is weaker (although, I have read that human heart cells, when separated, still beat in unison rhythmically--but for how long?), and the pull of the new environment is thus more powerful; therefore, one must exert a stronger force to maintain relationship with that which one wishes to keep in “contact”--through willful thought, foremost.

All matter has some relationship to all other matter--even if one might be perceived as the “loneliest” molecule in existence.

To apply this theory to the extension of physical travel (away from geographical proximity): the various means of transportation afforded to humans within the past two centuries especially--and specifically, to the rather recent revolution of travel, via computers--this is where the analogy changes, mutates, expands: proximity undergoes a more universal meaning, but still within the confines of relative orbit (being our Earth’s, in this instance), aided by the tools of travel, machinery commonly known as the computer, the cell phone, the fax, etc. Now, people congregate in various configurations online, emanating from diverse “states” and “countries” all over the world--allowing chance meeting to no longer be a matter of purely physical geography; “Matter” of “Mind” exerts more force than ever before, and has altered modes of association: we orbit, as particles, around one another, within orbits of gravitational thought patterns now--willingly, and not out of physical, proximate obligation. This fairly new development is a harbinger of an evolution in human interaction and contact that is more reflective of our increasing understanding of the expansion of the Universe, in which our planet Earth is only a tiny particle.

May we each exude the most evolutionary, expansive force, of which we are most capable.

© Carol Maric
All Rights Reserved


Join MySpace's Philosophy / Critical Theory Group

© 2006 Carol Maric - Being: The Obsession, Continued . . . A Raging Epidemic !

Reviews

[L. L. Jacobson]

Interesting, to say the least. This can certainly be expanded. Book, thoughts, mind....contemplation; theories....
and of course, you remind me that

Humans have tended to initiate relationships based upon physical proximity:

and reality sets in.
One of the people I love most is never in my proximity. Just a small particle.

[Kevin Connolly]

Too true, Carol. I always find it funny when people marry the kid they grew up next door to, as they have so much in common. Neither of them have explored the world, they just settle for what is dumped on their plate by fate. Others of us want to explore the world, and we end up travelling alone... forever and a day. We meet so many people, but only for a short time. It's goodbye forever, and on to the next one.
Except that you have put it much more succinctly. Brilliant stuff.

[Todd L]

I'll be honest, even with a college education, I wasn't quite sure I was interperating this correctly. I read it twice. I haven't read any comments yet so hopefully I get this right.

I have traveled and lived all over the world as a civilian and while in the military. In doing that you realize quickly, that you have to adapt. So in that sense I can completely relate to this article. Humans have a tendency, if strong enough to make the effort it takes to "fit" in and get what's their's in any situation. Of course, you bring with you the experiences of everything in your past and that in turn helps you relate and adapt to your new situations. Hopefully, I have understood the gist of this article, I must say it was challenging and I liked the fact that it made me have to think and ponder in my own right as to how it related to me.

Now that I have read it a couple more times, it is a very good peice and seems to have taken a considerable amount of time to put together in a coherent fashion so that it was understandable to others. I commend on that and the fact that this was indeed interesting!

[The Train Wreck Has Lef..]

Hello. Approximately a week ago I initiated a non "forced" relationship based on an online "friendship" with you. As I am an active molecule, I have been unable to submit a review. I apologize for that.

I would like you note that my temperament is particularly varied from the previous reviewer's, quite likely as are my cerebral-molecular functions concerning the "apparent" technical topic at hand.

You might say that by reading this "challenging" piece, I am voluntarily extracting myself from my comfort zone and setting myself in (up?) in this fresh one. Be that as it may, I will do my best to exert enough force from my piddling 132 horsepower Quotient and give a somewhat thoughtful and hopefully credible review.

Translation: For a piece that touched on certain technical topics or themes about which I am not studied, I would none the less like to comment on the fact that the writing style, the flow and the clarity with which you present is captivating. From a pure writing standpoint the sequence is logical and easily followed, technically correct and well presented, with some nice meaning and suggestions beneath the words. You also develop your piece all the way through to an easily processed conclusion that contains a modern reference and a subtle challenge. Even for a simple "heart muscle" manipulator like me, it was an easy and interesting read.

I hope I have exuded to the best of my molecular ability visa vi this lap top/human interaction that I enjoyed your "filler" piece.

Very truly,

Chris

[Brett Campaigne]

the sheer appeal to analogy in this discourse fails to account for the un-proximal nuances that particles exibit on one another... Of course common ground can be found between the behavoir of atoms and people, as well as the distance of our reach to eachother through realms that are more temporal than spatial... but the real evolution that cuts your analogy predates all this technology at consciousness. The real drastic evolution is between what Sartre posed as Being-in-itself versus Being-for-itself, is what is at heart in the evolution... all this distance-reaching is just filler.

[Isaiyan Morrison]

I'm not a philosophical person but I have to say that I understood this better than most pieces regarding human interaction.
It was easy for a person like myself to place thsi into my own perspective and how, after my move from LA to Minnesota, I felt I was conforming to the events around me. I had to adapt for it to make sence. Keeping in contact with my friends in California has been a challenge and it's reaching a point where communication is dwindling to a point that I couldn't imagine.
I'll stop babbling.

Anyway, this was a good read.

[Belly Dancer]

I'm particularly drawn to this piece because I am a philosophical person myself. I think that your theory is well captured in the sense that the piece, although philosophical, has a certain poetic resonance to it. Perhaps you are familiar with Marshall McLuhan's phrase, "the medium is the message"- he speaks about the effect of specific mediums on mankind and his senses in direct and indirect relation to the world around him. I think you've found the unifying and cohesive underlying principle of McLuhan's theory of a harmonious, universal, and collective unconscious that bounds each and everyone of us together. My only criticism, which isn't really a criticism since your title clearly states "ongoing", is that I would perhaps like to see you expand a bit more on this theory because I do particularly enjoy the abstraction you've put forth!!

[Gatorgrl]

Interesting concept. I've always found quantum physical intriguing and I thought you explained your theory rather well.

[(man)~~~~~~lol~~~~~~(dr..]

This is intriguing in the fact that you mention how our proximity was once solid; small; based on physical contact. Then we invented phones. Computers. Emails. Text, eventually, becoming our modes of conversation or commute.

It was funny talking with somebody at some point and them saying "...meeting people online is great because you get to know their brain first." If this is true, you may be able to understand the person for whom they really are � or at least for whom they are representing themselves in being; they could very well be putting on a facade in which you have been misled. Take MySpace for an example: my roommate's ex-girlfriend has an account and she used to meet people three states away...she only has one arm; you can be sure that the people she was meeting had no idea about her birth defect, that she was born with only one functional arm.

If this sort of thing happens in other areas, like, how you "truly" are, and not just in the realm of emails and instant messaging, where then would the "true" self be displayed? Should we only accept what we have come to know? Without question?

If our representation of self is out of the question (for the moment), what if we are able to finally communicate outside the realm or plane of our existence? (Our earth.) What if we had some sort of super-email capable of contacting distant planet? Or parallel universes? How would we as a people be presented?

Or, like you said, we may be just two different parts of a heart beating in unison; that our exact personalities will be known and examined. Like how you know you're going to get on with somebody really well within the first five minutes of meeting them: this could be the case with our 'outside' contacts, if it were to ever happen (and imagining the fact that there are these beings millions of times smarter than humans).

I think that's what is at stake here: intelligence. Lancelot could only be defeated by deceit. Our integrity is only represented by how our words are put together, and from what those words remind others of. Integrity through association...and how often do you see trends bind themselves to new users? Lol...I'll ttyl.

[C Lee]

This I like. Even though I got a bit lost in the language, I understood the point and it read very fast for me.

[Pat]

Interesting perspective. Particles that tend to group together are called "bosons". In Quantum Physics class, we had fun with that one and called the campus Greeks "Bosons" since it sounded sort of like "Bozos". As a dedicated fermion (particle that moves away from the herd), I like your analogy.

Well done.