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.

[Randy Mckenica -writers..]

So much to comment on here, but the main problem i have is that the theory became more and more specious as time went on. One is reminded of Plato's writings about Socrates. I was always amazed at how doltish the people Socrates dazzled with his logic seemed, due to my incredulity at there ignorance of the gaping holes in the Socratic logic. It's wonderfully well thought out, a true product of an impessive intellect, but I don't see any parallels or logic past the very beginning.
Fun read, though!

[Kevin]

I don't agree with the internet being "a harbinger of an evolution in human interaction". I think it is adding to the decay of social skills amongst out youth.

[S. (johnny) Thonn]

I see where you're coming from with this piece. With the association of all these new technology the geographical meeting is almost obsolete. As for the gravitation pull in the proximity of interaction between people, in a group or in a small setting, I totally agree. A good piece.

[Christina Maria]

I had to read this kind of slow. Though I consider myself intelligent, the vocabulary you used aren't words that I utilize every day. Not to mention I use my sensories more often than not when I read. This was illuminating to say the least. I was caught up from the first sentence. Loved it.

[REALIZE]

This is a interesting piece. Thanks a lot for sharing

[Lauren Bombardier]

Well.

My area of interest in science tends toward a more biological sphere rather than a physical one, so many of the metaphors you used were lost on me. However, I think you do have an interesting thought process here. It needs more development from the perspective of content as well as the technical aspect.

[Back To William]

Interesting ideas. However, quantum thoery is limited to the sub-atomic level, and does not operate at the classical level; this means human society.

as for the notion of force, I am unclear about the nature. It seems that you are speaking about it in a positivist or naturalist sense; in such an instance - is that not a major practical limitation of your theory? postulating people are subject to the same laws as natural forces carries the subtext that there is no free will; only chaos theory or determinism - leaving this piece uninstructive. Or - if it is a force arrising from free social action, what is the power relations between subject - e.g. the source of authority, legitimacy, power, etc.

very interesting.

[Carol Maric]

Yes, it is quite about Quantum Physics and Poetry.

[Aaron]

I like the idea that other people are also working to better understand the role of human interaction as it applies to an existenece in this perceptual reality.

BUT (oh god, here it comes...hahahaha), it seems to me that your analagous material relies more on Newtonian Physics as applies to known biology.

Modern quantum theories are destroying the "easy-to-picture" physics created by Newton and his adherants. I only mention this as the wealth of new knowledge being discovered by Quantum Physics might better apply to your discussion.

On the construction of the piece, you slide between analogies of molecules, planetary movement and parties... mostly in passing. Reconciling the differences between such broad topics makes for confusing prose.

On the up side, you do label this as "speculation", so I'm trying to avoid being over-critical. I think with proper re-investigation of current physicis, you have the makings of a strong paper here.

[Northern]

I feel this argument could easily include lines like "Even if two objects in proximity have no gravitational pull towards each other, their lack of gravitational pull is in direct proportion to their gravitational pull to other objects in the room therefore creating an inter-relation by proxy." If, as your argument tends to lead in the end, everything in the Universe has some gravitational pull to every other thing in the Universe, then to point out that objects in proximity have a gravitational pull is kind of beyond the point. It's like in math class where they start an argument saying all the mice in a maze are white, then asking what the chances are of a mouse in the maze running into a mouse of a different colour. If you have a blanket statement taken as fact, then the rest of the arguments become mute. Of couse two objects in the same room have a gravitational pull to each other, because you told us everything in the Universe does. And a line like "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." is paramount to saying "something that doesn't act the same acts differently." You're trying to surprise us in the statement by saying they still have a gravitational pull, but remember the blanket statement...everything does. And then the last line is more a feel-good statement then a part of the rest of the piece. As a vague statement, I guess it's alright, because who can prove if everything in the Universe is affected by everything else, but as a written piece, I found it lacked a certain amount of proof and credibilty.