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.

[Peter Thompson]

In Williamsburg, this has more to do with shirts and haircuts than anything truly transformational. It�s economic, all of it. Which concerns much more deviant interests than those of heart cells beating as one. It is an ugly organ to begin with, this �proximity.� Walk down Bedford Avenue and feel the hatred. Proximity is a god at breeding capitalism. Proximity times expanded communication will equal just more of the same. The body must function with more than one kind of organ. So far, the Internet has proven itself to be a stem cell line capable of producing maybe four: Porn, Terrorism� Maybe just two. If electronic proximity is anywhere near the quality of immediate physical proximity, why are rents so high along the Hipster Highway (Bedford Avenue)? It is not so much of a neat, orderly morphology as it is a quagmire of nodes in the boiling soup.
I see your point, but human evolution is subjective and we�re not there yet. We are, however, a little too good at �expansive force.� I'm also troubled at the theory of proximity as a kind of "social gravity."
I give this essay 3 stars, only because that is a pretty good score on Star Search.

[Dan Bradley]

are these thought patterns really physically gravitational in some way? (or is it more symbolic of like minds sticking together.) i can see the human body as a force for this, but gosh... you've brought up a great point about how we've grown. what does this mean? that-- unhindered-- we can evolve faster maybe. which i think is what we've been doing. maybe too fast.

i totally enjoy thoughts like this.. any particular books you read to get to this point right here?
diggin.
.d

[Tamera Austin]

This is very good. Very thought provoking.

[Eshe' Allen]

interesting. i haven't given any thought to this subject. you make a sister work for it but it ended well. very nice wrap up, you presented your point very succinctly.

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

powerful charge, i don't think we're ready.

[John Destalo]

Interesting piece. It seems like the theory in the quantum world of "action at a distance" is relevant to your theory. Also I think the word "stronger" in the context you use it is interesting. Stronger could be in strength of meaning so that having one emotionally charged or meaningful experience with someone can put that person in a position of having influence long after we are in physical proximity to the person. The last thought I had is it would be interesting to start looking at young people who have never known a time when they weren't participating in on-line relationships, so they don't as clearly differentiate between a certain type of physical and on-line relationship. I enjoyed reading this very much.

[Garrett Marcus Copeland]

Too much forein speech to hold me, left this wandering mind behind. Seemed like decient theory however, wish I could be of more help.
~MH

[Joel Schwan]

I smell a book idea. :)

[Billy Nogood]

interesting s**t! gawd damn!