STUDIES IN THEOLOGY - 11/08/2006 (Supplemental)

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity -11/08/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

(supplementary entry)

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

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

SUPPLEMENTARY; Enumeration

In considering the present place within the "Bible" that I have read to, I notice that I am about to begin the book of numbers.

I find great interest in this for some reason. Numbers have always been of great interest to people... but so have many other things.

Why is there no "book of colors" for instance, no "book of words" so to speak? Those things are no less prominent in the human history of development... how is it that "numbers" seems to have taken a precedence over all other aspects of human derived configurations?

There is definitely importance placed on colors and patterns early on in the "bible," but nothing of importance as to the level of an entire book.

This then leads me to further examine the near fanatic relationship humans have had with the idea of enumerating. What greater power in that sense than to be able to account for and be knowledgeable of things at even the most basic levels of existence.

This then leads to the observation that such is very much an imposed limitation, and again is entirely derived from human origin in the effort to understand. For example, any given character representation of an amount of something such as is the representation of a given example "number," is really only a representation of something else entirely. Other than the applied meaning, there is no other use for such characters beyond representing something entirely different - and further, something that even though having been labeled, is still very much in variation to some degree.

For example; This- III, is regarded as holding the value of "three." This as well; 3, is regarded as holding the number value depicting "three." This; III, has other uses beyond such a meaning, where as this; 3, is always and entirely of relation to the idea of "three."

Then there is the idea that a given configuration of a given example sum is always of the same order, is again an imposed limitation. A playing card for instance will always display the same configuration of a given example representation in sum.

Such, as is obvious, is not the case in relation to the idea of the meaning within the idea of a number(s) and what it/they represents.

This then leads to explore the perception of such meanings. It is always set to some degree as being an established understanding of what a given "number" suggests, but again the remaining potentials of variation are hardly ever considered in popular culture.

Further then is the tendency to see such systems of enumeration in some linear manner. Some fixed progression that has little if any variation.... while amazingly enough through the apparent tendency to gravitate in this direction, we as a species have still managed to retain the ability in having different representations appear out of sequence so to speak, as long as it is in the interest of representing further, yet another firm aspect of the perceived linear configuration. "Two" comes after "one" as it is established and maintained, but in some circumstances it can be presented as otherwise in the interest of again reaching the initial level of limiting in understanding of some other representation.

This, at the base level is entirely contrary to the tendency we display in wanting of that over all consistency. We have forsaken the initial consistency to further the idea of it.

So where then did the idea to deviate come from?

I tend to think that it is simply an innate tendency toward various corruptions within the human species... very much in line with a larger process in/of progression.

I should note that this is not as of yet in any of my notebooks, though I have touched on the subject matter in other places within my body of notes. I simply happened upon the thought while thinking about my current studies and having slacked a bit on performing them.

The book of numbers is (I hope) going to prove most interesting. I have read it before, but not from the perspective and frame of mind that I currently am addressing the idea of popular Chrisianity from.