Hi Ade
On 2010-08-29 12:41, [email protected] wrote:
Hello Magnus, Ah. I think i'm beginning to see where you are coming
from. After reading your post i begin to suspect that you are not a
fan of Dynamic Quality and find it easy to replace it most of the
time at least?
Well, I don't dislike DQ in any way, but I prefer being able to dig into
processes, rather than not being able to do it. And DQ often gets in the
way just because it makes it much less predictable. So, when possible, I
try to avoid DQ to make the rest (SQ) less foggy.
This is interesting, because now that i have focused on the area of
dynamic functions, i'm beginning to suspect that the examples of
dynamic function given in Lila have at their heart the subatomic
notion of indeterminacy. I'm aware that this may look like
reductionism, but i'm not so sure. Can we say that a celebrity is
driven by subatomic forces?
Every level adds its own layer of indeterminacy, not just the inorganic.
Although the inorganic indeterminacy affects all higher levels as well
of course.
Anyway, I wouldn't say a celebrity is driven by subatomic forces.
However, we *can* see where the free will comes from, it emerges through
the added indeterminacy/dynamism of each layer.
Jung correctly identified the possibility of a celebrity figure
capable of activating a shadow in the subconscious of Germany. In the
process a great many apparently individual psyche became unified.
Are we talking nazis now?
I'm not that eager to expand quality events to whole countries. You can
easily get lost in DQ since they are so dynamic. Of course it's
possible, but you can just as well get it completely backwards.
I think you may be able to see the connection i am seeing Magnus?
Not sure, did I? :)
Magnus
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
