Trouble is Bodvars SOL did'nt recognize it as a western cultural development it was asserted as the evolutional development of the human race.
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 8:02:55 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Able to change well. While thinking about Ability to change well, and the static and dynamic functions, i suddenly asked, Is the moq Archetypal? This immediately highlighted the antimonies of classic, romantic, static, dynamic. Jung thinks a division between the psychic realm and that of pure emotion lead to intellectual development. And this reminded me of Bodvar Skutvik's SOL. Once humans began to regard people as either material, psychic or spiritual, the psychic and spiritual viewed matter as an opposite. This division is the basis of our cultural development it would seem. If you truly believe that Quality invented this division, then it is understandable why Bodvar regards it as Quality's intellect. This is reinforced by a diagram in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance which does not further subdivide the romantic, for that experience is a unity of emotions. Yes, emotions change, but that observation is reflective. ------------------- The moq employs different antimonies. These are closer to the material, psychic and spiritual. (Jung thinks that psychic is an indeterminate centre between material and spiritual, at least at this very early stage). This reminds me of Maxwell's sweet spot or Dynamic coherence idea. And so this is Archetypal too. ------------------- Quality and Dynamic Quality are antimonies in this sense: Quality is a source and Dynamic Quality is a teleology. They are intellectual discriminations derived from past, future, while reserving an insistence that Quality is a unity of immediate experience. ------------------- It seems to me that Jung ties all this together quite well. But i am not expecting universal agreement. One more note, in Subjects, Objects, Data and Values, the four static levels are divided in the object and the subject. This works well for extroverts, but introverts may be more inclined to view social patterns as alien. And so for introverts, symbolic manipulation of the moq intellect is the only subject. This view again supports Bodvar's assertions it seems to me. Thank you Ade 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 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
