Hi Ade
On 2010-09-04 21:24, [email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
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.
Magnus:
> 1. There's a big leap from valuing a division to suggesting it's a
whole new
level. Especially since it demotes *any* written text to just inorganic ink, and
the human brain to mere biology.
2. Since you understood the stack concept, you should realize that the S/O
division only has value, actually only is real at all, in the human perspective
stack. The S/O division is not transposable to any other stack, so it has little
metaphysical value.
Ade:
Hello Maguns,
1. There is as yet no division of evolutionary related levels you mention in
Zen and...
Zen and... does not deal with evolution.
The division Jung recognises is a function which performs the task of
multiplying symbols. If you truly believe this division
is invented by Quality then i can't see a problem ascribing the emerging
intellectual skill to Quality itself.
You started by mentioning SOL, and SOL depends on the levels, it is
defined in terms of the levels, so I don't see how you back up to ZMM
after mentioning it. It was the SOL I was commenting, not Jung.
I don't see a problem with ascribing the skill to Quality. I *do* see a
problem with giving it a whole new level. As I said, the ramifications
of doing it are simply too severe and wrecks havoc in the level
hierarchy. The two examples I gave are just two, I could go on for quite
a while.
2. Lila uses a different set of opposites to that found in the previous book in
order to explain evolution in terms of quality.
It's author has stated in SODV that levels submerge subjects and objects. I
don't think it's that easy.
I think i get what you are saying, but the submerged subjects and objects are a
division of the stack itself.
So you're right and wrong at the same time.
I think.
I don't think I got that. Do you mean that the S/O division comes before
the level division?
In that case, I disagree. I think the level division comes before S/O.
Every single quality event is first of all a mix of static and dynamic.
After that, it's one (or more) distinct types of patterns (levels), then
you can start talking about the two sides of the event, the subject on
one side and the object on the other. So, I'd disagree with the SODV
diagram. Higher levels get more *dynamic*, and that does have a certain
connection with what many call subjective. But to make things
metaphysically coherent, it's better to bury the S/O division under the
level division.
The important thing to remember is that the subject need *not* be
sentient, which demystifies thought-experiments like Schrödinger's cat.
But that's probably a bit OT.
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
