Hi Ade 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.
@ Hello Magnus, Bodvar uses the phrase SOM is Quality's intellect. As far as Zen and... goes i think i understand why he is saying this. I think Jung confirms this. We are in 1975 and Lila is yet to be published. 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. @ Lila has just been published. A metaphysics is delineated. A question may be asked, how does SOM, which did all that good work in Zen and... fit in? It's a legitimate question. Bodvar feels there has been a cop out and the fruits of Zen and... are left rotting on the vine. He feels SOM did great things and now it's been dissolved. This seems like an injustice doesn't it? SODV attempts to indicate that SOM is alive and well. Bodvar thinks Robert Pirsig is playing slippery eel. He knows he's wrong but he won't admit it and make himself look inferior to Bodvar. Now it's personal. It's about integrity. Here's one: It's Phaedrus who's been betrayed. Robert Pirsig has done the dirty and is getting away with it. Bodvar IS Phaedrus now and he's not going to allow it. He'll show 'em. But no one is backing him up. No one understands. They are all cowards and cheats. It's not persecution, they really aren't up to it. This town ain't big enough for two metaphysics. There's a gonna be a showdown. > 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? @ The first 2 levels are objects and the next 2 are subjects according to SODV. In your terms, the first 2 stacks are objects and the next 2 stacks are subjects. I keep getting these mixed up but i think that's it. The S/O division is submerged by giving 2 stacks to one and 2 stacks to the other. 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 @ I will think about what you have said here. When i read Thomas Kuhn it became apparent to be that when a new paradigm claims to include an older one this very often turns out to be misleading. So i reckon you may be onto something here. Nice going. 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
