[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[John Carl]

Platt, Bo and all,

>
> "I have (this sounds like fantastic nonsense, but it isn't) frequently
> caught myself positively solving some problem (or a more or less
> philosophical nature) in, say, the key of A minor, where I had utterly
> failed to reason it out in words."
>
>
I think this exemplifies best the biggest problem I have with the 4th level
being SOM.  Here is one of the many examples of highly evolved intellectual
expression of a non-SOM variety.  Are they merely emotional and aesthetic
excellencies that can be objectively appreciated?  This is the way of the
 ethicists smacking their lips over a putrefying bon-bon.

I posit that deep insights stem from the emotional side of consciousness and
precede the intellectual analysis and framework which follows rapidly on
their heels.  Thus the 4th level is the Romantic/Classic divide of human
consciousness with SOM being simply the Classic side of things.  A GOOD
tool, but not the highest and best, even at the 4th level.

Where I'm at now is  using the analogy of Quality as the axis of existence,
and DQ as the direction; solving my disambiguation problem.   Every level
has patterns of relative Quality, with a direction toward more dynamic and
the opposite direction toward more static.    The direction of dynamicism
also defines the relationship between the levels, with biology being much
more dynamic than inorganic, etc.

On the 4th level, the S/O aggregate is the static direction and the more
romantic and emotional aspects of mentation indicate the more dynamic
direction of that which occurs on the level.

Hitler's intellectual Quality is ultimately immoral not because it consists
of social patterns restricting intellectual evolution, but because it is an
intellectual pattern which totally worships the static direction and
suppresses the dynamic.  It's an intellectual pattern which puts itself at
the center of all value, and freely manipulates social patterns to its own
perpetuation - identical to  SOM, as a Metaphysic,  with putting
"value-free" as the highest value.

There is more to respond to than I have time to do right now, but I'm
enjoying the dialogues available for my perusal and feel like my
understanding is deepening and growing, thanks to ALL the contributions I've
been reading.  Especially the ones with which I disagree!