[MD] Able to change well.

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Ade

On 2010-09-04 21:24, schoadabyool at talktalk.net wrote:
> schoadabyool at talktalk.net 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