"I used to think there was only Good and Bad ,or maybe negative and positive,.now.I had to re-define my view as Growth or Decay. I often wonder if each individual (myself as well) set out doing whatever they might be doing,with the idea of the above,evolution of humanity might be much better suited for life..(just thought I had)
In a certain sense,"Pre-Concieved Notions" is maybe taking "Plato's Allegory of the Cave"..to another plane
Borrowing a excerpt from one David H.Lawrence's writings,..... "The generality of readers had better just leave it alone. The generality of critics likewise. I really don't want to convince anybody. It is quite in opposition to my whole nature. I don't intend my books for the generality of readers. I count it a mistake of our mistaken democracy, that every man who can read print is allowed to believe that he can read all that is printed. I count it a misfortune that serious books are exposed in the public market, like slaves exposed naked for sale. But there we are, since we live in an age of mistaken democracy, we must go through with it."
For me this is decay,,,the idea in itself to think of having to even point the above out.
In the same writing from above,Lawrence goes on to this.."Only let me say, that to my mind there is a great field of science which is as yet quite closed to us. I refer to the science which proceeds in terms of life and is established on data of living experience and of sure intuition. Call it subjective science if you like. Our objective science of modern knowledge concerns itself only with phenomena, and with phenomena as regarded in their cause-and-effect relationship. I have nothing to say against our science. It is perfect as far as it goes. But to regard it as exhausting the whole scope of human possibility in knowledge seems to me just puerile. Our science is a science of the dead world. Even biology never considers life, but only mechanistic functioning and apparatus of life.
This is my Intution,...a very profound thing happened at this point in history...Plato's idea's of innate knowledge...where not carried on by Aristotle
At seventeen or eighteen years of age, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of thirty-seven (c. 347 BC). His writings cover many subjects – including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theater, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, politics and government – and constitute the first comprehensive system of Western philosophy. Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC.[
Teaching Alexander the Great gave Aristotle many opportunities and an abundance of supplies. He established a library in the Lyceum which aided in the production of many of his hundreds of books, which were written on papyrus scrolls. The fact that Aristotle was a pupil of Plato contributed to his former views of Platonism, but, following Plato's death, Aristotle immersed himself in empirical studies and shifted from Platonism to empiricism. He believed all peoples' concepts and all of their knowledge was ultimately based on perception. Aristotle's views on natural sciences represent the groundwork underlying many of his works.
Throughout Jung’s life he struggled with the question as to what the ultimate source of the archetypes was. At times he suggested they arose in an evolutionary manner and were subject to change over long periods of time. The following passage reflects this view:
“Man “possesses” many things which he has never acquired but has inherited from his ancestors. He is not born as a tabula rasa, he is merely born unconscious. But he brings with him systems that are organized and ready to function in a specifically human way, and these he owes to millions of years of human development.” (Collected Works of C.G. Jung: Volume 4, Carl Jung)
Is it a balance between the "Innate" and the direct experienced of the" presently perceived"...that we all seek?
However, Jung also had sympathy with the idea that the archetypes may be similar to the Platonic forms existing as a type of immutable, transcendental entity. As Jung wrote at one point:
“Whether this psychic structure and its elements, the archetypes, ever ‘originated’ at all is a metaphysical question and therefore unanswerable.” (The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, Carl Jung)
My point here is I have own and used both these models of lawn mowers,,,I will call the 1968 one ,the Plato and the 1999 one the Aristotle
That's called "Decay" vs,"Growth"...meta-illustrated...the 1968 model was a very well built machine,,,did our skill just get forgotten come 1999?