[MD] The China Syndrome

[MarshaV]

At 08:49 AM 10/16/2008, you wrote:
>Marsha dear
>
>On 16 Oct you wrote:
>
> > I have a copy of a September 2003 letter to Paul Turner from RMP, but
> > not a 2005 letter.  Where can I find a copy of the 2005 letter?
>
>It's the very same letter and if you now will ask where Pirsig confirms
>the SOL its this passage
>
>     There has been a tendency to extend the meaning of "social"
>     down into the biological with the assertion that, for example,
>     ants are social, but I have argued that this extends the
>     meaning to a point where it is useless for classification. I said
>     that even atoms can be called societies of electrons and
>     protons. And since everything is thus social, why even have
>     the word? I think the same happens to the term, "intellectual,"
>     when one extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.*

Bo,

There is also this statement from the same (2003) letter.

       "The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation
        but some kind of other level is not clear to me. There is
        nothing in the MOQ that I know of that leads to this conclusion."


You would not expect Pirsig to use the word "SOL" or say out loud that
>"Bodvar is right"?

Why not?  I really would like you to explain why RMP would dismiss 
your p-o-v if he thought it was valid?


>This is as close as he could get. What "much
>before" means I don't know, but "Ancient Greeks" spells SOM in a
>MOQ context. Ipso facto! That he went on to the symbol manipulation
>definition does not bother me, all who have the least inkling of the
>MOQ will see through this as mere procrastinating. Also the asterisk
>regarding the Oriental Intellect ... at least if we speak about the level
>and not SOM's "intellect".
>
>Thanks for reading my boorish posts

I read all your posts.  My objection to your proposal have been 
against the idea of putting the dq/sq slit into a new level.  Here is 
a quote from RMP to Paul Turner from an unknown (to me) source:

       "In the few diagrams I have made of the evolutionary structure
        of the MOQ, Dynamic Quality is not part of the diagram.
        Dynamic Quality is represented by the paper the diagram is
        written on.  I like that device because there is no diagram in
        the world that can contain the paper it is written on."

Maybe someone can point me to the source of this quote.

Nowhere do I find any RMP statement that validates your SOL.

Marsha






> > At 04:42 AM 10/16/2008, you wrote:
> > >All
> > >
> > >On 14 Oct. Platt Holden quoted LILA:
> > >
> > > > "But the Metaphysics of Quality states that practicality is a
> > > > social pattern of good. It is immoral for truth to be subordinated
> > > > to social values since that is a lower form of evolution devouring
> > > > a higher one.
> > >
> > >The MOQ sees TRUTH as an intellectual pattern value and in this
> > >context it is synonymous with OBJECTIVITY - not merely truthfulness -
> > >and was what arrived with the Greeks - as SOM - thus the
> > >intellect=S/O is affirmed again, again and AGAIN, but this discussion
> > >won't touch the issue any more it believes that there is a MOQ
> > >without it. My antagonist from old - Paul Turner disappeared after
> > >Pirsig's letter of 2005 that confirmed the SOL (At times I miss
> > >Paul's understanding, but then it was what resulted in his withdrawal
> > >and opening an impenetrable blog) DMB tried for some time to hold the
> > >fort, but is a lesser MOQ scholar than Paul and has now withdrawn to
> > >his academical studies and obviously believes that "radical
> > >empiricism" is the way for MOQ's introduction. But that will never
> > >happen Academy IS SOM and like China swallows all invaders and makes
> > >them Chinese (hope it doesn't anger Khoo?) the SOM absorbs the MOQ -
> > >if it ventures inside academy through the front door. Exactly what
> > >has happened to Anthony McWatt's Ph.D. It made it past the guardians
> > >for the very reason that his definition of Q-intellect is the woolly
> > >"anything goes".  If our academicians had been "trojan horses" i.e.
> > >playing along to get inside but then springing the true MOQ in their
> > >faces, but as said it's the China Syndrome.
> > >
> > >Bo
> > >
> > >
> >

.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a 
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.