[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Platt Holden]

> 
> > Platt: "Hijacking" is a crime. A
> > "hijacker" is a criminal." Same with 
> > accusing Bo of "stealing." That's how
> > it's a personal attack.
> 
> SA:  Platt, use some common sense.  I didn't say Bo hijacked a plane or
> anything.  I'm pointing out he's trying to take the moq for himself, and
> rid Pirsig of even knowing what the moq is.  In my dictionary, "taking
> something over" means hijack, which incidently a different definition does
> point out that hijacking can be a legal issue, but I'm not talking about
> that.  I can tell your out for an argument.  Do you still not like
> "analogies"?  curious.

SA, use your head. To accuse Bo of "hijacking the MOQ" is a personal 
attack. To say he "interprets the MOQ differently than you" is not.  

> Platt:
> > Further, I guess you never read Pirsig's words about his opinion
> > being no "Papal 
> > Bull."
> 
> SA:  What's that mean?

Look it up. 

> Platt:
> > Finally, what "core issues" is Bo "tearing down?"
> 
> SA:  Bo's trying to say the moq is about s/o (the SOM objective kind) and
> that the moq is essentialist (he doesn't recognize the undefined dq). 
> They latter is a recent argument of his that dmb was involved with.  The
> former strikes at the core of what the moq is arguing against from the
> very beginning, middle and end.  Can't get much more contrary than that. 
> Have you not read any of Ron's posts or mine or Ian's or dmb's on this
> issue?  Probably have, and you'll find something to argue against this
> probably, so, I'm not in for a debate at the moment.  I would say, lurk,
> read the posts on Bo, especially the recent ones that Ron has put forth. 
> Their enlightening and as you can see these discussions on these issues
> have been on going and have taken many, many posts to fully discuss.  So,
> I'm not sitting here all day and night to explain everything.  Sorry.  But
> if you lurk, to help guide you in a good direction if this answer doesn't
> satisfy you, you'll
>  see more and more about where Bo has transformed the moq into something
> else that I would say would mean Bo needs to come up with a new name for
> his philosophy and stop saying it is the moq.

Sorry, I don't follow you. I don't think Bo is saying what you say he is 
saying
at all.