[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Heather Perella]

> > SA previously:  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.

Platt: 
> 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.  

SA:  For Bo to boast with his "conceited self" (his words, real quote now), and for him to say he's "the only metaphysician" (real quote again) and he says Pirsig was right on until somewhere along in ZMM and that Lila is wrong altogether AND Bo states Pirsig is wrong, meaning, Pirsig doesn't even understand the very moq he came up with - notice the core issue below.  I'd say Bo is kicking everybody out of what he claims to be the "true moq" (his words again) and he's waiting for a "thinker" (he's words again).  Somethings a bit off-course here.  You say "interpret".  I say Bo is going as far as totally rearranging and redefining the whole of the moq, not just an interpretation of details, but the whole shabang, he promotes the very event (SOM) that the moq is against.  Moq wouldn't even be around if something kin or interpreted similar to the moq was around counter to SOM.  But Pirsig and others back to the sophists were counter to SOM and each came up
 with their philosophy to show their reasons.  

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

SA:  I tried.  Since you brought it up, I thought you would know, but I guess not.  Maybe you don't know what your talking about either.

 
> > Platt:
> > > Finally, what "core issues" is Bo
> "tearing down?"
> > 
> > SA previously:  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.

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

SA:  Not surprised.

SA