[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[skutvik at online.no]

For SA 

On 27 Aug. you wrote:

..after Platt had said:

> > 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.  

I agree totally. Thanks Platt. 
 
> 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 knew the "conceited" part would evoke reactions, but does 
people boast of being conceited? For the rest we don't live in North 
Korea where person worshipping is the highest good, Pirsig surely 
is the one who likes (perhaps he looks into the discussion) the 
MOQ to be put under scrutiny, while he guaranteed dislikes your 
forays into all kind of silly issues ... backed by Marsha.         

> 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. 

I know its futile to discuss philosophy with you, but for instance 
Pirsig's way of "encasing" SOM as expressed in Lila's Child

    In the MOQ, all organisms are objective. They exist in the 
    material world. All societies are subjective. They exist in 
    the mental world. Again, the distinction is very sharp. For 
    example, the president of the United States is a social 
    pattern. No objective scientific instrument can distinguish a 
    President of the US from anyone else.. 

I said that had he said "Seen from SOM organisms are objective 
and societies are subjective" it would have been correct, but as 
you see he says "In the MOQ ...etc. and this in a metaphysics that 
has forsworn the S/O distinction!!!. Still, in any case this way of 
subsuming SOM is cumbersome, even the staunchest somist 
would protest that "life" is objective or that a society is "subjective". 
No, the only way that puts the S/O genie safely back in a bottle is 
as the static intellectual level. 

>  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.  

Please will someone translate this!

Bo