[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Platt Holden]

> 
> > > 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.

Thanks.


> > > 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.

Me neither.