[MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Marsha]
Do you own an absolute definition of 'freedom of speech'?

[Arlo]
Can you point out ANY instance, ANY point in my post, that calls for 
"stifling freedom of speech"?

And since you'll have no luck with that, here's something substantive 
you can answer.

Why is the following such a seemingly alien concept for you, Platt and Bo?

(1) Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of 
Pirsig's metaphysics.

(2) Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the 
intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality 
that considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns", instead 
of "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM".

Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what 
value do you think it has?

Do you disagree with me that we use the phrase "THE metaphysics of 
Quality" as a conventional way of referring specifically to Pirsig's 
ideas, but that it would in fact be more accurate to say "Pirsig's 
metaphysics"?

Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ" into 
some "reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? This makes 
no sense. Pirsig can't be wrong about his ideas, but his ideas can be 
wrong. In the same way, Bo's ideas are not "THE MOQ", they are his ideas.

If we drop the word "THE", and instead simply talk about people's 
ideas, do you not see how all this interpretive nonsense and need for 
authoritative legitimacy would disappear?

In other words, what do you think is wrong with saying "A metaphysics 
of Quality that holds the intellectual level to SOM is better than A 
metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be one on many 
intellectual patterns"?

Does that not sum up your position? Why is it more important for you 
to say instead "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual 
level to SOM"?