> > > > 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. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
