[MD] the MoRaT

Mon Jul 19 06:51:31 PDT 2010

'Is it better to have wisdom or is it better to be attractive to the ladies?' 
That was a question debated by Provengal poets way back in the thirteenth 
century. Sidis opted for wisdom, but it seemed to Phaedrus there ought to be 
some way you could have both."

once again proof Pirsig advocates rape

MoRaT affirmed AGAIN!!!

----- Original Message ----
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:44:26 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] the MoRaT

"Just as a farmer raises cows for the sole purpose of devouring them, this 
pattern 

grows living human bodies for the sole purpose of devouring them."

more evidence for the MoRaT, the true MoQ

and the most damning evidence that Pirsig indeed affirms
cannabalism and the rape and torture of inferior peoples:

"He also used to wonder if there was a higher farmer that 
did the same thing to people, a different kind of organism 
that they saw every day and thought of as beneficial, providing
 food and shelter and protection from enemies, but an organism 
that secretly was raising these people for its own sustenance,
 feeding upon them and using their accumulated energy for its 
own independent purposes. Later he saw there was"

Once again the MoRaT is confirmed!!!
the true MoQ
This unassailable position, that devours all platypus,- burp!

----- Original Message ----
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:26:48 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] the MoRaT

More evidence for the MoRaT interpretation

where Pirsig justifies cannibalism.

"From a Metaphysics of Quality's point of view this devouring of human bodies is 

a moral activity"

The MoRaT is affirmed again!!

----- Original Message ----
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:06:45 AM
Subject: [MD] the MoRaT

And since it seems we can say anything we want to

I want to introduce MoRaT

The metaphysics of rape and torture

Pirsig clearly supports this in my interpretation

that rape and torture are morally superior.

" 
"Now Phaedrus felt it all around him - the speed, the height, the crowds and 
their tension. 

All the early strangeness was gone now. He was in it.
He remembered that its great symbol used to be the ticker tape, ticking out 
unpredictable
 fortunes rising and falling every second, a great symbol of luck. Luck. When E. 

B. White
 wrote, 'If you want to live in New York you should be willing to be lucky,' he 
meant not just
 'lucky' but willing to be lucky - that is, Dynamic. If you cling to some set 
static pattern, 

when opportunity comes you won't take it. You have to hang loose, and when the 
time 

comes to be lucky, then be lucky: that's Dynamic.

clearly pirsig means "ass rape" when he uses the term "lucky"

but he will not admit it. Pirsig states that we must seize the opportunity to 
rape
and torture at every opportunity. 

This is the real MoQ

The one Pirsig meant
 it is so obviouse

the rest of you morons refuse to discuss the 
one true MoQ, the MoRaT interpetation.

-Ro

----- Original Message ----
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:50:26 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] inorganic patterns & thinking

Since the theory is "nothing is real"
test that theory by standing in traffic
or jumping off a building.

see what happens

please

----- Original Message ----
From: Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 7:24:25 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] inorganic patterns & thinking

On 2010-07-19 11:17, MarshaV wrote:
> Sight at its very least is not about identified objects, only form and
> color.  But one can experience sight sans even form and color too.
> It is ALL conceived.  It's useful and I wouldn't throw away any but the
> arrogance of thinking the "real" has been realized.

Arrogance is there in SOM, yes, because in SOM, there's no other relationship 
between the perceived object in your head and the object observed.

But in MoQ, we know that there *is* a direct dependency from our internal image 
of the object, to the reality of the object via the levels. I'm not saying that 
your brain is supported by *that* stone, but I'm saying that your brain is 
supported by inorganic patterns just *like* a stone.

So, in SOM, ALL is conceived. But in MoQ, where we have the level dependency and 

know that our internal "minds" are supported by inorganic patterns, we can know 
that there are inorganic patterns. From there, I don't think it's arrogant 
anymore to give the stone a status of real.

    Magnus
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/md/archives.html

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/md/archives.html