Talk:Metaphysics of Quality

The discussion below was moved to Talk:Pirsig's_metaphysics_of_quality. Sholto Maud 10:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudophilosophy says that Pirsig's theory is often cited as an example. I think this article ought to say why it is often considered pseudophilosophy, and perhaps to attempt to defend it.

Can someone give me a pointer to what is said about quantum mechanics. Everytime I've seem QM mentioned in this context, they get it wrong, but I want to look at what is actually said before including it in the article.

QM indicates that "reality" is actually not as "deterministic" as was previously thought, and that is what is mostly said in the MOQ as well.

Short answer: Pirsig doesn't know the first thing about quantm mechanics, just like he doesn't know the first thing about philosophy.

That "short answer" above, only indicates that this person actually knows very little about all three: Pirsig, QM, and REAL Philosophy! Nothing is new about that, as most of Pirsig's critics, like many of those of Nietzsche and Pierce, also, really just don't understand them and their advanced concepts of Reality.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Ooh... advanced concepts of reality, and cosmotheism. I must update my subscriptions to the physics journals.

Could somebody actually write something about what the philosophy actually says? This article just says it reaches "unconventional conclusions" but doesn't ever state what those conclusions are. And it says that it's related to Tao, Zen, and American Indian culture, but not how it's related. Vague to the nth degree. — Gwalla | Talk 21:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is an embarassment; for one, because of the reasons Gwalla pointed out, for two, the first two paragraphs are word-for-word plagarisms from moq.org. The reason it reads like ad copy is because it was plagarized FROM an advertisement for Pirsig's 'Lila'. I have not removed it, not because it is not that bad, but because I can't find any copyright notices at moq.org. But the text is not fit for an encyclopedia and I'll come up with something better when I get the chance.Marteau 20:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyright notices are irrelevant. All original written material is copyrighted unless it is explicitly released into the public domain. — Gwalla | Talk 03:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The latest addition claims that "subject-object based metaphysics" is "the darling of the intellectual movement". This makes no sense (and smells POV). There is no "the intellectual movement" (there are, however, specific intellectual movements). Also, the term "subject-object based metaphysics" is redlinked, which is odd for something that's supposedly so fundamental to Western philosophy. — Gwalla | Talk 03:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I changed some of my wording. The POV that you are refering to is Pirsig's. And it makes good sense. Rather than "intellectual movement" (Which does exist... the space race, democracy, communism all are children of it.) I wrote "Intellectual patterns" which is Pirsig's terminology for the movement that followed the social repression of the past (Organized religion, fuedalism etc.). The modern intellectual is an empirical animal and has distanced facts from values exentsively. I've heard people make the argument that the "subject-object metaphysics" is a straw man that is easy to attack but hard to find anyone using anywhere in the world... well it's that kind of blindness that keeps empirical people stuck in a rut. It is evident everywhere! Cultural Anthropology is considered second rate to Physical Anthropology because of the values (all non-recordable) associated with culture. Religion and science are constantly battling. Art and Science have been seperate since the invention of the university in medieval europe. Pirsig's way of looking at things relies on the use of quality (an undefinable mediator between these terms "object" and "subject") Also you mentioned that the term "subject-object based metaphysics" is redlinked, this is because it is pirsig's terminology for the widely accepted metaphysics... I was just didn't have enough time to write an article on it. Perhaps my article on it will simply bea link to an existing article about the same thing under the terms of the philosophical establishment. Wraybm1

Criticism[edit]

What I'd really like to see on this page is some of the criticism of MOQ (criticism as opposed to critical analysis). Apparently the article once said something about unconventional conclusions, and I've heard that there's been some good points made against the MOQ that could easily be put in a NPOV form and integrated. Surely there are enough sources around for one of the dissenting previous contributors to do this. I mean, I found this in the FAQ of the first link:

Academic philosophers seemingly don't want to look into his Quality idea ... The few reviews published have been overwhelmingly negative -- outright vicious -- and far too violent for a "mere" philosophical idea.

Can't we find some of these negative reviews (of the philosophy, not the book I assume) by 'academic' philosophers? Surely we'd be serving a NPOV throughout the article as a whole if we mentioned the problems some people have with the philosophy. Thoughts? --Dom 11:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

metaphysics of quality[edit]

merged in the "Metaphysics of quality" (small q) entry since this is already here.Heah 01:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

about that merge...[edit]

I think that a whole lot of misleading info was merged in from the old article... I edited out many little pieces that tried to claim that Quality is the thing that divides things into subjects and objects. Pirsig would not agree. Man is what divides things. Quality supercedes man and everything else. One of the biggest points of the MOQ is that subject and object do not exist... they are just used to talk about SOM. Quality accounts exhaustively for everything... there are static patterns of quality (inorganic, biological, social and intellectual) and there is dynamic quality. The latter is the thing that makes the person jump off of the stove and the former is the hot stove itself --in this case an inorganic pattern of value. So, the subject/object language is not adequate when talking about quality. Subject and object are nearly irrelevant in terms within MOQ. Lets leave them out in this article unless talking about the SOM (Subject Object Metaphysics) Now it might be argued that Pirsig sketched out that little hierarchy of subject linking object through quality in ZAMM... but he built on his theory enough in Lila that the entire metaphysics uses different semantics (Dynamic and Static quality which are not exactly equal to subjective and objective) He started out looking for a way to link subject and object, he did this through quality and then ended up having to discard subject and object entirely for quality. It'd be like some people building a bridge across a river to link two towns... in the middle of the river they use an island to help support the bridge... Then 20 later the two towns have become irrelevant and the island is a major city. --Wraybm1 20:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WOW whoever this person at IP address (80.5.160.6) is did an amazing job sharpening up this article. Wonderful! It's bangin'! --Wraybm1 20:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quality and mental illness[edit]

Did his musings on quality drive Pirsig crazy? His Zen and the Art touches deeply on mental illness.

I personally had an epiphany while reading the book as a teen.

What is it, about quality? Uncle Ed 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent deletion of my MOQ link[edit]

I'd like to open up a discussion about the persistent deletion of a link to my MOQ page, in the External Links section of this article. I am quite certain I know who the person is behind 80.2.113.245 and why he is deleting it, and so I can say with some confidence that his reasons are personal and wouldn't pertain to the larger Wikipedia community (but to this point he should speak for himself). Efforts to properly engage him and resolve the issue outside of this forum have been fruitless, to say the least. Rather than continue the edit war I would instead like to make the case that my page is relevant to this article and deserves inclusion as a link. The MOQ is a radical philosophy that has its supporters and detractors. Unlike any of the other external links listed, mine offers - and explicitly states that it offers - a dissenting point of view of it, that, to my knowledge, is not found in any organized fashion anywhere else on the Internet. On these points, the inclusion of my link serves well the Wikipedia guidelines for external links:

"On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is."

Persons interested in taking a closer look at the MOQ might well find my short essays/posts on evolution, pragmatism, gravity, God, Dynamic Quality, the moral hierarchy, the scientific method and others, as well as the controversial spoof paper I wrote for the first MOQ conference, to be of value in determining whether this philosophy should be pursued. Thank you for giving this matter your attention. - Glenn Bradford

I found the material to be of use and anyone who discusses Pirsig should be aware of it. Perhaps if it was put under a "Dissenting Views" rubric, it might not give whoever is deleting the link the vapours like it seems to be doing. 22:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This shouldn't be about Odum[edit]

a google search for "metaphysics of quality" Odum pulls in precisely 7 results, and i beleive they are all this page or mirrors. From what i can tell he never used the MOQ as his own; rather saying that emergy had correlations with value theory. So unless there is good reason to keep it here, i'm removing it all. --He:ah? 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be about Pirsig[edit]

What is the "metaphysics" of "quality" about? If it is exclusively about Prisig's philosophy then maybe it should only be mentioned on the Robert M. Pirsig page. It is the case that other philosophers & theorists have developed metaphysical attitudes towards the concept of quality throughout the history of western and eastern philosophy. These attitudes should therefore be mentioned in this article which is about the metaphysics of quality, and not simply Prisig's philosophy. Odum had a metaphysics of quality which deserves mention in this article. In fact Odum's scientific work seems to complement much of Prisig's theory. I propose that the sumamry of Odum's attitude should be reinstated and will do so if there is no further argument. Sholto Maud 07:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO further arguement has been forthcomming....Sholto Maud 06:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this . . . You are misunderstanding this article. this article is about a particular metaphysical view in which quality is seen as the underlying ontological factor, a theory which was formulated by Pirsig. It isn't about the possible metaphysical foundations of quality, or metaphysical attitudes towards quality, it is about a metaphysical theory called the "metaphysics of quality"; it has never been about anything else, (if you check the history), other than in the addition of Odum's theories.

Again, this theory sees quality as the central ontological factor, this theory is called the "metaphysics of quality", and this theory is what the page is about. a google search for +"metaphysics of quality" +Pirsig gets almost 20,000 hits; a search for +"metaphysics of quality" +Odum gets all of 23, and these are almost all links to wikipedia-related articles, many in the form of outdated mirrors of this page. It isn't the name of any theory odum formulated, as far as i know. A philosophical discussion of the possible metaphysical foundations of quality should go elsewhere.

--he ah 06:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my misunderstanding comes about because the title is misleading. I suggest the article is retitle to read "Pirsig's metaphysics of quality" to avoid misunderstanding. However it might be more appropriate to merge this article with the article about Pirsig which is quite short and could be extended to include his philosophy.

I suggest this because Odum's work and that of others like Frank, Woodger etc., all see quality as "the central ontological facotr", and therefore, on the grounds you give above, qualify under the theoretical banner of the "metaphysics of quality". If this is what the page is about then these authors should be included because they qualify.

Re: Odum's metaphysics of quality: it does not get many google hits because not many people know about it, so I don't think googling is an indicator of anything in this discussion other than there are alot of philosopher's out there who haven't read Odum's work. :) Sholto Maud 11:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of Sholto Maud 07:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC) this issue hasn't been resolved. I'm going to rename the page to Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality if no one objects.[reply]