Talk:Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality

message: I'm not able to tell Paul Vogel much about Quantum Mech. but Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ) bears some likeness with the Physics of Quantum (POQ) in the sense that both has a weak and a strong interpretation. Albert Einstein represented POQ's weak interpretation, he claimed that its weird predictions were due to some hidden parameters, if these were found it would fit the "normal" (Newton) Physics. Niels Bohr represented the strong ditto and said that Newton Physics merely is a special case within a greater Quantum Reality, no hidden parameters were needed, Quantum reality is incompatible with Newtonian "normality". Einstein is long ago proved wrong (f.ex. by Alain Aspect experiment in the eighties) so now POQ's strong interpretation rules.
The MOQ has created a similar interpretational schism since Pirsig published it in his book "Lila, An Inquiry into Morals" (1991) and it has been intensively discussed for almost twenty years. As the main Wiki article indicates MOQ's first postulate is that "Quality is Reality", but from here the "weak interpretation" goes on to say that this Quality-reality is "intellectually" divided into a dynamic and a static component and - further - that the static part is subdivided into four levels - inorganic, biological, social and intellectual - and everyone will see that if the MOQ is contained within the 4th. level the totality is contained within a sub-set of the same totality and causes a grave logical bend. Moreover, an impossible Quality/MOQ "meta-metaphysics" is created, but let that rest
Counter to this the strong interpretation" says that the "Quality-Reality is MOQ's dynamic part which has spawned the aforementioned static levels. However, when it comes to the 4th. level a fundamental break occurs as this is made the former Subject/Object Metaphysics (SOM) which the MOQ claims it replaces. One will see that by this view SOM plays the same role within the MOQ as Newton Physics does in the POQ; It is a special case (a static level) within the greater Quality Reality. This creates a neat metaphysical system with no loose ends and with enormous explanatory power. This in contrast to the weak one which is nothing BUT loose ends and has zero power. The tragedy however is a doctoral thesis and degree - based on the weak interpretation - is published and have given it an air of being the official version. This however will bring it nowhere because it's just more of good old SOM: Quality as (objective) reality with the MOQ a (subjective) ordering of it. To get into further details here requires some knowledge of MOQ's finer points, but I may add some more if any interest is noticed.
Bodvar Skutvik  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.90.113 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Physics and Quality Metaphysics. 

message: 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.
::It's no wonder "most of Pirsig's critics ... don't understand" Pirsig's MoQ -- it is swamped with ambiguity and self-contradiction.  kostmo 01:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: quantum mechanics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Practical Impact 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  about that merge... 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article contains the following words: "'Quality,' or 'value,' as described by Pirsig, cannot be defined because it empirically precedes any intellectual construction of it." First, it asserts that the word "quality" is exactly the same as the word "value." In so doing, the article takes its most important word and equates it with a totally unrelated concept. Then, the article claims that the word "quality" can't be defined. In this way, there can be no communication between author and reader. Everyone is left to guess about the author's ideas and each reader will understand Pirsig in his or her own way, regardless of what the author is trying to say.Lestrade (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality and mental illness

message: 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)
replies: text: The deletion of this link is still happening and it is unacceptable behaviour under Wikipedia guidelines. I have reinstated it. 149.254.200.236 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have taken a look at the links you provided and would obviously like to help avoid an edit war. I have no personal involvement or investment in this topic. I agree that there should be an equal weighting of POV links. However the links that you provide do not necessarily meet wikipedia standards for external links. I believe they fail the standards for Reliable Sources, in particular Notability. I think they should be removed, let me know what you think. BananaFiend (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

text: To my understanding Reliable Sources and Notability are standards for articles not standards for External Links. Indeed, external links to be considered include precisely, 'Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.' Any thoughts? 149.254.224.174 (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the the External Links policy:  "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" are to be avoided.  The page states that it mostly comprises "links to posts I wrote for the MOQ discussion lists", and accordingly does not belong.  Kablammo (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

text: This is misleading. The page linked is neither a blog nor a personal web page. The External Links policy also says to avoid links that take you to discussion forums. The content was originally written for a discussion forum, but the link does not take you to one. The original posts have been reproduced at this website and, as the page states, re-worked as short essays. - Glenn Bradford  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.84.81 (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some minor editing would surely remove any doubt about the nature of the webpage in dispute. Springing from this and closely related to it, the article as a whole does still suffer from a total absence of balance and this impression is reinforced by the nature of the links. I would suggest that a section entitled 'Criticism' would benefit readers, perhaps based upon Julian Baggini's interview  - the only serious engagement of which I am aware from a professional philosopher - or perhaps that interview should be included in the external links section? Any thoughts? 149.254.56.240 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Posts from a discussion forum belong on that forum, and disagreements or robust discussion from that forum should stay there.  Off-wiki disagreements, if such they are, should not be continued here.  Responsible criticism from a notable academic ("recognized authority") may be appropriate, but personal posts to a discussion forum, then copied to a private page, are not the sort of thing that should be linked here.  Kablammo (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Persistent deletion of my MOQ link

message: 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)
thread_title:  This shouldn't be about Odum 

message: Sorry this isn't of the grandeur of MOQ discussions, but what is the link to C.S. Lewis doing at the bottom of the page.  I really cannot tell how MOQ and "The Abolition of Man" are related.  Any clarity, anyone?—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:I don't know who added the link but it's not entirely inappropriate. "The Abolition of Man" came to mind when I recently started to read ZAMM as did Gradgrind. 
:"The Humanistic Realist Perspective on Truth
:As a middle ground to the dispute between scientific materialism and skeptical rejections of science like social constructivism, several thinkers  have advanced humanistic philopsophies  of science. This approach accepts the insights about reality gained by science without rejecting the insights of such enterprises as poetry, art and religion. Popular accounts  of such a middle ground include C. S Lewis's Aboltion of Man and Robert Pirsigs's Zen and the Art of Motrocycle Maintenance". (Owen's ape & Darwin's bulldog: beyond Darwinism and creationism, p. 9, Christopher Ernest Cosans, Indiana University Press, 2009, ) Yt95 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  cs lewis link 

message: 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. Pirsig's theory can't be worse than Leibniz's Pre-established harmony, Spinoza's Pantheism, Hegel's Absolute idealism, or Nietzsche's Eternal recurrence. These are considered by academics to be genuine philosophies.Lestrade (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudophilosophy

message: Pirsig may have misunderstood the word "quality." He took it to mean "high degree of superior excellence or perfection" when it should have been understood to mean "property, characteristic, or attribute of a thing." An example of the second meaning of quality is "Sweetness is a quality that is common to honey and sugar." An example of the first meaning of quality is "Japanese and Korean cars are of a higher quality than American cars." Lestrade (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Misunderstanding

message: The title "Pirsig's metaphysics of Quality" doesn't match how the subject is used in the article.  In the article it is just "Metaphysics of Quality".  Also, what's with the capitalization:  why is it "Pirsig's metaphysics of Quality" and not "Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality", or even better, "Pirsig's metaphysics of quality"? 71.185.49.96 (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Either the initial "m" in the title should be capitalized (as it currently is in the rest of the article) or the "q" should be set in lower case. 2601:2:4D40:BD63:2173:70CA:9B97:B32F (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent capitalization 

message: has cleaned up some external links, which for this article has been overdue.  However, I have to take strong exception to the removal of moq.org with a rationale of External links: "rm fans sites and forums. see WP:ELNO".
First off, moq.org is more than just a "fan site" or "forum" but is instead the #1 resource (literally, in the world, on the internet and elsewhere) for researchers on Pirsig's Metaphysics, and repository for papers and other media pertaining to his Metaphysics.  For those interested in learning about or studying his concepts, moq.org is an indespensable resource and we would be doing a genuine disservice to our readers to not have it as an external link.
As testament to the seriousness of the site, a "Google Scholar" search for "moq.org" shows 26 scholarly works referencing moq.org.  A standard Google search of books referring to moq.org yield "about 77 results".  Moq.org collection of essays is second to none anywhere in the world for papers written pertaining to Pirsig's metaphysics.  
And lastly, WP:ELNO, even if it applied, is a guideline which says "one should generally avoid providing external links to...".  It does not say "never".  Furthermore, guidelines themselves are  "...generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  Again, even if WP:ELNO were to apply, clearly moq.org would be due for an exception for it is the pre-eminent resource for serious researchers of Pirsig's Metaphysics.  I'm going to go ahead and restore a link to it. Marteau (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the simplest ways to recognize a reliable source is to ask the name of who writes it. Whose work is this? What is their name? For every topic on Wikpeida, whether it is Pokemon or Black Mirror or the Kawasaki Ninja 250, there exists a fansite that can claim to be the #1 forum for whatever the topic is. So maybe moq.org is in fact the #1 forum where total randos post whatever they want. Great. We do not link to "Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists" or "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority." Who is the authority who writes moq.org? There isn't one. It's an open forum. Where does one go to find the premier open forum on Pokemon? Or the Ninja 250? Or the metaphysics of quality? One goes to Google. One does not go to Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an issue with how they use the word "forum".  The guideline you cite says, "forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists  ".  That is not how moq.org uses the word "forum".  For their site, the "Forum" is a collection of essays.  It certainly is not a "forum" in the sense that the guideline uses it.  And yes, they do welcome submissions, but it is not where 'total randos post whatever they want" as you put it.  Submissions must pertain to the Metaphysics of Quality and are of high quality, including post-graduate theses, published articles, and textbooks. And the Google Scholar citations I linked above are all from this "forum" of theirs, along with most of the book citations.  For people interested in the subject of the article (Pirsig's Metaphisics of Quality) this is a high value resource and an obvious choice for inclusion in an external links section for the Metaphysics of Quality article.  Marteau (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  moq.org 

message: I mean, what even is this? I see a "philosophy" whose core tenets are 1) that an undefinable "something" is the "real" root of the universe superseding all else that others claim to be the root of the universe, and thusly 2) the recursive implied axiom that "this philosophy solves everything". I also see 24/7 weasel words by these adherents to this theory aka writers of this page, constantly trying to spin it out into something bigger and grander-looking with WP:PATENT word salad, trying to add a veneer of legitimacy if not supremacy to this nothingburger. Putting a name to the idea that aspects of reality precede definition of words does not a philosophy make. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia; lose the "iped" and now we're talking.
Despite the fact that this page's oldest edit history appears to have been lost due to a Wikipedia bug in 2006 (?), it has clearly been written by Pirsig fans. Almost every comment on the talk page defending the existence of the article, its phrasing, etc., blatantly violates WP:NPOV. People are in here saying the article needs to include that this is the metaphysical equivalent of the heliocentric model, even trying to twist a calling out of a lack of reliable sources as somehow itself a violation of NPOV as well as "original research" into whether or not there were reliable sources (LMAOOOOOOOOO). If the article makes no sense, you're just not smart enough to get it like we do. I mean, in an accusation of POV editing, I quote:  Is that not cut and dry?
Additionally, it seems as though the editors themselves seem to have no clue what this philosophy entails. Disputes on how exactly this relates to subject/object duality, debates over the inclusion of work by a different author who did not subscribe to or claim to write about this theory, disagreements on whether the Q in "quality" is to be capitalized as a proper noun, and can someone tell me exactly how that first quote from Zen explains a single thing about it at all? My read: a lot of people spinning explanations how this is the peak of true thought and real thinking, straight from the rear of the steer, to disguise the fact that it's nothing but thought-terminating. The answer is that the answer can't be defined, and that fact is what makes the universe run. Fascinating stuff. Write a 2011 sci-fi action movie to be forgotten in six months, not a Wikipedia article to persist for 20 years.
Literally what makes this worthy of inclusion on the encyclopedia? How does this reach notability guidelines? It must simply be going unseen by mods, right? The sources are largely this guy's own books, there is zero widespread acceptance of this anywhere (outside that hilariously Heaven's-Gate-looking website), it's just something some guy decided. (Sidenote: These sources are also not even used as references, just listed as a bulleted list under long swathes of text citing absolutely nothing.) This is tantamount to WP:MADEUP. This has been grandfathered into modern Wikipedia from a more lax time. This deserves maybe its own subsection on Robert M. Pirsig, if not just on Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. This is a textual playground for adherents to this absurd mashing together of conventional Christian God ideas and just-had-my-first-DMT-experience "bro, you just don't get it, we are one" Facebook post analyses of the universe to navel-gaze about the superiority of their "but how would you define the word 'thing' really" musings. The emperor has no clothes. Delete this page. Nerdwizard (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the page is about a “real philosophy” or whether that philosophy is meaningful or logical is less of a concern to me than the paucity lack of sources and difficulty with notability. I have now WP:PRODed the page, we will see where that takes us. — HTGS (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course all philosophy is subjective and, in the end, such subjectivity is irrelevant to Wikipedia. It just shocks me when I see ideas like this talked about in these tones in a place like this. Compounding factors include "for so long too?" and "belied by the very same elements that make this page non-Wikipedia-worthy too?" Nerdwizard (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should simply not exist