Talk:Metaphysics of Quality

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

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)
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)
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