Metaphysics of quality

[ChaoticMindSays]

This is a feed for discussing the metaphysics of quality.

http://www.moq.org/

From zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance and Lila by Robert Pirsig.

I would really appreciate any ideas or comments on this.

First of all, has anyone read ZMM or Lila? ZMM is a book that drastically changed my life, I see it as being very important in relevance to philosophy.
Second, does anyone know of any related reading? I would like to follow up on these ideas.

MOQ:

This, basically, offers a paradigm shift replacing subjective/objective with a three part system, subjective/quality/objective.

[value]

This is a feed for discussing the metaphysics of quality.

https://www.moq.org/

From zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance and Lila by Robert Pirsig.

I would really appreciate any ideas or comments on this.

Did you create the website yourself?

The Seventies bestseller Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values was the biggest-selling philosophy book ever. The book appears in Guinness Book of Records as the bestselling book rejected by the largest number of publishers (121). Sold 5m copies worldwide.

The Guardian mentions the following about the website:

Though a website dedicated to his ideas boasts 50,000 posts, and there have been outposts of academic interest, he is disappointed that his books have not had more mainstream attention. 'Most academic philosophers ignore it, or badmouth it quietly, and I wondered why that was. I suspect it may have something to do with my insistence that "quality" can not be defined,' he says.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/nov/19/fiction

--

With regard the Metaphysics of Quality. Upon first inspection it appears to be a very interesting concept.

Amazon.com writes the following about it:

The Metaphysics of Quality is a philosophy, a theory about reality. It asks questions such as what is real, what is good and what is moral, and it comes up with some surprising conclusions about our lives and existence.

As the title of Pirsig's first book, suggests, much of the MOQ has to do with a non-intellectual Zen-like view of the universe.

Yet Pirsig departs from Eastern thinking by arguing that reason and logic are just as important in seeking understanding.

Pirsig is not the first philosopher to try and bridge the gap between science and mysticism, however with the MOQ he elevates the whole debate to a new level by structuring both paradigms round a single concept -- value. Pirsig throws new light on issues such as mind and matter, the behavior of particles at the quantum level and the nature of consciousness. At the social level there is much to say about racial tension, celebrity cults and mental illness.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN ... 83-5848238

The Wiki site for the concept mentions the following:

The Metaphysics of Quality came to life after its creator, philosopher Robert Maynard Pirsig, spent 10 years writing a book called Lila which describes it.

However the patterns originally formed many years before the book had been written and were almost lost. This was during a period when Robert Pirsig underwent Electroconvulsive therapy due to his unrepentant persuit to the answer of the question "What is Quality?".

As he spent many years in and out of mental insitutions he channeled his energy towards the outlet of writing which resulted in a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and is known as "the most widely read Philosophy book ever". In it he talks about an uncontested subject-object metaphysics which neglects the concept of Quality.

Lila, the second book by Robert Pirsig details an alternate Metaphysics called the Metaphysics of Quality or just MOQ for short.

Why it is good

The Metaphysics of Quality is good because Metaphysics is reality and reality is what is good. That's why we ask what is good in the first place. See?

The Metaphysics of Quality, or MoQ, is simply a philosophic answer to the question of what is Quality, or worth, or merit, or value, or betterness or any of the other synonyms for good. There are many possible answers but the one the MOQ gives is that you can understand Quality best if you don't subordinate it to anything else but instead subordinate everything else to it.

http://moqwiki.wikidot.com/the-metaphysics-of-quality

--

With regard the website. Many pages show a "Under construction" notice. It doesn't seem to be easy to acquire more information about the concept Metaphysics of Quality.

The Wiki site mentions the following about it:

Three metaphysical views have dominated western philosophical thinking: dualism, idealism, and physicalism. Dualism, as explained by Descartes holds that mind and matter are two different and distinct types of substances. Idealism and physicalism are both forms of monism. Idealism, exemplified by the work of Bishop George Berkeley, and implied by the work of David Hume, holds that we are not justified in believing in anything but mental qualities and minds. Accordingly, the notion of physical things apart from mental qualities is best dispensed with. Most scientists today are physicalists. This view holds that all things are physical. According to physicalism, all mental phenomena are caused by a physical brain. Physicalism is a form of reductionism that reduces all mental phenomena to physical explanations. All of three of these views have their shortcomings.

Two similar and promising metaphysical views have been developed to address the shortcomings of the main three metaphysical views of the west. These are the views of process philosophy and the metaphysics of quality. Process philosophy builds upon the work of Alfred North Whitehead. The metaphysics of quality is an independent view developed by Robert Pirsig.

http://moqwiki.wikidot.com/moq-and-philosophy

--

Can you provide more information with regard the Metaphysics of Quality being "a paradigm shift replacing subjective/objective with a three part system, subjective/quality/objective."?

[3017Metaphysician]

This is a feed for discussing the metaphysics of quality.

https://www.moq.org/

From zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance and Lila by Robert Pirsig.

I would really appreciate any ideas or comments on this.

Did you create the website yourself?

The Seventies bestseller Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values was the biggest-selling philosophy book ever. The book appears in Guinness Book of Records as the bestselling book rejected by the largest number of publishers (121). Sold 5m copies worldwide.

The Guardian mentions the following about the website:

Though a website dedicated to his ideas boasts 50,000 posts, and there have been outposts of academic interest, he is disappointed that his books have not had more mainstream attention. 'Most academic philosophers ignore it, or badmouth it quietly, and I wondered why that was. I suspect it may have something to do with my insistence that "quality" can not be defined,' he says.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/nov/19/fiction

--

With regard the Metaphysics of Quality. Upon first inspection it appears to be a very interesting concept.

Amazon.com writes the following about it:

The Metaphysics of Quality is a philosophy, a theory about reality. It asks questions such as what is real, what is good and what is moral, and it comes up with some surprising conclusions about our lives and existence.

As the title of Pirsig's first book, suggests, much of the MOQ has to do with a non-intellectual Zen-like view of the universe.

Yet Pirsig departs from Eastern thinking by arguing that reason and logic are just as important in seeking understanding.

Pirsig is not the first philosopher to try and bridge the gap between science and mysticism, however with the MOQ he elevates the whole debate to a new level by structuring both paradigms round a single concept -- value. Pirsig throws new light on issues such as mind and matter, the behavior of particles at the quantum level and the nature of consciousness. At the social level there is much to say about racial tension, celebrity cults and mental illness.


zen-motorcycle.jpg


https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN ... 83-5848238

The Wiki site for the concept mentions the following:

The Metaphysics of Quality came to life after its creator, philosopher Robert Maynard Pirsig, spent 10 years writing a book called Lila which describes it.

However the patterns originally formed many years before the book had been written and were almost lost. This was during a period when Robert Pirsig underwent Electroconvulsive therapy due to his unrepentant persuit to the answer of the question "What is Quality?".

As he spent many years in and out of mental insitutions he channeled his energy towards the outlet of writing which resulted in a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and is known as "the most widely read Philosophy book ever". In it he talks about an uncontested subject-object metaphysics which neglects the concept of Quality.

Lila, the second book by Robert Pirsig details an alternate Metaphysics called the Metaphysics of Quality or just MOQ for short.

Why it is good

The Metaphysics of Quality is good because Metaphysics is reality and reality is what is good. That's why we ask what is good in the first place. See?

The Metaphysics of Quality, or MoQ, is simply a philosophic answer to the question of what is Quality, or worth, or merit, or value, or betterness or any of the other synonyms for good. There are many possible answers but the one the MOQ gives is that you can understand Quality best if you don't subordinate it to anything else but instead subordinate everything else to it.

http://moqwiki.wikidot.com/the-metaphysics-of-quality

--

With regard the website. Many pages show a "Under construction" notice. It doesn't seem to be easy to acquire more information about the concept Metaphysics of Quality.

The Wiki site mentions the following about it:

Three metaphysical views have dominated western philosophical thinking: dualism, idealism, and physicalism. Dualism, as explained by Descartes holds that mind and matter are two different and distinct types of substances. Idealism and physicalism are both forms of monism. Idealism, exemplified by the work of Bishop George Berkeley, and implied by the work of David Hume, holds that we are not justified in believing in anything but mental qualities and minds. Accordingly, the notion of physical things apart from mental qualities is best dispensed with. Most scientists today are physicalists. This view holds that all things are physical. According to physicalism, all mental phenomena are caused by a physical brain. Physicalism is a form of reductionism that reduces all mental phenomena to physical explanations. All of three of these views have their shortcomings.

Two similar and promising metaphysical views have been developed to address the shortcomings of the main three metaphysical views of the west. These are the views of process philosophy and the metaphysics of quality. Process philosophy builds upon the work of Alfred North Whitehead. The metaphysics of quality is an independent view developed by Robert Pirsig.

http://moqwiki.wikidot.com/moq-and-philosophy

--

Can you provide more information with regard the Metaphysics of Quality being "a paradigm shift replacing subjective/objective with a three part system, subjective/quality/objective."?

Value!

Great question...subscribed!!!

The 'paradigm shift' is intriguing (subject--->quality [of conscious existence-Qualia]---> object). Although with respect to causation, evolution, time, the relationship between mind and matter, and other metaphysical phenomena or first principles in Being, I wonder if it should be instead: Quality/Qualia---> object---->subject.

That assumes not only 'intelligent' design of some kind, as a final cause (a 'qualitative' ultimate super-turtle or the concept of a God with some sort of intelligence), but for example, that which is outside of time causing time itself (since no one knows where Singularity originated). Or, at the risk of redundancy, that which breaths fire into the Hawking equations. Perhaps one should start with the unpacking of the concept of Quality itself(?).

Anyway, note that the initial OP/user seems to no longer exist...

[value]

Great question...subscribed!!!

The 'paradigm shift' is intriguing (subject--->quality [of conscious existence-Qualia]---> object). Although with respect to causation, evolution, time, the relationship between mind and matter, and other metaphysical phenomena or first principles in Being, I wonder if it should be instead: Quality/Qualia---> object---->subject.

That assumes not only 'intelligent' design of some kind, as a final cause (a 'qualitative' ultimate super-turtle or the concept of a God with some sort of intelligence), but for example, that which is outside of time causing time itself (since no one knows where Singularity originated). Or, at the risk of redundancy, that which breaths fire into the Hawking equations. Perhaps one should start with the unpacking of the concept of Quality itself(?).

The answers are likely to be found in his latest book Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals

Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals

https://www.amazon.com/Lila-Inquiry-Mor ... B00FUZPRNU

I wonder whether there are online references for the concept as well. Upon a first inspection of the website moq.org it seems that metaphors are used to make a point. Some examples of the Wiki site:

The introduction into Metaphysics of Quality mentions the following: "There are two basic kinds of Quality, an undefined Quality called Dynamic Quality, and a defined quality called static quality.

Static quality is further divided into four evolutionary divisions:

- Inorganic Patterns of Value
- Biological Patterns of Value
- Social Patterns of Value
- Intellectual Patterns of Value"

Then the page of Dynamic Quality displays the following: "This page is meant to be blank"

Dynamic Quality

Screenshot 2022-07-09 at 10-26-06 Dynamic Quality - The Metaphysics of Quality Wiki.png (5.77 KiB) Viewed 1422 times

http://moqwiki.wikidot.com/dynamic-quality

Then the page on Static Quality displays a lot of Chinese text and a list with references but then on the bottom some English information, making it appear as if the page is intended to be setup as it is.

Static Quality

http://moqwiki.wikidot.com/static-quality

Anyway, note that the initial OP/user seems to no longer exist...

Yes, I noticed it. His contributions and replies seem to have been intense, motivating for others and uniquely intelligible (upon a quick look at his post history, which is still available on the following URL)

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=35658 (user ChaoticMindSays)

Felix said

it a sense of the wonder of Life. We are born with that wonder but not all of us keep it(unfortunately).

I have this sense of wonder, that is why I am a philosopher I just do not associate it with God.
It's more like... Theres so much we don't know and what we don't know is what I'm interested in. If I were to have a religion it would be philosophy. It is something I practice everyday, I always try to look at a subject from as many angels as possible. And it is something that brings me a little bit of peace because it helps me to understand things better. So it could be said that I am religious. But Buddhists are religious and don't believe in God. So religion really has little to do with a concept of God.

He created an interesting poll.

Logic is it's own fallacy.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4253

[value]

You seem to often mention the concept Singularity in relation to 'what breath's fire into the cosmological equations'. In the topic Must the Universe contain consciousness? you seem to argue that the Singularity is related to understanding of consciousness and quality.

"according to the Big Bang theory, the entire universe was compressed into an ∞ infinitely tiny point, a singularity."
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

What would be the theoretical ground for the idea that the Universe is a physical totality that can be compressed into a tiny point?

What is it that breath's fire into the Hawking equation's, I wonder?

“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? --Stephen Hawking

Just as a commentary: I am surprised that the question of where Singularity came from, which wasn't asked, empirically or 'causally', may have been the actual cause of whether we think that the universe must contain consciousness... . In other words, scientists can find that question meaningful because nobody knows where the Singularity came from to begin with.

Asking whether the universe contains consciousness is germane to all of material existence. And that's because if we knew where Singularity came from, that question (among many) would not even need to be asked. A kind of logical necessity, one might say...so on many levels, we can't remove the questions of consciousness from any complete theory of existence.

Do you believe that understanding of the concept Singularity would provide understanding of Quality?

Paul Davies, at least, briefly touches on that very import feature of consciousness (quality/Qualia), which is part of the difficulty associated with not only biological emergence (emergent properties), but with extreme or exclusive physicalism too. Neurons, atoms and molecules don't tell us about quality. He knows this. I give him credit there.

...

One might ask, how did the Will emerge as a fixed sense of subjective awareness, or an objective/independent 'consciousness' that breaths fire into the cosmological equations?

You say that neurons, atoms and molecules don't tell humans about quality. What about the sensible nature of those concepts? Isn't that a quality?

[3017Metaphysician]

Great question...subscribed!!!

The 'paradigm shift' is intriguing (subject--->quality [of conscious existence-Qualia]---> object). Although with respect to causation, evolution, time, the relationship between mind and matter, and other metaphysical phenomena or first principles in Being, I wonder if it should be instead: Quality/Qualia---> object---->subject.

That assumes not only 'intelligent' design of some kind, as a final cause (a 'qualitative' ultimate super-turtle or the concept of a God with some sort of intelligence), but for example, that which is outside of time causing time itself (since no one knows where Singularity originated). Or, at the risk of redundancy, that which breaths fire into the Hawking equations. Perhaps one should start with the unpacking of the concept of Quality itself(?).

The answers are likely to be found in his latest book Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals


lila.jpeg

https://www.amazon.com/Lila-Inquiry-Mor ... B00FUZPRNU

I wonder whether there are online references for the concept as well. Upon a first inspection of the website moq.org it seems that metaphors are used to make a point. Some examples of the Wiki site:

The introduction into Metaphysics of Quality mentions the following: "There are two basic kinds of Quality, an undefined Quality called Dynamic Quality, and a defined quality called static quality.

Static quality is further divided into four evolutionary divisions:

- Inorganic Patterns of Value
- Biological Patterns of Value
- Social Patterns of Value
- Intellectual Patterns of Value"

Then the page of Dynamic Quality displays the following: "This page is meant to be blank"


Screenshot 2022-07-09 at 10-26-06 Dynamic Quality - The Metaphysics of Quality Wiki.png
http://moqwiki.wikidot.com/dynamic-quality

Then the page on Static Quality displays a lot of Chinese text and a list with references but then on the bottom some English information, making it appear as if the page is intended to be setup as it is.


Screenshot 2022-07-09 at 10-30-28 代做工资银行流水账单 代做贷款银行流水 代做入职银行流水账单 代做医院证明 - The Metaphysics of Quality Wiki.png
http://moqwiki.wikidot.com/static-quality

Anyway, note that the initial OP/user seems to no longer exist...

Yes, I noticed it. His contributions and replies seem to have been intense, motivating for others and uniquely intelligible (upon a quick look at his post history, which is still available on the following URL)

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=35658 (user @ChaoticMindSays)

Felix said

it a sense of the wonder of Life. We are born with that wonder but not all of us keep it(unfortunately).

I have this sense of wonder, that is why I am a philosopher I just do not associate it with God.
It's more like... Theres so much we don't know and what we don't know is what I'm interested in. If I were to have a religion it would be philosophy. It is something I practice everyday, I always try to look at a subject from as many angels as possible. And it is something that brings me a little bit of peace because it helps me to understand things better. So it could be said that I am religious. But Buddhists are religious and don't believe in God. So religion really has little to do with a concept of God.

He created an interesting poll.

Logic is it's own fallacy.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4253

Value!

Thank you. I'll reply in two separate posts, respective to yours.

How or why are you thinking that the book about morals would capture the phenomena of conscious quality? What made you think that one should correspond to the other? I'm not disagreeing, just wanting to see how you arrived at that...

Overall, I believe Persig's philosophy is really nothing new under the sun (more on that later). For instance, he equates static quality to things-in-themselves that are fixed, intrinsic, or otherwise a priori. Much like many other properties of our conscious existence ( intuition, the Will, and a bunch more-Qualia), the static part of quality seems to involve the existential elements of consciousness that just are; like the seed that grows the plant, having all the information and genetic coding necessary to propogate the species.

Similarly, his comment about having a fixed sense of wonderment is not really novel either. In terms of both metaphysics and epistemology, the synthetic a priori is that which causes one to wonder. And existentially, it just is. We can't escape our need to ask questions about not only cause and effect and its related phenomena, but why we feel the intrinsic need to ask those kinds of questions about causation to begin with.

[Pattern-chaser]

Do you believe that understanding of the concept Singularity would provide understanding of Quality?

...

What about the sensible nature of those concepts? Isn't that a quality?

In a topic discussing MoQ, it is reasonable to expect participants to use the definition of Quality that is explained, at length, in Pirsig's two books.

"Quality," or "value," as described by Pirsig, cannot be defined because it empirically precedes any intellectual construction of it, namely due to the fact that quality (as Pirsig explicitly defines it) exists always as a perceptual experience before it is ever thought of descriptively or academically. Quality is the "knife-edge" of experience, found only in the present, known or at least potentially accessible to all of "us" (cf. Plato's Phaedrus, 258d). Equating it with the Tao, Pirsig postulates that Quality is the fundamental force in the universe stimulating everything from atoms to animals to evolve and incorporate ever greater levels of Quality. According to the MOQ, everything (including ideas, and matter) is a product and a result of Quality.

There's a good article here, but it's no substitute for reading the books themselves.

[Pattern-chaser]

MOQ: This, basically, offers a paradigm shift replacing subjective/objective with a three part system, subjective/quality/objective.

There is much discussion amongst fans of MoQ, but I don't think any of them advance the idea in your final sentence. MoQ definitely replaces our conventional, Ancient-Greek-inspired, subject-object metaphysics with something different. But I don't think it's "subjective/quality/objective"; I think it seeks to replace subject-object with something different. I think that 'something' is static and dynamic Quality, but it's many years since I read Pirsig's books, and I wouldn't want to insist that I have remembered enough to paraphrase MoQ accurately.

[3017Metaphysician]

You seem to often mention the concept Singularity in relation to 'what breath's fire into the cosmological equations'. In the topic Must the Universe contain consciousness? you seem to argue that the Singularity is related to understanding of consciousness and quality.

"according to the Big Bang theory, the entire universe was compressed into an ∞ infinitely tiny point, a singularity."
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

What would be the theoretical ground for the idea that the Universe is a physical totality that can be compressed into a tiny point?

What is it that breath's fire into the Hawking equation's, I wonder?

“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? --Stephen Hawking

Just as a commentary: I am surprised that the question of where Singularity came from, which wasn't asked, empirically or 'causally', may have been the actual cause of whether we think that the universe must contain consciousness... . In other words, scientists can find that question meaningful because nobody knows where the Singularity came from to begin with.

Asking whether the universe contains consciousness is germane to all of material existence. And that's because if we knew where Singularity came from, that question (among many) would not even need to be asked. A kind of logical necessity, one might say...so on many levels, we can't remove the questions of consciousness from any complete theory of existence.

Do you believe that understanding of the concept Singularity would provide understanding of Quality?

Paul Davies, at least, briefly touches on that very import feature of consciousness (quality/Qualia), which is part of the difficulty associated with not only biological emergence (emergent properties), but with extreme or exclusive physicalism too. Neurons, atoms and molecules don't tell us about quality. He knows this. I give him credit there.

...

One might ask, how did the Will emerge as a fixed sense of subjective awareness, or an objective/independent 'consciousness' that breaths fire into the cosmological equations?

You say that neurons, atoms and molecules don't tell humans about quality. What about the sensible nature of those concepts? Isn't that a quality?

Part two, Re: undefined quality

Firstly, my interpretation of 'undefined quality' is simply Qualia. If being ''undefined" means meta-physical, then I would take no exceptions.

Second, I want to sincerely thank you for taking the time to consolidae the various threads that touch on the phenomen of quality (v. materialistic/physical quantity) when we talk consciousness. Although quantitative-physical thinking presents its own paradox (math itself is abstract and metaphysical), qualitative thinking obviously is the opposing feature of the mind that relates to Being; human sentience purpose, meaning, the will, and many other so-called anthropic human conditions of self-awareness, all necessary for making physical matter more suitable for biological life forms and their existence. Certainly, for example, the complexity of consciousness in the way of how the conscious mind, subconscious and even unconscious states of Being function, still can't be explained using logic (formal logic) or pure reason. It's funny, a mind that is pseudo-capable of pure reason (mathematics/logico-deductive reasoning), can't seem to figure out its own nature of existence (consciousness) using that same sense of reason. Quite ironic, I must say (?).

Anyway. You asked about Singularity. Sussinctly, the reason I posited that question/answer was relative the the nature of reality (metaphysics). Meaning, if we knew were Singularity actually came from or originated ex nihilo, metaphysical things like space-time, the relationship between mind and matter, the purpose of the universe, how our sense data/observations relates to reality, and the existence of the [free] Will, would more than likely make most of those quesions irrelevent. We would theoretically already know about those.

The last point about the Will itself (which again, is a Quality of consciousness) that somehow breathes fire into the equasions, is more of a synthetic judgement or metaphysical philosophy about causation ex nihilo. I suppose if Stephen Hawking couldn't figure it all out, that kinda says something... . (He, like many other physicists grappled with the idea of intergrating both relativity and QM for a theory of everything.) To this end, do you think there is any cooresponding phenomena that somehow integrates or provides for a synthesis of both quality/quantity, materialism/immaterialism, physical/metaphysical?

Short of that, feel free to help unpack the meaning of Quality itself and why it might be important?

[value]

Do you believe that understanding of the concept Singularity would provide understanding of Quality?

...

What about the sensible nature of those concepts? Isn't that a quality?

In a topic discussing MoQ, it is reasonable to expect participants to use the definition of Quality that is explained, at length, in Pirsig's two books.

"Quality," or "value," as described by Pirsig, cannot be defined because it empirically precedes any intellectual construction of it, namely due to the fact that quality (as Pirsig explicitly defines it) exists always as a perceptual experience before it is ever thought of descriptively or academically. Quality is the "knife-edge" of experience, found only in the present, known or at least potentially accessible to all of "us" (cf. Plato's Phaedrus, 258d). Equating it with the Tao, Pirsig postulates that Quality is the fundamental force in the universe stimulating everything from atoms to animals to evolve and incorporate ever greater levels of Quality. According to the MOQ, everything (including ideas, and matter) is a product and a result of Quality.

There's a good article here, but it's no substitute for reading the books themselves.

Thank you for the information! That description of Quality seems to be interesting but it would still apply to neurons, atoms and molecules, as is mentioned in the quote from Wikipedia.

The books have been added to the todo list.

Did you read both books?

[value]

How or why are you thinking that the book about morals would capture the phenomena of conscious quality? What made you think that one should correspond to the other? I'm not disagreeing, just wanting to see how you arrived at that...

The Wiki page mentions the following:

"The Metaphysics of Quality came to life after its creator, Robert Maynard Pirsig, spent 10 years writing a book called Lila which describes it.

However the patterns originally formed many years before the book had been written and were almost lost. This was during a period when Robert Pirsig underwent Electroconvulsive therapy due to his unrepentant persuit to the answer of the question "What is Quality?".

As he spent many years in and out of mental insitutions he channeled his energy towards the outlet of writing which resulted in a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and is known as "the most widely read Philosophy book ever". In it he talks about an uncontested subject-object metaphysics which neglects the concept of Quality.

Lila, the second book by Robert Pirsig details an alternate Metaphysics called the Metaphysics of Quality or just MOQ for short."

http://moqwiki.wikidot.com/the-metaphysics-of-quality

Overall, I believe Persig's philosophy is really nothing new under the sun (more on that later). For instance, he equates static quality to things-in-themselves that are fixed, intrinsic, or otherwise a priori. Much like many other properties of our conscious existence ( intuition, the Will, and a bunch more-Qualia), the static part of quality seems to involve the existential elements of consciousness that just are; like the seed that grows the plant, having all the information and genetic coding necessary to propogate the species.

Similarly, his comment about having a fixed sense of wonderment is not really novel either. In terms of both metaphysics and epistemology, the synthetic a priori is that which causes one to wonder. And existentially, it just is. We can't escape our need to ask questions about not only cause and effect and its related phenomena, but why we feel the intrinsic need to ask those kinds of questions about causation to begin with.

The comment is from the OP user. I am not certain whether it was the account of Robert Pirsig himself. It may be interesting to investigate it. His posts did seem to be interesting.

Robert Pirsig is said to have had an IQ of 170.

The idea of Quality as "the "knife-edge" of experience, found only in the present, known or at least potentially accessible to all of "us"" seems to be interesting.

[3017Metaphysician]

How or why are you thinking that the book about morals would capture the phenomena of conscious quality? What made you think that one should correspond to the other? I'm not disagreeing, just wanting to see how you arrived at that...

The Wiki page mentions the following:

"The Metaphysics of Quality came to life after its creator, Robert Maynard Pirsig, spent 10 years writing a book called Lila which describes it.

However the patterns originally formed many years before the book had been written and were almost lost. This was during a period when Robert Pirsig underwent Electroconvulsive therapy due to his unrepentant persuit to the answer of the question "What is Quality?".

As he spent many years in and out of mental insitutions he channeled his energy towards the outlet of writing which resulted in a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and is known as "the most widely read Philosophy book ever". In it he talks about an uncontested subject-object metaphysics which neglects the concept of Quality.

Lila, the second book by Robert Pirsig details an alternate Metaphysics called the Metaphysics of Quality or just MOQ for short."

http://moqwiki.wikidot.com/the-metaphysics-of-quality

Overall, I believe Persig's philosophy is really nothing new under the sun (more on that later). For instance, he equates static quality to things-in-themselves that are fixed, intrinsic, or otherwise a priori. Much like many other properties of our conscious existence ( intuition, the Will, and a bunch more-Qualia), the static part of quality seems to involve the existential elements of consciousness that just are; like the seed that grows the plant, having all the information and genetic coding necessary to propogate the species.

Similarly, his comment about having a fixed sense of wonderment is not really novel either. In terms of both metaphysics and epistemology, the synthetic a priori is that which causes one to wonder. And existentially, it just is. We can't escape our need to ask questions about not only cause and effect and its related phenomena, but why we feel the intrinsic need to ask those kinds of questions about causation to begin with.

The comment is from the OP user. I am not certain whether it was the account of Robert Pirsig himself. It may be interesting to investigate it. His posts did seem to be interesting.

Robert Pirsig is said to have had an IQ of 170.

The idea of Quality as "the "knife-edge" of experience, found only in the present, known or at least potentially accessible to all of "us"" seems to be interesting.

Consciousness:

Quantity= materialism, physical-ism, etc..

Quality= immaterialism, metaphysical-ism, etc..

Thoughts?

[Pattern-chaser]

In a topic discussing MoQ, it is reasonable to expect participants to use the definition of Quality that is explained, at length, in Pirsig's two books.

There's a good article here, but it's no substitute for reading the books themselves.

Thank you for the information! That description of Quality seems to be interesting...

The books have been added to the todo list.

Did you read both books?

Yes, soon after they were published, and several times since then.

[value]

It's funny, a mind that is pseudo-capable of pure reason (mathematics/logico-deductive reasoning), can't seem to figure out its own nature of existence (consciousness) using that same sense of reason. Quite ironic, I must say (?).

Do you have a proposal for an explanation? Does the sense that it's funny indicate that you have a sense of understanding of the reason why?

Anyway. You asked about Singularity. Sussinctly, the reason I posited that question/answer was relative the the nature of reality (metaphysics). Meaning, if we knew were Singularity actually came from or originated ex nihilo, metaphysical things like space-time, the relationship between mind and matter, the purpose of the universe, how our sense data/observations relates to reality, and the existence of the [free] Will, would more than likely make most of those quesions irrelevent. We would theoretically already know about those.

When it concerns the idea of a Singularity, it appears that it concerns the question whether mathematical infinity (a potential infinity) can be applicable to reality, which would be an absurd idea in my opinion.

A Singularity is a purely mathematical 'infinitely' dense point in space-time. LiveScience mentions the following about it:

These singularities don't represent something physical. Rather, when they appear in mathematics, they are telling us that our theories of physics are breaking down, and we need to replace them with a better understanding.
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

Infinity cannot be counted so the idea of mathematical infinity to be applicable to reality is absurd. Mathematical infinity is merely a potential infinity that is dependent on a begin that is introduced by the mathematician (an observer).

Actual infinity would be beginning-less of nature and there mathematics would not apply.

The last point about the Will itself (which again, is a Quality of consciousness) that somehow breathes fire into the equasions, is more of a synthetic judgement or metaphysical philosophy about causation ex nihilo. I suppose if Stephen Hawking couldn't figure it all out, that kinda says something... . (He, like many other physicists grappled with the idea of intergrating both relativity and QM for a theory of everything.) To this end, do you think there is any cooresponding phenomena that somehow integrates or provides for a synthesis of both quality/quantity, materialism/immaterialism, physical/metaphysical?

Do you have a suggestion?

Short of that, feel free to help unpack the meaning of Quality itself and why it might be important?

I would have to read the books first.

[3017Metaphysician]

It's funny, a mind that is pseudo-capable of pure reason (mathematics/logico-deductive reasoning), can't seem to figure out its own nature of existence (consciousness) using that same sense of reason. Quite ironic, I must say (?).

Do you have a proposal for an explanation? Does the sense that it's funny indicate that you have a sense of understanding of the reason why?

Anyway. You asked about Singularity. Sussinctly, the reason I posited that question/answer was relative the the nature of reality (metaphysics). Meaning, if we knew were Singularity actually came from or originated ex nihilo, metaphysical things like space-time, the relationship between mind and matter, the purpose of the universe, how our sense data/observations relates to reality, and the existence of the [free] Will, would more than likely make most of those quesions irrelevent. We would theoretically already know about those.

When it concerns the idea of a Singularity, it appears that it concerns the question whether mathematical infinity (a potential infinity) can be applicable to reality, which would be an absurd idea in my opinion.

A Singularity is a purely mathematical 'infinitely' dense point in space-time. LiveScience mentions the following about it:

These singularities don't represent something physical. Rather, when they appear in mathematics, they are telling us that our theories of physics are breaking down, and we need to replace them with a better understanding.
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

Infinity cannot be counted so the idea of mathematical infinity to be applicable to reality is absurd. Mathematical infinity is merely a potential infinity that is dependent on a begin that is introduced by the mathematician (an observer).

Actual infinity would be beginning-less of nature and there mathematics would not apply.

The last point about the Will itself (which again, is a Quality of consciousness) that somehow breathes fire into the equasions, is more of a synthetic judgement or metaphysical philosophy about causation ex nihilo. I suppose if Stephen Hawking couldn't figure it all out, that kinda says something... . (He, like many other physicists grappled with the idea of intergrating both relativity and QM for a theory of everything.) To this end, do you think there is any cooresponding phenomena that somehow integrates or provides for a synthesis of both quality/quantity, materialism/immaterialism, physical/metaphysical?

Do you have a suggestion?

Short of that, feel free to help unpack the meaning of Quality itself and why it might be important?

I would have to read the books first.

With respect to a proposed explaination, one theory is that there exists a cosmic super-turtle resulting from logical necessity. You know, kind of like the logico-deductive reasoning from the ontological argument.

In your opinion then, are you thinking that infinity is like time (temporal time v. eternal time)?

Yes , thank you for asking, my suggestion would be to maybe parse the difference between quality and quantity. For instance:

Quantity= materialism, physical-ism, etc..

Quality= immaterialism, metaphysical-ism, etc..

Thoughts?