After failing high school - disillusioned with the meaning of life - David drifted until he was introduced to the Metaphysics of Quality. He now spends his time using it to make things better!
A Platonist and a Sophist discuss Quality
“Catherine Rowett has been a Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia, Norwich (since 2003), Reader in the School of Archaeology, Classics, and Oriental Studies at the University of Liverpool from 2000 to 2003, and before that Reader in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Wales, Swansea. Her publications include Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy (1987) and Eros Unveiled: Plato and the God of Love (1994), as well as the chapter on Heraclitus in the Routledge History of Philosophy, Volume 1 and many articles on a wide range of issues in Ancient Philosophy from the Presocratics to the Early Christian period.” From Amazon.com
“Catherine Rowett has been a Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia, Norwich (since 2003), Reader in the School of Archaeology, Classics, and Oriental Studies at the University of Liverpool from 2000 to 2003, and before that Reader in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Wales, Swansea. Her publications include Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy (1987) and Eros Unveiled: Plato and the God of Love (1994), as well as the chapter on Heraclitus in the Routledge History of Philosophy, Volume 1 and many articles on a wide range of issues in Ancient Philosophy from the Presocratics to the Early Christian period.” From Amazon.com
It’s been approximately two thousand five hundred years since Socrates, Plato and the Sophists roamed ancient Athens. It’s been about that same amount of time then since a Sophist discussed Quality with a Platonist. You can see my modern day Sophist response to Catherine Rowett the Platonist academic’s review of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by clicking here.
My thanks first and foremost to Catherine Rowett for doing what so few ancient greek academics have done by acknowledging the existence of Robert Pirsig’s insights into ancient greek philosophy. While her views toward them are mostly antagonistic; writing a paper on them is largely a step forward. Thanks also go to Dr. Ant McWatt who provided final draft comments.
The abstract is as follows:
Introducing SOM.is
Rather than explain the benefits of the Metaphysics of Quality on this site I decided to create two new sites which give an overview of Subject-Object Metaphysics and the Metaphysics of Quality respectively.
The first site on Subject-Object Metaphysics has been launched and can be found by going to som.is
Benefits of the MOQ
There are many benefits of the Metaphysics of Quality. A question I’m often asked when explaining the MOQ to others is:
‘Why should I believe that value is the source of all things?’
The first response to this question is that unlike the belief that either subjects or objects are at the base of reality – value isn’t something we believe, value is something we experience. Therefore the best way to see if value is at the source of all experience is to try this idea for yourself and to see if it indeed does have any quality. So really the main reason to see value/morality as the most fundamental thing in the universe is that it’s better and more beautiful than if we don’t. There is no reason why we currently insist that either Objects or Subjects are fundamental in the universe. Like all beliefs this belief is itself open to questioning. So what’s better is if we see value/morality as fundamental in the universe and not either subjects or objects.
The Metaphysics of Quality, in particular, is a far superior and more eloquent way of understanding experience. This is because it provides a better conceptual framework for understanding a whole host of problems which exist when we simply use a Subject, Object Metaphysics that neglects the importance of values or morality.
Over the next several posts I’ll be outlining some of these benefits..
The New Age Movement, Science and Values.
The New Age movement and the MOQ on first glance are well suited for one another. As Wikipedia says:
‘The movement aims to create “a spirituality without borders or confining dogmas” that is inclusive and pluralistic. It holds to “a holistic worldview,” emphasizing that the Mind, Body, and Spirit are interrelated.’
However the problem begins with the addition of the term ‘spirit’. It’s a slippery word which can lead to folks getting burned at the stake because of their bad ‘spirits’. Once ‘spirit’ is brought into the conversation you can say goodbye to the empirically verifiable strength of science and hello to pseudoscience and anyone bringing in whatever pseudo-scientific thing they see fit.
The term value on the other hand cannot be co-opted in such a way. Anything can be valuable but using the MOQ we can break value up into a hierarchy of values, each level of which are part of experience and can be empirically verified.
There is an advantage to the New Age movement however and that’s in its ability to create a space where science, and specifically quantum mechanics, can be discussed in an easily accessible way way that won’t shy away from any apparent logical inconsistencies.
In a popular New Age movie called ‘What the bleep do we know?’ there is a great explanation (above) of the famous double slit experiment. The explanation ends with the statement “The observer collapsed the wave function simply by observing!” and from a value free objective scientist perspective that would be the correct way of putting it. However a better way to put it is that the “values of the observer dictated what was observed” because , unlike a scientist may assume, values are more fundamental than physical matter.
Glenn Greenwald on Journalism and Values
Glenn Greenwald is a great journalist. Why? Because his view of journalism; that it’s firstly meant to act as a check to power, is a good one. Without journalists informing the public about what their elected officials are doing; there are closed doors and an environment which is conductive to abuse. The role of journalism as the fourth estate is that it tempers that power by making actions made in its name public and thus open to being held to account.
But it’s not just his view of journalism as a check on power which is good. He also understands, in line with the Metaphysics of Quality, that it’s impossible for anyone to hold an objective, value free viewpoint. As Pirsig writes in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:
“The difference between a good mechanic and a bad one, like the difference between a good mathematician and a bad one, is precisely this ability to select the good facts from the bad ones on the basis of quality. He has to care! This is an ability about which formal traditional scientific method has nothing to say. It’s long past time to take a closer look at this qualitative preselection of facts which has seemed so scrupulously ignored by those who make so much of these facts after they are ‘observed.'”
In fact, Glenn articulates that it’s this value free viewpoint that modern day journalists cling to as a defense whenever they saddle up next to those in power and stenographically transcribe what they say. They claim that they’re being ‘objective’ but really they’re just transcribing what the powerful wants us to hear rather than doing their job and looking out for those things which are valuable for the public to know regardless of what those in power say.
Along these lines, recently Greenwald had a fascinating exchange with the New York Times Bill Keller in which he summarised his view on modern journalism and the role of the NYT thus:
“My view of journalism absolutely requires both fairness and rigorous adherence to facts. But I think those values are promoted by being honest about one’s perspectives and subjective assumptions rather than donning a voice-of-god, view-from-nowhere tone that falsely implies that journalists reside above the normal viewpoints and faction-loyalties that plague the non-journalist and the dreaded “activist.”
Embedded in The New York Times’s institutional perspective and reporting methodologies are all sorts of quite debatable and subjective political and cultural assumptions about the world. And with some noble exceptions, The Times, by design or otherwise, has long served the interests of the same set of elite and powerful factions. Its reporting is no less “activist,” subjective or opinion-driven than the new media voices it sometimes condescendingly scorns.”
The discussion is centred around the new media venture of which Greenwald is starting with Pierre Omidyar. It should be interesting to see what form it takes. But I recommend the whole exchange as it’s a great intellectual discussion between a prominent modern day journalist in that of Keller and one of the more adversarial journalists of our times in Greenwald.