When you know of a better way of seeing things, how long of holding onto that idea does it become immoral not to tell others of this better idea?  

I've been spending some time recently criticizing progressive leaders in the American Congress for sitting on their hands and not using their power and leverage, to achieve great things.  However, here I am and I know of a Metaphysics that's far better than our current one. Truth be told, if all intellectuals knew, understood and appreciated this Metaphysics, it's highly unlikely we would be in this mess that we're in right now.

Because what's abundantly clear to me is that we live in a time of great metaphysical failure.  Our current metaphysics has horrendous guardrails against all sorts of immoral behavior because what's considered 'common sense' is far broader than what morally and intellectually ought to be. This is a failure not just because of our corrupt politicians who began to give their backs to the working class in increasing intention over 50 years ago.  But as the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ) uniquely shows - it's a failure also of our current metaphysics which says that whatever anyone says, does or advocates is up to them and their morality and that there's no way for us to judge the morals of others.

This is wrong and denying this is the case is itself immoral.  Claiming that something is and ought to be amoral when in fact it is and ought to be moral is itself immoral.  Because most things are, in some way, moral. It's up to us to decide what's better or worse, and with the Metaphysics of Quality we are provided with a powerful way to do this that's in line with logic and experience.

This is far greater than our current metaphysics.  A Metaphysics which has so many weaknesses we are left with countless instances of soft corruption and social forces being permitted to immorally take control of our culture.  

The corruption at the heart of our democracies sits at the center of this immorality. An immorality which prevents parliaments and congress from doing what's intellectually right for the people and instead takes heed of what their donors request of them.  So, with the powerful being democratically catered for and the working people given short shrift, it's no wonder that the grievances of these working class folk are turning to increasingly radical means of their voices being heard.  

"All these politicians, they work for us!  We pay their salaries, and we pay our taxes. And what do we get? Nothing!  They don't represent us.  They need to pay the ultimate price for their crimes."
MAGA Trumper Storming the Capitol

What the MOQ shows clearly is that neglecting working class folks and instead catering to a parties donors wishes is immoral.  Intellectual laws exist so that folks are to be treated equally. At their base; political donations are immoral in that they preference the social power of money and corruption over the intellectual spirit of the law but yet still they are an aspect of our democracies that continue to be tolerated. Why?

They are tolerated not just because the same folks who need to change this are the corrupted politicians themselves.  They are tolerated not just because our media, also on the take with money from social forces, is undermined in its ability to intellectually report on what's occurring.  But also, and even more importantly, is that they are tolerated because our intellectual class uses a Metaphysics that fails protect itself from these social forces.

But also, and even more importantly, is that they are tolerated because our intellectual class uses a Metaphysics that fails to protect itself from these social forces.

Start with the media. Reporters are supposed to remain 'unbiased' and 'objective', we are told, and to only report on the 'facts'.  Morals? They are likely subjective prejudices that muddy a good reporters view of what is occurring. 'Objectivity and amorality is the most important thing for a good reporter'.  Morality be damned.

The same is true for academics who ought to be intellectually investigating how values influence and create our shared cultures and commenting on present day cultural events from this same moral and values based perspective. But they don't because our current metaphysics doesn't allow it.  Instead our current metaphysics allows far more immorality than what, the MOQ shows, logically makes sense. A strong man who at all points undercuts and undermines intellectual quality is immoral; this isn't just someone's opinion about morality and not necessarily true.  It's true for all people, everywhere. But academics can't ever say that quite so easily and when they do say it they can easily be replied to with a 'Who says?'.

Indeed, if everyone knew and used the MOQ instead of the clunky metaphysics that we use today, it ought to be obvious to just about anyone that not just political donations, but a strong man coming in and taking over congress is immoral and dumb. This is the strength of the MOQ.  We are able to call Trump and his supporters actions immoral. Not just in some time, and not just in someone's opinion.  With the MOQ we can say logically, empirically, by supporting Trump and his overthrow of congress - his supporters are being immoral.

But the MOQ goes further than simply calling someone immoral.  The MOQ provides us a way to understand the values of others, and our own, in a way that is far from the cynicism and unproductive conflict we are constantly bombarded with today.  Because another strength of the MOQ is that it provides us a way to understand and sympathise far more easily from other folks perspectives.  With the knowledge that at their core, folks are thinking and acting based on their values, we can look at those values, examine them, and understand why they value the things that they do.  

Turn on cable television of most mainstream news networks and we are lead to believe that most Trump voters are racist or bigoted; and that's the extent of their dissatisfaction. But if we hit the streets as Chris Arnade has, and you listen to the forgotten middle part of America, then you will quickly discover that their grievances oftentimes are extremely legitimate.  They are the forgotten but their voices are still extremely important.  Shining a light on those voices and their struggles, as Chris does, is incredibly valuable.  

Because it's within all that suffering and hopelessness that has continued unaddressed for decades, that they've been primed for manipulation.  Their distrust for intellectuals, with their failing metaphysics and long time neglect, has hit an all time high.   Instead they've become increasingly skeptical of even basic facts they're told and so have turned toward paranoia and conspiracy. It's only been comforting for them to see these same conspiracies, disinformation and propaganda spewed by the Orange man himself.  Someone who assures them, 'Trust me - I know better'.

The most common factor in Trump support has always been how strongly they identify with Authoritarianism.  In Trump their basic values are met and they  follow him and commit whatever horrible acts in his name to wherever he takes them.  

But what's very clear to me is that in a world which understands and appreciates the MOQ - this never happens.  Those authoritarians don't stop respecting authorities, but they do respect authorities who uphold decent values not the strong man anti-intellectualism given to us by the current guy in the job.  Indeed - one of the greatest strengths of the MOQ isn't that it's better for intellectuals to protect what's good and right (although it is that); but that it's something anyone can understand and they can use it to act accordingly - including any current or future Trump supporters!

But when? When do folks start to see that our current problems are largely metaphysical and the power and beauty of this better, alternative metaphysics called The MOQ?

That's not something that's easy to answer.. But hopefully - it's sooner than we think! :)

Does the Metaphysics of Quality(MOQ) support those not wearing masks and instead support protesting against them? No, it doesn't. The great thing about the MOQ is that it's really simple and was created so just about anyone can understand it. The MOQ says that Human Rights are intellectual values which are separate to and distinct from biological and social values.  Society absolutely has control over what you do with your body when it comes to looking after society at large.

When the MOQ makes a clear distinction between intellectual and social values - it is pointing out the fundamental role that society has played in our evolution. This role has been to control, for its own benefit, our biological selves.  Often it involves giving our bodies things they need in order to protect them from other bad things such as starvation, disease and death.

With a pandemic knocking on our doors, society is well within its own rights to force people to physically wear a mask over their biological bodies and indeed, when it's available, to get vaccinated too.  This is not about intellectual Human Rights - it's about society protecting itself from a deadly threat.

So why is there such a strong but small vocal minority around the world pushing against wearing masks and also pushing to refuse vaccines?

As with the great majority of issues in the world we see around us today - first and foremost it's the result of a failed metaphysics.  Nefarious characters are justifying all sorts of bad and immoral things by exploiting the metaphysical failures generated by our current metaphysics. In this case a couple of failures come to mind..

For decades our current metaphysics has failed to morally protect social level values such as the social value of the working class and so there has been blow-back with a growing trend of anti-intellectualism.

For decades our current metaphysics has failed to support intellectual values against a media that has instead been driven by the social value of profit and the biological values of fear and titillation of the senses. Driven by access and power, the media has often seemed synonymous with power.

With such little intellectual accountability, the public is understandably growing distrustful and so here we are...  having debates about whether wearing a mask is a human right or those refusing to do so are selfish.  

The Metaphysics of Quality answers that they are being selfish, but with our current metaphysics and the failures of it over the past few decades  - their attitudes are entirely understandable.  It's time we adopted a new Metaphysics that beautifully and simply shows these error in thinking, and points us toward a better world.

After someone recently asked me if the philosophy I'm interested in is like that of Jordan Peterson and knowing there are a few others out there that have wondered the same thing.  I figured I might as well give something close to an official Metaphysics of Quality perspective here. Now having completed the below review - I am surprised at how beautifully the MOQ puts perspective on this debate and how quickly I was able to get a clear handle of the arguments on both sides.

Anyway - as is often the case with most post modern philosophy or whatever you'd like to call it - I often struggle to understand the ideas presented.  'Modern' philosophy or whatever you'd like to call it seems to me to be a bunch of intellectuals who are stuck in word games struggling within a bad metaphysics trying to describe something with words that don't easily match what they're trying to describe.  It seems as if they've been asked to define a pen but not be allowed to talk, in any way, about writing.  

Because of this, and Jordan Peterson's strange and apparently contradictory logic on the first video I watched - the easiest way for me to understand his ideas was by the above Youtube critique where he clearly lays out Peterson's definition of truth and that of some of his opponents.

Peterson defines truth as either:

Newtonian - Logical positivism (Materialistic)

Darwinian or Metaphorical - That which permits survival and reproduce. 'If it's true enough so that if you enact it out or hold it then it's true.'  And 'The ethical pursuit supersedes the scientific pursuit with regards to truth claim.' As well as 'The fundamentals of truth are those that guide action.'

The host (Stephen Woodford) objects to this for two reasons:

  1. It appears to allow for multiple truths to simultaneously exist
  2. It de-prioritizes the importance of 'objective' truth beyond our opinions of it.

And hello here we are with two problems the Metaphysics of Quality solves.  It's surprising but Peterson is actually correct in his definition but he is being limited by the metaphysics of his argument so is going to lose the argument.  

To be clear - the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ) resolves the first objection by claiming that multiple truths can exist because it's not truth but Quality which is fundamental. There is one Quality that's the source of all things and there can be many truths.  Truth - defined as a high quality idea - can change depending on the situation and what's  pragmatically best at any time.  

The second objection is painfully stuck in a Subject-Object metaphysical (SOM) view of the world.

'If it's only Subjective then it can't be Objective'.
- Every modern day philosopher.

But what the MOQ makes clear is that man is the measure of all things. And that while he is indeed the subjective measure of all things - as Peterson alludes to - there is a moral thing called Quality that's beyond anyone's opinion of it - and is more real than anything else. Quality is experience itself.  But being stuck in SOM Peterson can't say that and so he's going to get stuck in word soup and accusations of being plainly a subjective idealist as he apparently did in a long interview with fellow interlocutor Sam Harris.

As an aside - what's interesting to me at this point however is that if he stuck with plain old idealism he might actually win that argument against the realists. Because the idea that a world exists 'out there' is indeed just that - an idea. We can say it's a very good idea from a MOQ perspective, and that's why it can indeed be true as well, but it's really an idea. But he doesn't want to stick to just idealism because he, as most people, appreciates the power of materialism and knows his argument will be weaker if that's the point he wants to make.  

So in conclusion, I'm surprised that, at least in regards to his conception of truth, the Metaphysics of Quality leans on the side of Jordan Peterson in this debate where he argues that truth is ethically tinged.   But the MOQ by no means wholly supports his ideas as they end up in contradictions and word soup due to a lack of metaphysical clarity. Therefore I agree with some reddit posters, as linked above, that suggest he checks out Lila by Robert Pirsig which contains the first description of the Metaphysics of Quality which would greatly improve the intellectual clarity of his ideas.

Ancient Greece - what a vibrant amazing place. Think of white robes and stoic purity when thinking of Ancient Greece? Think again.

I love to remind myself that it was a colorful and vibrant place, full of new ideas, intellectual arguments and the beginning of the creation of our modern day scientific understanding.

Of course, it's not just the colors of the statues that were different than what we've thought for a long time. But indeed - the place of that intellectual explosion and what exactly happened all those years ago is widely misunderstood. It's time to revisit and re-understand exactly what happened all those years back then.


I'll write more about this soon but for now you can read more here - The Story...

Look out! We have Ancient Greek Socratics walking amongst us! They roam the streets of the world and question anyone willing to chat about their beliefs.

Welcome to a growing phenomenon known as Street Epistemology. Just like Socrates, the adherents to this movement claim to only be interested in the truth! They strive to - at the very least - raise some serious doubts in their interlocutors mind whilst they have a friendly chat about what some of their beliefs are..

From a Metaphysics of Quality perspective this is on balance a good thing.

Encouraging people to think further about things they claim to believe in is only healthy and mostly an invitation to be a better person who is more intelligent. Encouraging intellectual thought like this is moral according to the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ).

Belief from a metaphysical sense is a very slippery word and so is not supported by the MOQ. Quality isn’t something you believe in. Quality is something you experience. And unlike anyone’s belief it can be empirically supported. Folks can’t get out of bed without deciding that it's better to do so!

That said, I think that Street Epistemologists, as with all modern day intellectuals, can improve their arguments around this so they are even more persuasive in their striving for the truth.

An illuminating part of the discussion above is where the interlocutor, Madison, is clearly taken by Anthony's intellectual honesty and is curious to know what it is that drives his pursuit for truth. The answer he provides her as the 'believer' at first doesn't seem to satisfy until he provides a very curious closing sentence.

"It's about trying to make the world a little bit of a better place."

Madison looks curious as if asking for more..

"I guess my presupposition is that the more true things that we believe - the better it will be for humanity.'

To lay this out from a Metaphysics of Quality perspective - it should be clear here firstly that Quality is indeed what is driving his pursuit of the truth in that first sentence. The second sentence is even more curious however as he appears to imply that he simply believes that things are true as well. That's Truth! Based on a belief? Where's the 'solid foundation' gone?

This seems like a simple problem that should have a simple answer but within a Subject-Object Metaphysics there is no such foundation. It is indeed only a belief that truth is fundamental and sound. And just like every other statement it is open to dialectical questioning. This is not the fault of Anthony but a clear metaphysical flaw of the Subject-Object Metaphysics from which he is operating. Of course the solid foundation of truth is Quality but he can't say that. He doesn't have the Metaphysics for it. It would for sure be interesting to have conversation with him about this. A future blog post perhaps?

In fact it would be interesting to perform Street Epistemology in much the same way as Anthony does - for the most part very skillfully - but with a key difference. And that difference would be an explicit understanding of the foundation of truth and what we are all indeed stiving for and living. Quality. A Modern day Sophist.