Metaphysics making things better - Psychology.

There's no such thing as matter. There's no such thing as the physical. There's no such thing as ideas. There's just quality. What's a good way to describe reality?

And if there's a good way - can you apply that quality to other things and find yet more quality? If something truly is good - then you would think it can pay forward like that right?

"I am kind of in the position of a theoretical mathematician who comes… you know, who has worked out a set of equations which to him look wonderful. He goes to a group of engineers and they say, "Well, what good is it? What's this going to do for us?"

Robert Pirsig to the Association of Humanisitic Psychology.

Like Pirsig - I don't claim to be a psychologist - but what I do think is that at the very least - at a very high level - the Metaphysics of Quality can start to create interesting distinctions in 'human behavior' that haven't been brought out clearly before by psychologists.

Looking at psychology from an MOQ perspective I can ask questions like - what behaviors are an unchangeable part of our biology and what of those are social? Whilst I'm sure these types of questions have been asked before - with the MOQ, we have a language with which we can discuss them and categorise them definitively and not get caught up on what exactly is social behavior and what exactly is biological behavior.

Because it provides clear distinctions like this - from there anthropologists or psychologists can also ask questions like - if they are social - do they serve their purpose in an intelligent way - or is there a better way they can be achieved? If so, then obviously because they can be changed then it's best that we do so. And from this clear cultural recommendations can be made by intellectuals on the best way to live.

Because this would be dramatically different let me repeat. Using the Metaphysics of Quality - intellectuals, could provide recommendations, based on human psychology, on the best way to live a moral life. Not just for some people in some such a culture. But for all people. Everywhere.

I think this would clearly be a dramatic improval to the way things are done now. A psychology now whose terms are not clearly philosophically defined and also importantly - whose aims are also unsure. Because more than anything - it provides us an overarching frame that everyone can get behind and grounds us all in a moral direction towards a better future.

Anyway, with this perspective from here I will be writing about psychology studies that I see that the MOQ can perhaps provide further color to and how the MOQ makes it uniquely clear that they can help us to live better lives.

Trump isn't benign - he does evil things.

Just had a productive discussion with Ronen on Twitter where he brought out further thoughts on Trump from me and so had me question my understanding of him doing evil things. I paste those thoughts (which I slightly summarised on Twitter) below.

‪‪You’re right in that it would be very difficult for Trump to recognise intellectual quality. But the intellectual turmoil you mention is the intellectual code doing its battle. Trump is at the forefront on the wrong side of that battle! Evil is when a lower form of evolution is being used to destroy a higher form. Trump is evil because he actively destroys and threatens existing intellectual institutions and the value of truth.

You’re arguing here for the amount of ‘choice’ Trump actually has. And I agree he cannot see much intellectual quality due to possibly bad education and upbringing. So to continue that - does his ‘choice’ merely reflect on the failures of education and lack of morality within our intellectual culture and that’s what’s to blame here?

But I don’t think this matters as we know Trump has a fully functioning brain and he should know better. Yes it’s harder for him to recognise intellectual quality but it’s assumed that as a member of a democratic culture he at least understands and appreciates the value of truth. When he continually lies to increase his own social standing and questions the value of whole institutions of truth - this is Trump being evil. He should and does know better than to do this but he doesn’t care. It’s all about him. #Immoral #intellectoversociety

I think a beautiful thing the Metaphysics of Quality does is bring out modern issues within our culture ‬and shows that they're not just benign events on the world stage but show morality actively at work between giant levels of evolution. And these conflicts don't just happen at a national or international level but on a personal level as well. It's daily decisions that take folks in the right or wrong direction. This metaphysical understanding of the experience we call life is beautiful, interesting and moral!

Cultural Values: COMPETITION

Like to compete? I don't. Too numerous a time have I been hurt by someone competing without realising we were even doing so. Competition at the wrong time can bring down even the staunchest of competitors when, without realising, after trusting his teammate, he is suddenly blindsided by highly competitive and selfish behavior.

But beyond this kind of once off usurping of usually good competitors - constant competition within the workplace or within teams can be detrimental to team members mental health and physical wellbeing. Propagating continual stress and fear of losing out is not a good environment to be around and yet my experience is that it infects many a workplace and teams..

And so for this reason, I'd like to delve into this value some more and gain a better idea of the good and bad of competition and what, if any, insight the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ) can bring..

As I see it there's two good things about competition.

1. Competition supports the fact we are social creatures who value social status.
   We cannot ignore social values and the inherent social rankings that go with them. As human beings who are social creatures it is only natural that we enjoy a certain amount of competition and the potential increases in social standing that go with them. Therefore it's about finding the right kinds of competition that are 'healthy' and those that are not. Competition between teams for instance; with the right playful attitude can be very healthy and productive. That is whilst still allowing for intra-team or intra-company co-operation and all of the shared social and cultural benefits that go with it as well.
   But to be clear what it does not support is selfish individuals acting only for their own benefit at the expense of the larger group or team. Using the language of the MOQ - that is called putting ones own social standing or celebrity status above that of the team when it doesn't make intellectual sense to do so. In other words; that is called valuing social quality over intellectual quality and is immoral in the MOQ.

2. Competition that comes about as a result of opening up a system is a secondary good to its openness.
   By avoiding groupthink or group polarisation, and opening up a system whereby different solutions can be created to a problem; the best solution will then be able to naturally arise. Once this has occured - each of the solutions could be said to be competing but that isn't necessarily a motivation for these 'competitors' and isn't necessary for different options to be proposed.

Capitalism actually works in this very way. It's not the fact that companies are competing with a love for the social value of competition that capitalism works (although this can help with the right kind of competition as described above in the first example). It's because capitalism is more open to Dynamic Quality and simply allows for multiple solutions to the same problem to arise. From those solutions it then has a built in monetary mechanism for rewarding the best solution.

Which brings us finally to the key modern day myth of 'selfish capitalism' that underpins many an immoral intra-company competitors thinking. It also happens to be a key myth which at least most layman have heard of and understand regarding captialism. And as I will explain it is an understanding that without moral context - allows the propagator to get away with immoral behavior.

'Selfish capitalism' - a myth named which, whilst not named this way by its proponents, is essentially what it is. This myth has a person, who is a ruthless competitor and who is only out for themselves, and who will do just about anything and break just about any moral code, all in the name of money.

This is the strength of capitalism a neoliberal might tell you. A kind of individual John Galt figure out against the world.

'A person who is only out for himself, competing, and succeeding, gaining celebrity and money. For how could they succeed any other way? Isn't that what capitalism is all about? Competition? Breaking and bending rules is all part of the game!'

A standard modern day capitalist.

But this myth with its roots in the value of competition - neglects the first good of the importance of healthy co-operation and the morality of respecting the health of the team and not valuing ones own social status over the team. And it completely ignores the second good whereby different solutions to a problem arise not directly because of competition but because capitalism is more open to Dynamic Quality than any of its alternatives!

But from this investigation we can see that the Metaphysics of Quality can morally support a new myth! One still of an individual within a capitalist system. But rather than selfishly competing - is healthily competitive yet isn't driven just by this competition; they know what's right and wrong; they appreciate that there's more to live for than money and social status; and also they can see the old myth for what it is and was - logically immoral.