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.

_video intellectual-morality cultural-values celebrity


The Metaphysics Of Quality (MOQ) points out that as social values exist; celebrity culture is unavoidable. Because of this we should thus encourage those celebrites that are moving society in a better direction. Two of those celebrites are Rich Roll and Nimai Delgado.

Two vegan athletes, breaking stereotypes of vegan protein deficiencies and showing that you can still live a healthy life and actually thrive on a purely plant based diet.

I’ve written before about the morality of a vegan diet and that’s why these two athletes are celebrites supported by the MOQ.

Enjoy a preview of their chat above or you can listen to and watch the whole podcast here.

_video youtube cultural-values celebrity the-law
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!

intellectual-morality politics celebrity
A Cultural Values Series: #1 COMPETITION

This post is the first of a series of short intellectual analysis of different values. Competition is somewhat misunderstood and misused as a value within our culture. As with most values it's understood within our culture by the myths that support it. Below is a Metaphysics Of Quality (MOQ) based investigation into this value and a key myth that forms our modern day understanding of it...


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.

cultural-values intellectual-morality celebrity


Some great news for the week is that there looks to be a great Zen in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance documentary in the works. See above a clip of an interview with David Buchanan who I've spoken with many times online over the years.

David has an unparalleled understanding of the Metaphysics of Quality - particularly around how it relates to the philosophical tradition of american pragmatism. I'm sure with his involvement (no matter how small) the quality of this documentary will be greatly increased!

I believe the creators are currently looking for funding which you can do whilst they travel the route of the book - here.

Best of luck to them and hopefully this will kick off some well needed - renewed interest in Pirsig's original book.

_video youtube intellectual-morality cultural-values celebrity dhyana