Wraybm1

See Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. -- Curps 18:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prop 13

I take offense at your accusation that I hate Proposition 13, and I'm letting you know about it. And puh-lease, California isn't as liberal as you think. It's probably San Francisco you're confusing the state with. Talk:California_Proposition_13_(1978)#Hahaha

Quality

I don't really object to your edit, but rather your explanation of it; quality certainly does seperate the world into subjects and objects- the seperation is a "quality event", guided by quality. It is a holistic thing, yes, which is exactly my point; ie, it is immanent rather than transcendent- which is exactly why it is what seperates subjects and objects. something transcendent would be a bridge between the two; an immanence, such as quality, lies beneath the two. it does NOT unite them or bring them together, as something transcendent would do; it lies beneath, already encompassing subject and object. The quality event gives rise to- ie, delineates- subject and object. they are not "brought together" by quality in any way whatsoever; they do not need to be brought together as they aren't really seperate, but arise as seemingly seperate worlds due to the quality event.

So quality IS what seperates and delineates subject and object; this is exactly what a holistic immanence does- rather than something transcendent, a bridge used to unite two worlds that are already seperate. Quality comes before, not after, and therefore encompasses both subject and object without having to unite them; the quality event, as it happens, delineates the two worlds according to quality.

If you disagree i'd certainly like to continue this discussion! thanks --Heah 22:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey I'm glad you posted. My argument that "quality doesn't separate anything, it is a holistic thing" is based on the undividedness of reality. Nowhere in either of Pirsig's books does he say anything like "Quality separates the world into subjects and objects” I hope that is not what you've gathered from the books. Quality does precede both subject and object but it is man that divides the undivided experience of reality into the two. Pirsig's argument is that the subject-object metaphysics (induced by man) encourages the act of distancing subjects form objects. But the biggest point is that with the MOQ, subject and object do not exist... they are just used to talk about the opposing metaphysics. Quality accounts exhaustively for everything... there are static patterns of quality (inorganic, biological, social and intellectual) and there is dynamic quality. The latter is the thing that makes the person jump off of the stove and the former is the hot stove itself --in this case an inorganic pattern of value. So, the subject/object language is not adequate when talking about quality. It is sometimes used in reverse to talk (from a MOQ perspective) about the Subject Object metaphysics. But subject and object are nearly irrelevant terms within MOQ. --Wraybm1 18:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I dont think we actually have any real disagreements, i still definitely don't object to any of your edits. As for your response, I wouldn't say that it is "man" that seperates quality into subject and object; in one sense it is, but we too are just a part of quality, not somehow seperate or functioning with a different ground- we are a static, biological pattern. So in this sense, it is quality itself that seperates the world into subject/object; that isn't to say that subject and object actually exist, or that it is the most valuable way to the view the world. Rather, subject/object is a static intellectual pattern- static quality- and hence, like everything else, still quality. I agree, the subject object language is not adequate when discussing Quality; quality doesn't in any way imply the necessity of subject and object or even their existence. Yet, that particular intellectual pattern is not somehow seperate or outside of quality, and it is quality that has led to its existence.

So i do think that quality is what seperates subject and object (and i think Pirsig would agree); but that isn't to say at all that subject and object actually exist, are actually seperate, or are even a very utile way of viewing the world. But if EVERYTHING comes from quality, the intellectual pattern of SOM is no different. The knife edge of reality- the quality event, or dynamic quality in Lila- cuts it into two; but you can't totally seperate dynamic and static quality, as that dynamic quality at the "knife edge of reality" or the "quality event" is also conditioned by static quality. Quality doesn't demand subject and object; simple dynamic quality doesn't completely account for it. The seperation of "dynamic" and "static" quality, while a very useful seperation and in line with the pragmatic theories he uses in Lila, in some ways leads to more complications- as in this case, when the quality event seperates the world into subject and object, it isn't just dynamic quality at work. Static "quality" is often lacking in "quality", hence the yin yang interplay between the two; but even those static patterns that aren't very valuable are "quality" at work. The first book seems to focus on what he calls "dynamic" quality 20 years later, but in the first book, those static patterns are still present- hence the seperation of subject and object at the quality event. I haven't quite sorted through all the implications of the two different presentations of quality, but there certainly do seem to be some differences. I read a lot of pragmatism, and it seems to me that the first book is essentially William James, while the second is the more technical Charles Peirce. Both pragmatists, both essentially making the world and truth dependent on value, but examining it and explaing it from different angles.

Like you say, quality accounts exhaustively for everything- including the SOM static, intellectual pattern- and the words of SOM aren't very good for talking about it, hence our faux disagreement. Language (or at least modern english) is almost completely based on SOM. Its very hard to get away from!! --Heah 21:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, those SOM bastards have a metaphysical monopoly on our society. --Wraybm1 14:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

My "to read" list

Here are the books that I wish to read in the near future... If you can recommend a book that you believe I would be interested in then please do so here. For example if I showed blatant ignorance to the "Hairstyle resiliance of the North American Mullethead" then add some book to that effect... I try not to be easily insulted... unless your a complete jerk. haha

• Howard Zinn, A peoples History of the United States
• A. Sozhenitzen, The Gulag Archipeligo
• Michael Crichton, State of Fear
• J. Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel

the MOQ article

hi wraybm1- first, someone reedited the article to make it about the theories of a guy named Howard T. Odum, your input on talk would be nice (if you're around!). second, i DO think that the peyote reference is quite important . . . A history of hinduism or zorastroism would certainly mention Soma . . . So i'd like to put that back . . . --He:ah? 23:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit to American Revolutionary War

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to American Revolutionary War. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Alphageekpa (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix... I am an AP U.S. History teacher who wanted to show his kids how quickly wikipedia articles get fixed. We timed you 11 minutes! Excellent. This experiment could not have been done in the sandbox. Sorry for any inconvenience. Thanks.--Wraybm1 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Subject-object based metaphysics for deletion

The article Subject-object based metaphysics is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subject-object based metaphysics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)