Matt, I suppose my use of the world "haunted" was too dramatic.
Margolis' book is very interesting to someone who thinks conventional reality is relativistic. Below I have noted where you wrongly attributed a quote to me. Onward with my reading... Marsha On Jan 3, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Matt Kundert wrote: > > Marsha, Ron, Andre, > > Marsha said: > I have been haunted by something I read a while ago: All > knowledge is to some degree false because it is to some > degree incomplete. ... Margolis says much about adding > Indeterminate to the bipolar truth-values.... I wonder that > DQ is present in every event and it is indeterminate. > > Matt: > I guess I wouldn't suggest being haunted by the bit > about knowledge because it assumes that we only have > knowledge if we have completeness, and that's an > assumption that I take pragmatism (and the general > aura of relativism) to be moving away from. Margolis' > "Indeterminate" is much like Pirsig's "mu," and with > Dynamic Quality, your comment would make a lot of > sense alongside what I once called Pirsig's > "Indeterminancy of Dynamic Quality thesis"--"The problem > is that you can't really say whether a specific change is > evolutionary at the time it occurs. It is only with a century > or so of hindsight that it appears evolutionary." > (Lila, Ch. 17, 256) > > I've always thought that there's a problem in putting > together the "indeterminancy" of DQ with the "direct > experience" of DQ thesis. I've never been satisfied with > the level of activity surrounding that question or the > proposals for solving it. It seems to me that the > indeterminancy of DQ might have an impact on our direct > > experience of it at the individual level. > > Ron said: > True/false, non contradiction, are tools to create order > from the flux. Conventions. Useful in the building of > certain types of knowledge, scientific. The metaphysics is > a theory on the building of scientific meaning. > > Matt: > Marsha and Ron have been bouncing around these ideas > in a series of posts, and I would just add that I think > Ron's probably right about Aristotle, but that when > Marsha wonders about "Law," it is more because of the > history of philosophy that has built up from the Greeks. > The trouble with Aristotle was this notion of "science"--it > revolved around a notion called "demonstration," and > the history of Platonic metaphysics, from its roots in the > "dialectic," goes into Aristotle's notion of "demonstration" > and continues on to its modern forms that Pirsig wants > to tear down. > > The question for us shouldn't necessarily be what > Aristotle meant by "demonstration," but rather > recognition that the trail of people trying to make sense > of it specifically _and_ its spiritual descendents have > developed it in a certain, sterile way. Ignoring what > Aristotle might mean by "demonstration" is a good way to > resurrect Aristotle's utility for our thinking. > > Marsha said: > Not Marsha's statement. > So, the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of > Excluded Middle are just tools and were never intended > to be used to determine Reality? > > Matt: > I would suggest making a distinction between "for-now > determining" and "Ultimate Determination." The dream > of Plato was for Ultimate Determination. The Sophists > probably understood that all determinations were > "for-now determinings." Aristotle was more interested in > how we actually determine stuff. The history of > philosophy might be profitably be read as the rise and fall > of Plato's dream. > > So when Ron says logic is "just a tool for building certainty > in meaning in the context of scientific inquirey," and > Marsha shows concern over the "use of the word > 'certainty,'" I would suggest to Marsha that the trouble > isn't the "certainty" bit but what Aristotle might mean by > "scientific." Building certainty, and then acting based on > whatever little of it we have around, seems to me just an > unproblematic function of life. The problem was Plato's > dream, which could just as easily be phrased as John > Dewey did--the Quest of Certainty (where what is meant > is "Ultimate Certainty"). > > And to set up Andre--Protagoras: "Man is the master of > all experiences..." > > Andre said: > Very interesting Matt but in light of the MoQ its meaning > may be a bit doubtful... . I would think the MoQ would > turn this around and suggest 'experience is the master > of Man'...or to put it in MoQ parlance: Quality (direct > experience) is the master of Man...and to play a little > further: Quality has Man...DQ/SQ is (the master of) Man. > > Matt: > "Quality has Man"--kinda' like Heidegger's "language > speaks man." > > Don't forget, Andre, that Pirsig endorses the Protagorean > maxim. So we might play around with it, but I don't know > what about it should "be a bit doubtful." Because > "experience is the master of Man" sounds too much like > the Platonic dream of coming face to face with Reality as > It Really Is, and having that be the truth of us, rather > than us being the measure/master of things/experiences. > > Matt > > _________________________________________________________________ > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
