Hi Andre, > Steve to Andre: > As for the final location of the brush stroke being determined, of > course I think of it that way. It must be determined by_something_ > for it to be at all meaningful. > > Andre: > Thank you for making your position clear Steve and ,frankly, I don't know > where to start in my response so have snipped the above section as > highlighting where you are. I notice that in no part of your post you use > the term 'quality' or 'value' or even 'preference'. Why not?
Steve: But I certainly did talk about Quality when i described causality as "an intellectual pattern of VALUE" and physical laws as "AESTHETIC CREATIONS of the intellect," and Quality is inherent in my claim "the more 'determinism' we can find in the universe the BETTER as far as human freedom is concerned." Andre: > To suggest that the location of the brush stroke is a Dynamic act i.e. a > non-mediated, non- intellectual event is that not satisfactory to you? I am pretty much saying just that when I said "I would say that usually the most appropriate level of description for our purposes with regard to situations like this is that "where the brush goes" was determined by the painter. It's there because the artist WANTED to put it there." That description is certainly "satisfactory" for many of our purposes, but it isn't sufficient for ALL possible purposes we may have or come to have. That's why I said "Events never exhaust description in terms of causes OR IN LOTS OF OTHER SORTS OF TERMS. In the MOQ, one of the functions of DQ is as a conceptual placeholder for indeterminacy and as the bottomless well from which we draw determinacy as we become able to predict what we couldn't predict before." Keep in mind the predicting and controlling are just a couple of our purposes. There is certainly more to life than predicting and controling. My point is that that is where the question of determinism arises once we drop the metaphysical ideas about it---it comes up ONLY when we happen to be interested in predicting and controlling. Andre: > It appears not since what you want IS to find determining factors, definite > causes so you can predict future events. Steve: No, I understood that YOU were asking me for determining factors. There are lots and lots of other questions we could have about a painting, or we could just stop and admire it. Andre: >I see lots of static stuff being > generated here with the aim of making "life" nice and predictable, virtually > shutting out any possibility of Dynamic insights/change to ever be > recognized let alone acted upon. This is SOM all the way it seems to me... Steve: You are using SOM as a catch-all criticism here (as is too often done in this forum) of what I'm saying sounding stale to you. It's fine if you think it is static, but to say that it is SOM is just false. I have not invoked a subject object metaphysical view. I have explained what is left of "determinism" once we SUBTRACT the metaphysical baggage. Best, Steve 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/md/archives.html
