dmb, but I was using 'indeterminate' in the dictionary sense.
in·de·ter·mi·nate adjective 1. not determinate; not precisely fixed in extent; indefinite;uncertain. 2. not clear; vague. 3. not established. 4. not settled or decided. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indeterminate?s=t On Apr 6, 2013, at 12:44 PM, david buchanan wrote: > Howdy MOQers: > > In the "perceptions" thread, Marsha said: > DQ is "indivisible, undefinable & unknowable"; the term 'indivisible' > pointing to monism, non-dualistic: indeterminate. [and later said:] > Directly perceiving Dynamic Quality, seems to me, makes all "things" and even > patterns false: illusions and phantoms (ghosts). That does not translate > into meaningless. Patterns exist as value. > > > > dmb says: > Let's take a look at the concept of "indeterminacy" in relation to philosophy > in general and in relation to the MOQ in particular. I think that Marsha > doesn't really understand this concept and that she has been misapplying it > to the MOQ - with vacuous relativism and nihilism being the tragic results of > this misapplication. > > Generally, the term "indeterminate" just means "uncertain" or "unspecified" > but in philosophy it's used to describe certain epistemological positions > (certain views on the nature of knowledge and truth). The most obvious thing > to say about these "indeterminate" positions is that they oppose the > positions which claim that truth and knowledge can be specifically > determined. What are those positions, exactly, and who ever made such claims? > > The prime example would be SOM, with its correspondence theory of truth. On > this view, there is an objective reality that determines what's true and is > the reality about which we can have knowledge. "If subjects and objects are > held to be the ultimate reality," Pirsig says, "then we're permitted only one > construction of things - that which corresponds to the 'objective' world." > Plato's Forms, those fixed and eternal Ideas, are very different from the > objective realities of science but they still serve to determine truth and > knowledge in a very exclusive way. In both cases, there is only one way to be > right, only a single-exclusive truth that is determined by the ultimate > reality beyond appearances. Kant's Noumenal realm, the reality of > things-in-themsleves, is similar to Platonism and Objectivity in this sense. > The thing-in-itself is the real object of knowledge and determines what's > true. These are examples of the position that Pirsig rejects. > > By contrast, the MOQ “does not insist on a single exclusive truth," Pirsig > says, and "one doesn't seek the absolute 'Truth'. One seeks instead the > highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if > the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken > provisionally; as useful until something better comes along." On this view, > truth and knowledge are not determinate, they are indeterminate. Truth and > knowledge do not exist in relation to a realm beyond our experiences, they do > not correspond to a fixed and eternal reality. Instead, truth and knowledge > are human constructions derived from experience and they are expected to grow > and evolve just as we do. > > Basically, Marsha uses the concept of "indeterminacy" against the MOQ's > version of truth and knowledge, thereby giving a double dose of indeterminacy > to an already indeterminate position. She uses Pirsig's critique of Plato and > SOM against Pirsig himself. This is just the most recent example of often > repeated misapplication of the concept: "Directly perceiving Dynamic > Quality," Marsha said, "makes all 'things' and even patterns false: illusions > and phantoms (ghosts)." > > Somehow she thinks this error can be explain away by simply contradicting > herself: Even though she concludes that even static patterns are false, > illusions, phantoms and ghosts, she also insists that this conclusion "does > not translate into meaningless," she says, because, "patterns exist as > value." Pirsig's "ghost" story is not intended to undermine his own > conception of intellectual static patterns, of course. His aim is to > undermine the "law of gravity" insofar as it is conceived as an eternal > feature of the one only objective reality. When it is taken like that, then > there is only one exclusive truth about gravity and Newton was the guy who > discovered what was always there. Instead, Pirsig says the law was not > discovered but invented. It is a very powerful, useful and otherwise valuable > concept, i.e. it works as a concept. So long as it is understood to be a > humanly constructed tool rather than an eternal reality, it is not false or > illusory. Pirsig's ghosts, analogies and static patterns are ways of > understanding physical laws prevent the false illusions. Pirsig's patterns > prevent the reification of concepts like gravity. Plato was the super-reifier > wherein goodness was not just a concept that refers to any number of good > experiences but was a fixed and eternal reality unto itself. Truth, Beauty, > Justice and just about any noble-sounding abstraction was treated as an > actual thing somewhere beyond time and space - like the law a gravity. > > To use Pirsig's critique (of determinate positions like Platonism, > objectivity or any kind of essentialism) against Pirsig's MOQ is like trying > to melt water because you've mistaken it for ice. The ice-melting task has > already been preformed and yet Marsha foolishly tries to liquidate the liquid > and so the whole thing is overheated by about 100%. She wants to loosen the > already loosened, thereby leaving everything so slippery that there's no grip > or traction anywhere. Instead of a hierarchy of value, we get a picture of > ever-changing soup wherein intellectual quality and nonsense are > indistinguishable. > > Notice how much work it is just to untangle her use a single term? This same > sort of exercise could be conducted on every term she uses. Can you imagine > how long it would take to deal with the rest of the mistakes? I guess it > would take at least 100 hours to clean up the mess. Even if I actually took > the time, she'd just start spilling the same mess all over again the next > day. > > > Sigh. > > > > > > > > > > > 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 ___ 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
