Further, the fact that I have to construct my fully determinate figure, implies the correctness of Merleau-Ponty's different, better interpretation of the Muller-Lyer illusion: that perceptual indeterminacy is ontologically basic, that things such as ambiguity, illusions, and mirages, are fundamental aspects of the perceptual synergy out ofwhich our so-called "objective" constructions are built."So, here are three claims Hass makes above:
Lawrence Hass. Merleau-Ponty's Philosophy (p. 38-9). Kindle Edition.
1) I have to construct the fully determinate figure.
2) Perceptual indeterminacy is ontologically basic.
3) Things such as ambiguity, illusions, and mirages are fundamental aspects of the perceptual synergy out of which our so-called "objective" constructions are built.
I don't see how 1) implies 2) or 3). Of course, there is the obvious missing premise one could supply, "If I have to construct the fully determinate figure, then perceptual indeterminacy is ontologically basic." But, I don't see why this conditional is plausible.
I'm not even sure I understand 3). It's at least plausible to me that ambiguity, illusions and mirages are fundamental aspects of the perceptual synergy. But, I'm not quite getting the part about our so-called "objective" constructions being built out of what? Ambiguities, illusions, mirages? The perceptual synergy?
Stop trying to make sense of Merleau-Ponty?
ReplyDeleteOne of my early forays into the brain was Lessons from an Optical Illusion by Edward Hundert. Which took, I would say, simpler and more straightforward lessons from the Muller-Lyer illusion.
Well, I am working on stuff that seems to draw on M-P, so I am trying to make an honest effort to see where this is coming from. If it doesn't make sense, then at least I'll have a better understanding of why and where it does not make sense.
ReplyDelete