The relevance of determined FORMs

Our thinking (and with it our philosophy) will improve a lot when we remember our lessons in predicate logic, propositional logic and philosophy and theory of science.

It is quite wonderful where Gödel, Heisenberg, Turing, Wittgenstein have brought us, but without considering the determined our philosophy gets wishy-washy – and they came to their beautiful ideas by exploring determined concepts. We might admire people who say things like "In the beginning was the undetermined!", but ... "the beginning" is a determined FORM ...

We owe to those who work(ed) with determined concepts our understanding of the undetermined. Without them we would have no idea what nonlinearity, nondeterminism, multicausality etc. imply and how they function.
The point is: Without those developing determined methods and models nowadays preachers of ambivalence could not say what is undetermined and what is not because they could not point out what it means and includes or excludes.

We can only recognize unsharp areas and FORMs, explore that they are actually there and describe what we observe if we construct models, concepts, FORMs, methods enabling us to do so. If now people try to downright forbid determined concepts and FORMs, they forbid to explore new FORMs of thinking, new areas of the undetermined. Because without determined FORMs there is no undetermined. Wishy-washy is not undetermined – it is unclear, that's all – and if it can be made clear it should, because if we leave it unclear we can not explore the concepts coming with it and which could possibly guide us above. An idea, as unsharp as it may be, is already determined in some respects.
Without computers we would not be capable to explore complex models as comprehensive as we can with them. We would not be able to analyze complex systems in their self-evolution without emulation. Quantum physics is discrete in its foundation and would never have been possible without determined thinking.

Who has more choices and more levels of freedom: the moutaineer who knows fundamentally how to survive in the wild or the ambivalence-sick townsman who, because he doesn't know how to decide, is seeking for help from a psychiatrist?

Paradoxes, the undetermined (I have my reasons why I don't say indetermined), fuzziness, contradictions do not make determined concepts obsolete, they come with them, they add to them. With every undetermined the determined comes, from every determined the undetermined springs.
If we prefer one over the other we do not lose only determined concepts, we lose emergent undetermined FORMs as well.

Some people say, that almost everything we do and think comes from ambivalence. That is simply fraud.
Every action we take, every thought we are thinking is in itself determined. Even fuzziness is determined in its fuzziness.

Of course it sounds very intellectual, this preference of the undetermined. The undetermined frees us from the horrors caused by and fueling on masterplans and press button solutions which never work in complex environments. But that does not mean there is no functionality or that everything is only ambivalent. People who believe so are trapped in their own belief system and blurred thinking. They are correct in pointing out that there is complexity and that there is contingency (whereupon I want to remind them that there is even double contingency) and that with the undetermined comes freedom - but: With the undetermined also comes the determined, also comes unfreedom, and for the evolving mind disrespecting the determined means to become unfree to explore undetermined concepts by making our thinking more precise.

So: If you want to become an extraordinary thinker train yourself in the techniques mentioned above – because if you don't you cannot push your limits and thus you cannot unfold and evolve.