[MD] Quick one: causation

[MarshaV]

At Tue Jan 13 12:46:13 PST 2009, Ham wrote:

Bo, Chris, Marsha --


Here's the gist of what Pisig says about causation in LILA:

    "The only difference between causation and value is that
     the word 'cause' implies absolute certainty whereas the
     implied meaning of "value" is one of preference."

I would suggest that there is another difference: the passage of time.
Without the temporal dimension (of human experience), causation as the
direct result of a prior action or event would be impossible.  If time is
the mode of experience, rather than an inherent property of existence, Value
is "causative" non-sequentially, while "preference" remains the property of
the observing subject.  Creation then becomes a differentiated product of
experience with Value as its source.  I define the subject of existence as
value-sensibility, and the "actualized" world of experience as its creation.
This avoids the necessity of chicken-and-egg, cause-and-effect scenarios and
the "forests of pulpwood" which Pirsig laments being sacrificed to debate
the issue.

Marsha says to David Swift:
 > I hope that your strictly physical performance is some kind of
 > interpretative dance, because if you are going to use words to
 > explain it will have a mental component.

That's a red herring, Marsha.  There is no alternative to words for
explication, which is why we have philosophy.



Greetings Ham,

I don't see it as a red herring.  I do not see how it can be ignored 
or casually swept away.   Words, labels and concepts are 
mental.  Anything that is explained has to be recognized as a mental 
interpretation.  The mind dissects, frames and shapes 
interpretation.  Analogy all the way up and all the way down.

No Ham, not a red herring.


Marsha








.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a 
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.