[MD] Quick one: causation

[MarshaV]

At 02:55 PM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
>[Krimel]
>"The term "cause" can be struck out completely from a scientific description
>of the universe without any loss of accuracy or completeness. 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."
>- Lila.
>
>I think this quote points to Pirsig at his best and worst. It reveals his
>instinct for critical problems that demand a shift in modern thinking. There
>are issues with the notion of causality. But the problem is solved by
>correcting the misconception that "...the word "cause" implies absolute
>certainty..." That may have been true after Newton or even in the late 50's
>or early 60s when Pirsig was studying in Chicago. But a probabilistic
>understanding of causality solves the problem and puts the platypus in a
>proper cage. Causality simply means highly probable not absolutely certain.
>
>Pirsig's solution, to substitute "value" for "cause" is his second worst
>linguistic blunder. (The first is his choice of "Quality" as a substitute
>for "Tao.) It is just plain false to assert that 'value' and 'cause' can be
>used interchangeably without altering the meaning. Even the sensible Pirsig
>cheerleaders on this forum have to tap dance and bend meaning to support
>this.
>
>Pirsig goes on:
>"What appears to be an absolute cause is just a very consistent pattern of
>preferences."
>
>He is so close here. Substitute "probability" for "preference" and he scores
>a bulls eye. But instead he not only runs with "preference" but puts a
>spotlight on all of the false connotations that make the term misleading in
>this context.
>
>More Pirsig:
>"Therefore when you strike "cause" from the language and substitute "value"
>you are not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful
>one; you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual observation."
>
>It is the meaning and associations we have with the term 'value' than make
>this false. It reintroduces all of the animism and anthropomorphism that
>scientists have been at pains to exclude. As a result we have folks here
>ranting on about what electron "prefer" and supposing that they are
>possessed of some form of rudimentary self awareness.
>
>That is not to mention Bo's anthropomorphic levels, warring with one another
>and having desires and purposes. Extending awareness to the inorganic is
>bizarre enough but here we have someone extending purpose to abstractions.


Krimel,

In place of 'causes', the Buddhist might say 'mutually interdependent 
causes and conditions'.  I think this is closer to RMP's use of 
'value', where value creates both subject and object.

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.
.
.