[MD] Philosophy is deadly

[Andre Broersen]

  Ian to dmb:

I'm not convinced that Pirsig's replacement of causation between
objects with patterns of preference involving conceptual patterns
actually makes the explanation of causation any easier.

Andre:
This is interesting Ian. Now you are trying to use the MOQ's 'patterns
of preference' to keep on explaining causation. Pirsig suggested to 'strike
'cause' from the language and substitute 'value'[then] 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'(LILA,p107)

Mr. Pirsig is exactly addressing that which you are unclear about. As you state in
your next paragraph when you keep on saying  'that causation isn't itself very clear'.
It seems that you are unclear about it because you 'never experience it in any way'.
(LILA,p106).

Ian:
Paul Turner wrote some good stuff on this from a Buddhist perspective - causation as
dependent arising. I must dig it up.

Andre:
Yeah, Paul is a clever young man. A nice place to start is the second verse of the Tao
Te Ching.

One line I'd like to take out as it nicely ties in with dmb's response to John about
'the Giant': "Therefore having and not having arise together'. It is a no-two dualism.