I wrote, "Static objects almost never conform to our notion of a 'cause'."
You replied -- "What object in this universe is static?" -- which strikes me as a response that is either befuddled or insincere. Can you honestly claim you've never used the word 'static' as an adjective to convey that something is at rest, motionless? Would you ever take a lexicographer to his adjectival entry for 'static' and tell him all this should be deleted because no object is ever static? You evidently didn't grasp the thought behind the phrase, "conform to our notion of" (a cause). I deliberately avoided using 'is' or 'are' about causes, because I could make my point better without those words. I was trying to describe why our thinking will be clearer if we save the word 'cause' for events, not objects. In particular is it bootless to say any object that is at rest should be considered a "cause". I submit this as good reason to believe you were missing the point altogether: In one breath you cite the bullet as the "efficient cause" of death. In your next breath you call the bullet an "act": "Or as it's called in the law, the proximate cause, 'an ACT from which an injury resultsb&'" I claim few decent lawyers -- nor you -- would ever point at a bullet lying at rest on the table and say, "That object is an act." To rephrase what I tried to convey with my last posting: Attack the argument, not the man, Michael, and you'll find the man less inclined to climb onto his high horse and charge at you like this. ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make meals for Under $10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002)
