Bo, Chris, in that Lila quote ... Pirsig says ... "The difference is one of words only .... neither statement is more true than the other ... a matter of linguistic custom, not science ... 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."
By picking the "value" word he is simply breaking the convention of thinking about causation as some well defined thing between well defined objects, which in itself tends to re-inforce the view of the world as objects. He is focussing on empiricism and observed experience and reminding us that that is more important than the word we assign to this "hard to define" causation thing". And incidentally, pointing out that whilst the conventions of language get in the way, it is wrong too to focus on the language itself as the problem (Ref the DMB, Matt, Dewey thread ...). He's saying however you look at it, causation is not a definitional or linguistic problem. It's a how you look at the world problem. (That clear enough for you Craig ?) Ian Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
