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.
.
.
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/
