Hi Andre, Pirsig says that the word "cause" _can_ be replaced with the word "value." He doesn't say that we ought to always do that and never use the word "cause" again to describe certain types of relationships. Pirsig of course still uses the word (which shows up many times in Lila and ZAMM) just as dmb does who recently accused me of being the "cause" of confusion. We don't have to think that use of the word "cause" implies that one is stuck in SOM since it can be understand pragmatically (without metaphysics) and metaphysically (in the MOQ) as preference, as Value.
What has changed is the ontological status of causal relationships. Instead of being discoveries of the underlying structure of reality--the laws written into the very fabric of space and time which the universe is compelled to obey--they are intellectual patterns. They are ideas about reality. Inferences. They are ways that humans have developed to make use of reality. Does smoking cause lung cancer? Does SOM cause philosophical Platypi? Are dirty plugs in the motorcycle the cause of the richness? Did Platt cause a lot of misunderstanding of the MOQ over the years? (Perhaps we ought to only say that misunderstanding valued Platt?) Again, what has changed in Pirsig's Copernican shift is the ontological status of causality. There is no need to strike the word "cause" from the language (even though we could) because (1) we can understand the word pragmatically without the metaphysical baggage, and (2) if we feel that we need a metaphysical basis, Value is all we need to understand causality based on Pirsig's formula (A causes B amounts to B values A). Best, Steve On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve to Craig: > > The MOQ says that Quality comes first which produces ideas which produce > what we know as causality. It is common sense to presume that causality > comes first and produces ideas. However, as if to further > the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that causality comes first is a > high quality idea! > > Andre: > Hi Steve, Craig. The MOQ says nothing of the sort Steve. Why oh why do you > cling to this static pattern called 'causation'? It is a typical term to > explain processes in a mechanistic world conception a la Newton. Your > variation on Annotation 67 is highly un-Moq-ish. The MOQ does not recognize > causation. Or rather, it recognizes it but finds it a very poor term...a > rather meaningless one. In fact it does nothing to assist anyone to see it > as 'a tool for coping with reality' as you put it. The 'reality' of which > SOM speaks is rather different from the reality to which the MOQ points. > > In the MOQ 'causation' is replaced by 'value'. > > "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...Therefore when you strike çause' 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". (LILA, p 107) > > Thing is Steve, you know all this. Why cling to this SOM intellectual > pattern called 'causation', 'causality' or 'cause'? 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/md/archives.html
