Steve said to Andre:
Pirsig says that the word "cause" _can_ be replaced with the word "value."
..Pirsig of course still uses the word ['cause'] just as dmb does who recently
accused me of being the "cause" of confusion.
dmb says:
As I already explained, you are improperly using the term. You are conflating
two senses of the word "cause", conflating two ideas that are approximately the
opposite of each other. If I say you are the cause of confusion, it means you
are responsible for the confusion. If the confusion is the effect of causal
laws then you are as responsible as a cog in a machine, which is to say not at
all. This is the kind of conflation which causes confusion but I'm certainly
NOT saying your misuse of terms is the effect of mechanical laws. I'm just
saying the confusion is your bad, your fault. And you're still doing it, as I
just explained.
Steve continued:
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.
dmb says:
Like I said several times already, it's okay to think that billiard balls and
rockets act according to fixed mechanical laws but when it comes to the actions
of human beings the idea of causality is, pragmatically speaking, a very, very
bad idea. Causality is rejected and replaced for pragmatic, practical and
empirical reasons. But, Steve, you keep bringing the compatibilism of
scientific materialists to the table and then bizarrely expect Pirsig's and
James's compatibilism to answer to their formulations. The result is more
confusion about yet another crucial term. You're trying to retain causality
even though Pirsig's reformulation is predicated on rejecting and replacing
exactly that. Unlike causal determinism, Pirsig does NOT "say chemistry
professors smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible cause-and-effect
forces of the cosmos force them to do it". He rejects the logic that says, "if
atoms follow only the laws of cause and effect, then chemistry professors must
follow the laws of cause and effect too". Pirsig reverses this reductionist
logic. "If chemistry professors EXERCISE CHOICE, and chemistry professors are
composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that ATOMS MUST EXERCISE CHOICE
TOO." You won't hear Smart, Strawson, Dennett or Harris saying anything like
that.
Steve said:
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?)
dmb says:
You're conflating "cause" as the responsible agent with "cause" as mechanical
law again. Your misuse of the term is far from a single, isolated event or a
slip of the tongue. It's a conceptual error that is almost certainly going to
result in confusion. It'll inevitable lead you to the wrong conclusions and
other distortions, for example...
Steve said:
...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).
dmb says:
I think you're just using a different equation to describe the same fixed,
mechanical laws but the whole point is to get rid of exactly that. Here's your
value-determinism again. It's the same old determinism with a bad paint job.
It's ugly and superficial. It doesn't work at all. AND - as usual - your
position cuts against the grain of the main point, which is to get rid of
causation precisely because it's so fixed, law-like and mechanical. Pirisg
says, "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) You've defied this premise
the whole time, Steve, and just look at how well it has worked out for you.
It's been one big train wreck after another, dude. It works in no sense of the
word.
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
