RE: MD "linear causality"

From: Glenn Bradford (
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 06:13:08 GMT

  • Next message: Erin N.: "RE: MD "linear causality""

    "Erin N." <> wrote:

    >>>I didn't like "linear causality" because it was making
    >>>it sound like I was describing some special kind of
    >>But that's the impression you left when you wrote:
    >>ERIN: <earlier>
    >>'In other words "acausal" is causal, except when it's A -B causal.'
    >Where did I say that? The only thing I could find that may have
    >led to that interpretation to that is "Acausal there is a connection,
    >relationsip but its not A -B causality."

    Oops, you're right. That was my rephrasing. I mis-read the old posts
    and attributed that to you. Sorry. The rephrasing was based on these
    two statements of yours (but please double-check :)):
    ERIN 1:
    "Well I put it as acausal because something way
    out there in the universe is supposedly affecting
    my behavior. Acausality is not the opposite of causality.
    ERIN 2:
    "Acausal there is a connection, relationsip but its not A -B
    GLENN's rephrasing:
    'In other words "acausal" is causal, except when it's A -B causal.'
    >>In your next mail I got the impression that AB meant linear. You
    >>said something confusing about dropping the AB and there's no
    >>difference, but this didn't make sense to me, as your sentence
    >>would now say:
    >>'In other words "acausal" is causal, except when it's causal.'
    >I don't know where I wrote this sentence so
    >I can't help ya.
    >I put this quote to show you why I described the
    >relationship seemed to linear.
    >If that word is odd to you I wanted to see if
    >you had a problem with this quote.

    And who is the *author* of this quote?

    >>>"Causality is defined very loosely, as a 'chain of cause and effect.' This
    >>>means a series of links, in which each one is firmly locked into its two
    >>>neighbors so that the whole chanin is able to stretch out indefinitely in
    >>>directions. In this way, every event in the universe is causally linked to
    >>>event that comes before it and to one that comes after. There can be no room
    >>>in this 'creation' for free will, creativity, or synchronicity.
    >>>This, of course, does not describe causality sufficiently because a single
    >>>event can be at the junction of many interlinked "chains" of causes which
    >>>act upon the result, or a single event can branch out into many "chains" and
    >>>be at the root of many later and varied events. But, for the present
    >>>the idea of causality is that one thing leads to another and another and so
    >MOQ.ORG  -
    >Mail Archive -
    >MD Queries -
    >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now!

    Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 06:24:11 GMT