RE: MD "linear causality"

From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 04:53:30 GMT

  • Next message: Glenn Bradford: "RE: MD "linear causality""

    >>You are saying its not linear because it is mulitple chains.
    >
    >I never said it wasn't linear. I'm not denying it's linear *in
    >some sense*. It's this sense I'm trying to have you clarify.
    >Your clarification was this author's quote.
    >

    okay since you don't like the "baby/bathwater crank" quote, how about this
    one..

    I. Linear vs. Circular/nonlinear causality
         Systems theories present a different way of thinking about events.
    Central
    to this thinking is the distinction between linear and circular (or
    nonlinear causality).
     In the case of Linear causality:
      A --> B A is antecedent to or causes B
      In the case of nonlinear causality:
     A <--> B A affects B just as B affects A, ( i.e., circular)

    don't worry I know the source is very important to
    determine whether you agree with a quote or not
    so i will put it in for you

    http://www.uoregon.edu/~rlweiss/473/section1/systems.html

    >
    >ERIN:
    >>Not sure how you jump to "unknown causes have no
    >>place to run and have to be considered causal".
    >
    >Why not? Have you thought of a way to sneak them in?
    >Glenn

    acausal (sychnronicity) remember?---you have not shown how
    "unknown causes have no place to run and have to
    be considered causal"
    This is a sweeping, hasty, conclusion.

    erin

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 30 2002 - 04:46:31 GMT