Print

Print


Dear Marcin,

I also don't think the problem of causality is of big
importance here, at least I don't see it that way...
that's why I was trying to find out why Peter pointed
that out.

Dunja

--- marcin ostrouch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Dunja and Peter,
> 
> Please, forgive me my ignorance of those 'causal
> rarities', but don't you think that once the
> infinite (the one 'gentle' and 'suffering thing') is
> brought up the category of causality seems somewhat
> irrelevant?
> 
> Marcin
> 
> 
> 
> --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> There has been no acceptance of formal, or final
> >> causality (or material causality
> >> for that matter -- though Einstein has made a
> >> difference there).
> >  
> >
> 
> Why do you think Einstein's theory is an exception
> in
> this?
> 
> 
> >> I am moved by fancies that are curled 
> >> Around these images, and cling: 
> >> The notion of some infinitely gentle 
> >> Infinitely suffering thing. 
> >  
> >
> 
> >I'm not sure I understood your point well, but do
> you
> >want to say that these lines represent an example
> of
> >finalistic causation? If so, why would "being moved
> >by"  be an example of the finalistic, instead of
> the
> >efficient causality?
> >
> >  
> >
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com