Conference thebay::joyoflex

        "Promotes" might well be taken as "encourages", which implies
        that it may have a role in "causes", but usually only when
        there is a predisposition.
        
        "Sustains" implies that the condition already exists, and begs
        the point of how it came to be.
        
        So, no, I would have to say that "promotes or sustains" is
        not the same as "causes", although the fact that one thing
        "promotes or sustains" something else (if in fact it does)
        does not rule out the possibility that it also "causes" it.
        
        Tom

    When initial causality is noted (ie., at a defined point in time),  
    then causation and sustenance are different.  When a condition is  
    observed that has no initial causality (ie., it's generally there),
    then causality and sustenance are essentially equivalent.
    
    Thus, with regard to 147.96, since the alleged sexism is manifested
    on an ongoing basis, then it must continually be "caused" to occur,
    which is the same as being continually "sustained".  That's what
    *I* meant, at least.
    
    "The police are not there to cause disorder.  They are there to
    maintain disorder."  - Richard Daley, 1968.

    Re .2:
    
    It is not correct to say sustenance is the cause of an ongoing
    condition unless the condition will cease to exist with the removal of
    the sustenance (and possibly not then).  In the absence of such a
    relation, sustenance cannot be identified with cause.
    
    For example, a chemical reaction may be an ongoing process.  A catalyst
    can promote and/or sustain the reaction, but any chemist will tell
    you it is incorrect to say the catalyst causes the reaction.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Catalysis is slightly different from sustenance.  In particular,
    here's the model I have in mind for identifying causality as an
    ongoing vs. point-in-time event:
    
    	The sun's energy is caused by nuclear fusion.
    
    This shows ongoing causality.  If I said:
    
    	The sun's energy was caused by nuclear fusion and is 
    	sustained by phlogiston.
    
    I would have been correct _if_ nuclear fusion were the _ignitor_
    and phlogiston were the _current_ fuel.  But the former sentence
    is the one that rings true.  HOWEVER, note the sentence:
    
    	The child's malady was caused by poor prenatal care.
    	It is sustained by poor nourishment.

    Here, cause was a point event.  There may be a way to cure it, but
    removing the cause is not possible, because it -- unlike the sun's
    fusion -- exists only in the past.  Sustenance is different here,
    and has a different agent.
    
    So there are two different categories of "cause", those that happen
    once and those that must continue to happen for their effect to
    remain felt.  Perhaps that means that the word "cause" is ambiguous,
    which would explain some of 143 and 147.
          fred

    Re .4:
    
    What about the point that something cannot be said to be the cause
    of a condition if the condition would still exist with the thing
    removed?  Yet it can be correct to label this as sustenance.
    
    
    				-- edp

 re:.5:   
>    What about the point that something cannot be said to be the cause
>    of a condition if the condition would still exist with the thing
>    removed?  Yet it can be correct to label this as sustenance.
 
 
	In the sense of one-time cause (i.e., the child example), then
    it indeed can be said to be the cause if the condition still exists 
    with the thing removed, since cause is historical.  It is not
    sustenance, since its removal does not affect the condition.
    
    	Again, my point:  Two different meanings of "cause":  That which
    created a condition that remains, and that which results in an ongoing
    condition.
 
 
 

    Re .6:
    
    > In the sense of one-time cause (i.e., the child example), then it
    > indeed can be said to be the cause if the condition still exists with
    > the thing removed, since cause is historical. 
    
    This doesn't make sense.  The sort of sustenance I refer to did
    not create the condition.  It might not even have existed when the
    condition was created.  It is in no way correct to refer to it as
    the "historical" cause.
    
    > It is not sustenance, since its removal does not affect the condition. 
    
    That is not true; its removal CAN affect the condition, even though
    it will not terminate it.  I call your attention to some definitions
    from _Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary_:  For "sustain" we have
    "to give support or relief to" and "nourish".  Neither of these
    require that the condition's existence depend on the sustenance.
    
    Examining your meanings for "cause", neither one fits.  Sustenance
    need not have "created a condition that remains" and it need not
    result "in an ongoing condition".
    
    
    				-- edp

    I've got another idea.  Tell me how to describe a thing which affects,
    helps, or takes part in the maintenance/changing of some condition
    without actually being responsible for the existence of that condition.
    I don't care about the words as long as the meaning is understood. 
    
    
    				-- edp

Since this seems to be mostly a dialog, and not a very interesting one, 
could -edp and Goldstein be prevailed upon to take it up via mail?

				>>>==>PStJTT

    re: .9
    
    I think this is a great Notefile for this discussion.  No everything
    in it needs to be interesting to everybody.  Simply skip to the
    next Note.
    
    - chuck
    

Re:.10
	If you find it interesting, then I withdraw my suggestion. 

    I'm not going to carry it on any further either.  I made my point.
    
    Mr. Postpischil's rhetorical argument seems to be that if my use
    of a term does not correspond to one meaning of that term, than
    it's wrong.  My argument is that if any meaning of the term is correct,
    then the usage is correct.  (I.e., since "book" can mean "betting
    slip" or "reading matter", I'm not wrong by using "book" to mean
    "reading matter" when it isn't a betting slip.)  Thus, since one
    meaning of cause corresponds to my usage of the term, I am within
    the bounds of the language.  There are other meanings which are
    different, but I'm not concerned about them here and now.
           fred

    Re .12:
    
    That is not the case at all.  NO meaning of the word "cause", even the
    ones you have described, corresponds to the relationship I have been
    expounding.  So NO meaning is correct.  "Sustain" and "cause" may have
    meanings in common, but "sustain" also has a meaning that is NOT common
    with "cause".  If "sustain" is used with meaning X, it is incorrect to
    say the word also has meaning Y, and "cause" has meaning Y, so "cause"
    can be used for "sustain", regardless of the intended meaning. 
    
    In a previous note, I have explicitly described a relationship which
    does not correspond to any of your meanings of "cause".  Do you
    agree?
    
    > Thus, since one meaning of cause corresponds to my usage of the term,
    > I am within the bounds of the language. 
    
    Indeed, one meaning may correspond to your usage, but YOU WERE
    REPORTING ABOUT ME, and MY usage of OTHER words did not correspond
    to any of your meanings for "cause".  Please explain that.
    
    
    				-- edp

    I'm starting to get dizzy....can someone stop the merry-go-round?