quick reply to R. Jackson

Robert Jackson comments:

“Rereading through Guerrilla Metaphysics, I think it’s fair to suggest that Graham believes there to be two different types of relation in causation. One causes, one does not. One resides in a perceptive view, the other initiates a rift into the heart of the sensual objects themselves. One circumvents around the object and its parts and one splits the object directly. One is perception, one is allure.”

That’s completely true for Guerrilla Metaphysics. The terminology has changed in The Quadruple Object, however. There, allure is just one of four kinds of the break between objects and their qualities, and causation is also one of those four kinds (along with theory, and the fourth kind which I think I called “confrontation,” though I’l less attached to that term and thus am having a harder time remember if that was the word used in the final edit.)

In short, Jackson is right to see the difference between causation and allure as fundamental in GM, but the two have been absorbed into a broader framework now.

Another quote from Jackson’s post:

“In my understanding, allure does not split the real object directly (it would be destroyed), it splits the sensual object from its qualities relative to the beholder; allure then, is an alluding illusionary event of sorts that ‘fictionalises’ a depth into the object relative to the beholding object. What is beholding for one object may no longer be beholding for another; it may never be beholding at all.”

This is exactly right. Splitting the real object directly, however, is exactly what causation does. Allure is a kind of simulated causation in that sense.