Causation is at the crux of occasionalism. That is the nominal metaphor for it, essentially. Why not go from there, instead of raising to linguistic analysis? That merely demonstrates solopistic reasoning., through a regressive dualism
It may not necessarily apply for this kind of endeavor, to navigate through, as of yet , within these uncertain contextual levels.
But such could come through primary inquiry within questions posed through secondary derived considerations.
If anyone disclaims understanding the above ,then certainly it would pit the contentious issues faced here between John and EC into a repetitive search for meaning. I thought , by now, we could be beyond that level of secondary preoccupation.
However, I suppose, time is not really of an essence here
John says,:
“This is not a search for meaning. This is a battle of ideas. Right, Ecmandu? Lol!”
Why can’t it be reversely, "This is a search for ideas, not a battle for meaning? " which is the subset of which? Isn’t it said of ideas, that their misrepresentation is what results in conflict,
But is this merely a quibble, after all that has been said of causation?
After all God does speak thus, so as to be understood.!?!
“This is not a search for meaning. This is a battle of ideas. Right, Ecmandu? Lol!”
But of course right and me no should be the first to understand!
But still , there is the hidden retrograde that defies Itself …