As we saw the growth in our mimetic concept of a fruit, there sparks some questions about the conception.
Is the conception plausible?
Let’s answer it first. To my opinion, when we’re evaluating a consequence with the given fact about the cause, what exactly caused it, the consequence can be taken as the fruit of the cause and the actions leading to the consequence itself. So, yes, the concept is plausible as a given cause to an effect as a consequence with the further actions that were taken.
When talking about actions, who are the agents of the actions? Are they doing the actions that caused the consequence with their volition?
The answer to the question is yes. Volition or free will plays a distinct role in the fruition of an action leading to its consequence. Here, a further clarification should be added as the cause that is referred to, is the end goal, the purpose or the telos of the actions, and the consequence as the result of the actions taken in accordance to a certain telos, all under the human volition and human agency.
So, aren’t we taking care of any circumstance that could make the consequences contrary to the telos or purpose for which the actions were being done?
Yes, it’s quite possible. But for the sake of this anecdote, let’s assume that such condition of entropy is something which is not dealt in this anecdotal world. Since, this is a mimesis of what plays in the real world, and given that my mind is the limited one, considering the various entropical stances of the relation between the cause, action and consequence or fruit, would be a challenging part to sum up. There can be endless permutations and combinations to this possibility, but I will stick to the logical pattern of an action by a human being, aiming at a particular end purpose, has a desired consequence according to the end purpose, for which he planned for.
To make it more lucid, I would like to bring up an example. If I want to sit on a comfy chair, my end goal is to have a chair that provides me more comfort than my existing chair. So, I go to the furniture store, and try chairs. I choose the chair that exactly fulfills my end goal, and then buy it and ship it to my home. And, therefore, now I have a chair that is more comfortable than the chairs I already have in my home.
A straightforward chain of events and actions, and the consequence is a chair in my home, that caters to my end-goal, the cause. The cause of having another chair in my home is that this chair is more comfortable than the chairs I already own. The fruit of my action in accordance to my cause is another chair in my home.
You may be seeing that the proposition of me having another chair, which is more comfortable than all the existing chairs I own, is quite repeating. This is a feature of my mimesis of the fruit, not a bug. The mimetic concept of the fruit must be repeatable. This adds to the mimesis, a more plausible feature, and is certainly a limit, where otherwise to consider such mimetic paradigms that aren’t repeatable. Thus, leaving out every non-repeatable paradigm of cause-action-effect.
Lastly, the fruit is an embodiment of the effect or consequence. The fruit has a single particular cause, again leaving out the multiple causes. And, when someone acts upon the single cause, the fruit becomes apparent. Here, the act is a single course of action, there is no other course of action that can bring forth the fruit, that agrees with the end goal or the cause for which the action was aimed at.