[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[David M]

Hi DM

Perhaps another ordinary distinction inner/outer
should be mulled over for SOM assumptions.
I noticed DMB & Arlo using it in a post about
how to communicate without language.

If it is all quality how can we start talking about an inner
and an outer?

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David M" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Animate vs inanimate


> Hi Gene
>
> I agree, I think these terms assume SOM and
> would be difficult to give them a meaning within an MOQ
> outlook. Unless it can be used as a divide between
> quality motivated behaviour that is fairly repetitive
> like water running down a slope, ice melting in heat,
> and more complex behaviour that has a take it or leave
> it aspect, like animal movements or eating.
>
> Perhaps there is also a wider question about how much ordinary
> language has SOM assumptions built into it.
>
> David M
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Gene M" <boredandunstable at gmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 12:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Animate vs inanimate
>
>
>>I am totally uncertain what this question is even in reference too. But
>>that
>> won't stop me from giving a half assed answer! And maybe we can build up
>> something from there.
>>
>> Patterns exist on each level. The inorganic level would probably be 
>> called
>> "inanimate" by most. The level of Matter, physics, chemistry, things like
>> that. And as inanimate as it is called, it's pretty full of stuff! It's 
>> in
>> constant motion, moving, changing and shifting. Probably the most 
>> unstable
>> level frankly. At least, at it's own scale. For us it's dead as dirt.
>> Literally.
>>
>> Beyond that, the biological level would almost certainly be called
>> "animate". Since it is where all biological creatures reside. From the
>> lowly
>> bacterias to our very bodies.
>>
>> Those are very SOM terms I find however, they are a way for them to split
>> up
>> objective Reality and describe it. I can't even Begin to imagine where to
>> place social and intellectual patterns in those two categories.
>>
>> All in all I find them Extremely unsatisfying and suggest throwing them
>> away
>> forever.
>>
>> -Gene
>>
>> On 10/15/06, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi MOQers
>>>
>>> I wonder, in MOQ does the distinction between
>>> animate and inanimate patterns hold up? And if
>>> so how does the MOQ explain/describe this distinction?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> David M
>>>
>> moq_discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>