[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[Case]

Hey Guys,

Just to chime in here I think the animate/inanimate distinction is one of
those fundamental dualisms you run into the more you look into things. It
reminds me of several such dualisms in which I can discriminate how they are
different and can generalize some similarities as well. In other words these
are dualisms that look different but point in the same direction. Here are
some:

Animate	Inanimate
Wave		Particle
Infinity	Zero

And dare I say it?

Dynamic	Static

Case

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of David M
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:00 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
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/