[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[Heather Perella]

Hello everybody,


     Contemplating animate v. inanimate with the
recent general discussions, to use the recent familiar
phrases, 'do monkey's have consciousness', 'man is the
measure of all things', and 'we do know other human
beings have consciousness since he/she will be able to
tell us'.  
     Animate has been used to point out that which has
biological life.  Inanimate has been used to point out
that which is dead or having no biological life.  For
example, as a person dies, they turn from an animate
being to an inanimate being of just bones and hide, or
a tree turns into just a log.  
      If I stick to these terms, then why would human
beings (animate life) desire to care about the earth
(inanimate life)?  Is this an insane venture?  Is our
attention misconstrued or has it become a misact by
human beings?  I say this, because why would human
beings find purpose in caring about something that is
dead/inanimate?  We can not hurt it, right?  Why care
(love?) that which may have no ability to 'know' love
and care?  What are we really sharing with these
'things' that some may believe, don't have a
consciousness/awareness?  What would it matter?  Might
it be that we have no choice, as human beings, and
will either reflexively and automatically fear/destroy
and/or love/care?  In other words, even if it is for
inanimate 'things' at times, we only do this because
we can't shut-off care or fear, it will be one or the
other?  And to put this question another way, do we
care or not care, even for something inanimate,
because it is necessary and has a real purpose, but
what purpose would it be to care (share love?) with
traditionally defined inanimate objects that would not
'know' of care/love?  Do these kinds of
responses/sharings with the world misconstrue or
ill-define our metaphysics?


Anybody?

SA   
     

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com