[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[David M]

Hi DMB

Love to see those passages from Plato and Sartre that don't exist.

But that aside. I am suggesting that the notion of SQ implies
repetition yet can refer to living forms/patterns.
Inanimate also implies repetition/necessity but non loving-forms.
That's right I am pointing out something that does not work
out too well. How might we make better sense of these terms?
Can organic SQ be inanimate in some sense? Or is organic SQ
always animate? Or is there a third way? Is there something wrong
with seeing anmate/inanimate as the same division as organic/inorganic?
You accept this without question, my suggestion is that you should think
again.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Animate vs inanimate


> David M said to dmb:
> So would we have any use/need for an animate/inanimate distinction in the
> MOQ? Is SQ repetitive and inanimate? Is DQ innovative and animate? 
> Therefore
> is biological SQ a form of inanimate life?
>
> dmb replies:
> You're going to hate me for this, if you don't already, but I really think
> you have to learn to communicate in a less ambiguous way. I can only guess
> because you have not provided any indication of the meaning and context of
> the two key terms. Going back a couple dozen centuries, for example, we 
> see
> this distinction in Plato, where it marks the difference between rocks and
> bunnies, between inorganic things and living things or between dead things
> and living things. Jump forward to Sartre and he uses the same terms to
> describe the distinction between human consciousness and the objective
> world. I suspect you are thinking of the latter because of the way you've
> introduced DQ into it. It seems you want existential choice to be 
> connected
> to DQ, but I don't think that works very well at all insofar as he was
> operating with the assumptions of SOM.
>
> In any case, by the time you get to the end of your comments you are 
> asking
> if biological forms are "a form of inanimate life. This is pure nonsense.
> Inanimate life is a contradiction in terms. If it is inanimate, it is 
> either
> dead or it was never alive in the first place. And we can't rightly speak 
> of
> SQ as being inanimate or animate without indicating what kind of sq we are
> talking about.
>
> So this whole thing is so ambiguous that its impossible to tell what the
> topic is. Are you referring to Socrates or a post-WW2 French intellectual?
> I'm sure they weren't the only ones to use these terms. Are you talking
> about life forms, existential essences or something else altogether? As is
> usually the case, one can only guess what you're talking about. Its not 
> that
> I disagree with what you're saying. I simply have no idea what you're
> saying. And I don't see how anybody else could either. Until you can 
> clarify
> the context and meaning of the terms, I can't even be sure what the topic
> is.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>
> 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/
>