[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[David M]

Hi SA

Nice post. In response I think we should ask what does science do?
Science asks nature questions. Science constructs a language with
which it puts questions to nature. What does science seek?
What response does science want from nature? A scientific 
experiment asks nature questions. The results of experiement
have linguistic meaning, we 'interpret' the results and turn nature's
gestures into 'answers'. For science nature only exists when she
joins us in conversation. Often nature answers with great ambiguity.

Regards
David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Heather Perella" <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Animate vs inanimate


> 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 
> 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/
>