[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[Ham Priday]

Hello SA --

> 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? ...

Case no longer communicates with me, but on 10/16 I suggested that he
consider a different dualism than animate/inanimate to divide what is
conscious from what is not conscious...

> Try Sentient and Insentient.  It will steer you away from
> looking at behavior, which is what you invariably "look at"
> to make this distinction.

Animate simply refers to things that are "animated" -- that move or exhibit
action, whether of their own volition or by physical or chemical force.
Thus, a waterfall or a wound-up clock is animate, and so is spinning wheel
or a robot.  Inanimate is something that is static and doesn't change, that
is, unless it is pushed or shoved to make it animate.  Using these terms,
the only thing we can monitor or analyze is behavior.  Yet, almost anything
exhibits some kind of behavior; even a rock gathers moss.

To my mind, this is a stupid way to characterize the "great divide" between
sentient and insentient beings.  When I tried to use "proprietary awareness"
on the Pirsigians, they challenged me to prove that atoms, trees, and rocks
weren't aware.  Then they engaged in a debate about whether any species of
animal is not aware.  Platt insists that his cat has self-awareness and
makes value judgments, etc.  I think this stems from Pirsig's doctrine that
all things -- animal, vegetable, and mineral -- possess some form of
awareness.  I've stated before that I believe he felt it necessary to
incorporate experience, if not awareness, into the reality that he calls
Quality.

As you point out ...

> ...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?

Loving inanimate things may be a fetish of collectors and the
self-indulgent, but one cannot compare materialistic love with the affection
between human beings.  I don't love my wife and son because they are
"animated", for heaven's sake, but because there are knowing, self-aware
individuals who can express their value for me by returning my affection.

Proprietary self-awareness is the ability "to know that you know".  And
while most living creatures exhibit some awareness of their environment and
behavioristic preferences, only the human individual is aware that it is HE
who knows and who is free to act in accordance with his chosen values.  If
man's behavior were limited to the reflexive response to stimuli or physical
forces, there would be no cities, books, art, or culture, and we would not
be having this conversation.  I find it incredible that intelligent people
continue to dismiss the most self-evident phenomenon in the world as a
"myth".

Nice to hear from you, SA.  (I think you may agree with me, but I could be
wrong.)

-- Ham