[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[Ham Priday]

Case --


> My point is that the MoQ is about an indefinable reality
> manifested through its static and dynamic properties.
> This is pure Taoism. Taoism recognizes full well that
> nothing is purely static nor purely dynamic. What is
> mostly static today might be mostly dynamic tomorrow.

My point is that no philosophy can claim to be meaningful if the reality it
describes does not include human sensibility.  Properties and attributes of
experienced things -- their behavior, their evolution, their inter-relation
with other objects, their level of significance -- define an objective world
in which man is just another being.  Such information, whether factual or
theoretical, lacks immanence; it is not the essence of human awareness, nor
does it suggest a role or purpose for the self-conscious creature.

This is why religion has such a stronghold on those seeking spiritual and
moral guidance.  Religion is all about human beings and their values; it
affords them a belief system that endures through the ages, and it offers
hope for a light at the end of the tunnel.  Philosophy, particularly
idealism, has aimed to provide an intellectual alternative to religious
faith.  But a philosophy that cannot transcend the existential world, that
cannot connect the feelings, desires, and values of the individual to a
source that is greater than the space/time mode of experience, is just
another paradigm of nature.  And if people see no immanent meaning in a
philosophy, they will tend to fall back to their religious faith or become
nihilists.

> Still it is clear to me that higher forms of awareness and
> functioning grow out of the inanimate. Some around here,
> you for example, seem to think that there is some higher
> form of consciousness using us as Playdough. This just
> seems like wishful thinking. It allows us to escape responsibility
> for establishing our own purpose but claiming purpose exists
> somewhere else and is being handed to us.

Nothing that you've stated here is consistent with my philosophy of Essence.
I've expressed my belief in a variety of ways that Consciousness is the
highest form of awareness BECAUSE it is not a byproduct of nature but the
primary essent of our reality.  I don't know how you could construe
Consciousness to be "using us as Playdough".  This is nonsensical.  Unlike
doctrines that would have us believe man is "programmed" to be good, I've
repeatedly stressed that goodness is relative and man is the autonomous
choicemaker.  Because man is on his own in this world, he cannot escape
responsibility for his choices and actions.  Whatever purpose we strive for
is ours as individuals.

> As for not responding to you, perhaps the fault is mine but,
> on several occasions I have answered your questions or raised
> new ones and have been ignored. In fact after my last fairly
> sarcastic set of comments directed your way, you disappeared
> for more than a week. I was genuinely concerned that I had
> offended you.

You did not offend me, Case; you tired me.  Besides, I recall you deciding
that further discussion was pointless, so I didn't push it.

> We may actually agree on lots of things (I agree for example
> that subjective awareness is important) but I just don't understand
> what you are talking about most of the time. It has long been my
> opinion that for any set of ideas to be lasting you need to be able
> to explain them to an eight year old. I work hard to try to do this.
> You seem to hold the opposite view that definition, redefinition
> and talking in code are the way to go. The net result is we may
> just be talking past each other... Naaaaw, we really do disagree.

I consider definitions important in communicating concepts and keeping all
ideas consistent within a frame of reference.  I presumed that I was talking
with someone far above an eight-year-old level; perhaps that was wishful
thinking.  I admire those who can make profound statements sound simple, and
would like to have the literary skill to express my thesis to a child.
(Maybe that's something I can work on for a future website.)

> By the way I was hurt not to be included in the
> Fringe group I have been told many times I am not
> true blue to the MoQ.

I haven't "excluded" anyone from the Fringe Factor; I just thought it was
worth organizing.  I also thought Laramie and Micah (both self-confirmed
Randians) would jump to the opportunity to show how their individualism is
compatible with the MoQ, but so far they've abstained.  Please feel free to
use this topic heading for any debate you'd care to initiate.  (The only
rule is: No one is allowed to complain if an argument doesn't strictly
conform to the MoQ.)

And thanks for at least considering Sentient/Insentient, Case.

Regards,
Ham