[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[Case]

[Ham] 
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.

[Case]
So, what's so terrible about being "just" another being. About a year ago I
said something to you like, I am part of a self sustaining electrochemical
reaction that has run continuously for at least the past four billion years.
There is no dismissive "just" in that for me. That is frickin' amazing to
me. As a self conscious creature I want to know how that process works and
what I can do to keep it going. 
I am fire 
I am storm.

[Ham] 
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.

[Case]
Religion is the stories we tell our children so they will go to sleep and we
can make more. It is answers we make up, to questions we can't answer. But
religion is universal among our kind and it is one stop shopping for our
psychological needs. It gives us the one thing we need most: assurance.
Religion is more that a system of belief or a set of values. It is a way of
life. The best of them give their followers a context for their lives and a
community that shares this context. 

Philosophy can act to bolster faith. It can supplement faith. In can even
deny faith but it can not replace faith. In fact it requires faith.
Replacing philosophical faith with religious faith quickly slams into the
law of diminishing returns.

Once again you say "just" another paradigm of nature. That four letters says
a thousand words about how little you must understand nature. Our feelings
and desires are all aimed at nature. We desire food and we fear becoming it.
We value satisfying the needs inherent in being the kind of creatures that
we are. We value sex and a safe place poop. 

Transcending space/time is pretty far up Maslow's hierarchy of need. You
need a pretty high level support system for this to be of concern to you. A
nice religion might come in handy. It seems to me that transcending
space/time just breeds nihilism. I mean thinking ahead to the Big Crunch or
Heat Death or the breaking of the Seventh Seal or the Infinite oneness of
undivided awareness is either terrifying or boring. I plan to overtip the
parking valet at Milliway's. 

> [Case]
> 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.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
What is nonsensical is the idea that awareness of any kind, is not the
product of nature. The idea that it is a free standing entity is based on
what? Man is "programmed" to live in harmony with his environment. Clearly
it is possible for the "program" to fail. The Hopi call it koyaanisqatsi,
life out of balance. There is a cult film from the early '80 based on this.
But I do agree, claiming man is programmed to be good is just as dumb as
claiming his is innately evil. Better to say he is programmed to Be.

Man's freedom to choose is limited by nature. Our physical bodies, our
senses, our geography, our requirements for oxygen and water all restrict
our options. We are hardly autonomous. But we are not alone. We have each
other. I agree that we make our own purposes but I am pretty sure you have
advocated a kind of teleology in the past and there we part company.

[Ham]
I haven't "excluded" anyone from the Fringe Factor; I just thought it was
worth organizing.  

[Case]
It is not so much that I felt excluded as, not included. When someone says
"party" I am always good for a bag of ice and pack of Doretos. Too late now
though, the ice melted and there is nothing but crumbs left. It reminds me
of nothings so much as... heat death. Oh look, the crumbs are gone too.