[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[Heather Perella]

Hi Case, Ham, and DM,

     [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.

    [DM]
> I certainly would not like to look at human
> choices as anything other than fully free, although
we do are not 
> fully authors of the circumstances
> and possibles that we find ourselves torn between,
> but given whatever our
> choices are we are free to choose between them.
> Given this view is god
> excluded, not if god is ingredient to this human
> being, indistinguishable,
> and far from omniscient and omnipotent. Perhaps as
> bounded as we are.

     DM, here's another constriction to our free
choices, aside from cultural.  We can't fly as birds,
without technology.  Our biology constricts, too. 
Obvious enough.  Now intellectually, as you stated
before DM, what of this interpretation of nature.  The
on-going discourse shows how diverse philosophies
erupt from our translation of nature.  Keeping the
focus on 'translation', then also our reality,
ultimately might be a perspective between what we will
include and what we will not include in our
translation of nature (life, universe, reality,
etc...).  Maybe all translations are ultimately
anthropomorphous due to any translation is worded by
humans.
    DM points out how science is a human version of
nature.  We put the data into words.  I don't see this
as a problem, unless, somebody convinces me otherwise.
 This doesn't diverge from the question:  'Is our
translation, as human beings, different from ultimate
reality?'.  What would the answer to this question
matter?  If we have been wrong all this time, and a
societies metaphysics doesn't reflect what ultimate
reality is, that is if a metaphysics doesn't translate
ultimate reality correctly, and as the question 'do
trees talk or not?' seems to have an important answer
to some.  It must be one or the other, then whichever
translation or answer we give would do 'what?' to our
perspective.  What would be the downfall or what would
make one these answers better than the other?  When it
comes down to it, where would our translations lead
us, if they lead us anywhere at all?
     Maybe saying trees talk is a way to mix, to place
our human reality with nature, thus, our thinking with
nature.  What is the problem with anthropomorphizing
or creatures depicted with leopard legs, antelope
bodies, and bull horns?  Wouldn't these translations
be depicting not only the human-nature relationship,
integrity, and how we are a part of nature, but also,
when creatures are depicted with body parts from
different animals, the integrity of nature is shown as
well.

     [Ham]
...the "great divide" between sentient and insentient
beings.

     Ham, you seem to be stating that a great message
your thesis contributes is that "...only the human
individual is aware that it is HE who knows and who is
free to act in accordance with his chosen values." 
(1) What does a human being, 'being aware' that he/she
knows and is free to act translate about the rest of
the world?  (2) Thus, your answer may contribute a
filler for this "...'great divide' between sentient
and insentient beings.", or maybe your intent is not
to fill this "great divide"?  Again, what is the
problem with anthropomorphizing insentient beings or
bears?  How does anthropomorphizing trouble the world?


Thanks,
SA    

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com