[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[Ham Priday]

Hey, SA --

> 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?

I take it that your term "translate" means to "infer" or tell about.  So
your first question is really: What does being-aware tell us about the
objective world?   As far as factual knowledge is concerned, it tells us
everything we know.  If we find a need to know something else about the
world, we call on the scientists to investigate the phenomenon, and add
their facts to our knowledge.  (Incidentally, note that animals rarely
express a need to know much more than the whereabouts of their next meal
or -- in the case of a domesticated animal -- their master.  That's the
extent of their value sensibility.)  Acquiring objective knowledge, which
"translates" to curiosity in humans, is highly valued by man and explains
his greater intelligence.

When you say "my answer may contribute a filler" for this (question?), I
suppose you are asking me to explain the division of awareness and
otherness, or perhaps what lies between them.  Awareness (proprietary
sensibility) and otherness (objective being) are the primary "essents" of
the dichotomy we call existence.  Nothing lies between them.  Existence is a
dichotomy, rather than a "duality", because subject and object are the
contingencies that create it.  Without awareness there is no being; without
being there is no awareness.  (This translates to: without self there is no
other; without other there is no self.)

Despite the fact that Case says "it is clear to me that higher forms of
awareness and functioning grow out of the inanimate," awareness in any form
or level is not beingness, nor is beingness any form of awareness.  In other
words, awareness is not an attribute or part of the physical world.  There
is no gradation or evolution from one to the other.  Cognizance and
beingness are two completely different essents that together create
existence.  This is the fact of SOM that the Pirsigians don't understand.
They look only at animation and passivity; they study behavior patterns, and
they conclude that since reality is a physical world, anything that moves
must be at least "partly" conscious.  And, since man is part of the physical
world, human awareness must also be physical.  So, instead of acknowledging
the subject/object contingency, they posit existence as totally objective
(which I translate as "totally other") and say, voila, we've overcome
duality!

As to your final question, anthropomorphizing your pet cat, hamster, or
turtle doesn't trouble the world any more than believing in Santa Claus or
the Easter Bunny.  (It may jar your neighbors nerves a bit, though.)

Have I correctly translated your questions and answered them to your
satisfaction?  If not, I'll have another try at it.

Thanks for the opportunity,
Ham