[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[Heather Perella]

Ham,

     [Ham]
> I take it that your term "translate" means to
> "infer" or tell about.

     Yeap!

    [Ham]
> 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.

     Put in this context, I may finally have been able
to understand what the heck you've been saying all
this time.  Thanks.
 
     [Ham]
> 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.

     Yeap!

     [Ham]
> 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.)

     Ok, time for me to learn something.  Your saying
dichotomy, not dualism, why?  Is it because dualism is
a separation and dichotomy is not.  Therefore, as you
stated, without self there is no other, and vice
versa.  They depend upon each other for existence. 
Thus, must both be present even though one is not the
other.  So, this might translate as yin and yang, but
without the traditional approach to yin and yang that
depicts yin having a smaller circle of yang inside of
it, and yang having a smaller circle of yin inside of
it, as in the drawings.  Is that correct?  

     [Ham]
> 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!

     Ok, now I see where you are coming from.  I do
believe that some Pirsigians, or those that discuss on
the MoQ.org, don't believe that awareness is
objective, physical, or totally other.  Yet, I see how
you have come to this conclusion.  Pirsigians are
trying to merge this all, S/O, into one heap.  When
this is done, I don't believe they are objectifying
this 'one heap' or 'one big pile'.  When S/O are
mushed together into this 'one big pile' (and we're
not talking dog-crap [sorry had to add that humor]) by
an unnumbered MoQ discussor, it is the change, it is
answering what is that 'one big pile' now since S/O
are no longer thought of as having this "great
divide"?  MoQ discussors, I believe, are trying to
name what S/O is when it overlaps?  What is S and O
all at the same time?  Sort of, what you call
existence as from what you mentioned above,
"Cognizance and beingness are two completely different
essents that together create existence.  You stated
above, "Nothing lies between them," which you are
inferring between S/O.  This seems like a "great
divide", but maybe that divide is just in how your
stating it by the use of the word, "Nothing".  Yet,
later you state, "...together create existence."  So,
they are together, thus, probably why you stated your
talking about a dichotomy, not a dualism.  MoQ, I
believe, is focusing on the 'existence' aspect of your
discussion.  The aspect of your discussion that when
the two different essents are together - we have this
existence.  Maybe the MoQ is focused on this
'existence' aspect if I translate between the MoQ and
your thesis.  Maybe, maybe not?

     [Ham]
> 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.)

     Why would it "...jar your neighbors nerves..."? 
This kind of response is not healthy, is it?  To be
disturbed, wouldn't that place an unhealthy pressure
on ones perspective?  Therefore, the neighbors
perspective will reveal an uncomfortable world, and in
their eyes, I'm somehow responsible for this tension
now reverberating in their lives.  What further
response would this licit?  Fear, anger, high blood
pressure?  And since I might be viewed as the cause of
this fear and high blood pressure, unless they turn
inward, their fear, disturbance, uncomfortability, and
possible incompatibility will not disappear in their
eyes until I and/or my turtle that talks - disappears.
 A?

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

     I really hope I finally do understand what you
have been saying.  It would be a relief.


Thanks,
SA

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