Header image  
WHERE INFORMATION AND PROSPECTORS UNITE  
 
 

Organic and Inorganic

Regardless of occupation, education, station in life, race, gender and theosophical belief the question is – are the words Inorganic and Organic compatibly comprehensible, or are they as intelligible as is the word god or God?

Apparently, sometime during the late 1700's a chemistry professor (Torbern Bergman) coined the terms -- Organic and Inorganic. From what I can differentiate, it’s quite likely these two terms were initiated and utilized to make it easier to classify substances instead of lumping the whole lot under one heading.

Like two hands, each opposing the other, but functioning harmoniously – Science in its infinite wisdom enjoys creating theorems, which require empirical modifications that are ultimately classified by colleagues. Thus, in my opinion, two fundamentally different branches of science slowly began taking shape with the invention of these two words that attempt to describe reality. Subsequently and consequently, as each branch of the same tree of knowledge sought recognition cataclysmic differences spawned unsettled, but evolving disputes that continue intact to this very day.

The Inorganic branch emphasized minerals, such as found in nature (dirt, rocks and water), whereas the organic limb emphasized chemicals that were in living organisms. In fact, until quite recently science basically said there was the living and non-living minerals. The organic mineral compounds were said to have a "vital force" which existed only within living organisms, whereas rocks, soil and water were for all intent and purpose examined as dead or non-living minerals. It’s odd though that if a substance is dead it nonetheless implies that before being dead it was alive.

As these two branches of science grew many new twigs and leaves sprouted, but yet, I have seen no blossoms, but there are rock hard fruits that defy the strongest gastric juices. Despite the fact that many off-shoots succumbed to scholarly demise and withered away acceptable thinking flourished. Those that thrived became the foundation of academia, but the stunted or dying were relegated to the realm of metaphysical and quackery, in spite of the fact that practically all the approved disciplines were and continue to be referred to as practices.

Don’t get me wrong – I am not casting stones, I am merely stating my perception of scientific reality. Notwithstanding the roots of rampant ignorance we nonetheless try to seek the light, even if it may be unattainable in the manner sought. An example of what we all do each and every day in either abundant ignorance or flagrant disregard is the conscience act of obliterating grammatical rules. Apparently, we all enjoy butchering words relied upon and used to communicate mental thoughts and physical action. Therefore, I can only imagine what English grammar experts 100 years would say if they could see and hear what has been done to their constructs. I suspect they would either be horrified or feel mortally wounded by how we changed what they likely felt had reached the pinnacle of perfection and would serve humanity forevermore. Thus, analogous to the spoken word are the two main branches of science, which continue the unattainable task of grasping truth.

Although we’ve come a long way, our tour of life has only begun, unless there is nothing left to discover. Hopefully, we won’t forget yesterday’s errors and remember where and why organic and inorganic originated and proceed accordingly.

Today, the terms organic and inorganic appear to me to be hopelessly mired in confusion. I have asked many people who walk different paths and I’ve found no unifying consensus as to what these two words indicate or how they can be interpreted by scientist and layman alike. Evidently, these two words are destined to be intellectually challenging.

Perhaps, there is some truth to the adage: if a lie is reported to be the truth often enough the lie will become an acceptable truth. Similarly, I think it was Sherlock Holmes who said – where we err is drawing improper conclusions from the facts. I continue asking myself – where do these two words fit in the scheme of things, and where’s the balanced chemical equation, but the answers remain illusive.

In the event, that I have not caused enough confusion, perhaps it might be wise to visit the numerous online dictionaries and encyclopedias so that you can formulate a conceptual idea of the intended meaning(s) of organic and inorganic.

These two terms will be revisited several times in different places herein, and the reader must determine the validity of what and how I string together words for new chains of thought.

Before departure a couple unscientific questions: 1) is the “Word” organic or inorganic? And 2) what is and where does thought originate that can initiate a reply to the first question?

Click Here for a Larger Image