LS Re: Adding to Ken Clark's take on quality

Stephen Wilson (
Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:23:42 +0100

In response to Ken's observation about the patterns of animals and humans
as being similar, I can't agree more (us humans are not divine creatures).
Besides being "savage," I would add that animals use their intelligence to
get food, keep their "society" in order, etc. In other words, they don't
waste intelligence on intellectualization (like us humans). Sounds crazy,
but maybe they experience happiness more than we do.
Sure we're more intelligent, but I also believe it results in "going
nowhere" or exhaustion when we attempt to explain the universe (or other
activities). Hawkings and his cohorts are now searching for a "Theory of
Everything" - ho boy! And one of the latest theories/postulates/ whatever
put forth is - "perhaps we should look at the expansion of the universe
like the evolution of plants and animals as described by Darwin" - which is
just another analogy.
Analyzing and "figuring stuff out" can result in ,joy for us analytical
types, but maybe it's detrimental when it comes to feeling or enjoying life
(which I guess is what Pirsig is saying). I feel it sure has been that way
for me. Best Regards. Steve
> From: clark <>
> To: Multiple recipients of <>
> Subject: LS Bodvar and God
> Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 12:37 PM
> Good Morning,
> First, I like the subject line of this thread. It pleases me to see
> Bodvar has top billing over God. When I look at the sweep of history I
> hope that he will do a better job. Right On! Bodvar.
> I have been following the discussion with much pleasure. I would like
> see if I can sort out my ideas and present them for criticism.
> I get the feeling that the discussion is still bogged down in an
> egocentric concept of humanity. It reads to me as if most of you are
> looking at humanity as somehow special and separate from nature. This is
> not my feeling at all.
> When I watch the wildlife and my yard dogs and cat interact I see
> motivations and anxieties that move humans. I see rudimentary thinking
> planning ahead going on that are not a great leap from the position that
> humans occupy. If one looks at the sweep of evolution as we currently
> understand it, I believe that we can see a fairly linear development of
> awareness and understanding that leads straight to us.
> When I first read ZMM and Lila my initial concept of the term Quality
> that it represented a level of advancement in human understanding and
> awareness that was desirable but not yet agreed upon by the mass of
> humanity. That it represented all of those ideas and feelings and vague
> yearnings that were desirable but not yet accepted into the mainstream
> static quality. The horizon of intellectual and ethical human growth. I
> still have the same view.
> My view of the universe is that it is an objective universe that has
> mystical qualities because of our lack of understanding. I believe that
> when we are able to know everything then everything (objectwise) will fit
> into a coherent scheme. The sweep of the development of the universe
> logical to me. It seems to me to progress in a very objective fashion up
> the present moment if we allow a little windage for our state of
> We see that the Earth came here from other parts of the universe and we
> still see the precursors of life coming in from space in the form of
> acids. We see the necessary energetics operating that is thought to be
> motivating force for the origin of life. We see the progression of
> evolution that has (so far) produced us and is probably still operating.
> see plenty of time for all of this to happen. This seems to me to be a
> pretty coherent picture of our current position.
> What I cannot see is the beginning of it all. If the Big Bang occurred
> was it planned. If so, it was planned well. Has the universe been in
> existence forever? That is a staggering concept to me, My mind just wont
> accept it.
> Hawkins has given us radiation from black holes which, to my mind,
> make the universe everlasting. If this is so then we don't need reasons.
> Everything just is.
> If there is a beginning and an end then we are justified in looking for
> first causes.
> Could the universe contain many other planets capable of sustaining
> If so, will they all be constrained to follow the same pattern that we
> because they will be starting with the same raw materials and energy? Are
> there a bunch of Lila Squads out there with the same concerns and
> the same topics? Is God a planet farmer?
> I don't know the answer. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
> am ready for criticism. Ken
> --
> post message -
> unsubscribe/queries -
> homepage -

post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:25 CEST