LS Re: another question


clark (clark@netsites.net)
Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:53:41 +0100


----------
> From: Hugo Fjelsted Alroe <alroe@vip.cybercity.dk>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Re: another question
> Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 6:27 AM
>
> Ken:
> > I would be interested in your interpretation of how human sentience
fits
> >into this picture. I have a little trouble with it myself.
> > I think that the picture of the interdependence of groups of organisms
in
> >the biological level is a beautiful picture of mutually interdependent
> >benefit although admittedly hard on some of the individuals. If we
wanted
> >to stretch a point we could consider disease organisms from the
biological
> >levels as being beneficial to humans as a group. Ken
>
>
> Yes, I do recognize this point, and I am not at all clear on this my
self.
> I dont know if we can consider disease organism straight out benificial
to
> humankind, but they are part of a stable relationship which we cannot get
> rid of. I am in fact worried that our efforts toward civilisation has
made
> us vulnerable by changing this relationship in ways we have not been
> sufficient aware of. Despite the commercialization of the idea, disease
> organism seems to have benefitted immensely in terms of world-wide
> spreading from our present way of life, - and our limited powers of
medical
> defence is becoming evident. But perhaps we should not discuss such
> depressing topics.
>
> Hugo
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Hugo,
  I find James Lovelock's idea of Gaia, the Earth as the living organism,
powerfully attractive and can't help thinking in those terms most of the
time. From that point of view I don't find these sorts of ideas depressing
at all. Instead I find them stimulating. Although we have the ability to
stave them off, in my view we are not exempt from the same forces and
pressures that operate to control the other levels of life. If Gaia
survives our assaults upon it, and I think it will although perhaps in a
much altered form, then we are probably not the last word in evolution. If
we accept the current idea of the expected life of the solar system, then
we represent the infancy of the evolutionary process and there is a lot of
time to go. I think it is human hubris that compels us to separate
ourselves from the biological level. An unjustified assumption perhaps? It
seems to me that the Lila Squad is too dismissive of the implications of
the inorganic and biological levels of the Quality idea. In my mind these
are the origins and sources of all else and the social and intellectual
levels should entertain no ideas that conflict with these more fundamental
levels. Somewhere in the philosophical construct of MOQ we should make
provisions for the continued existence, if not the health, of the
biosphere. I don;t know where I am going with this. I am just writhing
around trying to fit the good ideas of the MOQ with the necessary ideas of
the biosphere. MoQ is good but I don't see much conflict resolution going
on right now. Ken
 

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



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