Mr. Dark, regarding The Dogs that Eat Sweet Grass--

As far as I can tell, it is an unpublished transcript of an interview about Ray's life. Here's some info from the UCLA Library:

<<
Title: The dogs that eat sweet grass oral history transcript / by Ray Bradbury ; interviewed by L. Craig Cunningham, [1961].

Published/distributed: [Los Angeles] : Oral History Program, University of California, Los Angeles, 1965.
Physical description: [v], 541 leaves, bound ; 28 cm.

Notes: Transcript of a 21-hour interview completed under the auspices of the UCLA Oral History Program.

Summary: Bradbury discusses his life and relates his experiences as a writer of short stories, novels and screenplays.

>>

Since I'm a grad student at UCLA, I'm gonna make an excuse to read it one of these days before I graduate.




[This message has been edited by WritingReptile (edited 01-16-2003).]

Writing Reptile::Mr. Dark::

"The Dogs That Eat Sweet Grass" by Ray Bradbury

...was originally 'stolen' from the UCLA library, xeroxed full page size 8 1/2 x 11, bound in leather, with a frontispiece photo taken by a mutual friend and used without the photographer knowing it...

The actual produced copies as described were something in the neighborhood of 25, thereabouts. They were sold for unknown '$$$s'.

Ray, to say the very least.... was very upset by the whole situation. His manuscript was stolen (or borrowed) from UCLA, and then reproduced...(when he had given it to them for safekeeping). A copy, (the original could have been later returned, but that is unknown...) now sits in a library in Ohio.

See Section 7, (for some info on the manuscript) when you click on: www.bgsu.edu/Colleges/library/cac/ms0379.html#series

Ray 'bough't back what copies he could find, and... destroyed them. When I last heard of it, (that's back in the early 1980's) there were still about a dozen copies out there, at that time, somewhere.....




[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 01-16-2003).]

Thanks for the update on the manuscript. I had no history of it. I'm sorry someone violated Bradbury's trust with it. That must be one of the hard parts of being a part of culture -- everyone thinks they have a right to a "piece" of you.

On the "attack" above . . . I didn't sense it as an attack, but as a lot of interesting questions and issues involving the ethical "stuff" that comes with the possibility of human cloning. Your closing comment was sound, but would make for far less interesting stories, don't you think?

That is a great quote by Bradbury on cloning (i.e., 'it's stupid because intimacy with a warm body is so much better'). I think I had seen it somewhere but had completely forgotten it.

Given his perspective, it would be interesting to see what kinds of stories he would come up involving human clones.

As I understood, "The Dogs that Eat Sweet Grass" was Ray's own autobiography. This is the first I'd heard of it being an interview. As for his "why clone" question, two obvious reasons: 1. In the case of couples where one or both partners are unable to reproduce in "the regular way"--it seems they'd rather copy themselves than adopt. (Could be employed by people who can't reproduce, have been turned down for adoption, but have the money to put out to be cloned.) 2. Because someone entertains the notion that in creating an exact duplicate of the body one could somehow recreate the original person. That is, they purposefully DON'T WANT two people involved because two parents would somehow "dilute" the result. In either case, cloning would be employed by the sort of people who think the world needs more of themselves, or by people trying to recreate former greatness.

Well, in the case of this French cult that claims to have created two human clones, their intent is to assure themselves of immortality via the scientific process -- rather than through some mystic sense of the eternity of the soul. The intent is to create clones of oneself, figure out a way of transferring memory into the clone, and then creating new clones to house your memories as you age. If you repeat this process without end, "you" are "immortal". They do hold many of their "religious" services in the nude, so if they are all attractive, I guess that could be a good thing.*

Anyway, this is a very interesting idea of immortality, isn't it?

*Of course, if you accept Jerry Seinfeld's assessment that the vast majority of people are ugly, then having church in the nude may be more of a problem than a blessing!


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 01-17-2003).]

Dandelion/ Mr. Dark/ Others::::

The edge of civilization as we generally know it, is bending like a Dali clock.

Those people who are cloning... in an interview on TV (the ones who say that they were here because of scientists from outer space)...well, they said they want to clone an 'entire person'... full grown, without a childhood. If this isn't shades of Adam and Eve, then what is? The darkness of man runs ...'infinitely.'

That's far beyond comprehension...where, unchecked, it would otherwise go....

Um, hearing the "Twilight Zone" music here...seeing the episode "The Lateness of the Hour." Basically about a girl rebelling against her upbringing. To say much more would be a spoiler for those who haven't seen it. The Sci Fi channel is running the series now, check listings in your area. Speaking of girls rebelling against their upbringing, Garrison Keillor kind of had the Raelians beat to it as far as nude worship services. In one of his "News from Lake Wobegon" stories he told of a cult of religious nudists. One girl was ashamed of being naked, and, I guess, finally rebelled by getting dressed. For an author who has no use for religion but an absolute fascination with animals, try H. H. Munro "Saki"--who Ray says didn't influence him--which I still can't get over. Ray says he likes cats and dogs equally, but has cats as they are easier to keep--six of them, last I knew!

Somewheres up there in postings, someone talked about whether Raelian clones were really human with a soul...

I asked a biology major friend, and he said "..absolutely yes, as long as they have 24 chromosomes... which makes them human...! "

But if they have a soul, I would say "... absolutely yes...since they are genuinely human...."

I guess, for me, the question involves the definition of the soul. What is the relationship between Brain (the biological/mechanical "thing") and the Mind (thought processes) and the Soul (something transcendent to the physical body?).

Philosophy has a whole branch now (Philosophy of Mind) that wrestles with these defintions and relationships. Is soul outside of mind or brain? Is it contingent on mind or brain? Is the soul the eternal part of man? What does the soul do? What is it's origin? Is it just a subjective reaction to chemical/electical impulses in the brain? Can a brain function without a soul? Does having a set of chromosomes equate to having a soul, and if so what is the difference/relationship between brain/mind/soul?

Dark,

I'm so glad you asked the following:

quote:

I guess, for me, the question involves the definition of the soul. What is the relationship between Brain (the biological/mechanical "thing") and the Mind (thought processes) and the Soul (something transcendent to the physical body?).

Consider this:

Man is the creation of God and was predestined to be in His image and likeness until falling out of grace by original sin. If Eve hadn't done the deed, Adam eventually would have.

The story of Adam and Eve is one of the most contested events biblically documented. But those whom challenge the beginning of the end of man's etheral union with the Almighty, still hold the general concensus that the soul is a gift from God, allowing us to seek that which Adam & Eve relinquished.

Considering that our souls were the offsprings of our transcendent Father, it stands to reason the soul was here first, before the body and before the mind. In fact, it's suggested that the soul prevailed to such a degree that man was free of hunger, disease, need or want. Temptation was our only flaw. Scientests would interpret it as using a larger percentage of our brain.

The transgressions of man's earliest parents left a scar of resistance on our souls that each of us must overcome. And that, my friend, is the greatest conflict of life.

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:


I asked a biology major friend, and he said "..absolutely yes, as long as they have 24 chromosomes... which makes them human...! "

Whether or not a clone is truly human is not the real issue. The inconclusive question to be asked is "Do clones have souls?"

This could never be addressed by a biology major since theologians are still struggling with the question. These two fields of expertise predictably clash over the possibilites as we appease our multi-facated pursuit of life's answers.

Only the Creator and the passage of time will answer this one. Guess it would depend on whether man has amused God or enraged Him.

Celestial:

The question of "soul" would be...is it an eternal soul?

Humans have an eternal soul.

The debate about cats and dogs is...do they have a finite soul or an eternal soul? If there were animals in the Garden of Eden, and the purpose of Christ is to restore all things... to re-begin things from where they 'stopped"...(read First Chapter of Ephesians )... then if animals are found in heaven...does that mean that they have an eternal soul...?

It says because of man's sin, all of creation was brought under a curse, and all of creation is waiting for the redemption of man...so that the curse would set them free...

I don't ever remember reading where Ray struggled with any of these questions. His story, "I Sing the Body Electric"... doesn't address this...but I may be wrong. Here was an electronic gadget....

Let's go way out on a limb: Did Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" have a soul? (Yes, I know Frankenstein was the name of the scientist, and the one we are talking about was really called The Monster)... so, did The Monster...have a soul?

We are still dealing with flesh and blood and mind ...and heart, even if one is cloned....

It's just the methods (cloning) are not too terrribly strange if compared to who is doing it and why....! In this case, all this is being done by people who say that they were ...cloned by scientist from another planet. Now you don't have to think about it too long before you realize that this...is really beyond weird.


[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 01-27-2003).]

Wow what an interesting thread!!

I've always like the Adam and Eve story, it's a pretty good metaphor for the progression of a relationship between men and women in the modern world (idyllic love to begin with then temptation and then banishment from the Garden/State of Love)but it leads me to something I read awhile back, but can't quite get my hands on at the moment (it's sketchy in my mind). Has anyone heard the story of how a woman named Lilith was the first created, from earth and mud (not sure again on this) and that God destroyed her because she was too independent?

I'm interested if anybody else has heard this?

And if Jesus drove a car it would be one of those VW Camper Vans from the sixties, with psychedelic colours and a lava lamp in the back. He'd probably be listening to Frank Zappa as well, at least in my imagination.

Peace
Frankanger

Nard, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'd like to elaborate on two of your thoughts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nard Kordell:

It says because of man's sin, all of creation was brought under a curse, and all of creation is waiting for the redemption of man...so that the curse would set them free..

Consider that animals, being the land servants of man and created by the Almighty purposefully for that reason, are part of a masterpiece tapestry. Humans are designated by God as the highest plateau of life on earth, granting our souls the ability to be one in God. Since the four legged mammals and all of God's creations are in service to man, it's possible to grasp their order on the spiritual plateau, still in service to man.

"We are still dealing with flesh and blood and mind....and heart, even if one is cloned"

The humanity of a clone depends on the humanity of its original, thus the authentic definition of a clone. How ironic?

When the day comes that clones are options for anyone with a credit line, let's hope a morals and ethics standard is set.

Just now in the State of the Union address the president proposed a law banning all human cloning. Even if he meant for the United Nations, not just the United States, to pass such a law, there'd always be some renegade country that wouldn't agree.