thefool, first I would like to THANK YOU for being willing to engage in this conversation in a deep way, utilizing and exploring Law of One principles! 
My intention all along has been not to judge anyone, but to explore this topic in light of the Law of One. Thank you!
How do you know it's only a 'few instances here and there?' Just because Ra pointed out Carla's cat doesn't mean that there might not be many, maybe even most, cats and dogs ready for graduation. And it also doesn't mean that there might not be many cows, pigs, and other animals nearing graduation. Ask any child who has raised a pig or calf for 4-H. They will tell you that the pig/calf was very intelligent, and in some cases became a pet, and how hard it was to surrender that animal to the slaughter. (Which of course serves to harden the child towards ranching and hunting in the future.)
I once had a friend who raised potbelly pigs for sale as pets. She educated me on just how intelligent pigs are...how much personality they have, if given the chance to show it. I met her pigs and they acted like dogs in some ways...very mischievious.
Ask any horse-lover whether their horse has any personality. Of course they do! Physiologically, horses aren't all that different from cows. The only reason humans got in the habit of eating cows instead of horses is that horses had other uses - they were more valuable as transportation. Now that we no longer need horses for transportation, they have become pets and are used for sport. But the stigma against eating horses has prevailed because it was so deeply ingrained. In the US, people are shocked and outraged when they hear of old racehorses being used in dog food. Yet, in other countries, it is common to eat horses. They even eat dogs and cats, no big deal. In the US, there is a distinction between eating pets and eating animals deemed worthless for anything but food. Dogs, cats and horses are elevated above cows and pigs. But not so in other countries, where they are all eaten. All of those animals have the potential to have their personality drawn out by a loving human.
The fact that some incarnated as cats and dogs, living a protected, sheltered life, while others incarnate as wild, starving, feral alleycats, could be likened to the fact that some humans incarnate into a loving family, whereas other humans incarnate into poverty, hunger, or violence. Is the rich, pampered human whose parents pay for their college any more harvestable to 4D than the poor, starving child in a war-torn country?
Likewise, is the pampered poodle any more harvestable to 3D than the calf born on a factory farm?
How can we really know that? To me, the parallels seems obvious. I don't think we can just lump ALL animals into 2D. There are gradations of 2D, just as there are gradations of 3D. The evolutionary process of 2D is very, very long. I don't recall the number but it was long.
The way I understand it, the beings at the lower end of 2D have a group consciousness. A single lettuce plant doesn't have an individual consciousness. When you cut some of its leaves, it continues to thrive. When a lettuce plant dies, its spirit merges back with the lettuce oversoul. Same with a blade of grass. I don't think anything is dying when we mow our lawn. I don't think the grass is suffering. Look around at plant life and you'll see that it's everywhere. I think of plant life as the hair on my head - an extension of Earth, like the hair on Gaia's head.
The way I understand it, a bit further up the evolutionary spiral are the wild animals, who operate purely on instinct. A deer in the forest might not have much sentience yet, so when its spirit dies, it too is merged back into the oversoul of the deer population. But it has chosen a body in which sentience might develop. It has the capacity. I remember Ra mentioning that, when they designed our 3D vehicles, they had to choose bodies that could accommodate our intellects and spiritual capacity. As with a computer, the hardware has to be able to accommodate the software! You can't load Windows Vista onto an old PC/XT computer from the 1980s! Likewise, it is reasonable to me that the capacity for sentience cannot be accommodated by a plant body, except for trees which live many centuries. But a tree clearly has individual characteristics. Each tree is unique, and trees are in the position to observe generations of lifeforms come and go. People even develop fondness for trees. They remember the tree that they used to climb as a child...that tree might provide enjoyment to generations of children, or home to generations of animals. I can see how trees might have more opportunity to develop sentience than a lettuce plant which lives only a few months.
Given the right circumstances, that deer can develop sentience. So too can any wild animals. We all know of people who have raised animals from the wild. In most cases they will swear that the animals loves them! In some cases, they underestimate the power of the wildness still in the animal's genetic makeup, and end up releasing the animal into the wild. But surely that animal benefited from being raised by a human and treated like a pet! Perhaps one lifetime of being with humans and having its sentience drawn out isn't enough to be ready for graduation, but the animal is now on its way and can never return to the pool of consciusness that is the group oversoul.
A wild deer's soul might be poured back into the group oversoul like a cup of water being poured into the ocean. But once it has begun to awaken to its individuality, its little soul begins its own evolutionary journey, and will remain an individual. It might choose to incarnate as an alley cat next lifetime, who then gets adopted by a human and pampered as a pet.
I have adopted many, many stray cats. They are just as sentient as any other cat. Just as a child born into poverty can go on to graduate from college, if given the chance.
What do you mean by 'vested'?
Not all pets are very much loved. There is an in-between here. Many 'pets' are neglected and abused. We all know of people who leave their dogs chained outside in the cold, who beat them, who think of them as nothing more than property.
To me, my dogs and cats are part of my family. But I've known people who consider their animals to be 'things' rather than entities. In these cases, it was because of their religious beliefs - the biblical passage about 'taking dominion over the Earth' was interpreted by them to mean that animals are here for us to use as we wish. This is a wide chasm between fundamentalist Christianity and those who see humans as part of a larger living organism, and seek to harmonize with the rest of the planet rather than dominate it.
You are choosing to focus on the bigger demarcation - the 2D grade - while I am choosing to focus on the gradations in between.
Have you ever known anyone with a pet parrot? Have you ever seen a documentary on parrots? They are extremely intelligent! Their humans will tell you they are as intelligent as any dog or cat.
I recently saw a documentary about animals in the wild who have been captured on camera playing tricks on one another...such as tricking the rest of the animals into thinking there was a predator, in order to get first dibs on the food. This is found in various species.
There is a vast amount of richness in those gradations of 2D.
But, even IF this were a black-and-white issue of 2D vs 3D, why does that make it ok to torture and kill an animal who has the capacity to feel pain, and the capacity to choose to run from its abuser? Why is the 2D/3D the demarcation? In other words, why is it ok to kill some 2D animals (cows and chickens) but not others (dogs and cats). Isn't that all rather arbitrary?
Why not have the demarcation be whether the entity has the capacity to feel pain, instead of a judgment about how evolved they are spiritually? We know all animals have a nervous system which registers pain. We know they will flee from their attacker if they can. We know that they bleed, wail and shriek in pain, and display other signs indicating that they are feeling pain. It may be argued that plants feel pain too, but there is a great deal of speculation as to what that really means. Did the plants in the experiment lean away from the researcher because its leaf was getting torn off, or was it because it didn't appreciate being used in an experiment? Would that same plant lean away if someone approached it with joy and appreciation at tearing off some leaves for a salad?
There are unknowns with plants. When we are 4D, we might not need to eat plants either. But for now, we have a choice between killing something we KNOW feels pain, vs harvesting something whose perception of pain is questionable.
Likewise, we KNOW a human, whether raised in poverty or abundance, is sentient. We don't know for sure that the cow isn't sentient. Which means it might be sentient. I would rather not take the chance that the animal might be sentient.
I invite everyone to consider this: The tendency to label animals as '2D' and thus not worthy of living their own lives is a justification...an attempt to rob the animal of its beingness, akin to a 'slaveowner' dehumanizing the 'slaves' so he thinks it's ok. "Oh that is not a person...it's just an animal...so it's ok for me to use him as a slave, beat him, own him."
Thank you for your understanding! And I commend you for eating so little meat. If each person at least cut back on meat, the suffering would be reduced, people would be healthier (resulting in a better economy with less medical costs), and our planet would be less polluted.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that what evolution is all about? Didn't the world get turned upside down when cars were invented and blacksmiths had to find different work? People can adapt. The benefits to all would be well worth it!
Yes
Both. It can happen either way. But not everyone thought slavery was bad when slavery was ended in the US. More than a century later, there are still racist bigots who would treat minorities as slaves if they could. And slavery still goes on, behind the scenes. Yet, enough people raised their awareness about slavery to make it illegal. I envision this happening with the meat industry someday, and I am trying to do my part to raise awareness so that it can happen. It might not happen because of awareness about animal suffering. It might happen because, as the world becomes more and more polluted, and health statistics continue to prove the superior health of vegetarians, the world may have to move towards a predominately vegetarian diet in order to sustain life. It's much more efficient to raise crops for human consumption than to feed livestock. The Earth can sustain a much larger population on a predominately vegetarian diet.
Yes, it's a volatile topic! But I have faith in the love of everyone here at B4 to be able to discuss this respectfully and with sensitivity. We've done it before with other volatile topics! And I would disagree that everyone's mind is already made up. We have no idea how many people might be reading this, lurking, and benefiting from both sides of the discussion.
OK. I don't see how that justifies continuing that pattern, as we approach 4D. Violence is rampant in 3D, but aren't we reaching for something higher than that?
Hmmmm...I can see it in the STS model but that seems like a bit of a stretch when applied to STO. But ok.
Again, thank you for being willing to discuss this from a Law of One perspective! I appreciate it! 
My intention all along has been not to judge anyone, but to explore this topic in light of the Law of One. Thank you!(03-27-2010, 08:28 AM)thefool Wrote: Correct to certain extent. But we are not talking about a few instances here and there. We are not talking about the many personal pets that are closer to their graduation. As a society humans are still 3D and animals are still 2D.
(03-26-2010, 11:37 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: If they are nearing graduation to 3D, I would say they are closer to humans than to plants.
Again not ALL of the animals are graduating en mass. There are some instances of vested pets. These pets are all well protected and cared for by their owners and no one is talking/even thinking about eating them.
How do you know it's only a 'few instances here and there?' Just because Ra pointed out Carla's cat doesn't mean that there might not be many, maybe even most, cats and dogs ready for graduation. And it also doesn't mean that there might not be many cows, pigs, and other animals nearing graduation. Ask any child who has raised a pig or calf for 4-H. They will tell you that the pig/calf was very intelligent, and in some cases became a pet, and how hard it was to surrender that animal to the slaughter. (Which of course serves to harden the child towards ranching and hunting in the future.)
I once had a friend who raised potbelly pigs for sale as pets. She educated me on just how intelligent pigs are...how much personality they have, if given the chance to show it. I met her pigs and they acted like dogs in some ways...very mischievious.
Ask any horse-lover whether their horse has any personality. Of course they do! Physiologically, horses aren't all that different from cows. The only reason humans got in the habit of eating cows instead of horses is that horses had other uses - they were more valuable as transportation. Now that we no longer need horses for transportation, they have become pets and are used for sport. But the stigma against eating horses has prevailed because it was so deeply ingrained. In the US, people are shocked and outraged when they hear of old racehorses being used in dog food. Yet, in other countries, it is common to eat horses. They even eat dogs and cats, no big deal. In the US, there is a distinction between eating pets and eating animals deemed worthless for anything but food. Dogs, cats and horses are elevated above cows and pigs. But not so in other countries, where they are all eaten. All of those animals have the potential to have their personality drawn out by a loving human.
The fact that some incarnated as cats and dogs, living a protected, sheltered life, while others incarnate as wild, starving, feral alleycats, could be likened to the fact that some humans incarnate into a loving family, whereas other humans incarnate into poverty, hunger, or violence. Is the rich, pampered human whose parents pay for their college any more harvestable to 4D than the poor, starving child in a war-torn country?
Likewise, is the pampered poodle any more harvestable to 3D than the calf born on a factory farm?
How can we really know that? To me, the parallels seems obvious. I don't think we can just lump ALL animals into 2D. There are gradations of 2D, just as there are gradations of 3D. The evolutionary process of 2D is very, very long. I don't recall the number but it was long.
The way I understand it, the beings at the lower end of 2D have a group consciousness. A single lettuce plant doesn't have an individual consciousness. When you cut some of its leaves, it continues to thrive. When a lettuce plant dies, its spirit merges back with the lettuce oversoul. Same with a blade of grass. I don't think anything is dying when we mow our lawn. I don't think the grass is suffering. Look around at plant life and you'll see that it's everywhere. I think of plant life as the hair on my head - an extension of Earth, like the hair on Gaia's head.
The way I understand it, a bit further up the evolutionary spiral are the wild animals, who operate purely on instinct. A deer in the forest might not have much sentience yet, so when its spirit dies, it too is merged back into the oversoul of the deer population. But it has chosen a body in which sentience might develop. It has the capacity. I remember Ra mentioning that, when they designed our 3D vehicles, they had to choose bodies that could accommodate our intellects and spiritual capacity. As with a computer, the hardware has to be able to accommodate the software! You can't load Windows Vista onto an old PC/XT computer from the 1980s! Likewise, it is reasonable to me that the capacity for sentience cannot be accommodated by a plant body, except for trees which live many centuries. But a tree clearly has individual characteristics. Each tree is unique, and trees are in the position to observe generations of lifeforms come and go. People even develop fondness for trees. They remember the tree that they used to climb as a child...that tree might provide enjoyment to generations of children, or home to generations of animals. I can see how trees might have more opportunity to develop sentience than a lettuce plant which lives only a few months.
Given the right circumstances, that deer can develop sentience. So too can any wild animals. We all know of people who have raised animals from the wild. In most cases they will swear that the animals loves them! In some cases, they underestimate the power of the wildness still in the animal's genetic makeup, and end up releasing the animal into the wild. But surely that animal benefited from being raised by a human and treated like a pet! Perhaps one lifetime of being with humans and having its sentience drawn out isn't enough to be ready for graduation, but the animal is now on its way and can never return to the pool of consciusness that is the group oversoul.
A wild deer's soul might be poured back into the group oversoul like a cup of water being poured into the ocean. But once it has begun to awaken to its individuality, its little soul begins its own evolutionary journey, and will remain an individual. It might choose to incarnate as an alley cat next lifetime, who then gets adopted by a human and pampered as a pet.
I have adopted many, many stray cats. They are just as sentient as any other cat. Just as a child born into poverty can go on to graduate from college, if given the chance.
(03-27-2010, 08:28 AM)thefool Wrote: In fact vested or no vested all pets are very much loved and not considered food.
What do you mean by 'vested'?
Not all pets are very much loved. There is an in-between here. Many 'pets' are neglected and abused. We all know of people who leave their dogs chained outside in the cold, who beat them, who think of them as nothing more than property.
To me, my dogs and cats are part of my family. But I've known people who consider their animals to be 'things' rather than entities. In these cases, it was because of their religious beliefs - the biblical passage about 'taking dominion over the Earth' was interpreted by them to mean that animals are here for us to use as we wish. This is a wide chasm between fundamentalist Christianity and those who see humans as part of a larger living organism, and seek to harmonize with the rest of the planet rather than dominate it.
(03-27-2010, 08:28 AM)thefool Wrote: Again once you leave those pets out then the rest all animals can be categorized with the plant life as 2 D. In any grouping some are more advanced than others but they still are in the same grade, 2 D.
You are choosing to focus on the bigger demarcation - the 2D grade - while I am choosing to focus on the gradations in between.
Have you ever known anyone with a pet parrot? Have you ever seen a documentary on parrots? They are extremely intelligent! Their humans will tell you they are as intelligent as any dog or cat.
I recently saw a documentary about animals in the wild who have been captured on camera playing tricks on one another...such as tricking the rest of the animals into thinking there was a predator, in order to get first dibs on the food. This is found in various species.
There is a vast amount of richness in those gradations of 2D.
But, even IF this were a black-and-white issue of 2D vs 3D, why does that make it ok to torture and kill an animal who has the capacity to feel pain, and the capacity to choose to run from its abuser? Why is the 2D/3D the demarcation? In other words, why is it ok to kill some 2D animals (cows and chickens) but not others (dogs and cats). Isn't that all rather arbitrary?
Why not have the demarcation be whether the entity has the capacity to feel pain, instead of a judgment about how evolved they are spiritually? We know all animals have a nervous system which registers pain. We know they will flee from their attacker if they can. We know that they bleed, wail and shriek in pain, and display other signs indicating that they are feeling pain. It may be argued that plants feel pain too, but there is a great deal of speculation as to what that really means. Did the plants in the experiment lean away from the researcher because its leaf was getting torn off, or was it because it didn't appreciate being used in an experiment? Would that same plant lean away if someone approached it with joy and appreciation at tearing off some leaves for a salad?
There are unknowns with plants. When we are 4D, we might not need to eat plants either. But for now, we have a choice between killing something we KNOW feels pain, vs harvesting something whose perception of pain is questionable.
Likewise, we KNOW a human, whether raised in poverty or abundance, is sentient. We don't know for sure that the cow isn't sentient. Which means it might be sentient. I would rather not take the chance that the animal might be sentient.
I invite everyone to consider this: The tendency to label animals as '2D' and thus not worthy of living their own lives is a justification...an attempt to rob the animal of its beingness, akin to a 'slaveowner' dehumanizing the 'slaves' so he thinks it's ok. "Oh that is not a person...it's just an animal...so it's ok for me to use him as a slave, beat him, own him."
(03-27-2010, 08:28 AM)thefool Wrote: I can speak on my behalf, I understand you. Please believe me I do. My whole family is vegetarian. My friends and co-workers think I am a vegetarian as I eat so little meat.
Thank you for your understanding! And I commend you for eating so little meat. If each person at least cut back on meat, the suffering would be reduced, people would be healthier (resulting in a better economy with less medical costs), and our planet would be less polluted.
(03-27-2010, 08:28 AM)thefool Wrote: I totally can see how trying to save AN animal can be equivalent to saving a human. But I could always see that. It is not about AN animal but animals as a group. You can save An animal but if you make all animals a protected class then human life would be turned upside down.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that what evolution is all about? Didn't the world get turned upside down when cars were invented and blacksmiths had to find different work? People can adapt. The benefits to all would be well worth it!
(03-27-2010, 08:28 AM)thefool Wrote: Do you think if all are vegetarian then the world would be a more spiritual place?
Yes
(03-27-2010, 08:28 AM)thefool Wrote: Or is it that we all have to become more spiritual in our own lives and it might lead to natural conversion to vegetarian diet.
Both. It can happen either way. But not everyone thought slavery was bad when slavery was ended in the US. More than a century later, there are still racist bigots who would treat minorities as slaves if they could. And slavery still goes on, behind the scenes. Yet, enough people raised their awareness about slavery to make it illegal. I envision this happening with the meat industry someday, and I am trying to do my part to raise awareness so that it can happen. It might not happen because of awareness about animal suffering. It might happen because, as the world becomes more and more polluted, and health statistics continue to prove the superior health of vegetarians, the world may have to move towards a predominately vegetarian diet in order to sustain life. It's much more efficient to raise crops for human consumption than to feed livestock. The Earth can sustain a much larger population on a predominately vegetarian diet.
(03-27-2010, 08:28 AM)thefool Wrote: I guess passion is part of the problem in this debate. The passion cuts through personally and the vegetarians feel not respected for their choices and semi-vegetarians/meat eaters feel attacked and prodded. These passions are so deep rooted that I think regardless of what each side says others would not listen. As the minds have already been made.
Yes, it's a volatile topic! But I have faith in the love of everyone here at B4 to be able to discuss this respectfully and with sensitivity. We've done it before with other volatile topics! And I would disagree that everyone's mind is already made up. We have no idea how many people might be reading this, lurking, and benefiting from both sides of the discussion.
(03-27-2010, 08:28 AM)thefool Wrote:(03-26-2010, 11:37 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: What do you mean by this? How do our elders consume us?
I was more referring to until 3D. We know that for sure as we can see it. 2D plants and animals consume water, earth (1 D) . 3D humans consume 1 and 2 D.
OK. I don't see how that justifies continuing that pattern, as we approach 4D. Violence is rampant in 3D, but aren't we reaching for something higher than that?
(03-27-2010, 08:28 AM)thefool Wrote: But I can see how our elders feed off of our energies. The STS elders feed of of negative energies like social unrest and violence and STO elders enjoy our positive energies of harmony and compassion etc.
Hmmmm...I can see it in the STS model but that seems like a bit of a stretch when applied to STO. But ok.
Again, thank you for being willing to discuss this from a Law of One perspective! I appreciate it!