In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

You yourself said you didn't think anyone would eat animals in 4D.

I did!

I see this world as a spiritual kindergarten. Our main lessons seem to revolve around sharing our toys with others and playing nice together. Considering the current state of affairs, teaching a 3D entity to perceive 2D entities as self just seems over-the-bar for your average earth human. That sounds like a very advanced lesson.

I see it more as a 1-room schoolhouse, with many students at varying levels of development.

You're right that trying to teach kindergartners (who are barely learning to not kill other humans) to not kill animals is too advanced.

But, they're not all kindergartners.

And you just used the same logic I used earlier: I see no point in trying to make a case against eating plants, when people are still eating animals. It's just way too advanced.

I don't think everyone is unable to grasp animal cruelty though. Many are. An increasingly high number of people are grasping it. It may be too advanced for most, but not for all.

From what I gather, earth's population from this point forward is largely comprised of those who elected to destroy their planet in a nuclear blast or who are remnants of similar disasters. They clearly have not yet learned to see each other as self... can we expect them to grasp these advanced ideas? Is that what we are really here to do?

What you are here to do and what I am here to do might be drastically different. We each must tune in to our own Higher Self and our own personal life mission.

Of course, my posting a link to this does not constitute an endorsement.

Understood.

But this book is chock-full of quotes from various alchemy writings. It is interesting to see what kind of picture they form when put together. It isn't light reading, but it is the best reference I know.

Thanks! I'll check it out.

Well, of course! Although my nitpicky analytical mind would note that probably "knowingly inflicting harm" is an experience which we all must pass through at some point in our journeys. I wonder if in a certain sense it is necessary.

Sometimes things are necessary for the express purpose of providing catalyst so that we learn to not choose those things.

Shall we say that people shouldn't take any actions which they consciously know might bring harm to their own bodies? Most people would say no a person has the right to do with their body as they please, even if they are causing harm to it. How would you weigh in on this?

I'm a strong believer in the concept of individual liberty. Each person has the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies.

However, the problem is that often, when they harm their own bodies, they harm others as well.

People smoking cigarettes pollute the air around them, to the point that family members also get lung cancer from breathing second-hand smoke.

Alcoholics affect others by causing car accidents, becoming violent, etc.

Then there is the medical issue. Smokers getting lung cancer, alcoholics needing liver transplants, and even hugely obese people and people with cancer or diabetes which they could have controlled with some simple diet and lifestyle changes, take their toll on family and society, because the cost of their medical care is so astronomical.

So it's not quite so simple as 'do whatever you want' because it often affects others. It opens up a can of worms trying to sort it all out.

If it truly didn't affect others, then yes, they should have the freedom to do whatever they want. No one has the right to tell a person not to drink a soda (which I call cancer in a can) but it's an unfortunate fact that the staggering medical costs are a huge burden on society.

One person's freedom ends where another's begins.

Not to open this whole can of worms... but if plants were found to experience pain and suffering, would you advise not eating them as well?

I don't think that will be proven until we are able to survive without eating plants. At this point, we must consume plants. Even meat-eaters must also eat plants. And the animals raised for meat also eat plants. So it's a moot point.

If it were proven at this time, then I would schedule a meeting with the Sub-Logos asap and ask what the hell they had in mind, designing the planet like that!

Well, we all have nociceptors... but the signals only become perceived as "pain" as a result of the way our brain is wired. Theoretically, one could rewire the brain to feel pleasure when those receptors are stimulated. Actually, some have done this, it is called sadomasochism.

Oh yeah. Well I don't know what to say to that. Too weird for me!

Also, I don't know if I would go so far as to say that consciousness is sufficient to experience suffering. I think that requires self-consciousness. But I have no quotes to throw at that one!

Me neither!

This is a pretty good list. I would say the last three are more indicative of suffering. It seems to me that suffering needs involve the ability to perceive the difference between what is happening and what is desired to be happening.

Like if a bird or mammal becomes separated from their young, they are clearly distressed. Does a fish even notice? I don't know but I don't think so.

Interesting point. Many people on the road to vegetarianism give up red meat first, then poultry, and fish is the last to go. (and then eggs and dairy if they decide to go all the way to vegan.)

I've often wondered why that is so. There didn't seem to be any logical reason why eating cows was considered worse than eating chickens, and eating chickens was considered worse than eating fish, etc. But that's just sort of the way it has worked out. I never liked fish so I skipped that step, but this particular sequence is very well known and considered the normal way to do it.

If what you're saying is true then that might indicate chicken are more aware than fish, and there might be some biological evidence of that.

Wow! See I just have a hard time grasping what drives a person to get up in the morning and dedicate their day to saving the fish. Then again I have a hard time grasping what drives anybody who is highly driven! LOL

But you are highly driven! You're highly driven to intellectual discussion of deep philosophical concepts!

But what about netting fish? Seriously we were considering getting a growing dome so we can grow food all year round. You can get them with fish tanks within and I thought it might be neat to raise some sardines and anchovies. Do you really think this wouldn't be acting in the "4D spirit" of things?

Well I have no opinion on that. It's not my place to suggest whether it's appropriate for you or not. That's something you'll have to discern for yourself.

This is why I don't think having nociceptors is a sufficient criteria. Since fruit flies have them, should I allow them to invade my kitchen?! I don't think I could manage to escort them out of the house.

Man, did you have to tell me that! Now I'll need to get Diana to come over to my house and escort out my fruit flies!

I dunno... are we debating that? My main question is... why is this such a high priority item? It just makes sense to me that if we were to make a list or a pie chart of "suffering in the world" that the vast majority of it is perpetrated by humans to other humans. Why not start there?

Many of us are starting there. Animal activism isn't the only cause I'm involved in! It may be for some, but not for me. It isn't even at the top of my list; ending war is. (Which is why I am currently spending a couple of hours every day doing phone calls for Ron Paul.)

But, doing what we can to reduce the meat industry, whether it's by raising awareness of animal suffering or enlightening people about better health choices, will have the same end result: less animal suffering, better health for humans, a more efficient, cleaner and better sustainable ecosystem, a cleaner planet, and, ultimately, less heavy energy on the planet. All of the above are important.

I actually spend a lot more time working with people about health in general, than I do on the meat issue.

But that's just me. I have PETA friends who are much more focused than I am, without being involved in all the other things I do. That's cool too! We each must do whatever we feel is important. We can't all do everything.

For example, we watched a documentary on sealing. Watching those dudes beat baby seals to death was quite appalling! But in the back of my mind I was wondering... what really drove this guy filming the documentary to leave his family and head off in a boat to "save the seals". First off, he didn't actually save a single seal.

Firstly, you don't know if he even had a family at all.

Secondly, those videos have indeed saved many seals! That particular seal didn't get saved, but others later did, because of that video which was used to educate. Just like the slaughterhouse videos.

I have great respect and admiration for those who filmed those slaughterhouse videos. I wouldn't have had the stomach for it. I would have started vomiting and crying and would have totally knocked myself off! I could never be an undercover agent at a slaughterhouse!

Secondly... I just can't shake the feeling that these types of individuals have some serious unresolved yellow ray issues they are avoiding.

How so? You mean they're avoiding any contact with people because of their yellow ray issues?

Maybe. If so, so what? Isn't a good thing that they're doing something useful? Maybe they do have issues with humans. That doesn't negate the good they're doing.

Anyway, for the record, most of my PETA friends are totally normal people, with families. They just have chosen this among many possible causes to get involved in. They probably took on that mission.

So a fruit fly is "higher" 2D, in your view?

I have honestly never given much thought to fruit flies.

I propose that we get the obviously 'higher' ones handled first...then we can maybe move on to plants and microbes.

Good plan.

Glad we agree on that!

But I think we are on the right track!

OK fair enough!

Probably none. But I think that says something... most humans would respond compassionately to the dog. While most wouldn't respond the same way to a sardine or a fruit fly.

Very true! Myself included. Which, again, is why I propose we start with cows and chickens, instead of worrying about fruit flies, microbes or plants.

As far as our activism goes. On a personal level, I try to avoid killing any bugs, but I have a looooong way to go. I always catch bees, wasps and spiders. (I'm actually quite an activist for bees! We're all screwed if we don't save the bees!) But I confess to killing roaches and scorpions. :-/ (I am in absolute awe that Diana takes outside the scorpion who just stung her!)

But I rarely ever suggest to people they quit killing bugs. (Except BEES!) It's just too advanced. There's no point in it. I do speak up if I see someone step on a bug outside. I mean that's just mean. What did that bug do? I always always always speak up when it's an outside bug. I'll say, "hey that bug deserved to live too. Why'd you step on it for no reason?" It's too late for the bug but hopefully they'll at least think about it for a second. Maybe forge a new neuropathway in their brain.

Oh and spiders. I speak up on behalf of spiders. I'll suggest taking the spider outside because it's good for the garden. But most people don't have a garden, so that doesn't work either.

But beyond that, I don't usually say anything.

No, not much success telling people to not kill bugs.

Even a fruit fly?!

For purposes of this conversation, when I say animals I'm referring to non-bugs.

I kind of get what you are saying. But at the same time... isn't acknowledging the suffering necessary for compassion?

Not sure what you're getting at here.

Could there even be compassion without suffering??!

Apparently not, at least in the design of this planetary system. When I grow up I want to design a system without suffering, that still evolves quickly and efficiently.

I tend to agree with this. Which is why I would encourage some activists to take a chill pill! What you resist persists. Why not surrender to the process and trust that the end result will be that which is desired?

Because the activists have their role to play too and might even be part of the mechanism by which that end result will be achieved.

Are you feeling anxious or concerned that the earth may actually not make it, or something like that?

No, the planet will be fine. I'm much more concerned about the inhabitants.

I think it has more to do with different uses of the words killing and harm. I don't see these two terms as equivalent, though they often overlap.

I see them as the same but different in degree.

No, not necessarily.

We sure are agreeing alot!

I know... but I think there are many who believe the moral imperative exists, but Ra left it for us to figure out. I am saying it doesn't exist at all. I am suggesting that a flourishing STO society doesn't navigate by morals or codes of behavior, whatsoever. In an STO society, people don't serve each other because it is the "right thing" to do. They serve each other because that is who they are.

I prefer to think in terms of ideals to aspire to, than moral imperatives.