The act of eating is a service.

[Monica]

Yeah, I forgot to add the understanding part.

It should have read. Every time I feel guilt, I use this catalyst to understand the self, accept the self and forgive the self.

Yes, but that's not all. In my understanding, choice must also be added to the equation.

Self-reflection leads to acceptance, which leads to forgiveness, + simultaneously combined with choice to correct the imbalance = efficient utilization of catalyst = polarization.

---

Say you sat down at the table and ate a meal. You feel funny. You recognize you feel guilty for eating. You ask why. Then you realize it's because you didn't wait for your spouse before sitting down. You accept your desire to make your spouse happy. You forgive and make restitution. ... Remember, this was guilt about eating.

That's a good example, though I'd say the guilt is more about consideration for the spouse, than about eating itself, though eating was part of the scenario.

Here's another example:

A member pm'ed me saying s/he had felt guilt after eating some meat. S/he said it had nothing to do with the meat thread. S/he felt this guilt on his/her own. But, right after feeling the guilt, s/he read something in the meat thread which had the effect of amplifying the guilt s/he already had.

---

Remember? We were going to establish a disagreement, and then demonstrate how different perspectives can turn to point at a common goal.

Right. I think we've established that we disagree about how to change consumption in society.

Do we even disagree about doing anything at all to change society?