Confederation and meat consumption

[Nicholas]

third density problems cannot be resolved with third density thinking

That would be incorrect.

Third density problems pertain to 3rd density, and their solutions also must pertain to third density.

Because all of these, together, define the experience that is called 3rd density.

In this particular topic regarding how it being difficult to give up meat due to the nature of 3rd density social complexes' social, psychological and spiritual pressure, the solution is right there in 3rd density as the problem, and it is the entity who decided to give up meat manifesting enough willpower to follow its decision against all pressure.

Its not mystical, magical, otherworldly or other-dimensional - just uncomfortable and difficult.

 Whether the new thinking that solves these problems arises from third density or fourth density consciousness, it is still a different quality of consciousness. 

I think I understand what you trying to articulate here Jeremy. Here is an excerpt from Marshall Rosenberg's  Living Nonviolent Communication  (also known as Compassionate Communication). Its a Q & A session towards the end of the book.

Q:  DOESN'T THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY PROMOTE PASSIVITY, OR AN OPIATE OF THE MASSES EFFECT?

Marshall: I'm very worried about any spirituality that allows us to sit comfortably in the world and say, "But I am helping the world. The energy alone coming from me is going to create social change." Rather, I trust a spirituality that leads people to go forward and transform the world, that doesn't just sit there with this beautiful image of radiating energy. I want to see that energy reflected in peoples actions as they go out and make things happen. It's something you do, a practical spirituality.

Q:  SO NONVIOLENT COMMUNICATION EVOLVED IN PART FROM SPIRITUAL ORIGINS?

Marshall: Nonviolent Communication evolved from my attempt to get conscious about Beloved Divine Energy and how to connect with it. I was dissatisfied with input from my chosen field of clinical psychology , because it was and is pathology-based and I didn't like its language. It didn't give me a view of the beauty of human beings.. So, after I got my degree, I decided to go more in the direction of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. I decided to ask myself the scary questions, "What are we, and what are we meant to be?" I found that there was very little written about this in psychology. So I took a crash course in comparative religion, because I saw that it dealt more with this question. And this word love kept coming up in each of them. I used to hear the word love as many people used it-in a religious sense, like, "You should love everybody." I used to get really annoyed at the word love. "Oh yeah, I'm supposed to love Hitler?" I didn't know the words New Age Bullshit, but I used what was my equivalent back then. I tried to understand better what love means because I could see it had so much meaning for so many millions of people in all these religions. What is it, and how do you do this "love"? Nonviolent Communication really came out of my attempt to understand this concept of love and how to manifest it, how to do it. I came to the conclusion that it was not just something we feel, but it is something we manifest, something we do, something we have. And what is this manifestation? It is giving of ourselves in a certain way.

Q: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY GIVING OF OURSELVES?

Marshall: ...To give a gift of one's self is a manifestation of love. It's a gift when you reveal yourself nakedly and honestly, at any given moment, for no other purpose than to reveal what's alive in you. Just "Here I am and here is what I would like." This is my vulnerability at this moment. To me, that is a way of manifesting love. The other way we give of ourselves is through how we receive another persons message. To receive it empathically, connecting with what's alive in the other person, making no judgement. Just to hear what is alive in the other person and what that person would like. So Nonviolent Communication is just a manifestation of what I understand love to be. In that way it's similar to the Judeo-Christian concepts of "Love your neighbour as yourself" and "Judge not lest you be judged".



Marshall's words here remind me of the Ra quote where we turn all our cards up and abandon all strategic and analytic attempts to be "right". And I truly believe that in all of these passionate and heated topics, linking our emotions directly to our own personal needs has evaded us all at times. So getting back to that quality of consciousness, I very much believe that solutions arise when we give of ourselves to each other in this way. They will never come from our heads, rather they will appear spontaneously from the intelligent energy that we all take a leap of faith in connecting with, through the sharing of the naked truth within us. And who know's which throat that solution will burst out of!?