Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

Basically, the argument has been offered that the only reason Ra brought up eating meat was, allegedly, because it was just Ra catering to Carla's belief or desire surrounding meat.

Yeah, pretty much.

I think that's an extremely illogical conclusion.

I'll repost what I said to Monica earlier in the thread because it is the same essential question, rephrased in a different way:

If it was my custom to lie, would Ra then incorporate the advice of lying into my behavior if I asked advice on how to better my situation in life?  Or if it was my custom to murder humans (and furthermore believed it was the right thing to do, lets say I thought I was protecting my people by performing some kind of sacrifice (i'm thinking of tribal ancient humans)) would they incorporate that into advice about someone?  Would they not say anything? To respect or cater to my free will decisions/beliefs?  I sincerely doubt that.  These actions would not be consonant with the Law of One.

You are illustrating bias here. You say those actions wouldn't be consonant with the Law of One? Why not?

Animal abuse, and eating meat are two *separate* things.

It is impossible to eat meat without abusing the animal. Killing a sentient entity is the ultimate abuse.

Correlation does not equal causation.  It is naive to think eating meat and animal abuse are synonymous.  It is the constant anthropomorphization of animals. They are different than us.  Not lesser, not better, but different.  Yes, they have emotions, yes they have minds, yes they see the world differently than you, just as minerals see the world different from us, and fourth density beings see the world differently than us.  

Their desire to live isn't different. Their capacity to feel pain and fear is exactly the same as ours.

And there can be compassion in using animals for food, too.  To actually think that a transformation to spirit in as painless and quick a way as possible by a skilled hunter is inherently worse than slowly dying in the wild, by disease, or because it got so old it's teeth fell out and it slowly starved to death, is naive at best, and deliberately ignorant at worst.  

Carnivorous animals take care of old and diseased animals. They don't need us to help them with that. 

Furthermore, carnivorous animals hunt the old and diseased prey; whereas, human hunters tend to go after the biggest trophy, thus weakening the herd.

Humans have upset the balance of Nature.

[Monica]

I am beginning to question the efficacy of having this conversation, here. I feel that here for some reason, at B4, there is a particular tenaciousness in the way the idea of eating meat is clung to. Does anyone here REALLY think it's the best choice for humans—especially those who are interested in evolving? If so, why? Would meat be 4D food, for instance? Consider this one point from just the perspective of being a human who consumes food: Meat carries the stress and fear chemicals released when the animal was slaughtered (and the stress chemicals released if the animal lived in bad circumstances). So you literally consume fear and stress. 

Sure, in the past, centuries and millennia ago (and in small pockets of indigenous peoples now) hunting animals for food was part of survival. But on an evolutionary scale, humanity was closer to animals then. We were more animal-like—early 3D. 

Exactly!

[Monica]

What I meant was that I imagine Ra was proceeding from Carla's belief system, which was that animal protein would aide in her vital energies. A person's beliefs have power over them. I am suggesting that Ra would be wise enough to know that and suggest foods only if necessary (animal products which does not necessarily mean meat, but could be dairy or eggs which don't include slaughter—that adding death energy into the product) thereby keeping her beliefs intact and honoring free will here.

It is analogous to the example I gave about someone with cancer—to tell them chemotherapy is killing them and they would be wise to eat healthily, alkalize the body, and attend to anger issues instead is to deconstruct their beliefs in the medicine they think may heal them—it undermines their power to heal because of their conscious and unconscious beliefs. This does not in any way address what is right or best in general, it just honors where the person is at individually.

Exactly! Good analogy!

...

[AngelofDeath]

Are you distinguishing between "advocated" and "said it would aid the vital energies"?  Ra said that it would aid Carla's vital energies to eat meat occasionally.  In contrast, they told her that marijuana was not helpful to the work she was trying to do and that LSD caused weakness.

What I meant was that I imagine Ra was proceeding from Carla's belief system, which was that animal protein would aide in her vital energies. A person's beliefs have power over them. I am suggesting that Ra would be wise enough to know that and suggest foods only if necessary (animal products which does not necessarily mean meat, but could be dairy or eggs which don't include slaughter—that adding death energy into the product) thereby keeping her beliefs intact and honoring free will here.

It is analogous to the example I gave about someone with cancer—to tell them chemotherapy is killing them and they would be wise to eat healthily, alkalize the body, and attend to anger issues instead is to deconstruct their beliefs in the medicine they think may heal them—it undermines their power to heal because of their conscious and unconscious beliefs. This does not in any way address what is right or best in general, it just honors where the person is at individually.

lol @ death energy

Wouldn't that suggest that someone who genuinely believed in the benefits in eating meat (as an example) might actually be healthier doing so than if they were try to force themselves to be vegetarian?

Wouldn't that actually produce more positive energy than the latter?

[anagogy]

You are illustrating bias here. You say those actions wouldn't be consonant with the Law of One? Why not?

No bias.  And because they aren't in line with STO (the path of unity -- though, to be fair, it is more a spectrum than a binary situation).  You think that eating animals is inherently STS, hence you think this is a bias on my part.  

Naturally, I disagree with said assertion.

It is impossible to eat meat without abusing the animal. Killing a sentient entity is the ultimate abuse.

Disagree.  Strongly.  You can't make blanket statements about was is STS and what is STO.  Or what the ultimate sin is.  This is not Monica's 10 commandments.  Every situation has to be carefully appraised and evaluated, and appropriate judgment exercised.

If you had a sick animal, that you loved and cared for, and it was suffering, would you just let the suffering continue, or would mercifully kill that sentient entity?  

Surely you can see my point about not defining things so black and white?  

Their desire to live isn't different. Their capacity to feel pain and fear is exactly the same as ours.

I don't disagree they feel pain, and that they desire to live, but you're kidding yourself if you think animals have the same perspective as being used for food as you do.  

Do you maybe think the animal consciousness knows the kind of world it is incarnating into?  Because I assure you it does.  And if they didn't want to participate in the game of life, they simply would not come forth to play.

And many don't, and don't incarnate anywhere near humans.

Obviously, I can't prove that to you, just as you can't prove otherwise.

Carnivorous animals take care of old and diseased animals. They don't need us to help them with that. 

Furthermore, carnivorous animals hunt the old and diseased prey; whereas, human hunters tend to go after the biggest trophy, thus weakening the herd.

Humans have upset the balance of Nature.

Carnivorous animals?  You mean animals that crave that sort of protein, because they feel a call from their bodies for a particular nutrient or another?  Like people for example?  Let's not make hard an fast rules about diet.  Also, as someone who has watched a lot of carnivorous animals eat their prey in the wild, it is often NOT done quickly, but slowly and torturously painfully.  Also, many animals are not culled off by predators, and do, in fact, slowly starve to death, or get sick and are unable to move, and slowly die that way too. Not super compassionate, I assure you.

I never said I supported trophy hunting.  Again, animal abuse and eating meat are different things.  

Humans can only upset the balance of nature for a brief period of time, geologically speaking.  We are like fleas on the back of a very big dog (the Earth).  It will get rid of us if we become too irritating to it, and are chronically failing to be symbiotic with it, I assure you.  You don't have to worry about the Earth, it can take care of itself.  

Just as all beings in existence can, because we are all creating our own realities.  Though, I'm sure you probably don't subscribe to the YCYOR idea, because you don't like the implications.

[AngelofDeath]

Not to mention, carnivores don't just go for old and diseased, they go for whomever falls behind the bigger pack which in many case is perfectly healthy YOUNG animals. Babies and children are constant prey in the animal kingdom. There are some creatures which even live primarily on the young of other creatures.

[Diana]

Not to mention, carnivores don't just go for old and diseased, they go for whomever falls behind the bigger pack which in many case is perfectly healthy YOUNG animals. Babies and children are constant prey in the animal kingdom. There are some creatures which even live primarily on the young of other creatures.

There are 2 survival behaviors at work here: culling the weak, and the alpha male asserting dominance. I'm not sure which creatures you are referring to who live primarily off the young of other creatures. Are you relating this to the way humans behave?

[Diana]

lol @ death energy

Wouldn't that suggest that someone who genuinely believed in the benefits in eating meat (as an example) might actually be healthier doing so than if they were try to force themselves to be vegetarian?

Wouldn't that actually produce more positive energy than the latter?

Why is "death energy" funny? Perhaps I didn't word it properly and the phrase sounds silly. Do you think we have an energetic field? Do you think emotions and feelings are as real as so-called physical matter? If so, then the energy created at a violent death would have a presence or an impression left. Slaughter is violent, no way around this. If you don't think so, imagine someone is slaughtering you or a loved one.

I agree with your second statement. This is not a reason to approve of farming animals for food, however.

[AngelofDeath]

Not to mention, carnivores don't just go for old and diseased, they go for whomever falls behind the bigger pack which in many case is perfectly healthy YOUNG animals. Babies and children are constant prey in the animal kingdom. There are some creatures which even live primarily on the young of other creatures.

There are 2 survival behaviors at work here: culling the weak, and the alpha male asserting dominance. I'm not sure which creatures you are referring to who live primarily off the young of other creatures. Are you relating this to the way humans behave?

No I was commenting on the idea that carnivores only go for weak and diseased.

Sure, you can say that, but that is a human label of behaviours. If you went to those animals and explained that their behaviours are because they are culling the weak and the alpha male asserting their dominance it would be quite meaningless to them. I think humans get so caught up in their descriptions and identifiers we forget that we are reasoning and rationalizing things which occur automatically in nature.

I was thinking in particular of creatures that eat the eggs of other creatures, although really, the young are ideal prey for many predators. The example I had in mind was the egg-eating snake whos primary source of food is bird eggs.

My point here is really that animals eating other animals isn't always just survival behaviour such as culling the weak, although of course it is always survival to eat food. Animals hunt for food (sometimes just for fun), they don't care about culling, that is a human assessment of the ecosystem. I guess I want to divide the human categorization of behaviours from the actual life-state of the animals themselves.

I think it's hilarious that humans are trying to justify the behaviours of animals through complex explanations of 'mechanisms'. I'm pretty sure the ecosystem is not a robotic machine and there are variations and blips and mutations that happen all over the place.

[Diana]

I don't disagree they feel pain, and that they desire to live, but you're kidding yourself if you think animals have the same perspective as being used for food as you do.  

Do you maybe think the animal consciousness knows the kind of world it is incarnating into?  Because I assure you it does.  And if they didn't want to participate in the game of life, they simply would not come forth to play.

And many don't, and don't incarnate anywhere near humans.

Obviously, I can't prove that to you, just as you can't prove otherwise.

Even if what you say is true, this is not a reason to cause harm. 

To those who insist that it's okay to eat meat—it's okay, according to the law of free will and choice. Just because you think an animal knows the lowdown here, does not mean that has anything to do with your choice of whether or not to participate in the cruel system of factory farming, or even hunting and killing them for food. It is cruel, no matter what anyone here says. And everyone's choices are their own. So, it boils down to the choices made. 

Arguments can go on forever that plants and animals are the same regarding the implications of using them for food. I disagree. There are many reasons why and I will reiterate if anyone cares to ask.

We know this: animals do not want to die. Animals suffer in captivity.

[AngelofDeath]

lol @ death energy

Wouldn't that suggest that someone who genuinely believed in the benefits in eating meat (as an example) might actually be healthier doing so than if they were try to force themselves to be vegetarian?

Wouldn't that actually produce more positive energy than the latter?

Why is "death energy" funny? Perhaps I didn't word it properly and the phrase sounds silly. Do you think we have an energetic field? Do you think emotions and feelings are as real as so-called physical matter? If so, then the energy created at a violent death would have a presence or an impression left. Slaughter is violent, no way around this. If you don't think so, imagine someone is slaughtering you or a loved one.

I agree with your second statement. This is not a reason to approve of farming animals for food, however.

It is just the phrasing that amuses me. The concern here isn't 'death energy', it is chaotic, disorganized, painful energy. Forgive me, I am somewhat defensive of Death, as I believe Death is the world's scapegoat. I assure you, everything you do involves 'death energy' and every time you eat you are partaking of 'death energy'. That is because life and death are in a constant flux.

The question of traumatic energy is an entirely different matter. Technically no energy is 'created', it is just coloured or tuned to a particular vibration so it must be remembered that the apparently created 'painful energy' is actually a piece of the soul of the entity. It's not just random energy floating around, it's a piece of that person or entity.

I have been slaughtered and tortured in many lives, I assure you it is not a foreign concept to me.

Also, I don't think anything wants to die, typically...

[Monica]

You are illustrating bias here. You say those actions wouldn't be consonant with the Law of One? Why not?

No bias.  And because they aren't in line with STO (the path of unity -- though, to be fair, it is more a spectrum than a binary situation).  You think that eating animals is inherently STS, hence you think this is a bias on my part.

Naturally, I disagree with said assertion.

You have misunderstood why I mentioned bias. You said:

If it was my custom to lie, would Ra then incorporate the advice of lying into my behavior if I asked advice on how to better my situation in life?  Or if it was my custom to murder humans (and furthermore believed it was the right thing to do, lets say I thought I was protecting my people by performing some kind of sacrifice (i'm thinking of tribal ancient humans)) would they incorporate that into advice about someone?  Would they not say anything? To respect or cater to my free will decisions/beliefs?  I sincerely doubt that.  These actions would not be consonant with the Law of One.

You just said that those actions aren't consonant with the Law of One. Why not? The only reason to assume that lying or killing humans isn't consonant with the Law of One, but killing younger other-selves IS consonant with the Law of One, is societal bias.

In our current society, it is deemed unacceptable to kill humans, but acceptable to kill animals. That is societal bias, and you just illustrated it.

So, my question to you was, why are lying and killing humans not consonant with the Law of One? (other than societal bias)

It is impossible to eat meat without abusing the animal. Killing a sentient entity is the ultimate abuse.

Disagree.  Strongly.  You can't make blanket statements about was is STS and what is STO.  

But you just did yourself. You just said that lying or killing humans wasn't consonant with the Law of One...presumably you meant the STO path. Why not? Because those actions are inherently STS?

If you had a sick animal, that you loved and cared for, and it was suffering, would you just let the suffering continue, or would mercifully kill that sentient entity?

 

That is an entirely different situation. That is mercy killing. Killing animals for food is abuse, because it's unnecessary.

I thought it was understood that I meant for food when I said that killing animals is the ultimate abuse. I will edit my previous post to say for food. No animal wants to be killed, except maybe one that is dying and in pain, just as with humans. Animals make their wishes known, quite clearly.

I don't disagree they feel pain, and that they desire to live, but you're kidding yourself if you think animals have the same perspective as being used for food as you do.

You're kidding yourself if you think farm animals joyfully line up to be slaughtered.  

Do you maybe think the animal consciousness knows the kind of world it is incarnating into?  Because I assure you it does.  And if they didn't want to participate in the game of life, they simply would not come forth to play.

And many don't, and don't incarnate anywhere near humans.

Obviously, I can't prove that to you, just as you can't prove otherwise.

Let's apply your theory to humans and see if your logic holds:

Do you maybe think the human rape victim's consciousness knows the kind of world it is incarnating into?  Because I assure you it does.  And if they didn't want to participate in the game of life, they simply would not come forth to play.

And many don't, and don't incarnate anywhere near rapists.


How does that work? Does this give us free license to rape women?

Carnivorous animals take care of old and diseased animals. They don't need us to help them with that. 

Furthermore, carnivorous animals hunt the old and diseased prey; whereas, human hunters tend to go after the biggest trophy, thus weakening the herd.

Humans have upset the balance of Nature.

Carnivorous animals?  You mean animals that crave that sort of protein, because they feel a call from their bodies for a particular nutrient or another?  Like people for example?

If you can find any human who has sharp fangs, designed to tear apart flesh, and is able to kill a cow using only his teeth, and then delights in the taste of blood, and devours the bloody flesh of the cow, then that person might qualify as a carnivore.

Though, I'm sure you probably don't subscribe to the YCYOR idea, because you don't like the implications.

You are wrong in your assumptions.

[AngelofDeath]

If you can find any human who has sharp fangs, designed to tear apart flesh, and is able to kill a cow using only his teeth, and then delights in the taste of blood, and devours the bloody flesh of the cow, then that person might qualify as a carnivore.

Right, cause every carnivore ever only uses teeth, not like there are claws or anything...

[Monica]

Not to mention, carnivores don't just go for old and diseased, they go for whomever falls behind the bigger pack which in many case is perfectly healthy YOUNG animals. Babies and children are constant prey in the animal kingdom. There are some creatures which even live primarily on the young of other creatures.

Why the Logos designed the system that way is another topic entirely, and one that we can only speculate about. But regardless, we are, presumably, evolving. Which direction do we wish to move in? Backwards to animal behavior, or forwards to the higher densities?

[AngelofDeath]

Look at those FANGS.

http://io9.com/field-cameras-catch-deer-...1689440870

[Monica]

If you can find any human who has sharp fangs, designed to tear apart flesh, and is able to kill a cow using only his teeth, and then delights in the taste of blood, and devours the bloody flesh of the cow, then that person might qualify as a carnivore.

Right, cause every carnivore ever only uses teeth, not like there are claws or anything...

Cats use both teeth and claws. Dogs, teeth only. But fine, then find a human who has sharp fangs and sharp claws, is able to kill a cow and eat the bloody flesh.

[AngelofDeath]

Not to mention, carnivores don't just go for old and diseased, they go for whomever falls behind the bigger pack which in many case is perfectly healthy YOUNG animals. Babies and children are constant prey in the animal kingdom. There are some creatures which even live primarily on the young of other creatures.

Why the Logos designed the system that way is another topic entirely, and one that we can only speculate about. But regardless, we are, presumably, evolving. Which direction do we wish to move in? Backwards to animal behavior, or forwards to the higher densities?

Evolution is just change, it doesn't have a specific direction, there is only forward. Even to say that forward to the higher densities there is still the fact that half of higher densities is still negatively polarized.

[AngelofDeath]

If you can find any human who has sharp fangs, designed to tear apart flesh, and is able to kill a cow using only his teeth, and then delights in the taste of blood, and devours the bloody flesh of the cow, then that person might qualify as a carnivore.

Right, cause every carnivore ever only uses teeth, not like there are claws or anything...

Cats use both teeth and claws. Dogs, teeth only. But fine, then find a human who has sharp fangs and sharp claws, is able to kill a cow and eat the bloody flesh.

I'm not sure you understand how evolution works. Species gain abilities as they are able to support survival and higher functions. I no longer need sharp fangs or claws as I have evolved the ability to use tools. My ability to use tools has also enabled me to learn how to cook, thereby rendering previously dangerous food accessible.

My point is that nature doesn't stop at "claws and fangs".

[AnthroHeart]

My wolfdog killed two cats, and ate one of them, partially. I'm not sure if it was cause he was hungry, or if it was instinct.

[Diana]

lol @ death energy

Wouldn't that suggest that someone who genuinely believed in the benefits in eating meat (as an example) might actually be healthier doing so than if they were try to force themselves to be vegetarian?

Wouldn't that actually produce more positive energy than the latter?

Why is "death energy" funny? Perhaps I didn't word it properly and the phrase sounds silly. Do you think we have an energetic field? Do you think emotions and feelings are as real as so-called physical matter? If so, then the energy created at a violent death would have a presence or an impression left. Slaughter is violent, no way around this. If you don't think so, imagine someone is slaughtering you or a loved one.

I agree with your second statement. This is not a reason to approve of farming animals for food, however.

It is just the phrasing that amuses me. The concern here isn't 'death energy', it is chaotic, disorganized, painful energy. Forgive me, I am somewhat defensive of Death, as I believe Death is the world's scapegoat. I assure you, everything you do involves 'death energy' and every time you eat you are partaking of 'death energy'. That is because life and death are in a constant flux.

The question of traumatic energy is an entirely different matter. Technically no energy is 'created', it is just coloured or tuned to a particular vibration so it must be remembered that the apparently created 'painful energy' is actually a piece of the soul of the entity. It's not just random energy floating around, it's a piece of that person or entity.

I have been slaughtered and tortured in many lives, I assure you it is not a foreign concept to me.

Also, I don't think anything wants to die, typically...

Okay then, chaotic, painful, disorganized energy. It was just my laziness in not explaining what I meant and relying on a simple phrase. And I do realize that nothing is created or destroyed, from the scientific standpoint of this reality. 

It is true that there is death in every act of eating here. I don't see anything "bad" about death—harm is another subject.

[AnthroHeart]

Also, I don't think anything wants to die, typically...

Being the Angel of Death, you should know otherwise.

[AngelofDeath]

lol @ death energy

Wouldn't that suggest that someone who genuinely believed in the benefits in eating meat (as an example) might actually be healthier doing so than if they were try to force themselves to be vegetarian?

Wouldn't that actually produce more positive energy than the latter?

Why is "death energy" funny? Perhaps I didn't word it properly and the phrase sounds silly. Do you think we have an energetic field? Do you think emotions and feelings are as real as so-called physical matter? If so, then the energy created at a violent death would have a presence or an impression left. Slaughter is violent, no way around this. If you don't think so, imagine someone is slaughtering you or a loved one.

I agree with your second statement. This is not a reason to approve of farming animals for food, however.

It is just the phrasing that amuses me. The concern here isn't 'death energy', it is chaotic, disorganized, painful energy. Forgive me, I am somewhat defensive of Death, as I believe Death is the world's scapegoat. I assure you, everything you do involves 'death energy' and every time you eat you are partaking of 'death energy'. That is because life and death are in a constant flux.

The question of traumatic energy is an entirely different matter. Technically no energy is 'created', it is just coloured or tuned to a particular vibration so it must be remembered that the apparently created 'painful energy' is actually a piece of the soul of the entity. It's not just random energy floating around, it's a piece of that person or entity.

I have been slaughtered and tortured in many lives, I assure you it is not a foreign concept to me.

Also, I don't think anything wants to die, typically...

Okay then, chaotic, painful, disorganized energy. It was just my laziness in not explaining what I meant and relying on a simple phrase. And I do realize that nothing is created or destroyed, from the scientific standpoint of this reality. 

It is true that there is death in every act of eating here. I don't see anything "bad" about death—harm is another subject.

You see though, death and harm have been inextricably woven together in this argument. This ties to a larger world-view where death is generally seen to be a negative thing. If people were just torturing and harming animals, there would be no question of the fact that it is obvious cruelty and sadism. It is the presence of death in the equation that actually makes this issue complicated. Were it just a matter of torture, for most people it would be a no-brainer, but because the animals are then killed for consumption (food is typically seen as positive) there is a cognitive dissonance surrounding the whole thing. I believe it is this cognitive dissonance that has created the major separations on this issue.

[AngelofDeath]

Also, I don't think anything wants to die, typically...

Being the Angel of Death, you should know otherwise.

There is a difference between wanting to die and lacking the will to live, my friend. The latter is often mistaken for the former. Although I did say 'typically', so I don't believe it is an absolute.

[AnthroHeart]

Also, I don't think anything wants to die, typically...

Being the Angel of Death, you should know otherwise.

There is a difference between wanting to die and lacking the will to live, my friend. The latter is often mistaken for the former. Although I did say 'typically', so I don't believe it is an absolute.

Well I am a "typical" schizophrenic case, so I guess that makes me typical. I am glad you distinguished the two.

I certainly wouldn't want to be tortured and then slaughtered.

[AngelofDeath]

Also, I don't think anything wants to die, typically...

Being the Angel of Death, you should know otherwise.

There is a difference between wanting to die and lacking the will to live, my friend. The latter is often mistaken for the former. Although I did say 'typically', so I don't believe it is an absolute.

Well I am a "typical" schizophrenic case, so I guess that makes me typical. I am glad you distinguished the two.

I certainly wouldn't want to be tortured and then slaughtered.

It is an important distinction to make to give power to those who simply lack will. Once you realize you don't actually want to die, but rather death is a means to an end you take the first step towards discovering why you fear life. Death is almost always a means to an end for those whom long for it. Some simply become apathetic to their own existence.

[AnthroHeart]

It is an important distinction to make to give power to those who simply lack will. Once you realize you don't actually want to die, but rather death is a means to an end you take the first step towards discovering why you fear life. Death is almost always a means to an end for those whom long for it. Some simply become apathetic to their own existence.

But I don't understand how I can when life is so beautiful (all the densities are incredible). The Law of One philosophy is amazing.
And I have friends who care about my well being.
I don't understand why I don't have full value in life.

[AngelofDeath]

It is an important distinction to make to give power to those who simply lack will. Once you realize you don't actually want to die, but rather death is a means to an end you take the first step towards discovering why you fear life. Death is almost always a means to an end for those whom long for it. Some simply become apathetic to their own existence.

But I don't understand how I can when life is so beautiful (all the densities are incredible). The Law of One philosophy is amazing.
And I have friends who care about my well being.
I don't understand why I don't have full value in life.

It may simply be that you are experiencing some impatience and are overly pre-occupied with future moments rather than the present moment. Looking to the future is something most humans do and I think that is what tends to make death desirable because in it is seen what cannot now be grasped.

The fact of the matter is that humans are changing creatures, we don't always want the same things, so I believe often we get caught in cognitive dissonance with our own desires and this drains us of the will to live because it takes up energy.

[AngelofDeath]

There is a thought-experiment that goes that if you were to place a black bear an equal distance between two equally desirable types of food they would sit there, unable to decide and starve to death. (Obviously the bear would just eat both, but this is an analogy.) I think humans can be like that sometimes.

[AnthroHeart]

It is an important distinction to make to give power to those who simply lack will. Once you realize you don't actually want to die, but rather death is a means to an end you take the first step towards discovering why you fear life. Death is almost always a means to an end for those whom long for it. Some simply become apathetic to their own existence.

But I don't understand how I can when life is so beautiful (all the densities are incredible). The Law of One philosophy is amazing.
And I have friends who care about my well being.
I don't understand why I don't have full value in life.

It may simply be that you are experiencing some impatience and are overly pre-occupied with future moments rather than the present moment. Looking to the future is something most humans do and I think that is what tends to make death desirable because in it is seen what cannot now be grasped.

The fact of the matter is that humans are changing creatures, we don't always want the same things, so I believe often we get caught in cognitive dissonance with our own desires and this drains us of the will to live because it takes up energy.

I know. I'm getting old.

[AngelofDeath]

It is an important distinction to make to give power to those who simply lack will. Once you realize you don't actually want to die, but rather death is a means to an end you take the first step towards discovering why you fear life. Death is almost always a means to an end for those whom long for it. Some simply become apathetic to their own existence.

But I don't understand how I can when life is so beautiful (all the densities are incredible). The Law of One philosophy is amazing.
And I have friends who care about my well being.
I don't understand why I don't have full value in life.

It may simply be that you are experiencing some impatience and are overly pre-occupied with future moments rather than the present moment. Looking to the future is something most humans do and I think that is what tends to make death desirable because in it is seen what cannot now be grasped.

The fact of the matter is that humans are changing creatures, we don't always want the same things, so I believe often we get caught in cognitive dissonance with our own desires and this drains us of the will to live because it takes up energy.

I know. I'm getting old.

You're not that old, I don't think. We're all always getting older.