Confederation and meat consumption

[Diana]

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.

I think unity100 has boiled it down to common sense. We are here, now. This subject matter and all else must be dealt with while we are here, amidst all this 3rd density beauty and chaos.

The thing is, even if you are using so-called 4th-density thinking, you are still in 3rd density, so your thinking is actually 3rd-density thinking (for you). Sounds silly, but it's not. That's why I have said many times that what we do flows from who we are. If we experience conflicts between how we act in the world and who we see ourselves as or who we want to be, a lack of balance and calm will become evident—and we all experience that.

It's a tough thing to discuss. On the one hand, think of those times when your mind was changed. Was it changed because you feared the other party? Because they shamed you? Because they defeated you? Or because, even if they did all those things, they brought out something true within yourself that you had ignored or hadn't noticed? Was it really they who changed your mind from the outside, or was it you who changed your mind based on what they showed you within yourself?

I'm going to speak for myself only. It is often cited here that vegan posts are trying to change minds. I keep saying this—I am not trying to change anyone's mind at all. I can see how it's interpreted this way. The whole subject is muddy with real or imagined complexities. But what I am really doing is:

1. Trying to bring a different perspective to the table, for the sake of expanded awareness.

2. When I do bring up points, I am not trying to win. But I do try to make myself understood, and I think this is where some of the conflict comes in. For example, trying to get across the simple idea of supply and demand of meat. When this is countered with a post such as, "the animal is already dead so I'm not responsible for its death, and the meat would be wasted so it makes sense to eat it," I then try to make the concept of supply and demand understood. It's easy, I think, for the poster to take this personally given the exchange, but I am not intending that—only to explain the premise of supply and demand within this particular context which is complicated with a lot of emotions.

We don't have to change one another's minds. It simply is not about that at all. We are just having a conversation and we all presumably want our words to be understood. We all have perspectives and aren't we all interested in evolving in one way or another? This requires a bigger and bigger apprehension of the world, all in it, and existence itself. For me personally, I am trying to add a dimension of awareness to these conversations about life forms other than human. If you look back at my posts I have advocated for the lives of insects and "pests" in houses—from the perpsective of bringing my particular awareness of other life forms to the table. Jade has direct knowledge of factory farms, slaughter houses, and the animal abuses therein. Would anyone here really want to nix either Jade's or my contribution? I see no way to bring up the actual cruel, typical slaughter of a pig with a light touch, but to leave it out is remiss. 

Jim Kent mentioned photos of abortions. If a thread were started about killing fetuses and the spiritual implications, would it be okay to ignore what really happens physically—to skirt around the facts and pretend it's something other than what it is (physically)? There is much philosophy to explore, but isn't it best to proceed from fact? How can a subject be canvassed if part of it is ignored because of sensitive feelings or the fear of giving offense? Isn't it a user's choice here whether or not to participate in a thread? We have guidelines in place for managing content. (Caveat: I am making no statements about abortion either way in this example.)

Yeah, I would love it if the planet became vegan and our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom could live their natural lives without human dominance and abuse. But I'm perfectly capable of apprehending that I can't make that happen. In the meantime, I talk about it here where the subject matter has been opened for discussion.