More Positive but Less Harvestable

[Monica]

I will go with the Buddha here and take the Middle Path.

That reminds me of what I hear a lot: "Everything is ok in moderation." But one person's idea of the 'middle path' or 'moderation' might be considered extreme to another. I've been told I was 'extremist' just for not eating meat or junk food. The 'middle' fluctuates depending on what the polar opposites are, in any given situation.

Oh no! lol. Well I'm glad that finally got cleared up!

Yeah me too!

Veganism is a lifestyle behavior; zealotry is a mental framework for lifestyle behavior. Veganism is the program; zealotry is the operating system. The dominant vibration is the operating system. It doesn't matter how GREAT the program is, if the operating system is incapable of running the program as intended.

OK, interesting analogy.

I see a lot of "lightworkers" desperately trying to get people to accept a new program, and feeling frustrated when it doesn't take, or when it becomes highly distorted. I mean... if that is their supposed "life mission" then why would the Universe set them up to fail? :-/ No, the problem is that the new program won't run correctly on the old operating system.

I would invite my well-intentioned brothers and sisters consider setting aside their causes for a short while, and join together in seeing what we can do to get the new operating system up and running before "time" runs out on 3D. Just a suggestion, of course.

We're already doing that, with Kangen Water. I've witnessed many people just naturally start making changes on their own, after drinking the water for awhile. It's uncanny. Of course, they do have to be willing to drink the water. If they aren't willing to do that, then we move on. But there are plenty of people out there who won't change their diets or open their minds, but they are willing to just drink a different water, being that they drink water anyway. So it's not a major change for them. Yet it facilitates major change, almost effortlessly. It's wondrous to behold! It's like there's a quiet revolution going on, one person at a time, who in turn is affecting many others.

[Remember that scene in Matrix:Revolutions where the machines stop attacking, and are floating around Zion waiting for Neo to negotiate a deal with the Mainframe? I think that there will be a point in the transition from 3D to 4D that is kind of like that. A point where everybody stops fighting each other, even the activists, and focuses on http://things we can all agree on. I, of course, could be wrong.]

That would be nice. But we can't just wait for that to happen. We have to start someplace, within our own sphere if influence.

The only reason I keep using vegetarianism/veganism as an example is because it is generally (not always) tied to a philosophical principle of harmlessness. So I think it is especially poignant when somebody who THINKS they are being harmless, is actually causing great harm. This occurs because they have elevated a philosophical principle to an absolutist doctrine.

I disagree with this premise. Firstly, people become vegetarians for many reasons. Animal rights is just one of them, and if anything, I'd say most people are vegetarians for health reasons, not because of the animals. More of the vegans do it because of the animals, but middle-of-the-road lacto-ovo vegetarians generally do it for health reasons.

Secondly, a vegan diet doesn't case 'great harm.' Zealotry causes great harm.

Yes, I see your point...But I can think of better examples for the simple reason that violence and veganism are rarely tied together. Obviously, we all know about the extremist animals rights groups who use violence to rescue lab rats. Those are what I'd call extremists. And there are a few cases in which parents don't feed their children properly, like the example you gave. But those are very rare and, as I explained in my previous post, they weren't even vegans in that particular case, and were obviously crazy.

There is a great deal more positive happening as a result of vegetarianism and even veganism. People are getting healed of chronic diseases in droves. Not to mention reducing animal cruelty and environmental impact. There is astronomically more positive than negative, overall. Thus, I think it's misleading and even a disservice to use something that is so overwhelmingly positive (vegetarianism) as an example of zealotry, when zealotry is so comparatively rare in this area, and there are so many better examples of zealotry.

There are far more examples of zealotry found in the Abrahamic religions, such as terrorists, people supporting wars on a grand scale, 'pro-lifers' who blow up abortion clinics in the name of 'life' etc. In those cases, the ratio of negative to positive is far greater than it is with a veg. diet. Pointing out the incongruencies of people proclaiming to be followers of the Prince of Peace, yet who support war, is far more effective than pointing out the handful of vegan fanatics, for the simple reason that the former involves many, many millions of people who have the political clout to influence new wars. A handful of vegan fanatics is a miniscule problem, by comparison.

It isn't a personal attack on you. That just sometimes happens to be the fallout when somebody identifies so strongly with a cause.

Thank you. I still contend that it's not the identification with a cause that is at fault; it's the approach to working for that cause. I identify very strongly with the causes of ending wars and ending the meat industry, as well as several other causes. My identification with those causes might be every bit as strong as the peace activist or vegan fanatic, but I am choosing to work for those causes in completely different ways.

I see. So if you go back and substitute "fanatic" for "zealot" in my posts, you might get a different read from them.

ZEALOT = FANATIC

fa·nat·ic   
–noun
1.
a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

The terms are pretty much synonymous, with zealot being the stronger. Key word in the above definition is uncritical. It is the being uncritical that is dangerous. However, meat-eaters often accuse vegetarians of being fanatics, not because they're being uncritical, but simply because they feel strongly about the issue.

Speaking for myself, I have been conscientiously critical and have spent many years investigating diet, so I cannot be said to be a fanatic. Yet meat-eaters have called me that before.

The point you seem to be missing is that it is the zealotry/fanaticism that caused them to implement some WILDLY distorted view of veganism, as you mentioned. Somewhere along the way, the insane person encountered a vegan, who themselves may have been so overzealous in their mission to convert others to their cause, that they OVERLOOKED the possibility that their new convert did not UNDERSTAND how to implement veganism in a healthy way. Ergo, unintended consequences, and the Law of Responsibility.

Sure. But that can happen with anything.

When said insane people wander the earth looking for something to believe in, they don't generally run into people like you or me who would offer a balanced view. (Or God forbid somebody who encourages them to trust in their own innate wisdom to discern truth :idea: )They run into other insane people, who believe it is their "God-given mission" in life to preach from the pulpits, whether it be veganism or anything else.

Yup

When news journalists need to get an angle on their story, they too, will go for the extremist view, and then try to pass that off as the norm.

Yup. Which is why I don't like to validate them by using those inflated stories as examples. They're often exaggerated or even inaccurate.

Doesn't that ruffle your feathers?

Sure. But I don't read or watch the news much, so it isn't really an issue for me.

What if you learned of a new Kangen water dealer in your area who was spreading all manner of distortion about what it is and how it works? What if they put up a website making claims that, not only can people live off of Kangen water alone, but that it will cure EVERY disease, and REVERSE the aging process? Would you just leave it be? Or..?

Ha, that has already happened! And the opposite too: Some 'chemistry professor' who was obviously paid by quackwatch.com or the FDA set up a website and paid a lot to get in the #1 slot on google search. He claimed to be an 'expert' and that our water was 'snake oil.' His site would have been hilarious, if it weren't for the fact that gullible people who don't know the difference between acid and alkaline, readily believed him, even though he mixed up acid and alkaline and made all sorts of other mistakes as well. No chemistry professor could be that stupid, so it was obviously disinfo.

So of course I do what I can to correct the false info. I wrote a scathing rebuttal to his website. I do my part to educate people.

As for inflated claims of the water 'curing' anything and everything, we haven't had too much trouble with that sort of thing. Maybe because the genuine stories are so powerful, that it isn't necessary to inflate them.

telling people that it is "bad" for them is a demonstrably ineffective strategy for changing their behavior.

Absolutely agree! It's totally useless. Most people aren't willing to change their diet/lifestyle until they're very sick and desperate.

These people need a new operating system. THEN we can talk about which programs to load.

Agreed! Which is what we're working on.

Right! You can pretty much pick any cause out of a hat, and find somebody who is willing to uphold the cause through violent means. Even some animal rights activists, as I'm sure you know.

Yes. And I agree, they do more damage than good. No doubt about it.

Now in every group of people supporting a cause there is an interface, or interaction, between the rational people and the fanatics of the group. Yes?

I suppose, in most cases. But not necessarily. There are always rebels who are out there doing their own thing, and it would be a mistake to associate them with the mainstream group.

What concerns me is when the rational people sort of look the other way and ignore the extremist minority of their own cause. (I am not saying this is you.)

Oh I don't think they look the other way. Reputable groups often issue statements, dissociating themselves from the radical fringe.

What I am suggesting is that, in the grand scheme of things, that small minority of fanatics is actually doing more to depolarize the cause than all of the big multinational conglomerates put together. OK so there is really only one big multinational conglomerate.

Well I don't know what the exact ratio is, but they are definitely destructive.

So the "enemy" is within. It may appear to an activist that they are fighting the system, but what they are actually fighting is the system's reaction to fanatics/zealots within their own group. If there wasn't anybody taking it to the extreme, then there would be no foothold for somebody else to come in and try to make an example out of them.

True. But what do you suggest be done about the zealots? They are loose cannons.

Put another way, I think that if a vegetarian activist took the "should" and the "wrong" out of their message, i.e. scrap that "eating animals is wrong, therefore you shouldn't eat them" they would actually be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE at promoting their cause, and thus contributing to the possibility of "one fine moment of inspiration".

In practical, everyday life, that is exactly what this vegetarian does. I focus on getting people to just drink Kangen Water, and then they tend to be more receptive to other lifestyle changes. And even if they aren't, just drinking the water alone is such a huge, positive thing, that ripples out so much, that I'm not concerned what else they do after that.

But in an online discussion forum, we are discussing philosophical angle to any given action. Philosophically, I would never "scrap the eating animals is wrong." And when asked directly, or when an opportunity presents itself, I am very upfront that eating animals is wrong, because I believe it is, and it would be a disservice and a lie to say otherwise, just as you wouldn't say "war isn't wrong", would you?