(11-20-2011, 09:04 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: I am suggesting, though, that each species has its own mind and makes its own decisions about what's optimal for it. The cattle species, like the plant species discussed in Botany of Desire, has hitched its wagon to humans. For contrast, consider white-tailed deer, which cannot be domesticated.
In the same way that a human victim of violence has chosen those experiences. But that doesn't mean it's ok for an STO entity to participate in that.
(11-20-2011, 09:04 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: I didn't say research on plant-based diets wasn't obvious to me. I said it wasn't obvious to me that eating animals is bad while eating plants is good.
Then I can't help but wonder what you've been researching.
(11-20-2011, 09:04 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:(11-19-2011, 12:32 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: If plants were just as individuated as animals, then why didn't Ra put any restrictions on our consumption of plants?
My belief is that animals that we eat for food are not individuated in the sense that they have not attained third-density consciousness and, when they die, they return to the undifferentiated consciousness of their species. Another possibility would be that Ra didn't consider it bad to eat an individuating entity.
I understand that you believe that, but you seem to arguing the point as though Ra hadn't put any restrictions on animal products. But Ra did put restrictions on animal products, so apparently there is something 'bad' about it, at least if eaten in excess.
Since you seemed to be building a case for justifying the consumption of meat based on the idea that it was the same to eat plants, then my question was: If plants were just as individuated as animals, then why didn't Ra put any restrictions on our consumption of plants?
I will reword it: If there is no difference between eating plants and eating animals, then why did Ra put restrictions on our consumption of 'animal products' but not on plants?
(11-20-2011, 09:04 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Just a guess, but I suspect that turf grass that's all connected to each other is probably one entity, while bunch grass that grows in separate clumps is probably separate entities.
That's pure speculation. There is absolutely no basis for determining that any plant (other than trees) is a self-aware entity, much less how much of a widely spread plant is x number of entities.
What about my strawberry question? For those who are arguing that plants are just as much entities as animals, then would anyone care to explain that?
(11-20-2011, 09:04 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: However, we've been using the term "individuated" to mean attaining third-density consciousness, and in that sense no, I don't think grass is typically individuated, although I do think it would be possible for a human to work with a specific grass plant and start to kindle an individual awareness in it.
I agree. I don't think grass is individuated either. I don't think carrots are either. Or lettuces.
Why, then, are we even talking about plants?
(11-20-2011, 09:04 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:(11-19-2011, 12:32 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Are you suggesting that the normal, everyday events in a plant's life are akin to the torture endured by a cow on a factory farm?
Again with the torture and the factory farm! No, I'm not.
Why, then, are we even talking about plants?
(11-20-2011, 12:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Right. But then the value of physical life is relative to how well it relates to the overall ecosystem. So the argument that "All life is precious" therefore "Harm no living thing" gets tossed out the window when some other living thing is causing harm to our physical bodies, or the overall ecosystem.
This is true. A lot of it is based on judgment, no doubt about it.
We know from Ra that higher-density STS entities routinely use lower 2D critters to do their bidding. So although I do consider 'all life precious' and that includes respecting STS entities, because they have their place too, that doesn't mean I'm going to invite them into my home. I'm cool, they're cool, but just leave me alone, ya know?
What that translates to is that I will do my best to avoid ever killing any critters unnecessarily. I always capture the bee or wasp that occasionally flies into my house, and set it free outside. Do I always do that for cockroaches? No. I confess I don't. Why? Because they are an infestation? Because they carry germs? Because some STS entities may have sent that cockroach? Yes, all of the above. But mostly, because cockroaches are hard to catch, and they just come right back in, whereas that bee just wandered in by accident. Am I putting a judgment on cockroaches? Yes. I admit it. Would I catch the cockroach and gently take it outside if I could? No, because it's invasive and isn't just a single cockroach, but an infestation.
So what do I do? I try to get the root of why my home might have attracted that cockroach. I try to keep it clean, and don't leave food crumbs around that might attract cockroaches.
Then, I talk to the oversoul of the cockroaches. Not an individual roach, because I don't think it can think. But the oversoul can. I offer it a pact. I won't kill them outside or in the garage, if they don't come into my house or get into my washing machine.
It's working rather well, actually.
(11-20-2011, 12:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I referred to this example before: I lived through a beetle outbreak where it seemed the beetles were poised to take over the whole area. I didn't see anybody too concerned about killing those beetles. I didn't see any beetles rights activists, and so on.
It's strictly pragmatism, nothing more. If PETA activists can't even get people to care about furry baby seals (who are killed only for a luxury item, not even for meat), then what hope is there for beetles?
You seem to be implying that animal rights activists are hypocrites. No, it's not that. It's strictly pragmatism.
(11-20-2011, 12:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: This sort of thing makes me wonder when PETA folks get all uppity about killing animals. Wait. You mean just the furry, cute ones? What's that? Oh killing insects is fine? But aren't they animals too? What about a sardine? Oh you don't really care about that? So...
That's not fair. Many PETA people try too hard to save animals that are beyond saving. Personally, I see no point in trying to rescue a single lab rat. Better to spend my efforts trying to educate people about new technologies that make the old lab rat methods obsolete.
PETA people care about a lot of critters that aren't cute and furry. Salamanders, toads, and all sorts of things. It's not fair to say they have a double standard. If anything, they are so overwhelmed because they take on too much, not too little.
(11-20-2011, 12:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I find that when most people speak of "killing animals" they are actually speaking of mammals. I see people who call themselves "vegetarian"... but they eat fish? These people apparently don't know the definition of the word "animal", or worse, don't care.
You're mixing apples and oranges here. I assure you, the people who call themselves 'vegetarian' while eating fish or chicken are NOT PETA people. PETA people all know that the definition of vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat anything that ever had a face. And most real vegetarians get very annoyed when fish-eaters and even chicken-eaters steal our term vegetarian. I know people who think 'meat' means only beef, and as long as they don't eat beef, they're vegetarian. I have politely corrected many, many people on that point over the years. It's a pet peeve among vegetarians.
Please don't lump in the 'no beef' people with the PETA people, who are mostly vegan.
(11-20-2011, 12:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: It is a selective application of principles. I believe that it is a sign of a faulty principle if all manner of exceptions need to be made it order to sustain it. Better to look for a new principle that creates the effect one desires, without having to be hypocritical.
Try this: Would it be hypocritical for a meat-eater to try to end violence to humans? Would it be hypocritical for a meat-eater to try to end war? or champion unborn babies, or human torture victims?
(11-20-2011, 12:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: If intention matters, then it matters in all cases across the board. So you have allowed for those who believe that praying over or giving thanks for their meat to use their INTENTION to clear out any negative effects. I happen to agree with this.
Intention will help raise the vibration of the meat so that it's less harmful for the person eating it. It's inefficient - more efficient to eat something healthier and more vibrant to begin with - but it can be done.
However, it does nothing for the cow.
(11-20-2011, 12:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I don't think anybody is claiming that microbes have individuated. But then again, neither have cows.
How can you be sure about that? Many kids raising calves for 4H grew attached to them as pets, and marveled at how much personality they had. Even more so with pigs.
(11-20-2011, 12:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: If an animal soul's INTENTION was to individuate, I would imagine it would incarnate as a housepet, or a dolphin, or something like that.
Or a cow...to trigger some compassion in humans.
Dolphins are 3D.
(11-20-2011, 12:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I dunno. I am inclined to believe the planet will be just fine in any case. BUT. What if all the bloodshed had something to do with the ability of a neg to break quarantine and/or stay in operation once here?
Exactly! And, in addition to that, the bloodshed kept the overall consciousness of humans down, stuck in orange/yellow, and reduced the harvest?
(11-20-2011, 12:38 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:Bring4th_Monica Wrote:This might suggest that it's something more than the act of violence itself (which of course is already a negative act) but something inherently to do with the blood itself.
I think so. It would make sense from a control/manipulation standpoint. Whenever I see "two sides" that just can't seem to come to a consensus, investigation tends to yield that there is a "third side" benefiting from the conflict.
I have found from experience that the structure of the manipulation can be discerned by paying special attention to what neither side is talking about.
What are you talking about?