Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

Note: for the benefit of Elros and anyone else who didn't get it: Post #1219 is unabashed sarcasm.

...

[Monica]

There is the famous Q'uo quote that says "You didn't come here to fix it, you came here to love it" - but that's precisely because you -can't- fix it if you -don't- love it. So first, you must love it, and then your acceptance and love will allow more acceptance and love to replace the old energies. And no, I am not resonating with misery, I am recognizing its existence and resonating with a different reality, so I am doing my best to assist in the transition.

Thank you. You have just offered the best, most concise explanation of that Q'uote ever! That Q'uote is among the most frequently misunderstood, and you just shone the bright light of clarity on what it really means.

...

[Monica]

I've said it before and I will say it again:

a) We create our own reality.

b) We didn't come to fix a broken world.

c) Beings know exactly what they have in store for them prior to incarnating.

d) Resonating with what you perceive to be misery creates more of it, not less.

You have just described the sinkhole of indifference, which is that state before choosing a polarity.

...

[Monica]

The difference between 2nd density and 3rd density is the same factor of difference as between 2nd density and 1st density.

Right. Cows are much more like carrots than they are like humans. OK got it.

...

[anagogy]

I disagree for a myriad of reasons. One being Maldek choosing imprisonment in 2D bodies with their post 3D harvestable consciousness. Do you think it's a chakra thing - like animals don't have the higher chakras in potentiation? How come when Ra says that when one activates each new level of awareness, it is a "springboard" to the next? Do you think animals just "stall out" at the threshhold between 2D and 3D until they incarnate in human form? Why would entities like Gandalf choose to come back into bodies where they can effectively learn no lessons? Is that really possible?

I think there is a tipping point in the orientation of the energy and it is leaning more towards one ray than the other, and that constitutes harvestability.  And I don't understand your question about the cat Gandalf.  The cat incarnates until it has tipped to the point of being individuated enough that it doesn't return to the group consciousness after death, and then reincarnates in a 3rd density body with a brain complex enough for yellow ray work to be done.

What makes a dolphin animal body so much closer to a human's but different than a fish? What makes a elephant so much different than a rat? These are arguably "advanced consciousness" species that coexist on our earth with us... evolving in consciousness and awareness even in animal form.

I don't think any of those creatures you mention are 3rd density.  That is my opinion.  I think that certain animals have brains that are calibrated to different tasks, some involving different degrees of complexity.  And I think they are highly aware in 2nd density ways.  Scientists think they are measuring self awareness with experiments involving mirrors and what not, but honestly, I thing they are just viewing more and more complex behaviors.  The type of self awareness Ra was talking about in my opinion is of the ego variety.  Certainly many animals have self referential behavioral thoughts (in the context of instinctual needs of its bodily complex).  But in my opinion, that is much different than what humans have.

Ra says that some physical 1D earth structures (implying mountains) can reach 3d awareness and radiate love, how is that possible?

I think that is an extremely rare condition.  And its awareness is largely situated nonphysically (there are no such restrictions on awareness in the nonphysical), since it doesn't have a brain to incarnate into.  And I also don't believe it would be able to accomplish any real 3rd density work unless it incarnated in a proper 3rd density life form. Also, Ra barely went into jack detail on those conditions so it's hard to speculate.

I'm not sure the snake analogy is the best. Firstly, there are plenty of humans who have zero interest in rearing their offspring. Secondly, factory farms are producing cows, pigs, and chickens, all which are attached to and rear their young. Have you ever seen an animal mourn losing its young? It's visceral, and it happens even in the wild. Some mothers will stress themselves and starve themselves to death after losing a child. Maternal instincts are hardly a trait that only humans experience.

You again imply the folly of anthropomorphization but that is distinctly how we serve our 2D bretheren. Why can't we compare the two?

Ever seen an animal like a chicken stay in touch with its family its whole life?  The offspring reach a certain age and then it suddenly treats them like strangers.  It's not human like at all. Same goes for the rest of them except in rare circumstances.  They are instinctively programmed to all of the behavior.  But 2nd density isn't "thinking" about any of it, it isn't "considering" any of it, its just doing it, because it has a biological instinctual programming.

What you call mourning, I call instinctual attachment.  They have a biological imperative to preserve their genes.  Nobody actually knows its mental state.  People see behavior and then decide its this or that.  But nobody is getting inside these animals heads and riding around.  So quoting a bunch scientific studies that have come to some given conclusion is no better.  It's all from the outside in.  Science was never designed to study internal consciousness states.  It is beyond its scope, but plenty of people don't want to believe that.

I agree and disagree. There is the famous Q'uo quote that says "You didn't come here to fix it, you came here to love it" - but that's precisely because you -can't- fix it if you -don't- love it. So first, you must love it, and then your acceptance and love will allow more acceptance and love to replace the old energies. And no, I am not resonating with misery, I am recognizing its existence and resonating with a different reality, so I am doing my best to assist in the transition.

If people were actually resonating with well being, they would talk more about well being than they would the disharmony. They would see that all is well.   

[anagogy]

You have just described the sinkhole of indifference, which is that state before choosing a polarity.

I believe what I was describing was "acceptance" which Ra stated was the key to positive polarity.  

Whereas your views appear to me to vacillate frantically between leaning towards acceptance of some of what is, but then vehement rejection of certain parts of what is.  That seems much more like a sinkhole of indifference to me.  If you travel from Los Angeles to Santa Fe, but you keep stopping and turning around midway, and then again stopping and turning around, you never go anywhere.

[Monica]

You have just described the sinkhole of indifference, which is that state before choosing a polarity.

I believe what I was describing was "acceptance" which Ra stated was the key to positive polarity.  

Whereas your views appear to me to vacillate frantically between leaning towards acceptance of some of what is, but then vehement rejection of certain parts of what is.  That seems much more like a sinkhole of indifference to me.  If you travel from Los Angeles to Santa Fe, but you keep stopping and turning around midway, and then again stopping and turning around, you never go anywhere.

This will explain:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...#pid186120 (post #20)

...

[anagogy]

Where does choice come into this for you? On what basis do you make choices?

I choose to always see things in their best light, whatever it is that I look at.  That involves looking at the world through sources eyes.  You can tell when you are looking at the world through sources eyes because you actually don't feel terrible.

I agree. But that is not what is happening here. This is partly semantic, because I could say that you are resonating with misery by consuming it. I don't resonate with misery. But I do have empathy. I am not advanced enough to see a calf torn from its mother, put in a pen so small it can't move, alone for its lifetime, force-fed, plied with antibiotics and growth hormones, crying and in misery, then taken to slaughter where its pitiable life is ended in more cruelty, so humans can have veal, and not think that is unnecessary cruelty. (Let's add here that humans can survive without animal products, whether they want to or not.)

But see, Diana, here's the thing, there will always be something of that nature for you to be sad about.  Your empathy, while admirable in some respects, is misguided.  Not that there is anything wrong with empathy (it has its place), but just the fact that you allow that negative image to dominate your perspective so absolutely.  You focus on the absolute worst condition you can imagine and tell that story over and over again, and many other vegans do the same.  You can't even begin to imagine the infinitude of horrible things out there for you to be aware of that are probably so much worse than this image you've painted of animal suffering.  Suffering on a magnitude that would psychologically destroy any of us if we were to behold it.  I think some of you have this image in your head of a future state of the world where everybody wants the same thing, and none of it is negative.  I'm sorry, but that is not part of this world.  Never gonna happen.  You have to make peace with that.  Or you can be miserable.

That is what I mean by resonating with the misery.  You can keep looking at what you don't want to see, and feel terrible, or you can look somewhere better.  That horrible thing is going to exist in some reality somewhere whether you look at it or not.  Might as well focus on well being instead.  Far more productive.

When you say you are not advanced enough to see this view that all is well, I'm sorry, but I think that's a cop out.  I think it's more that you don't want to let go of your pain.  You're attached to it.  But you can't focus on injustice, and hope to experience justice.  All the universe can give you is more injustice.  Everything is always happening in infinity.  What part of that infinity do you want to experience?  Focus on that if you want to be happy.  Everybody asks for metaphysical answers to hard life questions, but nobody seems to actually want them.  Most people aren't interested in truth, they just want confirmation and validation to justify themselves and convince themselves that their actions weren't futile. Everyone is trying to control the uncontrollable.

[Jade]

I disagree for a myriad of reasons. One being Maldek choosing imprisonment in 2D bodies with their post 3D harvestable consciousness. Do you think it's a chakra thing - like animals don't have the higher chakras in potentiation? How come when Ra says that when one activates each new level of awareness, it is a "springboard" to the next? Do you think animals just "stall out" at the threshhold between 2D and 3D until they incarnate in human form? Why would entities like Gandalf choose to come back into bodies where they can effectively learn no lessons? Is that really possible?

I think there is a tipping point in the orientation of the energy and it is leaning more towards one ray than the other, and that constitutes harvestability.  And I don't understand your question about the cat Gandalf.  The cat incarnates until it has tipped to the point of being individuated enough that it doesn't return to the group consciousness after death, and then reincarnates in a 3rd density body with a brain complex enough for yellow ray work to be done.

Ra says Gandalf was individualized in previous incarnations, but continued to incarnate as a cat. This makes him rare of his species, but rare is again relative.

30.13 Questioner: I was wondering if the male cat, Gandalf, has benefited by that mechanism in some way or by other mechanisms in increasing spiritual potential or understanding.

Ra: I am Ra. We examine this information and find it harmless. The second-density entity, sound vibration Gandalf, is a rare sample of its species due first to previous individualization, secondly due to a great amount of investment in this particular life experience. This is the greatest catalyst in this entity’s progress. It is very unusual, as we have said. However, the experiences of bisexual reproduction which were of the nature of the entity Gandalf were to a small extent of spiritual benefit due to an unusual relationship with another entity, this also what you call a cat. This entity also being of an unusually third-density orientation or investment from previous life experiences. Thus the formation of what could be seen to be recognizably love did exist in this relationship.

So, why would Gandalf (and, another cat that Ra is speaking of - I don't think it's Fairchild, however, because Ra later says Fairchild is not yet harvestable) continue to incarnate as cats if they couldn't continue their third density lessons with great investment in this lifetime as a previously harvested individual?

And this quote says that, because Gandalf and the other cat are 3D, Don, Carla, and Jim could recognize love between them. Wouldn't that say, if we can recognize love being exhibited by a 2D being, that it is of 3D orientation?

What makes a dolphin animal body so much closer to a human's but different than a fish? What makes a elephant so much different than a rat? These are arguably "advanced consciousness" species that coexist on our earth with us... evolving in consciousness and awareness even in animal form.

I don't think any of those creatures you mention are 3rd density.  That is my opinion.  I think that certain animals have brains that are calibrated to different tasks, some involving different degrees of complexity.  And I think they are highly aware in 2nd density ways.  Scientists think they are measuring self awareness with experiments involving mirrors and what not, but honestly, I thing they are just viewing more and more complex behaviors.  The type of self awareness Ra was talking about in my opinion is of the ego variety.  Certainly many animals have self referential behavioral thoughts (in the context of instinctual needs of its bodily complex).  But in my opinion, that is much different than what humans have.

That's fair enough if you don't believe that the aforementioned animals are 3rd density. But, how do you feel the apes that are inhabited by Maldek souls?

Ever seen an animal like a chicken stay in touch with its family its whole life? 

Absolutely!

The offspring reach a certain age and then it suddenly treats them like strangers.

Absolutely not! This is not the case at all. Many animals herd or flock, and they continue to do so with their family units throughout their whole lives. They may "separate" for breeding and offspring-rearing, but there are many, many species which will always recognize their family, and many that -never- separate.

It's not human like at all. Same goes for the rest of them except in rare circumstances.  They are instinctively programmed to all of the behavior.  But 2nd density isn't "thinking" about any of it, it isn't "considering" any of it, its just doing it, because it has a biological instinctual programming.

What you call mourning, I call instinctual attachment.  They have a biological imperative to preserve their genes.  Nobody actually knows its mental state.  People see behavior and then decide its this or that.  But nobody is getting inside these animals heads and riding around.  So quoting a bunch scientific studies that have come some given conclusion is no better.  It's all from the outside in.  Science was never designed to study internal consciousness states.  It is beyond its scope, but plenty of people don't want to believe that.

Could we not say the same thing for humans? Instinctual attachment to our children and whatnot? The addictive flood of dopamine and oxytocin to the brain when a child is born that causes extreme attachment to the parents who are present? A lack of consideration for doing anything outside of its "programming"? My only argument is that we are not so different after all...

[Monica]

You can keep looking at what you don't want to see, and feel terrible, or you can look somewhere better.

You can keep supporting suffering, or you can do your part to quit supporting it.

you can't focus on injustice, and hope to experience justice

You can't ignore injustice and expect it to go away by itself. Had the abolitionists done that, slavery would still be legal.

...

[Monica]

Ra says Gandalf was individualized in previous incarnations, but continued to incarnate as a cat. This makes him rare of his species, but rare is again relative.

Did Ra actually say it was rare? I've seen it happen with several of my dogs and cats, who reincarnated again in our family.

...

[anagogy]

So, why would Gandalf (and, another cat that Ra is speaking of - I don't think it's Fairchild, however, because Ra later says Fairchild is not yet harvestable) continue to incarnate as cats if they couldn't continue their third density lessons with great investment in this lifetime as a previously harvested individual?

And this quote says that, because Gandalf and the other cat are 3D, Don, Carla, and Jim could recognize love between them. Wouldn't that say, if we can recognize love being exhibited by a 2D being, that it is of 3D orientation?

Being of a "3rd density orientation" is different from being "a 3rd density entity". In this case, the animal was 3rd density harvestable, but apparently incarnated as a pet again because it wanted to continue to explore its relationship with them.

That's fair enough if you don't believe that the aforementioned animals are 3rd density. But, how do you feel the apes that are inhabited by Maldek souls?

They are 3rd density souls, but unable to express it in their 2nd density bodies. It doesn't have the right brain for that. That was part of their karmic amelioration. Keep in mind, they had a bunch of 3rd density incarnations before being in those animal bodies. A whole different scenario.

Could we not say the same thing for humans? Instinctual attachment to our children and whatnot? The addictive flood of dopamine and oxytocin to the brain when a child is born that causes extreme attachment to the parents who are present? A lack of consideration for doing anything outside of its "programming"? My only argument is that we are not so different after all...

Sure, we have all that, and then some. Animals just aren't dealing with identity issues. That is a big part of human relationships. Forming identities. We are different from them, and there are similarities. It is an equal mixture of the two.

[Jade]

Ra says Gandalf was individualized in previous incarnations, but continued to incarnate as a cat. This makes him rare of his species, but rare is again relative.

Did Ra actually say it was rare? I've seen it happen with several of my dogs and cats, who reincarnated again in our family.

...

Per the quote...

Ra: I am Ra. We examine this information and find it harmless. The second-density entity, sound vibration Gandalf, is a rare sample of its species due first to previous individualization, secondly due to a great amount of investment in this particular life experience. This is the greatest catalyst in this entity’s progress. It is very unusual, as we have said. However, the experiences of bisexual reproduction which were of the nature of the entity Gandalf were to a small extent of spiritual benefit due to an unusual relationship with another entity, this also what you call a cat. This entity also being of an unusually third-density orientation or investment from previous life experiences. Thus the formation of what could be seen to be recognizably love did exist in this relationship.

My pets have reincarnated with me, too, potentially post individuation, but of course you can't know that part for sure. Either way, what Ra says is metaphysically rare levels of consciousness in 1984 most likely means it's been happening with increasing frequency since.

[Monica]

Related thread:

Bring4th Studies > Spiritual Development & Metaphysical Matters > The Harvest  v > Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D

This explores the mechanism by which a 3D entity reaches that threshold of harvestability, demonstrating the attributes of love (which is a 4D trait, and required for graduation to 4D) in varying amounts throughout 3D.

We might extrapolate from this that the mechanism for graduation to 3D might be similar; ie. awareness is developed over time, throughout 2D, until it reaches that threshold sufficient for harvest. Hence, self-awareness is required to graduate to 3D, yet is found in abundance in later 2D entities.

It also completely annihilates the notion that the boundary of density is the only important demarcation, based on a false assumption that higher 2D entities are more similar to lower 2D entities, because it is easily demonstrated that higher 2D entities actually have far more in common with 3D entities than with lower 2D entities (just as it might be argued that higher 3D entities might have more in common with 4D entities than with early 3D entities).

I submit that the ONLY criteria for deciding whether it's acceptable to knowingly harm other entities is:

1. That they have pain receptors

and/OR

2. That they have some degree of self-awareness

All animals, with the possible exception of mussels, meet #1.

Numerous studies, plus simple observation, shows that animals also meet criteria #2.

(Incidentally, while plants have been shown to have some sort of awareness, there is No research showing that they exhibit individual self-awareness. And, they don't have pain receptors. So for plants, #2 is quite iffy, and #1 doesn't exist at all.)

To assume that it's ok to harm and kill animals based on them still being categorized as 2D is a mistake, in my opinion. It's an assumption based on misunderstanding of key principles in regards to the attributes of the densities.

...

[anagogy]

You can keep supporting suffering, or you can do your part to quit supporting it.

You see in such black and white terms.  I don't experience a great deal of suffering in my experience.  Mostly joy.  

You can't ignore injustice and expect it to go away by itself. Had the abolitionists done that, slavery would still be legal.

The abolitionists focused on experiencing freedom, and that manifested freedom.  To adequately create something, you have to focus away from its absence.

So they actually did ignore injustice.  If they hadn't, they would still be slaves.  Now they didn't turn their attention away from it all at once permanently and forever (that would be difficult to do) and that is why it didn't happen faster, but that is precisely what happened from a manifestation standpoint.

But injustice was the bouncing off place.  They experienced what they didn't want, and then used that as a creative platform for bouncing off to a new manifestation which they then fixated their sights on.  When animal consciousness is ready to do that, it will do the same. It doesn't need somebody to do it for it, and you can't really do that anyway because you don't create their reality.

[Monica]

Ra: I am Ra. We examine this information and find it harmless. The second-density entity, sound vibration Gandalf, is a rare sample of its species due first to previous individualization, secondly due to a great amount of investment in this particular life experience. This is the greatest catalyst in this entity’s progress. It is very unusual, as we have said. However, the experiences of bisexual reproduction which were of the nature of the entity Gandalf were to a small extent of spiritual benefit due to an unusual relationship with another entity, this also what you call a cat. This entity also being of an unusually third-density orientation or investment from previous life experiences. Thus the formation of what could be seen to be recognizably love did exist in this relationship.

My pets have reincarnated with me, too, potentially post individuation, but of course you can't know that part for sure. Either way, what Ra says is metaphysically rare levels of consciousness in 1984 most likely means it's been happening with increasing frequency since.

Ah, ok. I do remember the quote now, but now that I think about it, I wonder how it could have been rare. My first experience of having a cat reincarnate was in 1980. I noticed because that particular cat was so exceptional, compared to the many other cats I loved during my childhood. Maybe she was rare too.

That's a good point that it may have been rare in 1984, but no longer. As shown in the threads I linked in an earlier post, more and more video evidence is surfacing of animals behaving in ways that would have made even the staunchest animal lovers amazed.

I don't think Ra would say it's rare today.

...

[AnthroHeart]

I don't know if Loki my wolfdog is a reincarnate of a dog I owned before. That other dog was really aggressive, and kept growling at me. But Loki is a marshmallow. He sometimes rubs on me. He's as close to 3D, if not already 3D that you can get.

[Monica]

You can keep supporting suffering, or you can do your part to quit supporting it.

You see in such black and white terms.  I don't experience a great deal of suffering in my experience.  Mostly joy.

LOL! Please reread that line. I said nothing about your own experience. I said you can keep supporting suffering. Supporting means you are helping it continue. I am referring to the suffering of others, Not your own suffering. When you buy meat or dairy, you are supporting suffering.

...

[Monica]

The abolitionists focused on experiencing freedom, and that manifested freedom.  To adequately create something, you have to focus away from its absence.

So they actually did ignore injustice.  If they hadn't, they would still be slaves.

Abolitionists weren't slaves; they were the people who worked to free the slaves. They raised awareness, they freed slaves, they smuggled them to safety, they championed them, they even fought for them. That's hardly 'ignoring injustice.' Quite the contrary!

...

[anagogy]

LOL! Please reread that line. I said nothing about your own experience. I said you can keep supporting suffering. Supporting means you are helping it continue. I am referring to the suffering of others, Not your own suffering. When you buy meat or dairy, you are supporting suffering.

I know what you meant Monica.  I just thought it was silly because your whole world seems to revolve around negativity and suffering.  I have better uses of my time.  I don't make up a story in my head when I buy meat and dairy about how it did or did not come to be.  And it doesn't bother me if you think I'm evil and misguided.  It won't stop me from appreciating animal products any less.

I guess I'm just not as evolved as you. Someday though. *crosses fingers*

Oh and the abolitionists never raised awareness? They never pointed out to others that black people were human and were being oppressed?

I didn't say anything of the sort.  That was their bridge focus to the new place.  A common practice for people is to get others to agree with them that they deserve something.  That strengthens their belief.  People usually need validation from others before they can believe in themselves.  A quirk of human psychology.

[Minyatur]

You missed the whole point of that, didn't you Elros Tar-Minyatur? Since you keep insisting that we are trying to 'control' others and 'force them to mimic us' I thought I'd show what those things actually look like.

Then I could ask you to give up all of your ways of being of service. Out of love for the beings that are unlike you and of which you lack an understanding of, I want you to close your heart and move into STS densities. There you are to support a group that does work of darkness, to give them support in their deeds even if you do feel need to do what they do for yourself. To provide guidance and understanding to those who need it and reject not any steps of their path.

You may awaken a side of yourself you've been repressing and doing the actual work I was doing would take you time to re-balance yourself anew. This process is  long but is required for your service to have any value in itself.

I knew it! An STS infiltrator! Quick, someone call the mods!

...

I simply referred selflessness as being doable in various ways.

I did say in various thread that I've probably spent my entire existence in 4D and upper in STS densities. This was not known when I joinned b4th. The very thought of leaving what has always been my home and all those I've considered brothers and sisters does break my heart, so my perspective on polarity can only differ greatly from how it is perceived by someone who has experienced otherwise.

[anagogy]

Abolitionists weren't slaves; they were the people who worked to free the slaves. They raised awareness, they freed slaves, they smuggled them to safety, they championed them, they even fought for them. That's hardly 'ignoring injustice.' Quite the contrary!

Well I'm interested in the slave's perspective (since we are in a "veganism" thread talking about animals). So it's really irrelevant who was who.

You aren't listening. I already said they didn't instantaneously move from "focusing on being slaves" to "focusing on being free".

All that "raising awareness" was just a dog and pony show to move from point A to point B. The real power came from where they focused and believed. But you can tell the story how you like if it makes you feel better.

[Monica]

I know what you meant Monica.  I just thought it was silly because your whole world seems to revolve around negativity and suffering.

LOL!!!! You think you know anything about 'my whole world' based on what I post in a single discussion in a single forum? haha OMG that's too too funny!

I don't make up a story in my head when I buy meat and dairy about how it did or did not come to be.

You don't need to. It's a given that the meat on your plate was an animal who wanted to live, and was most likely tortured. That's a fact so you don't need to make up any stories.

Oh and the abolitionists never raised awareness? They never pointed out to others that black people were human and were being oppressed?

I didn't say anything of the sort.  That was their bridge focus to the new place.

Here is what you said:

The abolitionists focused on experiencing freedom, and that manifested freedom. To adequately create something, you have to focus away from its absence.

So they actually did ignore injustice. If they hadn't, they would still be slaves

Abolitionists weren't slaves; they were the ones who freed the slaves. In order to do that, they had to raise awareness about the injustices. That's what that means.

We are doing the same now, for the higher 2D slaves.

...

[Monica]

Well I'm interested in the slave's perspective (since we are in a "veganism" thread talking about animals).  So it's really irrelevant who was who.

Look, it's ok if you didn't know what the word meant. But you were talking about what we are doing, and we are in the same role as the abolitionists.

You aren't listening.  I already said they didn't instantaneously move from "focusing on being slaves" to "focusing on being free".

Your comment didn't make sense, which is why I clarified the meaning of the word abolitionist.

All that "raising awareness" was just a dog and pony show to move from point A to point B.  The real power came from where they focused and believed.  But you can tell the story how you like if it makes you feel better.

History disagrees with you.

...

[earth_spirit]

-----

[anagogy]

Just out of curiosity Monica, if you had to lay down your understanding of the metaphysics of how someone "creates their own reality" how would you say it worked?  It seems like in one post you will agree with the metaphysics I lay down, and then in another, your perspective completely contradicts it.  It would really help me touch bases with you and understand your logic better.

[Monica]

What do you think lab grown meat? I would be flattered if someone ate my cloned muscle tissue.

Go for it!

...

[Monica]

Just out of curiosity Monica, if you had to lay down your understanding of the metaphysics of how someone "creates their own reality" how would you say it worked?  It seems like in one post you will agree with the metaphysics I lay down, and then in another, your perspective completely contradicts it.  It would really help me touch bases with you and understand your logic better.

In order to understand my views on that, you'd probably have to be familiar with Nassim Haramein's work. I embrace his work and believe that each of us is the Event Horizon, and each of us creates our own reality in the present moment, and each present moment is the result of choices made in previous present moments, within preprogrammed parameters, in conjunction with the collective, consensual reality, meaning that we do indeed affect one another and it's Not just a simple matter of being isolated and creating our own little universe all by ourselves; rather, we live in a holographic reality, with multiple timelines, multiple versions, and each time we make a choice, those multiple timelines shift around, in the possibility/probability vortex.

In the context of this discussion, I think it's inaccurate to say that our actions don't matter because animals created their own reality and they must want it, hence it's ok for us to continue to abuse them. There is a constant interplay betwixt their choices and ours. All is One.

...

[anagogy]

In order to understand my views on that, you'd probably have to be familiar with Nassim Haramein's work. I embrace his work and believe that each of us is the Event Horizon, and each of us creates our own reality in the present moment, and each present moment is the result of choices made in previous present moments, within preprogrammed parameters, in conjunction with the collective, consensual reality, meaning that we do indeed affect one another and it's Not just a simple matter of being isolated and creating our own little universe all by ourselves; rather, we live in a holographic reality, with multiple timelines, multiple versions, and each time we make a choice, those multiple timelines shift around, in the possibility/probability vortex.

In the context of this discussion, I think it's inaccurate to say that our actions don't matter because animals created their own reality and they must want it, hence it's ok for us to continue to abuse them. There is a constant interplay betwixt their choices and ours. All is One.

When I get a free chance, I'll look at Nassim's work, because I'm still having trouble pinning down the "rules" to your metaphysical philosophy, which makes it incredibly difficult make heads or tails of it from a logical standpoint.

[Diana]

But see, Diana, here's the thing, there will always be something of that nature for you to be sad about.  Your empathy, while admirable in some respects, is misguided.  Not that there is anything wrong with empathy (it has its place), but just the fact that you allow that negative image to dominate your perspective so absolutely.  You focus on the absolute worst condition you can imagine and tell that story over and over again, and many other vegans do the same.  You can't even begin to imagine the infinitude of horrible things out there for you to be aware of that are probably so much worse than this image you've painted of animal suffering.  Suffering on a magnitude that would psychologically destroy any of us if we were to behold it.  I think some of you have this image in your head of a future state of the world where everybody wants the same thing, and none of it is negative.  I'm sorry, but that is not part of this world.  Never gonna happen.  You have to make peace with that.  Or you can be miserable.

That is what I mean by resonating with the misery.  You can keep looking at what you don't want to see, and feel terrible, or you can look somewhere better.  That horrible thing is going to exist in some reality somewhere whether you look at it or not.  Might as well focus on well being instead.  Far more productive.

When you say you are not advanced enough to see this view that all is well, I'm sorry, but I think that's a cop out.  I think it's more that you don't want to let go of your pain.  You're attached to it.  But you can't focus on injustice, and hope to experience justice.  All the universe can give you is more injustice.  Everything is always happening in infinity.  What part of that infinity do you want to experience?  Focus on that if you want to be happy.  Everybody asks for metaphysical answers to hard life questions, but nobody seems to actually want them.  Most people aren't interested in truth, they just want confirmation and validation to justify themselves and convince themselves that their actions weren't futile.  Everyone is trying to control the uncontrollable.

I don't even know where to begin in response to this, but I am going to try.

Firstly, you seem to have gathered very little understanding of me and my posts at all. And yet you say I tell my story over and over again. You don't know the first thing about me and how I conduct my life. The above description of me tells me that you have not read my posts at all with any sort of comprehension.

Actually, I have reread your post and decided I am not going to respond further. It's insulting, ignorant (of me and who I am), and judgmental based on projection. Please refrain from any further assessments of my character.