Confederation and meat consumption
02-15-2018, 05:10 PM,
RE: Confederation and meat consumption
Quote:Thanks for expanding on your thinking, Jade. I agree that this is about integrating male and female energies, and I also think you are a good advocate for those female energies (my recommendation wasn't intended to imply you didn't have sympathy for carnivores; only that sympathy is generally helpful to communication). I was not trying to argue that folks fighting for justice should not be strident, only that Q'uo's position seemed to be more "yeah, this is going to happen" and less "you must be strident in your advocacy". It seemed more recognition than approval, in other words.

Well, I do suppose we read the Q'uo quote a bit differently then - not that Q'uo is necessarily encouraging stridency, but saying that sometimes it is necessary, which is a part of the "remedial work of a fairly significant nature" that Q'uo is talking about. I believe, specifically, they are talking about orange ray issues (remedial), and of course yellow ray. But so much of this discussion has to do with power over others and our relationship to second density/the orange ray sphere, which is very distorted.

I think my initial bristling and perception of your criticism came from using the word "militant" to describe people advocating for animals - this is such a strange misnomer that I have never understood. The whole idea behind speaking out against animal agriculture is because vegans want to stop systemic violence. Sure, I have seen plenty of vegans who are beyond angry, and definitely want some sort of "retaliation" - but I honestly see many more people who are angry about trophy hunting or eating dogs who insist upon violent retribution - vegans do not get as angry about these things as omnivores! I also see way more people who make comments like "That pig is for eatin'" on pictures of animals at sanctuaries. I've also personally had multiple truck drivers threaten to run me over with their truck since I protest outside of a slaughterhouse. Anyway, I appreciate you allowing me to articulate my thoughts more, and elevating the conversation a bit. I know you were referring to people on both sides as being "militant", but the cliche of "militant vegan" is so prominent, and you were speaking directly to Diana, so I took it personally. I haven't perceived militancy in this thread by anyone, really, but know I have (often!) been perceived that way.

I've had a lot of catalyst here, but one of the most interesting things I am learning is about emotions, which are also a part of the second density body, and how little they themselves are understood, by all of us. I've misunderstood why I've been told that posting pictures is emotional, because to me, I am just posting something factual and true. But then upon further contemplation, I realize that these two things are not so separate: A picture of a pig hanging from its ankle is a fact, and an image, and it is directly tied to an emotion. This is something that I have tried to explore in this conversation but haven't articulated well. A picture of someone cutting up a tomato doesn't elicit such emotions - except maybe hunger. Seeing a pig hung up by its ankle does not elicit hunger (in most people), and instead elicits a much more complicated series of emotions. I'm not posting these pictures to manipulate people's emotions, because honestly, anyone could have any series of emotions based upon an image experienced. It makes me think of this Ra quote:

Quote:[33.8]It is completely true to the best of our knowledge that the orientation or polarization of the mind/body/spirit complex is cause of the perceptions generated by each entity. Thus a scene may be observed in your grocery store. The entity ahead of self may be without sufficient funds. One entity may then take this opportunity to steal. Another may take this opportunity to feel itself a failure. Another may unconcernedly remove the least necessary items, pay for what it can, and go about its business. The one behind the self, observing, may feel compassion, may feel an insult because of standing next to a poverty-stricken person, may feel generosity, may feel indifference.

So I just extrapolate based upon this. "Thus a scene may be observed in your slaughterhouse..." Everyone will have a wide range of reactions. Currently, personally, when I see images of an animal shackled as such, or crammed into a slaughter truck, what I perceive as my overwhelming compassion for their situation makes me feel much more motivated to speak on their behalf, because they are so obviously objectified and subjected to extreme circumstances that would not be allowed to happen to 99% of the species of second density animal population without a huge uproar. We do this to chickens, but not cardinals. We do this to cows, but not horses. We do this to pigs, but not dogs. We do this to goats, but not giraffes. Why? I just want people to think about these things. If people don't want to think about these things, they could try to avoid threads with "meat consumption" in the title. Wink
There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Bring4th_Jade's post:
Nía, rva_jeremy, xise
02-15-2018, 06:32 PM,
RE: Confederation and meat consumption
xise, I think you and I have similar approaches--we can recognize a valid moral argument without perceiving it as a personal attack.  I was basically vegan growing up, so I don't feel that vegetarianism is alien or threatening me.  

Now on other issues I feel I have a harder time maintaining that attitude, and it usually is because I feel particularly vulnerable. Discussions of sexism come to mind, because the position I take has a direct impact on the dignity of the other party. It feels like you can't experiment with ideas as easily because there is so much judgment going on. I mean I think I do it better than many and I still get denounced regularly, even though we actually agree on substantive policy or philosophy matters.

This may sound insulting to some, but I don't think people examine the grounds for their beliefs very often. So when somebody is curious about those grounds, it's taken as skepticism of the entire position rather than curiosity of how a person constructed that belief. In many cases I think a lot of people come to their beliefs in a non-intellectual manner, so this is understandable, but you'd think they'd welcome the opportunity to understand their own position better!

So yeah, still working on those yellow and orange issues over here.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like rva_jeremy's post:
Louisabell, xise
02-16-2018, 10:48 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-16-2018, 11:03 AM by rva_jeremy.)
RE: Confederation and meat consumption
Jade Wrote:Well, I do suppose we read the Q'uo quote a bit differently then - not that Q'uo is necessarily encouraging stridency, but saying that sometimes it is necessary, which is a part of the "remedial work of a fairly significant nature" that Q'uo is talking about.

Thank you, I think I needed you to call this out for me. I have a different concept of Q'uo's message now.

With respect to the issue of militancy I brought up earlier, I am referencing Eisenstein's "The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible", specifically this passage from this chapter which had a very significant impact on my activist thinking. And keep in mind--this is something I'm working with myself on, not necessarily something you were evincing as much as reflecting to me based on my own issues:

Quote:The activist Susan Livingston wrote me about a proposal she had written for an Occupy group at Caltech opposing its biofuels contract with BP. She said, “It came because I was troubled by the militant attitude of some of the folks at the teach-in. I didn’t see the care I’d like for the community of the conflict—the multitude of low-level bureaucrats, small stockholders, and franchise owners whose livelihoods depend on BP. What are they—collateral damage? And especially after seeing The Drilling Fields about the human and environmental devastation in Nigeria at the hands of Shell, I’m not real fond of singling out BP in response to the resentments of some privileged students who want to have their cake and eat it, too. But we’ve got to start somewhere, and with privilege comes the capacity to mount an effective campaign of resistance.”

In this comment, Susan is drawing a key connection between privilege and militancy. Militancy, the mentality of war, always involves collateral damage. Something must always be sacrificed for the Cause. The sacrifice of others (the “community of the conflict”) is also the defining mentality of elitism: for whatever reason, those others are less important than me, my class, my cause. The privileged are always sacrificing others for their (the others’) own good. If they sometimes sacrifice themselves too, that doesn’t mitigate their elitism.

This is not to say that the oil companies should be allowed to continue what they are doing in order to preserve the livelihoods of filling-station owners. It is just that everyone needs to be seen and considered, not written off. Militants think that giving up the fight means letting the bad guys have their way. If the world were indeed divided into good guys and bad guys, that might be true, but despite what the movies tell us, the world is not thus divided. Alternatives to fighting, then, can be more powerful and not less in creating change.

This undermines not one ounce of the point you and Q'uo are making, Jade. It simply looks at the issue from another angle. We are sophisticated beings, and we can hold to seemingly contradictory ideas in our head without melting down, can't we? It can at once be true that stridency/militancy is necessary, and at the same time, just because it is necessary doesn't mean that it's always appropriate, that it's the single solution to the problem.

Furthermore, and this is the point I was really trying to make, the stridency and militancy is going to happen and is happening. Just because it is necessary doesn't mean it's what we are required to contribute in any given setting (and that is not a reflection on you or anybody on this thread; please understand I'm trying to think expansively on this topic). Personally I don't see any need to create more conflict, and when I do I frequently find my own flaws at work.

However, I do see a need to provide the other elements that forceful advocacy does not bring to bear. This is because militancy incurs collateral damage, as the quote says, the same way that an antibiotic may be necessary to repair one's health but it doesn't work without killing a lot of good bacteria, too. And what we need is not to win so much as to achieve a new kind of balance.

The trick is to know when militancy IS necessary, because it's always going to take everybody out of their comfort zone. It is so incredibly difficult to suss out the distinction between something being uncomfortable and something not resonating. I still am working with that wisdom. And it is in that spirit of continuing to balance on this matter that your thoughts are genuinely appreciated, Jade, as bringing out truth within me that I was having trouble reconciling.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like rva_jeremy's post:
Bring4th_Jade, sunnysideup, Surfboard, xise
02-16-2018, 12:32 PM,
RE: Confederation and meat consumption
Thank you for explaining, Jeremy. I agree with you, definitely. I believe we should all strive to be as nonviolent as possible in language and in action, so I have no desire to be "militant" at all. To me, militancy and stridency do not have the same connotations - to me, militant implies "violence" (by force), and strident implies "annoying" (also in a forceful way). I have tried very hard to be as even-keeled and unemotional about this as possible. I know I haven't succeeded 100% but I also do not feel like I have been violent or "militant". Are there places where I have used language or made claims that were "militant"? I certainly haven't insisted angrily that everyone must go vegan, hardly. It makes me wonder if it's just because the subject matter itself is violent, that discussing it makes people feel like the conversation, and those who are participating in the conversation, are violent? I'm trying to figure this out because these threads often shift over to ignoring the issue that I actually want to talk about, and instead, criticizing my/other vegan's delivery of the information they are trying to share. I'm trying to avoid the habit of shooting the messenger that tends to happen to people who bring light to issues that are difficult. The reasons I don't spend my efforts criticizing perceived meanness/militance in posts directed towards me, is because I feel it would just be a distraction to actually listening to what this person is trying to communicate to me, albeit in an imperfect way. Requiring that people achieve some unobtainable perfection of delivery before their views are taken as legitimate doesn't seem very fair to me. Of course, we should absolutely always strive for this perfection, as awareness allows.

I feel like I get a lot of, "Well, here is some advice about how you can make yourself more unified with Creation and appear more loving/accepting" in these discussions, as a bit of a strawman to the actual issue at hand. But at the same time, I fail to see how it is different than, "Well, we could become closer to unity/more loving/accepting by having some restraint from paying for systemic animal slaughter" - which is the actual, physical, tangible violence that is occurring.

I do not feel at war with people who eat meat. I feel like people who eat meat without restraint are at war with the planet. So whether you are implying that I am warring with meat eaters, or I am implying that meat eaters battle with second density - are these points of view militant? Aren't we all buying into the us vs them or them vs them mentality?

Quote:Furthermore, and this is the point I was really trying to make, the stridency and militancy is going to happen and is happening. Just because it is necessary doesn't mean it's what we are required to contribute in any given setting (and that is not a reflection on you or anybody on this thread; please understand I'm trying to think expansively on this topic). Personally I don't see any need to create more conflict, and when I do I frequently find my own flaws at work.

Quote:Furthermore, and this is the point I was really trying to make, the farming and slaughter of second density is going to happen and is happening. Just because it is necessary doesn't mean it's what we are required to contribute in any given setting (and that is not a reflection on you or anybody on this thread; please understand I'm trying to think expansively on this topic). Personally I don't see any need to create more conflict, and when I do I frequently find my own flaws at work.

I don't think our points of view are so different after all. I really appreciate you digging your heels in and working at this with me.
There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Bring4th_Jade's post:
Nía, rva_jeremy, xise
02-16-2018, 01:13 PM,
RE: Confederation and meat consumption
(02-16-2018, 10:48 AM)rva_jeremy Wrote:  The trick is to know when militancy IS necessary, because it's always going to take everybody out of their comfort zone. It is so incredibly difficult to suss out the distinction between something being uncomfortable and something not resonating.  I still am working with that wisdom. And it is in that spirit of continuing to balance on this matter that your thoughts are genuinely appreciated, Jade, as bringing out truth within me that I was having trouble reconciling.

Sometimes our minds go through all sorts of convoluted mazes, fragmentation, and intellectual sidebars to avoid seeing truth and keep ourselves protected from it. I observed this in myself when I saw a counselor many years ago. I have always read prolifically, so I already knew a lot about psychology at that time. Over the several months I saw her, I was familiar with almost every device she was using to break through my defenses. It's not that I didn't consciously want those defenses to break down, but my subconscious mind, which had protected me in my childhood from trauma, was firmly in place doing its job like a loving sentinel.

I could actually feel myself inside veering away from certain things like light bending around mass. I was experiencing my own emotional survival kit, which had successfully helped me as a child.

The way I have found to counteract this protective tendency now, in adulthood when a less extreme version of this survival mechanism kicks in with everyday concerns, is to bravely and openly face myself no matter what. For example, if I find myself blaming another for an event, even if it looks objectively like I was a "victim," I try to push past resentment and find my part in it. In this way I have trained myself to loosen the grip of this particular survival instinct, whose job it is to protect my ego and my mental and emotional stability.

Regarding the conversations here, and especially in this most controversial subject—what to eat—the biggest block, as I see it, to understanding each other (not agreeing with each other) is taking offense. Taking offense is a great message to self. When I feel myself taking offense at anything, it is a signal to me to find my part in the exchange or event. Just as soon as I turn my attention in that direction, I feel the sense of being offended melt away. So being offended is useful to us. It is an opportunity to look at ourselves, not point the finger outward. But if we follow through with the natural tendency to point blame outwardly (only) to that which has ignited the feeling of being offended, the whole subject we are discussing becomes something else—a back-and-forth defensive position with sides. And this parallels exactly what my subconsciousness mind was doing when it was deflecting light from the childhood trauma it was protecting.

I may be simplifying the complexities of communication, but my purpose was to comment on the above challenge of discernment, and hopefully shed a little light on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like Diana's post:
Nía, rva_jeremy, sunnysideup, xise
02-16-2018, 02:42 PM,
RE: Confederation and meat consumption
Jade Wrote:Are there places where I have used language or made claims that were "militant"?

No. I am not singling you out for critique. I really don't seem to be able to stress this enough!

I wish we had an issue we could use as an example for discussing this where tensions were not so high already.

I'm sorry, Jade, but you are rendering service to me by going through all this so I thank you.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like rva_jeremy's post:
Nía, xise
02-16-2018, 02:48 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-16-2018, 02:50 PM by rva_jeremy.)
RE: Confederation and meat consumption
Diana Wrote:Taking offense is a great message to self. When I feel myself taking offense at anything, it is a signal to me to find my part in the exchange or event. Just as soon as I turn my attention in that direction, I feel the sense of being offended melt away. So being offended is useful to us. It is an opportunity to look at ourselves, not point the finger outward. But if we follow through with the natural tendency to point blame outwardly (only) to that which has ignited the feeling of being offended, the whole subject we are discussing becomes something else—a back-and-forth defensive position with sides. And this parallels exactly what my subconsciousness mind was doing when it was deflecting light from the childhood trauma it was protecting.

Whoa, this is next level wisdom. I have always felt that taking offense was a sort of way to take your ball and go home instead of engage. I have avoided at least acting on a sense of offense (with dismal results, it's usually just sublimated). But your suggestion is closer to a true Buddhist or Law of One approach: to treat it as catalyst. And isn't it always the problem with catalyst that it seems like an obstacle when it is really itself the path forward?

I still think this doesn't deal with the core problem of recognizing something as non-resonant (wrong for you) vs. uncomfortable (and therefore right for you). But it certainly is the case that we ought to be more curious about these things, and give our knee-jerk reactions the skepticism they often deserve. After all, is there anything bad for you that you can't learn from?

Thank you for this, Diana.

Jeremy
It is not that love will tell you what to do.
It is that love will tell you how to do it with love.
Q'uo 3/19/06
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like rva_jeremy's post:
Nía, xise
02-16-2018, 06:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-16-2018, 06:08 PM by xise.)
RE: Confederation and meat consumption
Wow, this is like a green and blue ray lovefest. I love it.

Service to Others means Service to All. That includes yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like xise's post:
Louisabell, Nía, rva_jeremy




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)