>>>> Nieft / Secola <[log in to unmask]> 12/03/96 08:52pm >>>
>>(snip) ... my (un)notions of philosophy, spiritualism, religion (as well as
>>politics, psychology, etc) have come tumbling down pretty hard during
>>the last 7 years. I'm a guy, who for deep-seated reasons was pretty
>>much into intellect stuff, figuring it out, making sense of it all...

Martha:
>No need to explain this away.  I know I'm like this, and from what I'm
>reading here, most of the people on this list are like this.

You missed the point. I -was- like that, primarily.

>> (snip)  I end up realizing that the only reason we are here is because
>>we are alive.

>??? You've lost me here.

There is no meaning beyond the ones we make up. I prefer to life from the
inside out, not the outside in (i.e. give up meaning for experience).
Further, I don't expect others to be bound to my "conclusion".

>>Moral codes are useful or not, but they aren't Right or Wrong.

>I don't disagree with this.

Most people don't and that's fine fine fine (until they start shooting me,
or blasting me on veg-raw:) for not living up to their version of Right and
Wrong...) So I quess I do beleive in a morality: "to each his/her own" but
it seems to come from my bone marrow, not my cerebral cortex... he said
instinctively ;)

>>Thinking of it in more traditional philosophical terms, I am an extreme
>>materialist.  Life is a collection of specially organised molecules which
>>eventually lose their organisation.

>This I don't buy.  I believe we are much more than physical matter.

We may be. Who knows? If, when I die, I continue to exist in some
self-conscious form, it'll be the wildest moment of my life...er, death.
If, when _you_ die, there is nothing but composting happening, it'll be the
wildest moment of your life...er, death, but you won't really experience
it, you just be off, like an old-fashion TV, the tunnel of light going
farther and farther until it blips out completely.

>>There is no "meaning" to nature or existence, but that isn't to say it isn't
>>a grand grand event. We can give it all sorts of meaning, but I find
>>those pat meanings/morals as very lame/empty relative to the depth
>>and glory of my sensations and emotions and the connection of it all.
>You sound like sort of a materialistic mystic, if that's not an oxymoron.

A mystic?! Ouch, that stings :) Why isn't physical life enough? Hell, it's
more than enough, way more! What a bargain!!

>>Such selfishness seems to result in kind, gentle, "social", even altruistic
>>behavior. I end up behaving pretty good on most "moral conduct
>>scales"(?)...

>Glad to hear this.    :-)

Maybe I'm lying thru my teeth...:)


>>I still have my neo-cortex, and find it very useful, but it has a price. My
>>thoughts are made-up, perhaps useful, perhaps not, but they are only
>>the stable boy in the manger of experience (gag?!).

>Yeah, gag     :-P       :-)

It's the smell of the donkey shit mostly!

>>And mostly, I don't want to change anyone else's philosophy! Some
>>famous guy, once said that he didn't argue to change the other fellow's
>>mind but to keep them from changing his.

>Me too, usually, except that if I were responsible for saving some
>animals' lives, that would be neat too.

I wish you every luck in your endeavor.

>> I've had the experience where I stop in my tracks and think in a new
>>way--that's a real rush.

>I agree.  I like having my ideas and especially prejudices dashed against
>the stones (ooh, yuck, such a violent metaphor).  But in this case it's not
>just my ideas at stake, but all these creatures whose fates we're
>discussing so cavalierly.

And, if you had your way and saved all the animal's lives, so to speak,
it's also my RAF at stake which is among the foods I am designed for.
Hmmm...I guess we'll just have to slug it out behind the barn :)

>>(snip) ...the "high road" vegetarian arguments are getting pretty stale.

>I'm sorry you feel this way because I'm really grappling with this issue.  I
>feel as if I'm coming to a crossroads and am frozen because I don't know
>which way to go.

Maybe there is no solution to the issue as formulated. So the high road
stuff is getting stale to me. Big wow. I trust your thawing in whatever
direction doesn't need my commentary to be useful.

>>One question for you, Martha: When the NFLer's come on like God's
>>chosen, does that frighten you a bit (as did Zephyr's stuff about death
>>being part of life)?

>1)  I don't have any emotional response to the tree three, but I am
>enjoying all the stir they're causing.
>2)  Why do you think Zephyr stuff frightened me?  Should I have put a
>winky smily after my paragraph about keeping away from him?  I know
>full well that death is part of life.  What I don't like is violence.

Then you don't "like" nature which is full of violence and your efforts to
be "natural" (if that is what you are trying to be) may be frustrating at
best and full of denial and self-contempt at worst. Starting to sound like
Peter here, eh?

I think I said frighten because you said of Zephyr's earlier post that it
was so hostile, and yet you don't find the NFL posts hostile. Anyway,
frighten was the wrong word. Try as I might I can't think of the right
word, though...

>I'll pretend I
>get to pick what questions you ask:
>KN>  Do you know that all throughout nature, there is killing and
>suffering?
>MS>  Yes.
>KN>  Do you like it?
>MS>  No.
>KN>  Do you at least acknowledge the importance of predatory animals in
>the web of life?
>MS>  Yes.
>KN>  Do you want to be prey?
>MS>  No.
>KN>  Do you want to be a predatory animal?
>MS>  No.
>KN>  What if your biological makeup warrants it?
>MS>  Then I would rather find some substitute, like soy, that may not be
>quite as biologically satisfying, but at least I can live with a still
>conscience.
>KN>  What if I told you that acres and acres of formerly wild habitat are
>plowed up and eventually converted to desert for the sake of your stilled
>conscience?
>MS>  Yes, that bothers me.  That is a more compelling argument to me
>than the one about health, or any other I've heard.  But I'm hopeful that if
>Permaculture, edible home landscaping, and other exciting ideas catch
>on, at least no more land will have to be destroyed.  And maybe even
>some can be recovered.  We need to control our population.

The logical conclusion of a deep ecology stance is murder and/or suicide. I
have an instinct against such behavior at present. :)

Here's my version of putting words in your mouth:

KN: Wanna play frisbee?
MS: Sure, but isn't that frisbee made of plastic.
KN: Yes, and unrecyclable plastic, as well. But its the best excuse for
plastic I've ever come across.
MS: OK, but just for a little while, I've gotta get home to see if any new
veg-raw posts came through.
KN: Me too. It's really been cutting into my frisbee time lately.

>>On the other hand, I found Ombodhi's post riviting, gentle, and pretty
>>dang wise for a young buck.
>I always enjoys Ombodhi's posts.  But which one in particular are you
>referring to?

The one that "agreed with me"!!

>>Here's hoping more of those several dozen lurkers post! <tipping a
>>young coconut>
>Here, here, as long as they agree with me    :-)

>>PS--if anyone knew how many times I had to restrain myself from a
>>cheap "eating humans slash oral sex double entandre" they would
>>have no doubt that I am simply an adolecent extra from Wayne's
>>World...but, then again, there's nothing like being immature for making
>>one feel young again :)

>Well, Kirt, since you brought it up, I've been meaning to ask you:
>You often write of the joys of eating RAF.  Does that mean you want to
>take on the whole RAF at once, or just one airman a day over the next
>several years?

I used to be RAF myself (but had to play with myself because I couldn't
reach it to eat myself), but got bumped because my thoughts degenrated to
the point that I couldn't come up with clever retorts to closing jests on
veg-raw posts...

Cheers,
Kirt