>>> 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...
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.

> (snip)  I end up realizing that the only reason we are here is because
>we are alive.
??? You've lost me here.

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

I don't disagree with this.

>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.

>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.

>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.    :-)

>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       :-)

>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'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.

>(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.

>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.  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.
  Speaking strictly ecologically, it would make sense to me to eat our
niche competitors (like locusts, rabbits, eggs of birds that eat fruit) for
our 5-10% animal products.
>Or does it reaffirm that you have choosen your philosophy/morality
>well? I don't mean for that to sound snotty; indeed, I am very curious
>how their rhapsadies ring in other's ears.
Their ideas strike me as being based on very limited experience.  I hope
that if, eventually, their health begins to suffer, they will be honest about
it.  Their brash style I do not take personally.

>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?

>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?

Cheers,
Martha