Enlightened Vegetarianism (and more)

[Elok]

Originally posted by Blake
You really have no idea of the power of The Way. I can say that with confidence, because I had no idea of the power of The Way, before I experienced it for myself.

(heavy, asthmatic breathing) "You don't know the POWER of the dark side." Get over yourself. I know a doctrine that can make a scared little kid strap explosives to his little jacket and blow himself to little flaming pea-sized fragments just to kill a few of his enemies with him! It's called radical Islam. Clearly a doctrine that allows people to feel absolute certainty in their own correctness is the right path to follow, right? And setting yourself on fire is an ass-tarded thing to do no matter why you're doing it. I mean, unless by some freak circumstance it's the only way to keep small children from freezing to death, in which case burning to death is a moral imperative. Or something.

Asher: I can, ah, guess who the philosophy prof is , but who's the "kid from Argentina?"

[Lorizael]

Fez.

[Alinestra Covelia]

For some reason I read the title of this thread and thought it referred to lesbians.

I did a double take and looked at it again and it was about vegetables.

...

I mean, wtf!

[Wezil]

Don't the two go together?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Vagitarianism?

[Blake]

I know a doctrine that can make a scared little kid strap explosives to his little jacket and blow himself to little flaming pea-sized fragments just to kill a few of his enemies with him! It's called radical Islam. Clearly a doctrine that allows people to feel absolute certainty in their own correctness is the right path to follow, right?

The difference is, that most people think that the things which radical Islamics do, are wrong.
While most people, think the things I do, are right, or at very least, not wrong. (think of the things I'm most famed for doing)

That DOES make a difference.

Having absolute conviction in doing things, which by chance, most people think are the right things to do, is basically what I think of as a good thing.

You should bear in mind an important saying:
"Actions speak louder than words"

Words are just words. How people react to words, reveals very interesting things about how their mind works.

Words alone can actually communicate nothing. Words work through the medium of experience, different people have difference experiences and thus the words will be received differently.

I can explain clearly with an example.
Lets say I want to explain the flavor of a food, say truffles. If I've tasted truffles, then the flavor of truffles is something which is very real to me, I know what it is and can recognize it. But if I want to explain what truffles taste like to someone who hasn't tasted truffles then I could maybe say something like "A deep earthy flavor", or "Like strong mushrooms" or something, even this may communicate little if the person hasn't eaten mushrooms, or draws a blank at what "earthy" means, or they might think of "earthy" as something different from me, maybe they think "Earthy" means "taste like dirt". I could write a book on the flavor of truffles, I could write out all the chemical compounds which create the flavor. And I'd still be no closer to communicating what truffles taste like!
But if someone else has tasted truffles, I could say "These taste just like truffles!", and they'd pretty much know exactly what I mean. (of course even then the same feelings might not be evoked, maybe I think truffles taste bad and they think truffles taste good...)

Words are just words, and they are put through the matrix of personal experience in order to gain meaning. Words WILL be interrupted differently than intended, there's really no point in sweating too much what you say, and sweating too much about what other people say it. Chances are, they are, and you are, misinterpreting it anyway.

My words here will communicate nothing and this I recognize as a Truth (with a capital T).

Here is how "shared understanding" works. Person A says something, Person B hears it, what is said has some meaning to Person B who proceeds to mull over that, then reply, that reply has some meaning to Person A. If the meaning is much the same as his original meaning, then that means that both A and B probably understand the concept.

Person A: "An elephant has a trunk"
Person B: "An elephant has large wrinkly ears"

This means that both people probably know what an elephant is, then again maybe one of them has only read a description of an elephant, and will, much more quickly, run out of things to say about elephants. Someone who has seen an elephant might for example be able to describe the toenails of an elephant.

Sometimes, words are not "properly" linked to mental images. Maybe someone once saw a large wrinkly grey mammal and didn't know what it was called. later someone describes an elephant and they're like "Holy crap! That thing was an Elephant!" (maybe they thought they were hallucinating ). Or maybe someone describes an elephant to someone who has never seen an elephant. They're like "That sounds fascinating..." but they're never going to see an elephant just from hearing the description, but should they someday see an elephant they'll realize "That things called an elephant!", the person's ability to talk about elephants is now much improved.

This is an important concept and it's very funny to watch people arguing quite literally arguing about different things, it's clearly obvious that one person is talking about one thing, and the other person is talking about something else, and they keep disagreeing! And both seem to think the other person is thinking about the same thing and is disagreeing because they're an idiot! But they're actually both just talking about different things! hahahah!

So moral? I'm not stupid. I'm aware I can communicate nothing. Maybe there's a chance I can convince one or two bystanders to go looking for "elephants", to being open to seeing "elephants", should one present itself in their life. That chance, is more than worth the bother, to me. Even one more person in the world who is willing to do what THEY think is for the greatest good for both themselves and others, is a good thing, to ME.

If I can make nine hundred and ninety nine people disrespect me for being a judgmental jerk, and open just one persons eyes, then I have done a wonderful thing.

[Asher]

Make it stop! Jesus christ, I want to stab out my eyes.

You are easily the smarmiest poster in all of the land. Well done.

[Blake]

Now here's an interesting exercise of "What I say" and "What I hear"

Try and find something I've said which is actually "Don't eat meat" or "You're a bad person for eating meat". Come on, try and find it.

I can state with confidence that I haven't said anything of the sort, that concept doesn't even exist in my mind, I have absolutely no contempt for people who eat meat, I dearly love people who eat meat. I will never ask people to not eat meat.

Yet many people have heard it.

I'm not judging them, so who is?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Blake, what the hell happened to your eyes in your avatar pic?

I'm fairly certain the SMAC engineers had different eyepanels...

[Asher]

Look up what "Enlightened" means, then figure out what the implications are for using it here.

For someone who talks a lot, you don't have a lot to say.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Blake
Yet many people have heard it.

I'm not judging them, so who is?

There is such a thing as "reading between the lines". And I surely read that between your lines too. The thread title alone says "vegetarianism is enlightened". What is non-vegetarianism in your eyes? You didn't say it, but there are but a few possibilities: Either it's enlightened too, in which case the title makes absolutely no point, or it is "not enlightened", in which case you are judging.

Or take this example:

The naive person looks at a piece of meat and thinks:
"The animal is already dead. I do no additional harm by buying the meat. And I'm only one person anyway, my actions don't make a difference to the grand scheme of things". They buy the meat.

The enlightened person looks at a piece of meat and realizes:
"The animal was killed, because there was demand to buy meat. This demand for buying meat, is created by individual people buying meat. There is no faceless collective, it's made entirely of individuals like me. My actions make a small difference and it's through the sum of those small differences that change in society happens". They don't buy the meat.

If you remove all things redundant in these expressions, the residue says: "The naive person buys meat. The enlightened person doesn't buy it." If that is not judging, pray tell, what is? Mind you I don't accuse you to have said that "all people who buy meat, are naive", I am still aware of the difference. You imply it however, and that is what I get by reading between the lines.

I think everyone in this thread got by now, that it is just a troll. Several people fell for it, that's at least some success.

By the way (and biting myself...) - theoretical question - a distant relative you didn't know dies, and your part of the inheritance is his sausage factory. It is a well renown brand, has all infrastructure you need, such as own slaughterhouses and sales departments. It grants you several millions $$ per month, which you could spend on charitable projects at your heart's content.

If you reject the inheritance, you get nothing. What would be your decision?

[BeBMan]

"The enlightened person looks at a piece of meat and realizes:
"The animal was killed, because there was demand to buy meat. This demand for buying meat, is created by individual people buying meat. There is no faceless collective, it's made entirely of individuals like me. My actions make a small difference and it's through the sum of those small differences that change in society happens". They don't buy the meat."

The enlightened person lets die animals in vain

[Provost Harrison]

I think we need to change the hippie alert to a full scale red...

"I find your lack of meat-eating disturbing"...

[Elok]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Blake, what the hell happened to your eyes in your avatar pic?

I'm fairly certain the SMAC engineers had different eyepanels...

It's to show that his engineer is enlightened.

[Heraclitus]

Blake the compassion of Buddhism is fundamentally flawed.

To quote our beloved Chairman:

"What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output."

There is nothing wrong with vegetarianism if it is economically or environmentally justified. But it has no innate value since, the end result of is ultimately the same; inclusion of all of Earths biomass into a God-like hive mind. If you were only to accept the self of group you would achieve true enlightenment.