Theos-Talk Archives (October 1999 Message tl00345)

> It does not make me "feel good" to recognize that we are designed to eat
> other creatures.  I do expect though that it makes you feel good(even
> superior) to impose your artificial ethic about not eating animal
products(an
> ethical luxury afforded only be modern food processing and distribution)
upon
> the natural order.  Unfortunately, nature will not be impressed and will
> exact a health toll upon those who live in discord with her.  Oneness is
not
> just spiritual abstraction, but is also grounded in the laws of nature.
> It's very simple, you were designed to eat foods which could be eaten raw
> exactly as found in nature.  Picture yourself in the woods having to feed
a
> family and see what you come up with.
> Convince me otherwise with some good science, medicine and logic or you
lose.
>  And, there is nothing wrong with admitting such a loss.  It is even
> spiritually correct.

This is absurd on so many levels as to be close to humorous. "Convince me
otherwise with some good science, medicine and logic or you lose". Lose? You
mean its *either* your point of view or hers? The utter arrogance of
believing that science, medicene, or logic at their current state of
development (barely even a few centuries out of the dark ages) are capable
of explaining larger truths is magnificent.

So you think that these by-products of a few pounds of gray matter sitting
in the head of a minscule dot of organic life on this little pinprick of a
minor planet, and severely constrained by the evidence of a terribly partial
sensory apparatus that organizes perception according to an almost laughably
limited conception of the world, that is only capable of grasping three
dimensions of space and a single, linear dimension of time - you think they
are capable of actually grasping the "laws of nature"? Even funnier, that
arguments about these "laws" can actually be reduced to a boolean either-or
choice between two perspectives?

Its nobody's duty to try to "prove" anything within *your* paradigm of the
world. By the rules of your game, of course you'll always "win" - however,
that doesn't mean you are *correct* it only means that you've created a
self-consistant illusion. Just as by the rules of beings living on a
two-dimensional plane, the third dimension doesn't exist, and according to
all the "science, medicene and logic" created by these beings within the
assumptions of a two dimensional world, absolutely no proof will ever be
found that there is such a thing as a third dimension. And even if a three
dimensional being happened to move through that two-dimensional plane, all
that would be perceived is a series of changing shapes ... the
cross-sections of those beings. Every perception they have will be crunched,
flattened within a conceptual world composed of two dimensions. Any of them
that, for whatever reason, intuit the existance of a third dimension, or
start trying to grasp the implications of a third dimension - and the
complete and utter re-formulation of all sciences and medicene that would be
required if it existed - would of course be called (at best) "mystics", and
(at the worst) locked up in psychiatric wards (which in a two-dimension
world would, of course, be nothing but a square on a piece of paper).

Even worse, if those two dimensional creatures were *actually* three
dimensional, but because of a lack of evolutionary development the senses
necessary to perceive three dimensions were dormant - hence constraining
them to believe they were nothing but one of their own cross-sections and
the world only two-dimensional, and one of those "mystics", through
meditative techniques, accessed a portion of their awareness that in most
others is quiescent ... that is, first became aware of *themselves* as three
dimensional beings, and because of that, began to be capable of perceiving
and conceiving a three dimensional world - and they actually made the
mistake of trying to *convey* this to the limited beings ... they too would
likely get the same response - "prove it or admit defeat".

Certainly only an analogy - but say someone *wanted* to prove a point to you
according to even your limited standard of  "science, medicene or logic" -
are you even vaugely capable of understanding current neurophysiology?
Cellular biology? The current state of the art of physics - superstring
theory - has arrived at a conception of the universe that postulates strings
that move in precisely 10 and 26 dimensions, and from who's vibratory states
can be derived not only Einstein's formulations linking space, time, mass
and energy, but the entire family of categories of sub-atomic particles
defined by (and in many cases experiementally found) the current Standard
Model of quantum mechanics. Do you know who Witten is? Have you worked
through Riemann's geometry? Can you manipulate the Euler Beta function? Do
you even know why you would need to before you could even begin to
understand the expanation you are demanding?

No, I suspect what you are really saying is that you want someone to try to
explain a relatively universal principle within the confines of your
extremely partial knowledge of the current state of the extremely limited
sciences of the human world. And that if someone *can't*, they should admit
that they are "wrong" because it is "spiritually correct" to do so. Do you
grasp how *humorous* this is? Are you willing to admit that *your* demands
are absurd? That *you* are wrong to even frame the question as you do? After
all - won't it be "spiritually correct" for you to do so? -

Tee Hee, -JRC