Integrity, the basis of being whole and thus holy´, is based on being consistent in all your actions and beliefs, and thus principled rather than opportunistic. If you want to be holy your have to be consistent, and thus have integrity.
If meat is natural, then anthropologists tells us, by the same measure, that cannabalism, rape, murder, and so on, all the worst elements of human nature, are equally ‘natural’. And so ‘natural’ is no measure of anything. We regulate the worst in human nature, providing disincentives including death penalties, for breaches of these regulations. Just as we all benefit from the regulation of our natures, we would also benefit from regulations providing deterrents against the consumption of animal products.
Unless you intend being consistent and allowing that we ‘can’ eat other people’s babies, as there are definitely historical precedents for doing so, that cannabalism is a part of our evolutionary development and human nature, you cannot have recourse to the argument that our ancestors exploited their unequal power over animals opportunistically, that it is ‘natural’, and that this somehow equates to ‘good’ and ‘desireable’, and that therefore we ‘should’ continue abusing our position of power over animals by factory-farming them, eating their eggs, milk, and bodies, using their skins and bones, and using them for dubious ‘experiments’ and ‘product testing’. For this argument, followed consistently, would allow me to eat you, if I had the opportunity, or to steal your children to conduct experiments on them.
Opportunism is the scientific term for ‘evil’. Limiting ‘evil’ to our relationships with other non-human species does not define us as any less ‘evil’.
And to say that the human organism has evolved ‘to’ consume animal products is also a non-argument.There is no ‘to’ or ‘for’ in evolution. 0-2-0-4 (band name?). Nothing evolves ‘to’ serve some purpose,’to’ provide some function, ‘to’ supply its host organism with some benefit, or to fill some niche. Evolution has no intentions, no plan, no purpose, and no designs. It is a random process of negative selection. It requires no design-er, intelligent or otherwise. Read TROONATNOOR if you still labour under such illusions, delusions, and misunderstandings. Most people assume they understand the nature of evolution, but even some of the most educated and ‘scientific’ of people, including famous television presenters, clearly do NOT comprehend the nature of evolution. And they are miles away from a comprehension of TROONATNOOR.
Oh, and if you identify the guy in front of you in line for the airport security control as a senior member of some terrorist organisation, let alone Bin Laden himself, or George Bush Snr or Jnr, then you can be sure that your flight is not going to blow up. They send their dupes economy with the bombs, on other flights. These fuckers enjoy heaven on earth at the expense of their puppet followers, who can only hope that they have not been lied to about the eternal joys they have been promised, as bribe to keep them subservient and producing value for the beneficiary classes over lives of sweat, toil, dis-satisfaction, and suffering. All the religious authorities took their lead from Plato, and made their own ´Republics´based on lies and censorship. They are big fat phony hypocrites. Call me Holden Caulfied , but J.D Salinger was right when he identified all the ´phony´people and the crap they spout. And I will not apologise for getting angry at all these fuckers and their bullshit. We can do better. That means in my books that we should try. ´Catcher in the Rye´was not banned because of a few swear words. It was banned because it spoke too many important truths.
Now tell me what strikes you about these questions. Don´t you believe in Santa Claus / fairies /invisible pink elephants / pixies / smurfs / leprechauns / honest politicians / elves? ´
Now compare it to ´Don´t you believe in God´?
What is the difference?
Which one tends to be accepted as a legitimately formed question? Asking someone ´Don´t you believe in God´is a statement in disguise. It assumes this God exists, and the only question is whether or not you are sane and believe in this god. It is like asking you `Don´t you believe in trees / sunlight / water / dirt / cats´etc. So do not answer it. It is a trick question. If you ask someone ´Don´t you believe in cats´you are really questioning their sanity. You are taking for granted that cats exist. The question is meant to test the person´s grip on reality. If they don´t believe in cats, which we ´know´exist, then they have some problem with their perceptions. They have lost their grip on reality!
Reply : If you are asking me whether I am a theist or not, then the answer is that´ I am not a theist ´. Never say you are an a-theist, as the meaning of the word has become corrupted in the popular language culture. A means not. So originally a-theist meant someone who is not a theist. It is really important you understand the subtleties of what I am saying. Read TROONATNOOR and you won´t miss such subtleties in future.
And don´t donate to Catholic charities. Their aim is not to eliminate inequality, poverty, and suffering. They love these things, as they promote humility, insecurity, and reproduction of the sources of the benefits the beneficiary classes, including the priest classes, enjoy. Ask Mother Theresa´s former co-workers. Her goal was not to eliminate suffering and poverty. She saw poverty as good and desireable. It humbled people. Brought them closer to the message of the Bible. Remember it is the meek who shall inherit the earth (after the beneficiaries have stripped it bare of any value or comfort). Poor people have only one consolation or comfort. Children. It is the only impulse or desire they can satisfy. That they have nothing to offer these kids doesn´t hamper their poor parents from satisfying their own selfish desires to have them. Increase the supply of labour, reduce its scarcity, and what employer will ever need to pay anything close to a decent living wage? I explain this further in TROONATNOOR.
And ask yourself. Why is it that the organisation which claims to be the most ethical and moral of all institutions, The Vatican and Catholic pagan cult, as Plato´s ´model of heaven on earth´, decades after all other banks which make no such claims to piety and morality, and even the most opportunism-based nations, have all introduced strict controls against money laundering, has the Vatican only begun talking about taking measures to limit such illegal activities. Remember the money laundered comes from the illegal drugs industries, prostitution, child pornography, smuggling, tax evasion, and so on. Phonies? Fuckers?
I have been working on my songs and writing day and night, and sleeping lighter than usual. This means I remember my dreams as I wake during the night and in the morning. And this provides one of the clearest proofs of our lack of free will. As Hume and Freud remind us, our conscious minds are merely the sense organs for the thoughts that are produced in the unconscious. Now think about your dreams. How many of them are nice? How many are horrible, discomforting, irritating, stressful, and so on? But for the most part we are mere specators, experiencing things we would not chose to, and which we have no control over. If we possessed a free will we should at least be able to chose what we experience in our own minds, in our dreams, which are completely free of all the determinants and laws of reality. We should be able to produce the virtual reality we desire, as it all happens inside our brains. If we had any free will at all. Even our dreams are produced by our unconscious. We are merely the spectators. We are merely the puppets. Our unconscious is the puppet master, interacting with the other inter-determining factors in the environment.
Of course in latent dreaming we have some control over our actions, however our motives determine what we desire, and hence our wills as such are determined. No free will anywhere to be found. Ask Mohammed. Read the Koran. Read the Old Testament. Read TROONATNOOR volumes one and two, and of course volume three RELIGION. You will be surprised and have the chance to become more enlightened than any other people in history.
Consider this: we confuse our deliberate structuring of the ideas our conscious minds perceive in the form of symbols, a.k.a ´language´ re: semiotics (which is why Nietzsche is such a brilliant philosopher, to quote the man himself ), with the deliberate construction of those actual thoughts. Before I read Nietzsche and even Penrose I considered language the ´trickster´when it came to our illusions of free will, and of actually generating our wills, and our thoughts. But Nietzsche´s semiotics and Freud´s illuminating arguments gave me a bit more precision. And so consider that while you may, like me, agonise over the way you express your thoughts, those actual thoughts are not of your chosing. All you deliberately chose is the form of expression you adopt to express them, to yourself, and to others. All you chose is the language and symbol formulations you adapt to express them. Read more, of course, in my TROONATNOOR books.
Woke up this morning thinking about that wise old man Santa Claus. Do you think he was right about women? I guess the currency of motivation, and hence evolution, is pleasure. It is just a question of what you imagine will bring, and/or has brought, you pleasure. You will exchange money, goods, and services for these things, based on what you have to offer, and what you are after. So I am not being sexist or mean or unfair in anyway. But it did give me a laugh, thinking about Santa walking around in public in Christmas defining all the women around him, and them smiling back in return. Or maybe they just weren´t listening. Anyway, their are many forms of that trade, and most of them do not involve sex per se, although ultimately they are motivated by that basic, fundamental, evolution driving desire, and the other more quiet, though no less sensual desire on the part of women to enjoy the bliss of the company of gorgeous babies and children.