DNA of Fear
I am the function of fear or should that be the body of fear and DNA is the programme as in the multidude of functions requieed to create this object of consumption.
There are those that would avoid me, given a choice, and an infinite numbers of competitors that I avoid. Some like the sun and heat that indicate not that they are out for my skin.
Gone are the days when I looked forward to being with others of like mind, vegans even, until I became all too aware of the self-serving desire to co-operate to justify a proposed sustainable consumerism. Oblivious to death and destruction that is the cornerstone of their existence by virtue of the illusion that if death does not come from their own hands then they are purer than those that feed them. What and somehow their consciousness is raised and they have a far better killing and sleep than the slaves that make their roads, shelter, clothes oh yes and food with money abundant. Oops! did I drop in a few pennies there, without which these sanctimonious vegans would have to turn their hand to the solid and scavenge, kill or be killed.
Nope I'm not aiming for a sustainable existence that relies on sustainable consumption even if it is fruit fallen and not picked from the trees. That's not for the calories sake that I eat easily digested fruit, though it is a great temptation one I will easily fall for if it were a available. But to grow the tree requires competing for a viable environment which other consumers already have their eye on, or their house, or their family.
Carrying on from Food Availability
The obvious, eat or die brings up the same polarization and both cannot be addressed for what eats must by definition kill in turn and so will either be killed or die as ability to kill diminishes.
So we survive to kill another day, we kill so we can kill more. Is this the basis of conscious choice? That we perform to the DNA programme or refuse Does a plant have choice, does the sun? What of the consciousness of either are they unaware that their existence depends upon the annihilation of other beings, sentient or otherwise. Some plan!
The choice to feel, not just the warm or chilling breezes, the sun and see, the salt and sweetness, but the acquisition of security of consumption the company of other killers afraid to die but not to kill. A partner to justify and proliferate the killing DNA. These feeling generated by the mind of success in achievement and company. So is it a sunny holiday with a friendly killer on the beach of alone in the hills.
Is there really any benefit in one experience over the other? I can't seem to weight them like a speck of sand or a mountain, let alone a planet or solar system. That these experiences can be instilled by electrical impulses to the brain directly, without the holiday implies that it can be done without the killing, but can it be done without consumption.
What is this killing consumption we fight so hard for and call it life when it is only an idea of keeping at bay the fear that each of us may die and loose the ability to choose what to kill and at almost every turn it is really who should die for us to continue to kill. We best not kill the seed of killing but only the fruit, but is that enough or more properly is there enough fruit to consume - obviously not. Back to food availability
Not as in the land but differing tiers, more like terracing. But here I refer to consciousness or turning points in realisation.
First I must clarify that none of the levels are any better, like tomorrow is not better than yesterday just different and seemingly inevitable.
I have this notion of not really wanting much being young and being fed but ere I took my first mouthful and yes not breath I had a taste for for what was to come or what at least what I wanted to come and so my journey on concsious consumer craving grew.
At some point I was all to aware that this warmth had to be obtained and was not just freely given, I had no right to it but the ability to demand it.
Then came the notion that I had to pay for it or work for it and my competitive nature grew. This I was not happy about and hoped to evade by hook or by crook.
It soon became clear that I could not rely for ever on consuming and so death was a way out but before I could reach that end my need for support led to have a family providing not just security in numbers and warmth but justification to make demands.
Slowly as my children grew to emulate all these destructive demands I drew on the knowledge that trying to sustain myself was cruel. The fear that had arose when young and having to cry to get what I wanted just couldn't carry on and there were more people than I could shake a stick at that were crying out to me for warmth and sustenance.
It's clear that I want to reach beyond the need to consume, not just avoid cruelty, but a endless search for fulfilment, the habit of fillking my mind with anything other that the thought of death
Morality is not to be confused with compassion. Although the act of compassion may be the consequence of a moralistic view.
The moral imperative not to consume clearly would amount to non-violence in all matters of survival. Self preservation as a moral being does not include any rights to being on this earth so compassion cannot be for the object of compassion but for the being that consumes.
The non-consumption of an animal, as compassionate as it appears is self compassion in that I wish to cause no harm and practice that in not consuming animals. Logically this would stretch to plants and perversely the conscious body must also be free from harm, so body(self) preservation is relative to other bodies preservation.
The apparent conflict is only a problem when there is no moral view of compassion and that it is for the soul to practice an increasing mediation upon the bodies demands. It is not a concern for the longevity or suffering of any specific other but a general concern that any damage caused to the environment to creature or matter is a denial of morality based on the bodies fear of lack of future comfort and consumption.
Ahimsa is a term meaning 'not to injure'. The word is derived from the Sanskrit root hiṃs – to strike; hiṃsā is injury or harm, a-hiṃsā is the opposite of this, i.e. cause no injury, do no harm. Ahimsa is also referred to as nonviolence, and it applies to all living beings-including all animals-according to many Indian religions . . .
Ancient texts use ahimsa to mean non-injury, a broader concept than non-violence. Non-injury implies not killing others, as well as not hurting others mentally or verbally; it includes avoiding all violent means—including physical violence—anything that injures others.
Where I draw the line is self preservation. I have no intention of causing harm and consequently those creatures that are weaker than me or dumber than me are usually not a threat. However dumb and small I will not be attacked or bitten by mosquitoes and horseflies etc. As it is counterproductive to run and hide then I will swat them if they are within arms reach.
I have noted Buddhists waiting for westerners to come kill the local pests, do they equally wait for others to build walls for themselves to hide from the wild habitat?
Undoubtedly there may be a few people who tolerate pests and prey but even then I wonder if they live next to a hungry tiger or other wanting creatures.
It may also be possible to protect oneself with a cloaking device, some light, sound or smell barrier but that just deprives the hungry from their food.
Self Preservation seems reasonable but when is it recognised. Before the bite, before the flight or during the fight. With the degree of strength in the masses and the manipulation acquired fro intellect, those with a degree of intellect with pre-empt and attack.
Most or many people will not see an impeding call to be violent and consider themselves peaceful and non-violent but whilst a consumer it is only a matter of time, for the space that I dwell in does not belong to me.
However in the ideal mind there can be a moral imperative:
The earliest reference to the idea of non-violence to animals ("pashu-Ahimsa"), apparently in a moral sense, is in the Kapisthala Katha Samhita of the Yajurveda (KapS 31.11), which may have been written in about the 8th century BCE
wikipedia Ahimsa page Jainism section
Pages: 1· 2
Just a short intro to my preferences;
I would like a political democracy that is proportionally representative of those the authority claims to act on behalf of, not the protectionist majority system hailed by the Labour and Conservatives. The religious nutters of the so called 'working class' and the status quo campers.
This is inevitably an intellectual and logical exercise and as such the education/indoctrination received and provided go the heart of this matter. My opinions and preferences are as in Otherwise than Education