The Way It Is-----Life Consumes life.

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi Everyone!

Life lives upon life,as a snake consumeing its own tail.This reality is part of being in the world,it is indeed natures way,but as such, how do we deal with it today.Primary cultures,hunters and gatherers were subject to guilt.This guilt moved them to develop a whole mythology around the hunting,killing and consumption of their fellow creatures.These mythologies told them these creatures,whom they had a deeper respect for than is so of our present mentality,give themselves up to man to become mans life,this is the origin of the sacred animal.They by performing a ritual,inacted their myth,first in honour and gratituted for the sacrafice the animal has done willingly,then to release the animals spirit to return to its heavenly home.This in the hope that the animals will return and continue to sacrafice themselves to be man's life.

Today we contract the killing out,through the division of labour and specilization.We buy our meat wrapped in cellophane and largely forget just what it is we are consumeing,so out of touch are we with the ways of nature.Christianity has delt with this problem of life consumeing life by making nature corrupt,something to be corrected by man.They have made the animal into something less than significant,very close to objects for the use of man.The present state of the world says to us we must renew our respect for the world in which we live,for the animals whom we share this small planet with.We need to rethink our approach to nature,we need to drop the idea that nature is corrupt,we need a new vision,a new mythology,one based on respect,knowledge and reason.What are your views,is this happening anywhere,how do you explain resistence found in society against this renewed relationship to nature.

"Reason is the enemy of faith." Martin Luther :eek:

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,427 • Replies: 59

No top replies

@boagie,

Boagie, this subject is vast and complex and profound.

I was just thinking what about the nature of a woman as such, or the nature of a man as such? I mean is it natural for women to be a feminine home-maker and a bearer of children? And is it natural for a man to be a masculine protecter and a provider?

Would a return to nature imply that men and women take up their former traditional roles?

--Pythagorean

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean,

I am a little puzzled as to what you mean by a return to nature,the reality that life lives upon life remains reality reguardless of any misconceptions on the part of society or the individual.Are you suggesting a delusional approach to life the better? That indeed is where mythology often comes in, but its function is to aline ones psyche with that reality which is nature, ones life becomes an expression of that nature and so justifies itself to itself.

The traditional roles of the male and female were as expressions of the larger reality of nature.Society is an artifical context which insulates us from nature and thus it becomes,what is most immediate to us,and what we must first adapt too.If it is out of line with our biological natures,then you have a situtation of chaos,but nature is still leaned toward as people still fall into these roles,even if it is with bitterness.We as a people adapt to society reguardless of how at odds it might be with nature,our nature,which is ultimately the same.

The frightening thing is that people are utterly out of touch with the realities of life,there dependence upon the earth and the other animals for their life.They believe that the great hunt refers to the supermarket experience.This is one cause of the consumer mentality,an unsubstainable way of life.Christianity does not deal with this and cannot deal with it in future,it is not like an oral tradition which can change with the needs of the times.I am unsure as to whether I have addressed your concerns Pythagorean,biology is biology,it changes slowly,though faster than Christian mythology.

Reason is the enemy of faith." Martin Luther

0 Replies

@boagie,

The view you are describing is hardly universal, it is much more a "western" thing. As you and Pythagorean are both keenly aware, science and philosophy is rapidly adopting the position that a man's life is not objectively more important than any animals.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

The view you are describing is hardly universal, it is much more a "western" thing. As you and Pythagorean are both keenly aware, science and philosophy is rapidly adopting the position that a man's life is not objectively more important than any animals.

Mr Fight the power,

In response to your first sentence,if this view is not universal, that is unfortunate,as the reality is universal.This reality does not itself stress the superiority of man.Our ancestors,hunters and gatherers did not think of the animal as on a lower level of a scale,with humanity at the top.Their rituals were to put them in touch with the reality,that life consumes life as natures way,and to relieve the guilt they felt at killing their fellow beings.

Their mythology functioned as it should,to put man in accord with nature and the universe as they understood it.It was an oral tradition handed down and altered as circumstances changed to allow for adaptation,perhaps this was not intentional,but more the nature of oral traditions.With the traditions of the middle east,as the written word of God,this is unchangeing,cast in stone,and so not a viable mythology for the present.No one is claiming here that one form of life is more significant then another,but it is the traditions of the middle east which support this psychological stand.

Reason is the enemy of faith." Martin Luther

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Mr Fight the power,

In response to your first sentence,if this view is not universal, that is unfortunate,as the reality is universal.This reality does not itself stress the superiority of man.Our ancestors,hunters and gatherers did not think of the animal as on a lower level of a scale,with humanity at the top.Their rituals were to put them in touch with the reality,that life consumes life as natures way,and to relieve the guilt they felt at killing their fellow beings.

This is what I am referring to. This human-centered view of reality is mainly just a corruption brought about by Western moralists.

I think most realize that life is life, some living creatures destroy other living creatures, some living creatures create other living creatures, but life goes on.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr Fight the power,

You may be right about Western moralists corrupting our view of reality,though I believe personally Christianity beat them to it.Do you have any figures in particular in mind when stateing this.

We all destroy living creatures in the process of killing and consumeing to live.I am unaware of any examples of creatures creating creatures accept by procreation.My point in introduceing this topic,is to underline the need for a different mindset than that provided by the outdated mythologies of the middle east.

Reason is the enemy of faith." Martin Luther

1 Reply

@boagie,

"as a snake consumeing its own tail." ---no doubt

First off, after catching up on the thread, i think we have to look at some of the reasoning behind life consuming life, and with faith maybe collectivly justify our only available option in EATING.

If its Christian context we're looking for, justification is in fact there, for isnt it said "Mans to be the shepards of the earth?" or somthng like that?

Otherwise, yes i think there is a generqal guilt that many of us feel when consumung other forms of life. However, that will always be there. I think what we're doing, packaging meat already destroyed and ready for us to take home is a fine idea; number one, it illeveates some of the guilt we areselves have towards consuming other anamals. At the same time, it relinquishes some of the savagness brought forth by killing an anamal. Who knows, maybe when one kills another form of life, hes less hesitant to kill another human being?

Oh, and when man began hunting &gathering, you say he never looked at the world as being the top of the food chain. I now ask you, was he, at the time at the top of the food chain?

1 Reply

@gnosis,

gnosis,

tried to respond and lost lengthly post will try when it seems likely to suceed,

1 Reply

@boagie,

gnosis,

My point was that primitive peoples did not see themselves as superior to other creatures,indeed sometimes these other creatures possessed characteristics that man envied,example the power of a bear,the ability of flight.A ritual is a myth inacted.The myth these people inacted in the world was of the nature of thanking the animal for sacrificeing itself to man,to become man's life.This to is the origin of the sacred animal,that animal which played the central roll in the survival of a given people.To the plains indians it was the buffalo,to the people of the west coast of Canada, it was the salmon.It is an entirely different mentality.

Actually there is an experiment one can try which might give you a hint of another possiablity,address everything in the world as a thou and you will feel a change in your own psychology occurring.When you no longer meet in the world with an it, but only a thou,your in another world.The question of being at the top of the food chain,no, primitive man certainly was not at the top of this food chain.Modern man is,as long as he stays out of the deep woods and/or the ocean,where the old condition can still be relived.

"We are cousins to the trees,made of the same stuff, arranged into a different order." Carl Sagan Wink

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi Everyone!
We buy our meat wrapped in cellophane and largely forget just what it is we are consumeing,so out of touch are we with the ways of nature.

This is a very intersting topic. If everyone in the world changed their attitude and became vegetarian woudl that solve this dilema?

1 Reply

@Di Wu,

Di Wu wrote:

This is a very intersting topic. If everyone in the world changed their attitude and became vegetarian woudl that solve this dilema?

Di Wu,

Yes,change of attitude,a change in human psychology which sees itself clearly dependent on the natural world.The mental attitude if you like determines the quality of our actions towards nature.At present it is an irrational and/or completely ignorant mentality/attitude.Most of us do not seem to realize,that not only our physical existence is dependent upon the environment,but anything which might be called spiritual is dependent upon the quality of our environment.It is a little frightening to think that the quality of the thought of the population at large,may be dependent upon a degraded environment,and that these two things might be in a spiral downward direction.I don't believe it necessary,probably advisable though,for everyone to become a vegetarian,one cannot escape the reality that life lives upon life,the vegetable world is conscious.We need basically to believe that all life is sacred,the sentiment needs to be more than a timely expression,it must be lived. Perhaps not exactly as our ancestors but certainly a more realistic approach to a substainable way of life.We must find ways to create value and meaning to pass on to another generation.

0 Replies

@boagie,

If everyone in the world became a vegetarian, what would the butchers do?

The economy would crumble around us.

If everyone in the world suddenly declared peace for all...the economy would crumble as well, since the military is such a large consumer of products and raw materials.

This point brings us back to a previous discussion about balance.

1 Reply

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

If everyone in the world became a vegetarian, what would the butchers do?

Aristoddler,

You spoke of balance,but what a great many people fail to grasp is that,if nature is not balanced nothing else will be either.The foundation of all economys is nature.Alienation from the natural world is a type of retardation which in association with a degraded environment spirals downward.You have people alienated and enstranged from nature making decisions effecting the lives of people who work and live in the far north-----a frightening thought.The thing is we need a new psychological postion,how altimately that is to come about is as yet anyones guess.We do know we cannot stay the course,that is suicide.

0 Replies

@boagie,

Our world economy is largely based on natural resources and animal by-products.
Currently, that is.
If the situation of our economy had been different 100 years ago, then it would be easier to change our ways now.
Unfortunately, the human race has bottle-necked itself into a corner that has no real discernible exit, unless we can also establish a way to exist without an economy.

Someone should invent a barter system for the world to use, that doesn't involve money or greed in any aspect.

1 Reply

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler:)

Forced change is not the answer,what is needed is a change leading away from the throw away societies of the present.A psychological transformation of a sort is what is needed.Our present belief systems[religions] will not do,they are part of the problem.The world needs to reduce the global population,traditionally the church is against population control.In by gone days an oral tradition would adapt itself to the changeing conditions around it,Christianity cannot do this,it is a closed system,written in stone,and as such has become pathological.Perhaps man can only learn this lesson through the terror of natures wrath,that omen is on the horizon.

0 Replies

@boagie,

You're 100% right.

0 Replies

@boagie,

Quote:

The world needs to reduce the global population,traditionally the church is against population control.In by gone days an oral tradition would adapt itself to the changeing conditions around it,Christianity cannot do this,it is a closed system,written in stone,and as such has become pathological.

Boagie, this sounds quite drastic. Who do you have in mind who is to live and who not. George Bush is doing his bit, isn't he? You don't have this problem, and those that may have it will be future generations and who knows what may happen then. Technological advances may have solved the problem (if indeed it is a problem), or human nature may have solved it. Haven't you read that the quality of sperm has fallen drastically, and couples are finding it difficult to conceive. There may even be more homosexuals that will contribute to this world you are thinking about.

As for eating meat, I would not recommend it. Red meat (beef, lamb, game and pork) is a cause of bowel cancer. I make a point of not eating it. Ecologically, it is also more beneficial. I wouldn't suggest that everyone should live like Thoreau as in Walden Pond, but understanding what and how one eats is a good start.

1 Reply

@septium,

septium wrote:

Boagie, this sounds quite drastic. Who do you have in mind who is to live and who not. George Bush is doing his bit, isn't he? You don't have this problem, and those that may have it will be future generations and who knows what may happen then. Technological advances may have solved the problem (if indeed it is a problem), or human nature may have solved it. Haven't you read that the quality of sperm has fallen drastically, and couples are finding it difficult to conceive. There may even be more homosexuals that will contribute to this world you are thinking about.

As for eating meat, I would not recommend it. Red meat (beef, lamb, game and pork) is a cause of bowel cancer. I make a point of not eating it. Ecologically, it is also more beneficial. I wouldn't suggest that everyone should live like Thoreau as in Walden Pond, but understanding what and how one eats is a good start.

septium,

Your quite right in one sense it is not just a personal problem, it is the fact that people need an informing myth which is capable of bring its people into accord with not only society but with the natural world and the cosmos. Christianity will not do this, and cannot do this. Right now things still seem to be changeing to fast for the formation of a new myth which could possiably serve a global community. If one looks for positive signs they are there, but is it enough or to little to late. George Bush is a moron, the dumest man ever to live in the whitehouse, yet Amercia has survived him.This has gotten way of topic though, the fact that life substains itself by consuming itself is a reality that most people certainly in North America have lost touch with, is that good? Personally I do not think so, there is something dangerous about being out of touch with reality, very dangerous.

0 Replies

@boagie,

Hi Boagie,

Quote:

the fact that life substains itself by consuming itself is a reality that most people certainly in North America have lost touch with, is that good? Personally I do not think so, there is something dangerous about being out of touch with reality, very dangerous.

I don't understand your first sentence. Is it that you are saying US (and Canadian) citizens are losing touch with nature?

What type of reality are you thinking is very dangerous?

And tell us who do you think should live, or not? (From your previous post).

1 Reply

The Way It Is-----Life Consumes life.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know