Books by A.O. Kime
"Metaphysical realities in America's politically-challenged democracy"
"A sagacious accounting of the Stone Age and the beginnings of civilization"
see more books
U.S. colleges and trade schools
A.O. Kime Articles:
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
Dynamics of now
Evil (nature of)
Gift of life
Light (nature of)
Time (nature of)
Curse of science
Int'l Criminal Court
Rule of law
(2nd edition - Nov 2010) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
It appears certain our spiritual mentality - that which enables us to ‘think beyond’ - is fragile and subject to damage. It occurs when we transgress even against nature. While the list of potential wrongdoings is incredibly long, which of course includes transgressions against our fellow humans, the ill-treatment of animals is not exempt. Because of this damage - which spells ‘retaliation‘ - is a clear sign nature (the spirit world) has a ‘defensive mechanism’ in place.
Retaliation is, after all, a form of ‘protection’… albeit in this case largely a covert operation. We are punished through damage to our mental faculties… although going largely unnoticed if one wasn’t particularly spiritual-minded. One’s guilty conscience acts as a warning device which indicates injury and the unnecessary killing of animals seems to be deemed especially heinous. It is the focus... but it also leads to the greater questions.
Of no doubt, the keeping of a healthy mindset is critically important… that which enables us to more accurately surmise spiritual (true) realities. On the other hand, injured spiritual forces which are not in tune with these realities, up to the point of not believing anything concerning the spirit world at all, can lead to spiritual suicide if left un-repaired. In the end, of course, it’s all about our chances for immortality.
Since injuries are always a matter of degree - wounds capable of healing - they often leave scars (evidence). Similarly, ‘mental scars’ may endure indefinitely but not necessarily inhibiting. As with the body, the wound is either repaired or there is usually a ’work-around’.
Whether recovery is weeks, months or years is up to the individual… how they deal with it. While a sufficient level of remorse and ‘apologies’ would normally seem the remedy, it is nearly impossible to tell if, or when, recovery is complete. In other words, it’s hard to know whatever was missing has been recovered when it is barely recognizable (definable) even when you have it. Reclaiming a state of mind of any sort is hard to do when the 'ingredients' are ill-defined.
The reason is simple… the degree of spiritual realities which are fathomable is determined by our mental state leaving all else unfathomable. Whether or not repairs were made to duplicate a previous spiritual state-of-mind will forever remain unknown. One can only tell if improvements were made… meaning that while you may not be thinking exactly like you once did, or be aware the same things within a particular 'spiritual level', you can sense a change for the better.
As for identifiable transgressions, whether against human or animal, the victim’s ’innocence’ and ’vulnerability’ seems to play a roll. Our guilty conscience tells us so. We feel worse when ‘unsuspecting’ or ‘indefensible’ are factors. If action is required (nonetheless) a proper response is often hard to determine, but that's not the case for a healthy conscience if allowed to fully function. We might often interfere... as 'justify' and 'proper' may not see eye-to-eye.
So too, the survival and wellbeing of the perpetrator (ourselves) seems to be a factor as to whether it is a maleficent act or not. Houseflies, ants and rodents, for example, may be innocent and indefensible but are usually an intolerable nuisance, damaging and sometimes a health hazard. While the killing of a pest is often the only solution, methods to eliminate the problem might come into question when alternatives exist for other pests such as garden-ravaging rabbits. It seems we should first search for alternatives even if carrying them out is more trouble.
If, say, we knew of alternatives (i.e. their removal) but didn’t exercise them due to the ‘trouble’, that is sure to bother our conscience. After all, we know from experience we’d feel a lot better knowing we put forth an effort. That says reams… surely the answer to the question.
While some may believe it is a ‘sensitivity’ matter of our own making because to some extent we program our own conscience... except the only 'programming' we do is what we allow or disallow. Justification, if out of bounds, amounts to hacking this pre-programmed 'guide' otherwise meant for daily and difficult decisions. Any disrespectfulness or cruelty to animals is due to not listening... being absence the knowledge of spiritual realities.
So how does all this square with the human diet of animal flesh? After all, we slaughter animals to eat. Well, there is some evidence humans weren't meat-eaters in the beginning... they had no heavy weapons. The earliest Stone Age tools consisted of small and nearly featureless 'pebble stones'. At some point thereafter, and likely for ages, cavemen may have only eaten fish... slowly to include other type meat. Predictably, the variety grew as a matter of 'acceptable conduct' within their societies... much the same way we are 'governed' today. However, this 'collective thinking', largely abstract (plastic), isn't a reliable gauge of rightfulness as dogmas, fads, stigmas and 'political correctness' can often testify. In the end, societies and institutions affect our ability to discern right from wrong.
The point is, during this time of 'uninhibited' (natural) assessments our earliest ancestors were more likely right. Of course, it is uncertain what they thought... their tools being just an indication.
While there's a good chance they viewed meat-eating on a par with cannibalism at first, or many did, an easily-drawn conclusion, the vestiges of this thinking seems to remain as evidenced by today's vegetarians. Even for the general population, it appears commonplace to occasionally ponder its rightfulness. Whether changing attitudes victimized our conscience or there is some latitude is the question.
Yet, by whatever means one is compelled to avoid starvation. Survival, after all, is the trump card... we must eat (something). Eatable greens are not always available nor entirely satisfying either.
Since justification can always be found lying within the great forest of circumstances, aside from starvation perhaps the rightfulness of meat-eating depends. Of mixed signals, it is a perplexing matter. Perhaps nature has deferred the question to us, remains neutral but keeps a watchful eye.
While many would claim animals can sense goodness in people - their reactions signaling the degree - but what could animals possibly know of goodness? Or is it really kindness or passiveness they sense? It seems the case, goodness is exclusively human whereas all features of goodness lies subjacent... meaning only features (i.e. kindness, passiveness) are within the grasp of creature understanding.
There would be exceptions of course, insects seem oblivious. Some animals, on the other hand, are more in tune... and were those adopted as pets for that very reason.
Whenever we regret an action, does the extent of our remorsefulness accurately reflect the degree of wrongdoing? We could, after all, allow it to overwhelm us… even over something ordinarily deemed a minor transgression. There seems a message in this.
In that we could (or can) be overwhelmed with grief, if we allowed it, seems to say there is no such thing as a minor transgression. Being overwhelmed seems to touch the essence of both good and evil in their purest forms… as God would know them. However, humans aren’t built to handle these pure forms… they’re too powerful (as ‘overwhelmed‘ can testify). One should only know they exist.
Of course, privy to a divine point-of-view signals we have godlike abilities. It would be a valid reason for nature to step aside on the question of meat-eating.
On the other hand, how does this ’protection’ square with the existence of the animal predator, the viciousness within nature? After all, within the animal kingdom sympathy does not exist… nor compassion, nor regretfulness. Yet, this viciousness is tolerated.
While these attributes sets us apart from all other animals, it still doesn’t explain the ’double standard’. Is this a threat to the idea that nature retaliates against human maleficence but not against the vicious acts of other animals? Well, there's two ways to look at it. While the viciousness within nature serves 'balance' - seemingly purposeful and obviously necessary - in practice it is tolerated because animals lack the understanding. They have no conscience to punish.
Secondly... with intellect comes a conscience (by design). In practice, the conscience is nature’s ’equalizing measure’ to offset this great human advantage and an unhindered (uncorrupted) conscience would assure survival of the natural order, the various species and even earth itself.
While intellect and a working conscience don't necessarily walk hand-in-hand, often strangers, suggesting the conscience is vulnerable to outside (evil) forces, conquerable, that's not the case with a robust intellect. It is impervious to attack because it listens to this otherwise 'passive' conscience. If it doesn't listen it isn't robust. On the other hand, although little more than a curious note, with the ability to impose its will, one could say the intellect has aggressive qualities. Whether passive or aggressive however, they're both 'forces' of immense powers although greatly diluted by an intellect tethered to the will of society and a muted conscience.
In the practical sense intellect and the conscience represent 'forces' (powers) but in the greater sense they represent the essence of the Creator.
As said, the underlying reason humans often fail to play its proper role in nature's system, her balancing act, is due to societies and institutionalism. After all, most of society's institutions are about enforced and often self-serving protocol... un-tethered to the spiritual realities. This also applies to organized religions... early-on having spun their wicked webs.
While the self-serving scientific professions would say the substance within the conscience (guilt / innocence) is entirely human-created, but in truth it isn't. The conscience is an aspect of our subconscious mind which, in turn, has a divine connection. As Plotinus discovered, which can be attestable by anyone through divine intelligence, is that we’re all connected to a single subconsciousness. This divine connection would explain, of course, any retaliation (suffering from our guilty conscience).
Of course, there would be little (or no) guilt if one's conscience was purposefully muted (corrupted). In that case if continued, retaliation would be severe (death of the soul). In short, our guilty conscience is saying "tsk-tsk"... but that's a lot better than silence. Silence means the person has cut off their connection to God.
Furthermore, of monumental significance among the many arguments in the battle between Darwinism and Divine Creation is the fact we have a conscience and animals don’t. We have it because it serves a divine purpose but it also says we’re not related to primates (or any animal). Anthropologists have yet to provide a convincing 'missing link' to support the theory of evolution and never will. Science should recognize our genetic similarities to primates is just a coincidence. Science simply has not taken into account the abundance of metaphysical evidence to the contrary. Of course, scientists are incapable of thinking in metaphysical terms... as one example, they still believe eyesight randomly developed.
The unique spiritual forces within humans, guilt testifying to just one, creates the great divide. The only relationship humans have with animals is that both are God's creations.
Matrix of Mnemosyne... the place of smoke signals from the spirit world
Last modified: 05/01/13