I have followed with pleasure the considerations in this e-mail, especially
because the narration lacked any imperative, extremist and absolutistic interpretation.
I understand the theories of vegetarianism, as I understand that they crash
against the cultural dictates of ancient uses. But what I see is its correlation
to other subjects which converge towards the same principle: human respect.
Respect towards oneself, others, nature and the planet is a mainstay of civilization.
It is a gift of the intellect and not of the emotions, like
piety, pity and condescension.
Respect and the consequent consideration for the other’s dignity
reflect the spirit of civilization, which originates from the value
of the being and not from the technological, strategic and economical
Nourishment is a need connected to the exploitation of natural resources. And
the word “to exploit” express itself an idea that sounds, although
necessary, not very positive. Especially when the need to feed in order to survive
stops and becomes pleasure of gluttony and taste for food.
Nourishment, therefore, is one of the many ways of undertaking social relationships
(love and war included). These relationships are with and through oneself, and
to and through others.
But others are not only us, humans, with our resources of vitality, wealth,
strength and feelings, them vexed and exploited beyond the limits as well.
There is another view of the idea of “others” originated from a
bigger sensitivity, which perceives a global view of the ecosystem.
It is an idea that considers the vital rights of every “expression (of the same)
of life”. It doesn’t exclude, opportunistically, the dignity of
one or another form.
The principle of respect, in the highest meaning, acknowledges
the dignity of existence to any form of life, sanctioning their right to live
fully the existence from which its natural evolution depends.
Once we get to the intellectual perception of this principle, it is difficult
to distinguish between the dignities of the different fragments of life in the
That is because the degrees of dignity which make the “list for merit”
between the different “appearances” is purely conventional; through
these appearances (without involving God) the naturing Nature and the
natured Nature are expressed.
Therefore, as we’ve already said, we’ve got only to square things
up with ourselves, with the esthetical view of one’s own moral (what is
good, what is right: according to me?).
If it’s put in an ethical perspective and not in a faith-like one, nourishment
becomes a psychological and philosophical aspect of first rank. We can’t
but wish that it ended in order to be more in the minds than in the stomachs
of common people. Furthermore, it is still to be seen the reaction of the local
esotericist, always in balance between the showiness of exterior habits and
the fine theories of the initiatory teaching.
Esonet’s Editorial Staff