The things I like about Glee include its theme of everyone matters, to find your own talents and be confident in the face of adversity. The problem with Glee is it has several uncomfortable, cheesy moments in which we are reminded life beyond is no different than high school. We are still trying to conquer those same old high school issues but in a different arena. Like the kids on the show who tackle relationship and identity issues as they move from regionals to sectionals, we adults have an on-going narrative that includes the same struggles: searching for our own voice, power, and authenticity, and finding our way through the ever-changing characters, routines, and ourselves, trying to find that special someone who will support us.
In short, the show reminds us we haven't or will never leave high school drama even though we badly want to unharness ourselves from the weight of self-development. Will and Ms. P explicitly remind us this as in most episodes they mirror what is happening to the teens. Yet, the crux of what makes Glee so absorbing is it reminds us to be in the glorious moment - to stop and pause, soaking in all the delight that manifests around us as we go about our never-ending search for clarity. Those moments of pure, utter feeling, whether it be the euphoria of seeing our crush (perhaps over and over again if you're married to him) or the gnawing in our stomach that pushes us to produce our best, should be cherished and savored. If we simply focus on the pain and disruption we experience throughout our identity quest, we only see half our world, and it demoralizes us, negating our energy to keep pushing forward. As Glee reminds us when they take pause to sing, there are times where the world needs to fade away and we need to pay attention to all the charm around us and listen to what our heart is saying.
Indeed, it is a skill to remind ourselves to look for good within bad. But that's part of life's singing lesson. When we think about it, most of our adult problems demonstrate the same issues the Glee kids deal with but just expanded, with much larger complications and consequences; however, at the core, it's primarily a choice between your authentic self and the internalized external world. Some might say this is the ongoing battle to find balance between the heart and mind or your true self and your superego. The heart is the general sense of self-fulfillment, working your way to a higher self, which we are reminded of when someone prompts us to listen to our heart for the answer. Conversely, the superego is that internalized version of the outside world, the critical voice that reflects social standards learned from the outer realm, which assumes we should act in a socially acceptable manner in order to fit in with "allowable" notions of behavior.
Glee is a blatant attempt to highlight the disconnect between these two and remind us of the numerous options beyond the over-simplified duality of life. Even though the characters feel utterly contrived (the abstinent but pregnant cheerleader, the dumb but loving quarterback, the empowered but sensitive black girl, the closeted but eccentric gay kid, etc.), they do exceed these normative labels by listening to their heart.
You can either dismiss Glee by thinking you can't appreciate the show since it's painful to watch because you know the characters will always do the right thing, which can be less than thrilling. Yet, one of the enduring qualities of the show includes this extreme exaggeration, calling our attention to an element of the human condition: we sacrifice our authenticity to be part of the group. However, Glee, at times, complicates these limiting labels. Trying on a stereotype can be meaningful - it can be a guide of what identity we want to achieve this week; sometimes when we are wearing it, though, we need to make alterations to appease our own hearts. While the show reminds us we are often culturally marked by the label we wear, it also reminds us we have power to add a new dimension to that label by taking a breath, focusing on what we want to express, and continuously pushing boundaries. This doesn't mean the world or that critical voice in your head won't make it profoundly challenging. But it does mean we can have some peace knowing we value our own uniqueness.
In the end, I was tired of being preoccupied with sexual predators and murders from Dexter (why am I paying money for someone to put horrible ideas in my head), so it's okay I wanted entertainment to have a freshly baked happy ending for awhile. It's okay I recognize most of the time we all want to sing our hearts out and we need to - it's cathartic. Although the show might not get our attention with superfluous plots, limited settings, or routine conflicts, we do get involved by Glee's art of marvelous distraction - the song - a diversion from the negative and mundane thought patterns that so easily consumes those gleeful and lively moments we also get to experience but sometimes forget to savor.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
What's No Longer Eating Me
I haven't eaten any red or white meat for two weeks now. I have scarcely consumed fish. This all began when I was looking for new vegetable side recipes, and I stumbled upon violent slaughter videos that exposed how inhumane we really are.
Let me start off saying this is not an attempt to convert you to veganism. This is my way of analyzing and clarifying my thoughts on the organic food/meat industry so I can find take a logical, balanced approach to eating in the 21st century. I understand because I live in California, where farming and fresh produce are ample, I give the money I used to give to the cable company to those farmers, I work mostly from home so I have access to food easily, I am not a proathlete, and I have yet to have children, my life choices are easier. But in some ways, because of these certain privileges, I hope my life choices will eventually result in better food options across the board for all.
Well, one of the issues in this progressive food movement for me is we can either be righteous or we can be healthy. I understand some people think buying organic and going green is "trendy," but what's wrong with that? We all jump on certain bandwagons from time to time. I think deep down inside a lot of us simply are scared someone else knows something we don't and that knowledge can be used as power over us, so we deny that opportunity instantly by negating it and move on - we negate it by telling ourselves this new idea is dumb and someone else thought of it, so why should we buy in. Ultimately, I will never truly know anyone else's true intentions. This is primarily a search for my own. Thus, I will stop judging and stop labeling this food movement "hip" in an attempt to omit my ignorance of the issue.
What bothers me is that two overt ideas became even more visible as they relate to food: mass consumption and greed. It seems to me that the most effective marketing strategy around is to hijack one of our basic physiological needs (breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, etc) and exploit it, reframe it, then bedazzle it into a false security, which is the next level of Maslow's hierarchy: safety (security of body, security of employment, security of resources, security of morality, security of the family, security of health, security of property). Advertisers do this so we will BUY, BUY, BUY, creating a highly distorted "demand" of such. Simply google "Maslow's Hierarchy" and see how many sites promote his pyramid as the foundation to getting people to spend money. In short, the more of something we have (more cows, pigs, chickens, etc), the more secure we feel (nothing will threaten my survival) and we keep on buying. But we can survive, and thrive, without over doing it in the meat department.
Most of us have caught on and become discriminating consumers when it comes to stuff. And I know most of us are analyzing how to eliminate the useless stuff we have in our life in order to live more simply yet richly - quality over quantity. But why haven't we done this with our food? How is marketing/big business dictating our food choices?
Just because we have industrialized the food production in our country does not mean it is meeting our current needs. Big money is controlling our health. The question is "How do four food conglomerates control our food making decisions?" And it is something we all should worry about because our choices are limited by what these four corporations make available for us to buy. ( Food, Inc is eye-opening.)
The food companies are not meeting my needs in two ways: gross overproduction (mass consumption - because it's there, we will eat it) and highly inhumane practices (greed - the bottom line is how do I make money regardless of the sacredness of life), so I am going to make my dollar vote other places.
I haven't simply limited consumption of meat because of highly documented animal sensitivities to pain, but I have also been "paleoed" out because we have been eating meat twice a day (paleo diet includes meat, veggies, nuts, etc - elimination of processed food). Did cavepeople eat meat this much?
Because I never had dogs growing up, I never made this connection between animals, pain, and the hamburger in my happy meal. But because I have dogs now and I see their emotions (or what I think are their emotions), I clearly see they are sensitive creatures.
To address this first topic of animals feeling pain, I look to Peter Singer (a controversial philosopher and professor who wrote the leading book on animal rights). His findings include three things:
1. We can't know another's subjective experience; we can only infer it.
"Do animals other than humans feel pain? How do we know? ... We know that we ourselves can feel pain. ... But how do we know that anyone else feels pain? We cannot directly experience anyone else's pain, whether that 'anyone' is our best friend or a stray dog. Pain is a state of consciousness, a 'mental event,' and as such it can never be observed. Behavior like writhing, screaming, or drawing one's hand away from the lighted cigarette is not pain itself; nor are the recordings a neurologist might make of activity within the brain observations of pain itself. Pain is something that we feel, and we can only infer that others are feeling it from various external indications."
"... while it might present a puzzle for philosophers, none of us has the slightest real doubt that our close friends feel pain just as we do. ... If it is justifiable to assume that other human beings feel pain as we do, is there any reason why a similar inference should be unjustifiable in the case of other animals?"
2. It should be inferred that animals feel pain.
- "Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species..."
- "... we know that these animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do ..."
- "... the nervous systems of other animals were not artificially constructed ... [they] evolved as our own did ... It is surely unreasonable to suppose that nervous systems that are virtually identical physiologically, have a common origin and a common evolutionary function, and result in similar forms of behavior in similar circumstances should actually operate in an entirely different manner on the level of subjective feelings."
3. We can't be precise about other beings' experience of pain, but precision is not essential in determining whether the principle of equality should be applied.
"So to conclude: there are no good reasons, scientific or philosophical, for denying that animals feel pain. If we do not doubt that other humans feel pain we should not doubt that other animals do so too."
He then talks about differences between humans and non-humans in things like: what is painful, how much suffering does pain cause, some kinds of pain humans experience that probably animals don't (like fear about something a human can know might happen while an animal can't know about it).
He addresses whether these differences mean that the principle of equality doesn't apply:"It may be objected that comparisons of the sufferings of different species are impossible to make and that for this reason when the interests of animals and humans clash the principle of equality gives no guidance. It is probably true that comparisons of suffering between members of different species cannot be made precisely, but precision is not essential."
To address the second issue of how much meat I was consuming, all I did was listen to my body at first. I felt heavy and dull. I was eating more meat than veggies. I noticed this, and since making a change, I feel great. Next, I did some minor research.
It has been advised if we cut down our meat intake to just 3.1 oz a day, the benefits to our environment, our animals, our health will indeed serve as inspiration to keep doing it. According to the NYTIMES (to pick one article out of several) states: "Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.)" Do we need all this food? Meatless Mondays have caught on numerous places. The initiative encourages us to take a break from meat just one day a week.
Even a small change is better than none. I do, however, believe we still need meat, but not the mindless consumption the food industry is promoting now. I will still eat various meats when my body feels like it - but on a restrained level, but before I do, I will show reverence for the life that was given to nourish my own.
The video below speaks about these issues better than I. I like his well-balanced approach to food.
Whether or not you make a dietary change is not a issue for me right now. Rather this is to make myself feel more empowered because my choices are more informed.
I am taking my power back, voting with my dollar, listening to my body, and aligning my everyday choices with my overall principles, which make me feel vibrant, in control, and healthy. This is just another step in my process of getting the life I want.
Let me start off saying this is not an attempt to convert you to veganism. This is my way of analyzing and clarifying my thoughts on the organic food/meat industry so I can find take a logical, balanced approach to eating in the 21st century. I understand because I live in California, where farming and fresh produce are ample, I give the money I used to give to the cable company to those farmers, I work mostly from home so I have access to food easily, I am not a proathlete, and I have yet to have children, my life choices are easier. But in some ways, because of these certain privileges, I hope my life choices will eventually result in better food options across the board for all.
Well, one of the issues in this progressive food movement for me is we can either be righteous or we can be healthy. I understand some people think buying organic and going green is "trendy," but what's wrong with that? We all jump on certain bandwagons from time to time. I think deep down inside a lot of us simply are scared someone else knows something we don't and that knowledge can be used as power over us, so we deny that opportunity instantly by negating it and move on - we negate it by telling ourselves this new idea is dumb and someone else thought of it, so why should we buy in. Ultimately, I will never truly know anyone else's true intentions. This is primarily a search for my own. Thus, I will stop judging and stop labeling this food movement "hip" in an attempt to omit my ignorance of the issue.
What bothers me is that two overt ideas became even more visible as they relate to food: mass consumption and greed. It seems to me that the most effective marketing strategy around is to hijack one of our basic physiological needs (breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, etc) and exploit it, reframe it, then bedazzle it into a false security, which is the next level of Maslow's hierarchy: safety (security of body, security of employment, security of resources, security of morality, security of the family, security of health, security of property). Advertisers do this so we will BUY, BUY, BUY, creating a highly distorted "demand" of such. Simply google "Maslow's Hierarchy" and see how many sites promote his pyramid as the foundation to getting people to spend money. In short, the more of something we have (more cows, pigs, chickens, etc), the more secure we feel (nothing will threaten my survival) and we keep on buying. But we can survive, and thrive, without over doing it in the meat department.
Most of us have caught on and become discriminating consumers when it comes to stuff. And I know most of us are analyzing how to eliminate the useless stuff we have in our life in order to live more simply yet richly - quality over quantity. But why haven't we done this with our food? How is marketing/big business dictating our food choices?
Just because we have industrialized the food production in our country does not mean it is meeting our current needs. Big money is controlling our health. The question is "How do four food conglomerates control our food making decisions?" And it is something we all should worry about because our choices are limited by what these four corporations make available for us to buy. ( Food, Inc is eye-opening.)
The food companies are not meeting my needs in two ways: gross overproduction (mass consumption - because it's there, we will eat it) and highly inhumane practices (greed - the bottom line is how do I make money regardless of the sacredness of life), so I am going to make my dollar vote other places.
I haven't simply limited consumption of meat because of highly documented animal sensitivities to pain, but I have also been "paleoed" out because we have been eating meat twice a day (paleo diet includes meat, veggies, nuts, etc - elimination of processed food). Did cavepeople eat meat this much?
Because I never had dogs growing up, I never made this connection between animals, pain, and the hamburger in my happy meal. But because I have dogs now and I see their emotions (or what I think are their emotions), I clearly see they are sensitive creatures.
To address this first topic of animals feeling pain, I look to Peter Singer (a controversial philosopher and professor who wrote the leading book on animal rights). His findings include three things:
1. We can't know another's subjective experience; we can only infer it.
"Do animals other than humans feel pain? How do we know? ... We know that we ourselves can feel pain. ... But how do we know that anyone else feels pain? We cannot directly experience anyone else's pain, whether that 'anyone' is our best friend or a stray dog. Pain is a state of consciousness, a 'mental event,' and as such it can never be observed. Behavior like writhing, screaming, or drawing one's hand away from the lighted cigarette is not pain itself; nor are the recordings a neurologist might make of activity within the brain observations of pain itself. Pain is something that we feel, and we can only infer that others are feeling it from various external indications."
"... while it might present a puzzle for philosophers, none of us has the slightest real doubt that our close friends feel pain just as we do. ... If it is justifiable to assume that other human beings feel pain as we do, is there any reason why a similar inference should be unjustifiable in the case of other animals?"
2. It should be inferred that animals feel pain.
- "Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species..."
- "... we know that these animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do ..."
- "... the nervous systems of other animals were not artificially constructed ... [they] evolved as our own did ... It is surely unreasonable to suppose that nervous systems that are virtually identical physiologically, have a common origin and a common evolutionary function, and result in similar forms of behavior in similar circumstances should actually operate in an entirely different manner on the level of subjective feelings."
3. We can't be precise about other beings' experience of pain, but precision is not essential in determining whether the principle of equality should be applied.
"So to conclude: there are no good reasons, scientific or philosophical, for denying that animals feel pain. If we do not doubt that other humans feel pain we should not doubt that other animals do so too."
He then talks about differences between humans and non-humans in things like: what is painful, how much suffering does pain cause, some kinds of pain humans experience that probably animals don't (like fear about something a human can know might happen while an animal can't know about it).
He addresses whether these differences mean that the principle of equality doesn't apply:"It may be objected that comparisons of the sufferings of different species are impossible to make and that for this reason when the interests of animals and humans clash the principle of equality gives no guidance. It is probably true that comparisons of suffering between members of different species cannot be made precisely, but precision is not essential."
To address the second issue of how much meat I was consuming, all I did was listen to my body at first. I felt heavy and dull. I was eating more meat than veggies. I noticed this, and since making a change, I feel great. Next, I did some minor research.
It has been advised if we cut down our meat intake to just 3.1 oz a day, the benefits to our environment, our animals, our health will indeed serve as inspiration to keep doing it. According to the NYTIMES (to pick one article out of several) states: "Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.)" Do we need all this food? Meatless Mondays have caught on numerous places. The initiative encourages us to take a break from meat just one day a week.
Even a small change is better than none. I do, however, believe we still need meat, but not the mindless consumption the food industry is promoting now. I will still eat various meats when my body feels like it - but on a restrained level, but before I do, I will show reverence for the life that was given to nourish my own.
The video below speaks about these issues better than I. I like his well-balanced approach to food.
Whether or not you make a dietary change is not a issue for me right now. Rather this is to make myself feel more empowered because my choices are more informed.
I am taking my power back, voting with my dollar, listening to my body, and aligning my everyday choices with my overall principles, which make me feel vibrant, in control, and healthy. This is just another step in my process of getting the life I want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)