The conversation you're talking about here is the way forward on every front, for everyone, for many/all living things. I think it's a conversation rather than a debate --- the goal is not for one view to win and dominate, but for all to be satisfied, provided for.
Maybe you should engage various persons about the roots of violence --- ... I thought of Mark Kelly, Erika Kirk, John Yu at first ... maybe some ethologists, say Richard Dawkins? And compile conversations. I think you're at or near that threshhold. My own feeling is this: living individual things need to have, feel, and live balance with every other they meet. They need to share with others the basic worldview that life and the world present them: the air, the light, the fact of physical life, the fact of spirit --- as you put it, shared identity, shared experience, shared reality. But each also needs to seek a uniqueness, an ongoing mystery, a singular revelation that can't be fully anyone else's. These needs of individuation and communion get unbalanced; thus erupt suicide, homicide, and all the hardwired predatory lifeways that life has followed. The problem is extensive, but it is vital.
To me the solution appears to be somewhere in between a 'religion' of 'Anima Mundi' and a practice of t'ai ch'i, something that balances known and unknown, past and future, in and around any individual.
And, just afa people I've heard podcasting or being interviewed recently goes, you could try to engage the topic of roots of violence with some others who have both broad scope plus distinct acumen.... e.g. Heather Cox Richardson, Stuart Stevens, Stephen Marche ... .these are certainly 'mainstream' but you could reach less mainstream persons also, on all 'sides' of things. All this is keeping in mind your recent interest in scaffolding animal liberation in broad areas like reljgious practice.
The conversation you're talking about here is the way forward on every front, for everyone, for many/all living things. I think it's a conversation rather than a debate --- the goal is not for one view to win and dominate, but for all to be satisfied, provided for.
Maybe you should engage various persons about the roots of violence --- ... I thought of Mark Kelly, Erika Kirk, John Yu at first ... maybe some ethologists, say Richard Dawkins? And compile conversations. I think you're at or near that threshhold. My own feeling is this: living individual things need to have, feel, and live balance with every other they meet. They need to share with others the basic worldview that life and the world present them: the air, the light, the fact of physical life, the fact of spirit --- as you put it, shared identity, shared experience, shared reality. But each also needs to seek a uniqueness, an ongoing mystery, a singular revelation that can't be fully anyone else's. These needs of individuation and communion get unbalanced; thus erupt suicide, homicide, and all the hardwired predatory lifeways that life has followed. The problem is extensive, but it is vital.
To me the solution appears to be somewhere in between a 'religion' of 'Anima Mundi' and a practice of t'ai ch'i, something that balances known and unknown, past and future, in and around any individual.
And, just afa people I've heard podcasting or being interviewed recently goes, you could try to engage the topic of roots of violence with some others who have both broad scope plus distinct acumen.... e.g. Heather Cox Richardson, Stuart Stevens, Stephen Marche ... .these are certainly 'mainstream' but you could reach less mainstream persons also, on all 'sides' of things. All this is keeping in mind your recent interest in scaffolding animal liberation in broad areas like reljgious practice.