MasterSelf Year One Read online

  Karma, for those of you who don’t have more than a passing familiarity (a la “karma is a bitch”), means something along the lines of “action/deed” and “intent.” When you commit a good action or operate with good intentions, you create good karma, and the opposite is true for negative deeds or intentions. Effectively, karma represents the fundamental law of cause and effect in the world. Without endorsing the more supernatural parts of these metaphysics, I am quite fond of the concept- when we act well, the world is better for it, and when we act poorly, it is worse.

  Because of this principle, they believe when we cause suffering, we create bad karma and engender future bad karma (and suffering) for ourselves down the line. As a result, we should strive to reduce the amount of suffering that we cause so that we may escape some suffering in the future. Again, not much to object with here, but there is a deeper issue.

  I’ll speak strictly for Buddhism here, although much of this argument may apply for the other religions with this belief, as they are similarly structured. In Buddhism, the highest goal provided by the belief system is the attainment of the overcoming of suffering, and the escape of the karmic cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (called Samsara) through enlightenment and reaching the state of Nirvana (which means “blowing out” or “becoming extinguished”). This draws from the Buddha’s assertion that life is inherently suffering (dukkha) and as a result, we should strive to escape suffering.

  This is where I begin to have issues. It is fundamentally obvious that there is a great deal of suffering in even the happiest lives- people lie, loved ones die, and we all grow old and weaken with age. However, I believe that Buddhism (and all of the religious and philosophical traditions that share this desire to escape suffering) is fundamentally driven by the desire to run away from reality.

  Suffering exists and is inseparable from being, but that doesn’t mean that we should deny being for the sake of avoiding pain. Rather, we must bear the burden of suffering, not simply willingly, but gladly- we must welcome and embrace the harsh realities of life. To do anything otherwise is to deny life outright- and we can see this in most religions and philosophies that stem from this desire for liberation (from suffering and, fundamentally, being itself).

  This is where I make my argument- life is cruel, life is hard, life is not fair. We who choose to live must accept that there will be times in our lives that we must be cruel, hard, and unfair- this is the burden and the weight of the mantle of our responsibility. This comes from our role as the singular type of being that possesses the ability to choose- thus comes the imperative that we make hard choices.

  The desire to escape suffering is, at its core, the desire to abdicate responsibility. At the heart of the moral that seeks to do no harm is the wish to be free from the fear of punishment and guilt that comes from action itself. Every choice that we make has consequences, and every action engenders an opposite reaction. There is no escape from this karma, none save death.

  As living, volitional creatures, we are (whether we know it or not) constantly making choices that either lead to life or lead towards death. Every time you eat, you consume something that was once alive- life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life. Every time you eat, something else dies and is consumed, save the lilies of the field. The cow does not pity the lily as it devours it, and the wolf does not pity the cow. We, however, have the capacity to feel, and thus we gain the burden of the executioner.

  Even the desire to eat only plants is a compromise- because these, too, are living beings. It’s a halfway choice between denying the truth that we are fundamentally killers and predators, and the full commitment to starvation and suicide to avoid taking another life. The issue here is one of values- we have to not only accept that our lives are inherently more valuable than the lives of any other creature, but also to accept that this is nothing to be ashamed of.

  You should never be made to feel ashamed to live, and you should never be ashamed to love life. This world is yours, and you are made to live in it, and you are made to be the master of it. If that were not the case, we would be the prey for whatever creature was superior to us.

  Life is the source of all values- the dead care not. Will you accept the truth of reality, or will you run from your true nature through a life not truly lived into an unfeeling grave? The choice is yours. As for me? I’ll take the steak.

  The Carnivore Challenge, V: Zero Carb Diet (For Real This Time)

  Hello again, friends! It’s been a week of good old, proper, no-hidden-Starbucks-carbs Carnivore (aka the Zero Carb Diet), and I’m feeling even better than I was before. However, I had a pretty rough week, and for a while I was afraid that I was eating something wrong. For some reason I was in a terrible mood towards the afternoon one day, then I did some research and I realized that, during the carnivore adaptation process, you’re supposed to supplement electrolytes because you’ll end up getting super dehydrated. For reference, I was drinking a ton of water, but apparently not retaining it.

  As soon as I realized that this was the case, I broke open the pack of Core electrolyte waters that I (conveniently) had leftover from my fast, and soon enough, all was indeed good in the proverbial hood. This was a pretty big relief, not only because I immediately felt better, but also because it meant that I was really getting into carnivore mode this time (I didn’t get any of this dehydration the first three weeks).

  If you’re trying the zero carb diet, I want to stress the importance of electrolytes- salting your food would probably help, but if you have a preferred alternative, go with that. Well, as long as it’s not Brawndo, regardless of whether or not it has what plants crave.

  Anyway, I’m excited to see how I feel in another week, now that I’m fully underway on the 30 days. One thing I’m thinking about, however, is that after the 30 days are up, I’m going to do a week back on carbs just to see what the difference may be. To be honest, I’m not excited for it, because I think I’m going to just feel like shit, but I’ll take that risk for science, and for you, my wonderful readers.

  Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get to this week’s

  Meat Thoughts:

  The first thing that I realized is that there seems to be some kind of inverse proportion between the likelihood that someone actually read my article and the degree of stupidity in their comments on Facebook. For whatever reason, it seems like the vast majority of comments that I got on last week’s chapter on meat ethics were from people that just read the headline and decided to spout off with whatever dumbass opinion popped into their head. You might be thinking, “But Garrett, shouldn’t you engage with those people and try to teach them?”

  Fuck that.

  If you can’t be bothered to read my argument, I can’t be bothered to take the time out of my life to beat some sense into you. Here’s an example:

  (Originally on Facebook, formatting retained as written.)

  Rando- “If you’re hunting an invasive species, or you are in a life and death situation then yes it’s ethical. Otherwise you’re stripping the life of an emotional, sentient being that wants to survive. Even grass fed beef is unethical, and mass animal production alongside overfishing is causing massive environmental and economic damage. So usually no it’s not ethical”

  Me- *haha emoji reaction*

  Rando- “no rebuttal just a laughing reaction? I like the critical thinking”

  Me- “I wrote the article, which covers my points.”

  Rando- “understandable”

  Rando- “I probably won’t read it but I’ll assume you had addressed what I’ve said and leave it at that”

  (The name is changed to protect the individual involved from embarrassment.)

  This dude calls me out for not thinking critically when he, in fact, did not read the article.

  What the fuck.

  I do want to clear one thing up- I don’t normally dwell on this kind of stuff, and I definitely never engage with it. If Dante were alive today, he’d certainly wr
ite about the special level of hell for people who argue on the internet. However, this recent article has gotten the most interaction out of anything I’ve done on this site so far. Surprisingly (or maybe not), it has nowhere near the highest number of views on the site. The takeaway here seems to be that controversy sells, which, I guess, isn’t anything terribly new. For me, at least, this is my first realization that a great number of people who will inevitably criticize what I write will simply be idiots.

  I’m okay with that, though. I accepted the fact that, if I continue doing what I am doing and writing about what I write about, I’m inevitably going to be attacked. It seems that a lot of people in the public eye don’t ever think about this sort of thing before they get famous (and I’m not claiming to be in the public eye, obviously). On the other hand, they say all publicity is good publicity- but is that really true if they don’t read the article? Regardless, I promise you I won’t start writing clickbait-y, overdramatic, polarizing crap anytime soon- just the quality philosophizing and strange lifestyle choices you’ve come to expect from MasterSelf.

  On a more meat related note, something I’ve been thinking about recently is the tendency for people to take ways of eating like carnivory or veganism and turn them somehow into moral badges of honor. While I will constantly make fun of vegans forever, I do have a degree of respect for the commitment to a lifestyle based on their ideology. These are people who believe very strongly about something and are willing to sacrifice bacon (and other meat) for it- that’s a level of willpower I certainly lack.

  (The same can be said for religions that don’t eat bacon, although I think the idea that God invented bacon for us not to eat it implies a level of divine cruelty that I cannot comprehend.)

  My issue is not with principle guiding lifestyle (despite whatever complaints I may have), it’s with the application of that morality to other people. Once you’ve decided that you’re so right that you get to tell other people how to live, (or worse, get the government to tell people how they can’t live,) then we have a problem.

  I truly do not understand why people feel so concerned with the thoughts and actions of other people. Why is it so threatening to one’s sense of wellbeing to see or hear someone disagree with you? What is it about watching someone else do something that doesn’t affect you that these types can’t tolerate?

  Frankly, it’s pathetic- and I am not a fan of pity.

  I have two theories. One: it’s that the basis of their belief stems from the beliefs of the group, and when other members of society disagree, it conflicts with their ideology on the same level that it originates from- the social level. Two: these types are attached to these beliefs as a result of some type of fear, and when they see someone who is not acting this way (i.e., not afraid), then that produces cognitive dissonance which they seek to correct through morally based action or regulation.

  This isn’t just about vegans (or carnivores, because I’ve seen them do it too). It applies to a huge number of groups (tribalism is on the rise again) and it’s a massive problem in our society.However, the problem isn’t the groups, but the behavior of the individuals- that’s why MasterSelf exists, and that’s what we’re here to help people fix: themselves.

  Some meat for thought. Until next time!

  The Carnivore Challenge, VI: Feast and Festival

  Hello again, friends! It’s now been two weeks of the real-deal carnivore, zero carb, all meat diet, and things go well. Well, actually, I did cheat a tiny little bit- I went to a festival over the weekend and one of the friends I went with brought pork belly. Now, I had never had it before- believe it or not. It’s fantastic, and I highly recommend it- like super bacon on steroids, but not the actual bacon steroids, the metaphorical kind. However, he fried it in vegetable oil, and for that, I will apologize to you all. I’m pretty good about willpower most of the time, but damn it, there was no way I could have not had some of that. C’est la vie, or so it would seem.

  Aside from that, there is one other notable observation that I’ve had so far. Like a fool, I didn’t weigh myself at the beginning of the challenge (I ended up waiting until like two weeks in), and as a result, I’m not sure what my starting weight was. However, I do know that from the time I weighed myself (about two weeks in to the Starbucks sous vide egg bite compromised first half) to now (two weeks of pure carnivore), my weight hasn’t fluctuated more than +/- .2 of a pound. Of course, I’ve controlled for time of day and attire (morning and a bathrobe, respectively).

  The really fascinating part of this is that I have almost certainly been consuming more calories than I was before. If we’re counting the 3 lb. bags of bacon ends that I’ve bought so far and the (less good) bacon they have at lunch at Tesla, I’ve probably broken 20lbs of bacon in the past month. I’m no baconologist, but that’s gotta be more than the average person’s yearly consumption of bacon.

  What (most non-carnivores would call) common sense would dictate is that I almost certainly would have put on tons of weight and would have some arteries exploding, but here I am, weight unchanged and arteries un-exploded. If that changes, I would probably suggest you not expect any articles, what with the whole “artery explosion” thing.

  I’m sure you’d understand.

  However, barring my untimely (and currently unexpected) demise, I’ll keep on keeping on, both because of bacon and also for you, my dear readers. (Depending on how much you’re comfortable lying to yourself, you can switch the two of those priorities around.)

  Another interesting development (and likely related to the first bit) is that I seem to have put on a bit of muscle and gained some strength. I’d imagine that’s got something to do with the neutral weight thing, but as far as I was aware, one can either lose fat or gain muscle, but not both at once. If I’m wrong about this assumption, please let me know and I’ll shout you out in next week’s chapter.

  Now that we’re all caught up, let’s get to some…

  Meat Thoughts:

  One of the things that I’ve been thinking about since I went to this festival (which was not Burning Man, maybe next year) is that modern man has more or less gotten rid of the tribalistic, ritualized celebration that older shamanic societies once had. I know this isn’t a new idea, but as this is the first festival I’ve been to since 2014, I have a significantly different perspective.

  My reasons for bringing this up are kind of varied, but one of the bits that’s been stuck in my head is that the word “carnival” more or less literally means something along the lines of “farewell to meat.” While you may be surprised that the Catholic church ever had anything to do with something as exciting as what we think of today as a carnival, apparently it’s their creation. Go figure. Turns out the whole thing was a celebration of rich, fatty foods on (Mardi Gras, [which is the same thing] literally means Fat Tuesday) the last day before the fast of Lent.

  We’ve become (or, at least, have been for the duration of the US- thanks for nothing, Quaker Oats guy) very restrained as a society, and it seems that the only outlets given for us to celebrate and cut loose are alcohol based and involve clubs. This isn’t an argument against alcohol, don’t get it twisted. However, I don’t know about you, but if you actually like going to clubs, you’re either lying or a psychopath.

  As they say on Twitter, don’t @ me. (Or do- something something all publicity.)

  That’s where festivals come in- I mentioned that it seemed that random people at festivals in the middle of the woods seemed to be the closest approximation of a traditional religious experience that we have in the modern age. He responded by mentioning something called neo-shamanism, though he didn’t go far into detail.

  My initial impression was me imagining some hipsters at Coachella wearing tribal headdresses while using a tablet on a selfie stick or some comparable bullshit. I don’t normally agree with the concept of “cultural appropriation” due to the normal flow of memetic dynamics, but I’d be willing to meet for peace talks with those who do if we can s
top that specific type of person- don’t act like you don’t know who I mean.

  On a (moderately) more serious note, we seem to have a deep desire for something to replace the old tribal or religious rituals that we once had as hunter-gatherers in the wild. Now, if you’re more than vaguely familiar with the site, you’ll know how I feel about tribalism, so don’t think this is in support of either that or some kind of dogmatic organized religion.

  However, I’m also not going full Christopher-Hitchens-style-militant-atheist here, either. We haven’t evolved enough in the time that cities have been around to get rid of these deep, ingrained desires, but we have come far enough to overcome the supremely irrational bits, like not eating bacon (though that may have been a good idea in the past due to cleanliness issues).

  What I’m really getting at is this: What if we were to take the best parts of these old traditions and combine them with our new ways? I worked on a kiosk selling hair straighteners for an Israeli company, and every week we would have Shabbat dinner on Friday after sundown. Just the act of sharing a consecrated meal changes how you interact with each other, and I think there’s great value in that.

  Imagine if you had a weekly (or even monthly) meal with your family, friends, and coworkers, no electronics allowed, and no distractions to prevent you from bonding and enjoying each other’s company? Imagine if there was a place you could go once a week to hear someone give a lecture closer to a TED talk than a fire and brimstone sermon?