Sainthood, Perhaps; Personhood, Never!

Perhaps it's the quest for the Soul of Animals that we're after in our persistent attempts to give them our rights. What we 'name' we can consider 'conquered' and 'ours'. We want to 'right' the wrong of Animal cruelty and abuse yet giving them our rights when so many of us don't have equity in those rights, is a non-starter for them. Best to stick to Animalhood which they heartily embrace.

Transcript

I'm Lizanne Flynn. I'm a master healer who holds space for any Earthling as they reunite body and soul. I am a bridge for relationships between all species so that 

the heart bond becomes stronger, deeper, and more loving. I serve in the roles of animal communicator, medium, and medical intuitive, and I use the tools of shamanic journeying and soul retrieval 

to support all Earthlings in their recovery from past trauma. I'm certified as a canine massage therapist and Reiki Master Teacher. This is the Animals' iView podcast.

It's a tale as old as time this posting on social media and interacting with virtual strangers all the while knowing that likely no good will ever come from it. Or is just me who feels that way? I hadn't thought before about how Animals would view social media and promise to dedicate a podcast soon to that topic because we've already addressed their view on AI, after all. Initially, it seems that they're giving me a collective 'Aussie head tilt' or any Animal who gives us a cocked head look as if to say - wait - what?! Which always makes me laugh because they're sharing it in all sincerity and truly do want to know how the words that I'm saying would possibly resonate in their worldview. They get the social part and say "To each their own, this being a social business" because some of them lead quite solitary lives apart from mating, and the media part seems to be more like a cloud to them and aptly so which also should tell you how deeply they already understand our world. While their worlds, plural, are still very much an enigma to us. The definition of media is a means of effecting or conveying something, which the Animals understand would be like a tool one would use. The next word that comes up and because they know that I know now the definition of vocalization which is to give voice to feelings and thoughts/ideas in words and as our written word is a main form of communication, that then translates to language which is defined as a sequence of words, etc., which have meaning to a community. So we have English, French, Gaelic, Spanish, etc. The Animals have howls, chirps, squeaks, squeals, etc. as their species' specific languages. Which they attribute to being dialects on the outside of the one main language of Energy. That is usually felt in the body and can come through the internal sensory system that mirrors the external sensory system of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling.

I have a footprint on social media as the saying goes and as you all know because I tell you so at the end of every podcast. Admittedly I'm more comfortable and will post more often on FB - hello, fellow boomers, less often on Instagram and I use an app called Buffer that allows me to post up to usually 4 days' worth of x-tweets. As an aside, because we've already talked about X-Twitterverse - everyone still calls them tweets. What else would you call them, I don't know. Maybe others say "I posted on X" or "I X-ed several times today about X" - sheesh - talk about IMO a non-user-friendly name. I'm getting more comfortable on X-Twitterverse commenting now and then on other posts and being glad when someone reposts my tweet or follows me. Because the more I can reorient human Animals to their own Animalhood - the topic of today's podcast - the better. Because it was on X-Twitterverse that I follow a few people, mostly for politics or news of the day information, I'm really keen to keep up to speed on that. There are a few others that I follow and one in particular talks about veganism, the rights of transgender humans, and associated topics. And it's funny, the more I do this work and perhaps the older I get, the more I realize how much I follow the experiential path of the Animals. In that, there isn't light really until the contrast illuminates it for us. And in that, if something doesn't resonate with me it doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just neutral for me. As per usual I think the spelling we use is key; instead of saying it's wrong for me, I can choose to be neutral about it and say it's neutral. One of the commenters on this individual's post agreed with the thought/idea that granting personhood rights to Animals is the least we could do for them. Let me read you the original tweet: "An issue that comes up frequently is what is meant by saying that nonhuman Animals can be persons. The answer is that a person is a being that has a morally significant interest in continuing to live as distinct from an interest in not suffering. I argue that all sentient beings have an interest in continuing to live and that, if we reject the notion that sentient nonhumans are merely things, that interest is morally significant and those nonhumans are persons." Well. I'm hearing 'Oy vey' in my head which is Yiddish and I understand it to be an exclamation of dismay.

My reply was "Why must they (the Animals) bend a knee to our worldview arc? Why do we call them nonhuman Animals when it's biologically more correct to use Animalhood vs. personhood?" Another guy chimed in with (kinda sorta mansplaining, IMO) "On the contrary, we are human Animals, they are nonhuman Animals. All animals, human and non are persons due to the aforementioned reference to interests in continuing to live." My reply was "They are simply Animals, as are we. To call them persons means to define them within our human-centric worldview. We have no right to do that to them."His reply - "My point is that we have no right to impose upon them a lesser interest than ours in continuing to live." My final reply - "My point is as one species out of 8.7 million on Earth, we have no right to impose anything human on them at all. The premise of personhood is inaccurate because it comes from inside our reality. It would be like Cheetah saying to Boar - you have to think and be like Cheetah." This ended the back and forth as I'm fairly certain the splainer thought "Preposterous! Cheetah can't talk to Boar!" That just made the Animals lol and then lol some more. You all get it, right, at least in broad brushstrokes? My take is that a) it is couched as a duality proposition, death vs life, and the supposition is that humans are interested in living and not suffering. This misses the unified duality of contrast illuminating the light which stays hidden like the stars during the day until contrast redirects to the light. And b) that as Animals are sentient beings and not objects, they must have the same interest in continuing to live vs. suffering and so by default, they belong in the persons category. The commenter to the original post started well with the human Animal bit then sadly fell off by calling them nonhuman Animals as opposed to just Animals, which we all are. Humans have in my perspective an inordinately high predisposition to claiming what is in our world akin to conquering it and when we conquer it by naming it, it's far less likely to rise up and kill us in our sleep. And the more knowledge we have is the modern sword and shield we use to keep ourselves safe except we haven't noticed that it's threatening to drown us with its weight as it gets heavier and heavier and doesn't really serve a purpose except to contribute to our illusion of control.

For sure I get the desire to see Animals as our equals because they are and in certain respects where they've co-evolved alongside the species who are both predator and prey to them including ourselves, we have not done so and moreover, we've refused to do so. We've fully planted our flags in the ground of predator and prey as opposed to co-evolving as steward and guardian on planet Earth. Why are we not asking - "How is it that we learn so much from Nature and revere Nature? What is it about Nature and our place in it that we're missing other than to create poor imitations of the original magic of say camouflage or sonar or UV light? Why are we not following the design of Nature by embracing the unified partnership between light and contrast, between living and suffering, and even with this last, that's a projection. To quote many people including the Buddha to whom it was attributed - "Pain is inevitable, suffering is not." Would that we could wave our magic wand of Darwin and warp speed ourselves forward to where we understand that our role as guardians of this planet is to follow the lead of the other species. So that we're not stuck in some sort of PTS survival fight or flight with other apex predators who are not also prey like we are. So that we more or less gracefully co-evolve alongside a consortium of Animals, a UN of Animals, where all are represented by Ambassadors who partner with other Ambassadors on this wild and wily planet to design the best way forward for us all.

I'm fairly certain that I've addressed Animalhood vs. Personhood before and I remember recording as part of a podcast my version of Animalhood which I will also do today. I haven't addressed Sainthood before which you all know is tongue in cheek where our Animal companions are concerned. Sure we give them a hard time in all ways especially when they don't please us or do something quirky or bark incessantly or pee indiscriminately around the house. And yet we also know that there are no beings on the planet - at least none that we know so far - who have the ability to be mightily interested in living and who are much much better at not reacting emotionally to any kind of pain which is aka suffering. In that regard maybe they are saints after all whose meaning is one officially recognized especially through canonization as preeminent for holiness, which is next to godliness and of course cleanliness. It does seem like any rights that we think we have as persons are in place for protection which is our unevolved knee-jerk reaction to being both predator and prey. It also seems like those rights are hardly equitably upheld across the globe as well as agreed upon by all persons. I could make an argument for any condition of factory farming being similar to any condition of any persons who are supposed to have the same rights as the same people who are oppressing them. I'm fairly certain that any Animal might say instead of thank you at the designation of personhood   - "Gosh, you shouldn't have, really, you shouldn't have. I really must protest this gift, it's just way too much, would you mind terribly if I just say, no thank you?" And hey, I realize as do the Animals that by default and I would also say the evolution of our species, we are unique among the Animals on the planet. It's just that our mission and our vision for who we are to become for each other and for other species hasn't matured - yet - and is rather stunted in growth. You could say that it's noble and a good gesture to grant Animals our perceived rights except they might very well say that they're much better off without them. Sainthood perhaps, Personhood, never, and at least, that's how the Animals see it.

Here's the Animalhood declaration that I formulated several years ago: All animal beings of all species are afforded the same self-determined and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of joy.  Nothing about their physical form or place as predator or prey in the Natural World will be used against them by humans.  Nor will the human species interfere in their lives and interrupt the Animal’s life cycle, habitat, or natural order of animal experience on Earth.  Animal beings will be protected under human law and given the same protection as humans from abuse and violent crime perpetrated against them.  Animal beings alone will consent to interaction with humans upon request and will alone designate the scope, length, and depth of any interaction.  This will include their parental rights that will not be waived in any form or by any perception of ownership by humans.  From this point forward the only relationship between animals and humans will be mutual respect and compassion.  It will be recognized and embraced as a universal truth that all Animal beings are equal members of a collective whole while living on Earth. No one Animal being or group of Animal beings shall claim or attempt to claim dominion over any other Animal being or group of Animal beings.  

Thanks for listening today. Leave a review and be sure to subscribe to this podcast. I offer all new clients a free 15-minute 

consultation, to schedule online go to lizanneflynn.com. Come find me on social media - 

FB, X-Twitterverse, Instagram, and Linkedin. I encourage you to sign up for my quarterly newsletter on my website where I also post notices 

for upcoming events, the starting date of courses in The Animals' iView Academy, and online psychic fairs. The episodes of this podcast are available

on my YouTube channel complete with subtitles, you'll find that link in my podcast footer, and be sure to subscribe. 

This has been the Animals' iView podcast - I'll see you next time.