Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:40:13 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
some |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:41:13 -0500, Jose Carlos <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> But eating all raw for a modern man seems to dispatch most of his energy,
> most of his blood, most of his efforts, indeed most of his obsessions and
> thoughts, paradoxical as this may seem, into his viscera and brawn,
> rather
> than into his brain.
My experience is that raw requires less of those, and a better physical
function includes support for the brain.
Isn't this a way of diminishing the human being rather
> than putting him back into his appropriate place?
>
On the contrary. I use the Norse definition of human, which means
approximately "great of heart and mind" and the intent is to imitate as
much as possible the state of paleolithic man. I believe that human=wild.
Examples are the social abilities of aboriginal Americans, closest AFAIK
to paleo.
I don't eat all raw, mostly because I haven't the required food sources,
don't know if I would even if they were available.
William
|
|
|