Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:45:06 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Stefan Joest <[log in to unmask]>:
>This raises an old question I have thought about a lot:
>(maybe I'm on the wrong list...)
>It seems that only 5% of all people are going actively through their life,
>trying to live fully self responsible and doing the decisions that must be
>done. And 95% are more or less walking passively through life and giving
>important decisions to others (which doesn't hinder them from complaining
>if the others made bad decisions for them.)
>Maybe the ratio is worse than 95/5, maybe it's better. Perhaps it's a
>very hard statement, but I consider the 95% to be mentally immature.
>As far as I have seen, raw-fooders aren't better concerning this ratio.
>Just in the long run I would expect them to do better since I expect the
>mental health to improve also.
>Any suggestions, ideas, comments?
Tom:
Interesting. I would use the word 'asleep' instead of immature. Although
immature may be more accurate (in some cases), it often has a negative energy
when used to describe adults.
Many raw fooders are also, to varying degrees, asleep or immature as well.
One can see this in any dogmatic raw fooder - one who, for example, accepts
natural hygiene, then refuses to rationally and honestly question the basic
assumptions of natural hygiene.
My impression is that while raw foods are often helpful in improving physical
health, the ultimate effect of a 100% raw foods diet on emotional and mental
problems is often the opposite. That is, a 100% raw foods diet will bring a
person's emotional and mental problems out into the open. That's one possible
explanation for why so many "100% RAW NOW" folks (e.g., zealots) appear to be
mentally unbalanced.
Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|