Hey Martha!
Sorry to see you go with such hard feelings. Hard feelings seem to be all
too prevelant these days...
Peter
>> >> However, when you start to seriously challenge some of their
>> >>vegan tenets, you will encounter their darker sides like we have
>> >>seen in this forum.
>I suppose if sticking your neck out to defend a group who're getting
>a too-harsh treatment, risking the wrath of the group's elite, is a dark
>side, then you're now seeing my dark side too.
I have to agree with Peter here, yet I know how it feels to be in your
position (in reverse on jr's list). The peaceful rhetoric of veganism all
too often dissolves into simple attack mode when the a prioris of veganism
are challanged. This, of course, is not true for all vegans. And it
certainly isn't true for only vegans.
>> Martha said:
>> >I think this is true of most people who believe in something.
>Peter:
>> Even more why we should try to raise the standards.
Martha:
>To keep people who believe in something out? My suggestion
>above for your "welcome" message should be expanded with "or
>any other beliefs".
What are beliefs, Martha? Are they sacred mental constructions or arbitrary
ideas or something in-between? When beliefs are held up as Truth then the
potential for bigotry and zealotry (in all arenas) is multiplied. Belief
probably serves all sorts of function besides Truth (which I personally
feel it can _not_ serve, ever). Belief as comfort, as fostering one's self
worth, as social "glue", as a way of avoiding one's painful past, as a way
of simplifying a complex event (life), as a way of understanding the
un-understandable, etc--there are many reasons for our attraction to belief
systems. But when the belief become Truth, instead of "something I ideate
as a convenient simplification of an un_know_able (but not so terribly
un_feel_able or un_sense_able) reality", everthing may be mussed up,
sometimes very very tragically. Of course, all is (relatively) well when
the members of a sub-group based on ideation (vegan, instincto, whatever)
interacts only with each other. But when folks start prodding at each
other's a prioris, forget it!
"You are better off fooling with a man's wife than his cliches" or
something like that, says Amanda in Tom Robbin's "Another Roadside
Attraction".
It seems that segregation "works" at the expense of the unreality of
boundries/walls, where integration "works" at the expense of conflict,
sometimes lethal. The conflict will remain as long as 1] either sub-group
will not alter (and honestly adhere) to new and broader a prioris, or 2]
when bullies who defect on the norms (not the a prioris, the _norms_ of
behavior style) are not punished by the whole group. I'm afraid the raw
foods arena specializes in both...
I think what Peter is trying to do (at least it sure is what _I_ am trying
to do and Peter has always supported my bumbling efforts at it--as well as
"punishing" me, as he should, when I defect on the norms ;)) is create a
place in cyberspace where sub-groups must "check in their weapons at the
door". And from there, we can all suspend belief (as Truth) and challange
each other's a prioris for the good of each other and ourselves. Such a
lofty and worthwhile aspiration/definition (yes, probably even an "ideal"
;)) is as successful as its least common denominator--and as successful as
its greatest common denominator. And I support Peter in kicking out any
norm defectors, especially since the majority lurks instead of showing any
outrage when someone defects. If everyone who was offended at, say, Stephen
and his "cooked retard" quip, shared their dismay, Stephen would be more
effectively "punished" for defecting. Perhaps, the majority of lurkers
support such defection or don't see it as defection in the first place; or
perhaps they see it as the moderator's problem, not theirs.
In other words, most mailing lists, to my eyes, try to nail down the
"proper" a prioris (and what a mess that usually is in any arena), where
this list is kinda "anti-a priori" as an apriori. Interestingly to me, jr's
list, in a sense, has the same aspirations, except that "freedom" is
substituted for an "anti-a prioris". Yet for all practical purposes, the
freedom is a sham since the list has decided that any RAF-talk (unless it
is belittling RAF eaters) is a "defection" and acts accordingly. Indeed,
everything _but_ a prioris is discussed there and it ends up being trite.
But since the moderator is explicit that he wants a raw family first and
foremost, _that_ actually becomes the largest a priori of all. It is a
place to bond more than look carefully at the raw issues of the day, which,
of course, is just fine. Contrast that with the new veg-raw with a clear
vegan a priori, but a very low volume. That Peter wants this list to become
the place for reasoned and honest discourse on raw foods shouldn't mean
that vegan sensibilities are taboo, and, to my mind it sure doesn't! Yet,
when both the nutritional superiority and anthropologocal "underpinnings"
to veganism are shown to be wanting, as has been shown so on this list,
what is left but the ethical superiority stance? This "argument" too has
been fairly debunked here as well.
So what is left of veganism here? Lots actually. It is a place where vegans
who doubt the efficacy of their regime are free to post w/o (public)
recrimination by hardliner vegans. It is a place to wonder how one can most
succesfully remain vegan in spite of veganism's nutritional limitations
(ie--can particular supplements make the difference for some people; how to
deal with the internal conflict of vegan aspirations and nutritional
cravings; how can cooked grains best be utilised to remain vegan, if not
all-raw, etc etc etc). I suspect that Tom Billings, for instance, has a
much more vegan "base" than any other prolific poster here. Yet because he
values reasoned discourse, he appears to relish this forum (while
supporting the new veg-raw as well!) and greatly enriches it ith his
participation. Certainly I nor Peter begrudge him or any other
"philosphical vegan" their birth-right to decide what food they eat, for
whatever reason they choose. Though I doubt that Tom has any weapons to
check at the door (he clearly prefers gentle reason as his "(un)weapon of
choice") he is certainly not denied access here. Indeed, he is highly
respected by myself and others.
No, Martha, I really don't think the spin former posters to this list go
out of their way to give (that Peter is "intolerant" that he "censures any
view other that disagrees with his own", etc) is accurate at all--it seems
to be more of an example of zealots licking their wounds by recreating
reality. You seem to be disgusted with the whole scene, and I can empathise
only too well with your disillusionment, but am nevertheless bummed by your
departure.
You mentioned that this list is getting more "carnivorous", but it is
actually _omnivorous_. Perhaps omnivorous looks carnivorous to a (aspiring)
vegan, but I wonder if it isn't an example of everything looking like a
nail to the person who owns a hammer. Perhaps you could cut Peter some of
the slack you cut so many others on the raw lists, realizing that waking up
from a long denial of one's own reality (with the "help" of veganism) is a
tough act to follow. I, who never had much stake in veganism, have been
appalled at the behavior of many of the more vocal (and silent) vegans. I
can only imagine how much more contenscious the issue is to Peter from his
frame of reference. Indeed, my embarrassment of the behavior of many
instinctos (after beholding instincto-ism as Truth for years) leaves me
none too happy.
A friend and I once had a lengthy discussion about this issue (many years
ago and not related to diet). Should one have empathy of disdain for the
people stuck in the same "stage" as they were previously? I was saying how
POed I was with people who were doing what I was doing only a year ago (why
don't they wake up and smell the roses like I have? I bemoaned) and my
friend was saying "you should have _more_ empathy since you know what it's
like". I suspect that both views are simultaneously true, but it may also
be that disdain shows itself earlier than empathy. It also may be that the
disdain "should" never leave when dishonest prostelytising is the method.
(In other words, Peter was never a vegan crusader/bully like NFL--at least
I don't think so!)
If you, Martha, ever find your vegan aspirations wanting, and "chunk up" to
a new level, I wish you luck in handling the increased disdain you may feel
for NFL, and yes, even the spiritual posturings of Rene. (Of course, these
"new levels" are different for each of us in kind and number...)
Below is, to my mind, one of your most memorable exchanges with Peter (and
not just because I am a co-subject ;)) from the first week in July...
---------------
Peter:
>>>... Yet, remaining in denial in spite of the
>>>overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because the truth is too
>>>painful, is no solution either.
Martha:
>I thought you might like to know that this statement made quite an
>impact on me. It's the reason why, a couple of months ago, I
>decided against deleting Kirt's posts unread. He was always going
>on about some wonderful creature he was consuming, and it was
>starting to make me sick. But then (thanks to you) I decided I
>shouldn't turn my back on any point of view. Since then, Kirt and I
>have had some nice conversations and I'm glad I wasn't so hasty!
Well, Martha, you've hung in here a long while and no one can call you
hasty. Still, I hope to see you around somewhere, sometime...
>Kirt, I want to thank you one last time for the Health & Beyond. It
>may well become my last regularly-scheduled health reading
You're welcome again. Twas money well spent. And maybe one day you will
make a gift sub or two yourself to some gentle soul who journeys into the
strange waters of raw food...
Cheers,
Kirt
|
