the following was written to shine some light on a discussion that is
ongoing in the raw movement. I wrote it so that others can see how
the two sides differ. There is some repetition from earlier posts, but it is
all relevant in context. I hope this is of interest to you.
The material below is draft #2, and the items are discussed in
brief summary form only. Don't expect long detailed discussions here...
Notes:
1) to those who saw draft 1 - there are *many* changes.
2) other than the re-posting notice, the z-word does not appear in this post.
3) this is posted to both raw-food and veg-raw e-mail lists, so you
may get 2 copies.
4) note to veg-raw members: there is very brief discussion re: omnivorous diets.
Those who are offended by such, might skip those sections (a few short
paragraphs), or perhaps skip this entire post.
5) long post - please edit for replies/followup posts.
As always, constructive comments are welcome.
Tom Billings
=====usual notice re: reposting===================================
Important Notice Re: Posting/Web Sites:
The material in this post is cleared for posting on/in:
the raw-food list and archive site(s),
the veg-raw list,
the NH M2M,
Chet Day's Health & Beyond: web site and newsletter,
the SF-LiFE newsletter
REAL News (Raw Energy and Alternative Lifestyle).
Permission to post on "raw" will not be granted. This is because I am not on
"raw", and do not want my writings posted where they may be attacked by
zealots. I hold no ill feelings towards the many decent people on raw; however
I don't want my work the target of what I consider to be dishonest criticism by
a few uncivil zealots. (Honest, civil criticism is welcome, of course.)
For permission to post/publish elsewhere, inquire before posting.
Thanks; your cooperation with the above is appreciated!
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]
=========================================
IDEALISM VS. REALISM IN RAW FOODS
The raw foods movement is split into a number of factions, and it seems that
no one agrees with anyone else. Some raw fooders are very idealistic - to the
point of narrow dogmatism, while others are very pragmatic and open. The
purpose of this article is to contrast and clarify two different approaches
one might encounter: idealists versus realists. The material labelled I (for
Idealistic), represents a summary and synthesis of views one frequently
encounters in the movement. The material labelled R (for Realistic) is a
snapshot of my own views, which are in an on-going process of growth. I have
written this so that others can see the current discussion within the raw
movement, in a clearer light. (Note that I am not the only realist; there
are many realists in the raw movement.)
1.0 Views of Nature
I: Nature is simple, nature's laws are simple (or simplistic), and nature is
perfect.
R: Nature is a highly complex system; it is a system of trade-offs. Our
knowledge of nature's laws is limited. Nature is not perfect - some animals
wage war against each other, they sometimes kill each other during mating,
and there are many other natural events considered imperfect. (Note: nature
is not interested in anyone's dogma: nature simply IS.)
I: Nature is your friend, nature wants to help you.
R: Actually, nature is impersonal. One can personalize nature in positive
or negative ways, both equally valid. Positive: nature wants to help you,
via your birth. Negative: nature wants to help you die, via diseases,
predation, starvation, natural disasters. Observe that wild animals rarely
die of old age; does their "friend" nature want to help them live to a ripe
old age?
I: A raw, vegan diet is the natural diet for humans.
R: Humans are natural omnivores, per: 1) comparative anatomy analysis,
2) evidence of ape diets, 3) the fossil record, 4) every hunter-gatherer
society ever known on this planet. Note that, despite the above, there are
sufficient, powerful, spiritual and ethical reasons to be a vegetarian.
I: All animals of one species have the same diet, and so should humans!
R: Within a given species, diets can and will vary per habitat and territory.
If a food is not present in the habitat or territory, the animal cannot
eat it. This is also true of that intelligent, highly adaptable species -
humans. Witness the wide variation in diet among hunter-gatherer societies,
and across nations and cultures.
Intelligent adaptation is the key to survival of our species . Omnivorous
humans can eat a broad range of foods, and survive in habitats where a
frugivore/vegan could not - e.g. the Arctic, Tibet. It should be noted that
it is due to our omnivorous adaptation skills that we survived as a species,
and we are alive now, so we can debate the fine points of diet!
2.0 Theory of Diet
I: Cooked food is poison.
R: Humans may have evolved the genetic ability to handle some cooked food -
the evidence is inconclusive at present. However, some foods are easier to
digest when raw, others when cooked (e.g., starch foods like potatoes).
Simple logic suggests one should eat foods that are agreeable to you, in
the form that is easiest to digest. Some raw foods should be avoided: raw
rhubarb, kidney beans; many cooked foods should be avoided: fried foods,
heavily salted foods, broiled foods, etc. Diet is not so trivial that it can
be reduced to inaccurate, simplistic slogans.
I: A 100% raw, vegan diet is the best diet for everyone.
R: Actual experience with 100% raw vegan diets shows that they may assist
healing and health in the short run, but can be problematic in the long
run. Long-term 100% raw vegans are very rare, as very few people manage to
stay on the diet long-term. There's a lesson here, if you are open to receive
it. Note that vegan diets that are less than 100% raw, say 75-90% raw, are
more common and may be less problematic than 100% raw. (Hmm...the "best
diet" is one that very few succeed on long-term; these "symptoms" suggest
an excess of idealism!)
I: A raw diet can cure any/all diseases, and bestow perfect health.
R: Wild animals die of disease, despite eating a raw, natural diet. So too,
human rawists can and do get sick. A raw foods diet does not guarantee
excellent health: there are no guarantees in life. Perfect health cannot
even be defined; ask anyone who makes such a claim to give an objective,
comprehensive definition of perfect health.
I: If a raw diet doesn't work for you, it's your fault, because the diet
is natural and perfect!
R: There are no perfect diets; we live an imperfect world. If you have
made a reasonable, sincere effort at a raw diet, and it doesn't work for
you, then common sense suggests that you should change diets. The diet
must serve you, not the other way around!
I: A 100% raw diet is very special, in every way!
R: Consider the glorious 100% raw foods diet, and its profound effects
on your life. Study this sublime health system, at length. Then, ask
yourself this question: in its deepest essence, what really, truly, is
this supreme health system of a 100% raw diet?
Answer: It's just lunch! (and other meals as well...)
I: A 100% raw (vegan) diet is the goal to work towards.
R: Good health, not 100% raw, is the goal to work towards. Good health and
a 100% raw (vegan) diet aren't necessarily the same, a lesson that some
rawists learn the hard way. Don't obsess on a specific % of raw in your diet.
Instead, find the diet, the % of raw, that works for you, in that it supports
good health for you. (Note: some people who adopt raw specifically for
healing, may need to follow a nearly 100% raw diet for some time, as part of
their healing program.)
3.0 Applications
I: Common motivations (negative) here include fear of mucus, fear/hate of
cooked foods and those who consume them, and fear of protein foods. Many
idealists also have positive motivations as well.
R: You should have positive motivations: enhance health, healing,
spirituality, environment, and so on. The realist disposes of motivations
driven by fear/hate, where they belong: by flushing them down the toilet!
Motivations driven by fear/hate can lead, in the long run, to serious
mental or emotional problems (e.g., obsessive fear can turn the diet into
an eating disorder similar to anorexia nervosa).
I: Idealistic expectations: cure of all illness, total immunity from disease,
greatly enhanced health, extended lifespan; in effect: the "promised land".
R: Realistic expectations: raw foods diets are famous for their health
enhancement and healing effects. However, one must try and see for oneself,
as results are not guaranteed.
I: Any problems you experience are due to detox ("you're not pure enough").
Ignore the problem, redouble your efforts to comply with the perfect diet,
and the problem will go away. (Important: see ** below.)
R: Raw fooders can and do get sick. Problems should be handled aggressively.
For serious/acute conditions, one should consult a health professional for
advice (and possible treatment), as soon as possible. Dietary changes, which
are not in line with the idealistic diet, may be necessary. Don't sacrifice
your health on the alter of rawist dogma!
**Danger: the idealist position above is potentially harmful to your health.
I: Dietary dogma is VERY important in life; it is part of your self-identity.
Among idealists, guilt, low self-esteem may occur if one cannot follow the
perfect diet. Also, egoism, pride, and feelings of superiority, may occur
when one manages to perform the discipline required for the perfect diet.
(Perfectionism)
R: Diet and dietary dogma are not very important. A realist is not upset when
he or she backslides, nor does he/she develop a big ego when the diet is
followed successfully for a long time. Making perfectionism a part of your
dietary dogma, is a very bad idea. If you allow perfectionism to be dominant,
then the raw foods diet can, figuratively, eat you (when it should be the
other way around).
I: Idealists may get very upset if you criticize their perfect diets, as
it is such a big part of their self-identity.
R: If you don't like my diet; that's fine. I hope you find one that you like,
and that works for you.
I: Idealists frequently look at diet in binary terms: cooked vs. raw, vegan
vs. non-vegan, with raw/vegan=good, cooked/non-vegan=bad.
R: Realists recognize that a binary model does not yield an accurate view
of food/diet. Instead of a black/white (cooked/raw) classification, food
is figuratively seen in different shades of gray. Each food, whether cooked
or raw, vegan or non-vegan, has properties, and the effects of that food may
range from very good to neutral to very bad, depending on the type of food,
and your condition. Some relevant questions regarding food are: can you
digest the food? how do you react to it - positive, neutral, or negative?
and so on.
4.0 Summary Description
I: Simplistic, inaccurate view of nature and/or false versions of nature's
laws.
R: Accurate view of nature; respects that we don't fully understand the
real laws of nature.
I: Raw vegan diets are perfect; follow the diet, and you too can be perfect,
just like us idealists!
R: There are no perfect diets. Idealists are not perfect, just deluded.
I: Idealists are in denial of reality, and in denial of nature.
R: A realist accepts reality, nature, and life - as they are, without the
blinders of dogma or idealism. Life can be a great adventure, if we only
start accepting reality.
It is worth mentioning that idealism and realism are not a binary
classification of raw fooders, as one can simultaneously hold some idealist,
and some realist views.
Years ago, when I was getting into raw foods, I was very naive and idealistic.
I learned the hard way, that idealism is not a good approach. I now encourage
others to try rawism, but to do so in a realistic way, and avoid the traps
of dogma and idealism. The long-term outcome of your "raw experiment" may
depend on which approach you choose, and your attitude.
Finally, I should address the situation that some raw fooders will cling to
idealism, despite its serious flaws, because it appears to be more positive,
and gives them (false) hope. If someone came to you with a pill, and said
that it was natural, and that if you took the pill, it would cure all diseases,
grant perfect health, and lengthen your lifespan, then you would dismiss
that person as a charlatan, a fraud, a snake oil peddler. Why then do you
believe it when someone trys to "sell" you a diet with the same false claims?
Let's ignore the idealists who are in denial of reality, and approach raw
foods with our eyes open, with full acceptance of reality.
I wish you good health, and good luck with your diet!
Tom Billings
|
