over on the veg-raw list, there were a number of reply posts (re: my
idealism post), that praised idealism in a general setting. The
following was inspired by their posts. The supplement below brings
attention back to idealism in the context of raw foods diets, and
should give people something to think about. I hope you find it
of interest!
Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]
=========================================================
SUPPLEMENT TO: IDEALISM VS. REALISM IN RAW FOODS
When my article on idealism vs. realism in raw foods, appeared on Internet,
there were a number of replies that praised idealism in a general context.
Idealism was depicted as being a major factor in the advance of human
societies. There is much truth to those claims. We all are realists in some
ways, idealists in others. That's life, or as the realist would say, that's
reality.
However, idealism has a darker side. While one can say that Buddha, Christ,
Da Vinci were idealists, one can also say that Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, and
Stalin were idealists as well - idealists of a very different kind. The
question then becomes, what is the balance of idealism and realism that is
best for each person.
It is also interesting that no one defended idealism in the context of raw
foods diets. Perhaps that is because one must abstract away from the
damage cause by idealism in the raw movement, in order to say nice things
about idealism?
It is my observation and opinion that many of the problems of the raw movement
have their roots in excess idealism. A little bit of idealism in raw foods
can be good - one can argue that those who try the diet on spiritual or
environmental grounds, are engaging in idealistic behavior. However, an
excess of idealism can lead to a number of problem.
Let me enumerate some of the damage that excess idealism can cause, in the
context of raw foods diets (as follows).
* If one firmly believes that all illness is due to toxemia, and all health
problems are detox, then one may ignore health problems - refuse to seek
medical advice or care - when treatment/care are urgently needed. This has
hurt quite a few rawists.
* One may accept severe emaciation because the weight lost is all "mucus"
(an "evil demon" to some idealists), or its your "cooked fude body" (as it
is called by some). Someone with anorexia nervosa accepts emaciation gladly,
as the weight lost is all "fat". Can you see the similarity here?
* One may accept chronic health problems such as fatigue, lassitude,
loss of sex drive, as "detox" symptoms - it's a sign that "you're not
pure enough".
* The emphasis on purity/toxemia, and general obsession with the body and
food, are examples of a very UNhealthy mental attitude towards food, and
life in general. Food should sustain you and nourish you, rather than
rule your life. If food rules your life, the diet is eating you, rather than
the other way around!
* The high incidence of eating disorder behaviors in rawism (binge eating,
eating in secret, lying about eating) also reflect a mentally UNhealthy
state. If one incorporates their diet into their self-identity, then finds
that the diet doesn't work, then one can end up living a lie. An illustration
of this would be someone who becomes a 100% fruit, fruitarian, promotes
himself or herself as such, then ends up living a lie: telling all that
he/she is 100% fruit, while binge eating in secret. This is the fate of
some of the "role models" of rawism, but you will never get them to admit
it in public!
* The obsession with the body often causes one to neglect mental and spiritual
health factors, to your long-term detriment.
* The desire to be perfect, via a perfect diet, can increase the social
isolation associated with raw diets, thereby increasing emotional stress.
* Idealists promise perfect health and cure from all diseases. But the
diet cannot meet such unrealistic expectations. The result is that people
try raw, it doesn't work, and they leave the diet and never come back.
* For those who fall prey to fecal obsessions, or who abandon their families
for the "raw path" (i.e., abandon their families for a "different lunch"),
the only plausible explanations seem to be insanity or excess idealism.
* An excess of idealism is also one explanation for those who become hostile
zealots, attacking anyone who dares tell the truth about their not-so-
"perfect" diets. The ends justify the means, if you let idealism blind you
to the harm you are causing with hostility, and by attacking cooked food
eaters or those who eat meat. Of course there are other potential explanations
here: mental illness/insanity, or maybe the zealots were/are simply nasty
people, at heart? (If the latter - being nasty - is the explanation, then I
would point out that nasty people can change their ways and become nice.)
Further, I would argue that increasing the level of realism, and decreasing
the level of idealism, will alleviate many of the above problems, as follows.
* People will seek the advice of health professionals when serious problems
arise, rather than ignoring the problem. (Helps protect people from harm).
* Freed from the tyranny of the golden cage of the "perfect 100% raw diet",
social interaction with the world is easier and less tense. The diet will
serve you, rather than letting the diet control your life.
* New rawists will have realistic expectations, and will realize that
problems may arise. Given realistic expectations, fewer people drop out
and hence the number of successful (long-term) rawists increases.
* Rawists with serious eating disorder behavior problems would be advised
to seek professional help, rather than being told to "stay the course" on
their "perfect" diets. (A raw diet is an excellent "cover story"for someone
with an eating disorder.)
* Zealots would change their ways or fade away into obscurity.
So, before praising idealism and dismissing realism, consider the above.
The raw world needs MORE realism and LESS idealism.
Tom Billings
|
