Tom, many thanks for your great & sane posts & my acknowledgements for your
great choice of ancestors.  Anyone who could survive 8 years as fruitarian
must have superior genes.  That "diet" nailed me in 5 MONTHS when I lived it
on Fry's advice in 90!

Tom;
> Some raw fooders are very idealistic - to the point of narrow dogmatism,
while others are very pragmatic and open.

Bob:
>Again, definitions would help.  If two folks are debating trunks while one's
thinking of his suitcase & the other's visualizing the front of an elephant
....
I don't equate realism with pragmatism.  Didn't the pragmatists declare that
there is no such thing as objective reality at all!?! Are "idealists" equated
with "zealots" & defined as anyone having a strong Belief System (yep, B.S.)
that differs from mine? & "realists" are those who appreciate my truth?

Tom:
>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.)

Bob:
Any chance that nature IS simple & perfect & we just haven't yet understood
it's simplicity & perfection?

Tom:
>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?

Bob:
Yes, nature's neutral.  But reality is "benevolent" in the sense that if you
DO adapt to it, if you DO think, value & act rationally, then you can achieve
your values.  That's paraphrased from Leonard Peikoff 7 probably borrowed
from Ayn Rand before that.

Tom:
>Perfect health cannot even be defined; ask anyone who makes such a claim to
give an objective,
comprehensive definition of perfect health.

Bob:
How bout "Optimum Health" as the greatest level of well being we can each
achieve given the genetic & enviormental factors beyond our control?
 Probably not too objective, but it's been my goal for a couple decades & I
believe I'm making progress. :-)

Tom:
>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.

Bob:
I don't suppose it's possible to become an idealist about your realism, eh?

Someone:
>100%rawOmni. Maybe we could use CF,CV, CO  ( where C=100%, F=fruit, V=vegan,
O=omni)? And this is only the beginning - the range of foods etc can make all
the difference.

Bob: & add "I" for "Instinctive", please!

>Humans are extremely nutritionally flexible,

Yeah, but at what cost?

Tom:
>We all are realists in some ways, idealists in others. That's life, or as
the realist would say, that's
reality.advice

Bob:
Or, as the idealist would say, that's ideal! ;-)

Tom:
>But if the cow doesn't want us to take her milk, she could resist. That
she doesn't resist, and in fact comes (freely) to the milking shed to be
milked at the appropriate time, suggests that it is not theft. Additionally, the cow
produces excess milk  - more than is needed by the calf. In Ayurvedic
dairies in India, the calf remains with the mother, and only her surplus
milk - over and above that needed by the calf - is taken for human use.

Bob:
The cow" ain't a real animal.  It's a plastic hybrid creation of humans.
 Mammals in the wild don't carry around surplus milk.  Kill a wild lactating
boar or gazelle & try to make a lunch off it's milk -- there ain't none (at
least every time I checked there was none -- one of the reasons dairy could
bnever have been an original human food, why our instincts don't protect us
from it.

Tom:
>  The spiritual view is
that we should identify with the spirit within, not the body. And a diet
of animals hinders us from that process. The spiritual view is that the true
self is the spirit within, not the body. So, identifying with the spirit
is true self-identification, and identifying with the body is not. The
body lasts a few years, the spirit is immortal.

Bob:
Why must we accept the dreaded binarism here?  Why either identify with
spirit or body.  Why must there be a dichotomy.  I prefer to identify with
spirit AND body, idealism and realism.  Can do?  Your proof that the spirit
is immortal?  Received a postcard from great grandpappy lately?

i TRIED UNSUBSCRIBING TO THIS LIST A COUPLA MONTHS AGO, FAILED AT IT & HAVE
BEEN DEPRIVING MYSELF OF SLEEP FOR THE SAKE OF THIS VERY ENJOYABLE MENTAL
MASTURBATION EVER SINCE.  nOW, i MUST SLEEP & i'M MAKING TWO ATTEMPTXS TO
UNSUBSCRIBE, THEN WILL REQUEST DAVID OR PETER TO RE-ISTRUCT ME IN THE ART OF
UNSUBSCRIBING (REQUESTED BY AT LEAST TWO OTHER FOLKS IN THE LAST FEW DAYS AS WELL.

BYE, Y'ALL, 'EALTH, 'APPINESS & FREEDOM TO YA

BOB

PS--JOIN US AT BOB AVERY'S nh m2m, IT ONLY DEPRIVES US OF ABOUT HALF THE
SLEEP THAT THIS LIST COSTS!!  ;-)

BOB'S AT [log in to unmask]