>I am intetested in wether or not there
>could possibly be such a thing as a raw-foods movement, or is it more
>appropriately envisioned as a more general healthy-eating movement, and a
>vision of what it would look like.

Tom:
I personally prefer an emphasis on a healthy eating movement, with raw diets
being one of the major (but definitely not only) tools used for health.

>You and I certainly are in complete agreement on this. My question is, why use
>raw-foods as the main focus, if we really want to say something else entirely?

Tom:
An excellent point. Your post in general, touches on many of the key
challenges facing those interested in holistic health. Basically, health
ultimately requires addressing more than the body. But most holistic health
systems start with the body, and diet is a good "entry point".  I see
raw diets as, in effect, a system that people can use for a while, then
if necessary switch to other approach (as most long-time rawists go off
the diet, then back on, in a cycle). I used to think such a cycle was
bad, but for some folks it may be appropriate (but not necessarily
optimal).

The truth is that unless one also addresses mental, emotional, and spiritual
health, one might not find real healing. Drugs, surgery, raw diets, herbs -
these things actually simply buy time for a person. If the underlying factors
are not addressed, disease - in one form or another - will return, in
one form or another. Healing is a fascinating, but very complex, subject;
the psychology of healing is of great interest to me.

>Yes - well maybe. But this isn't really a clear message that says "Eat raw
>foods." What this says is, "Eat raw foods if they seem to help, but not vegan,
>and certainly not for the long haul since most people don't seem to be able to
>keep to this for a variety of reasons, and unprocessed is usually (not always,
>but usually) better, because usually that means its not cooked, but not
>always, and some people seem to thrive on cooked foods anyway."

Tom:
True - mindless slogans like "raw is law" and "cooked food is poison!" are
simpler and, to the gullible, easier to sell in the short run. But in the
long run, let me quote the Aghori (Tantric) adept Vimalananda:

"It's always better to live with reality, because otherwise, WITHOUT FAIL,
reality will come and live with you."

(Beginning quote of "Aghora III: The Law of Karma", by Robert Svoboda.)

The long run is the crux, the major problem in the raw world. Some go on/off
the diet, others adopt mixed diets. Reality is not so kind here as to
provide a simple solution, that the slogan quoting frauds, can use to
make money with. I actively agree that it is EASY to make glorious promises
of health and healing with raw; it is harder - but more honest - to be
realistic.  However, in the long run, realism will prevail because the
truth will prevail - and we know the fanatics/lunatic fringe specialize in
crank science (there is even a raw e-mail forum dedicated to crank science),
plagiarism, and fraud - and they will fail. They refuse to live with
reality, and so reality will come and live with them (and I don't think
they will like reality, at all)!

So, at present, I don't have a nice, marketable, easy answer to the problem
you raise. I have been thinking about this recently, and may eventually
write something on it...to be determined...

>I'm not nearly as well-read on raw foods as I should be, so please excuse me
>if this is a really ignorant question, but what are the principles of raw? Is
>there more to it than just "raw food is good for you?"

Tom:
What I mean by principles is simply that people eat some raw foods, and
eat less processed food. Yes to salads, raw sprouts, some raw fruit; no to
candy bars, potato chips, french fries, and so on.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]