Here follows Kirt's response to Aajonus Vonderplanitz. >Hi Aajonus! >I surely and truly didn't think that seeing my "review" would shock >you. Really. Though it sounds like I may now well be on your "avoid >list" I do want you to know that I have no hostility, "ulterior >motives", or naughtiness to direct towards you. I am only interested >in a dialogue with you, since, as I noted repeatedly in the post, I'm >intrigued by your experiences. >You have much to share with heath-seekers of all kinds and I hope you >can see somhow that I was not attempting to upset you at all. It was >meant to pique the interest of other raw-fooders, in order that your >message would be more widely heard... Aajonus said: >>Kirt, you naughty individual, your review revealed to me that you did >>not read WE WANT TO LIVE thoroughly and you lacked some important >>comprehension. Kirt said: >I did read it thoroughly. Indeed, I was rivited. Of course, I can not >claim complete understanding and welcome your clarifications. Aajonus said: >>You misstated, extrapolated and sometimes misquoted my >>book and work at least six times in approximately two pages. You even >>misspelled my name repeatedly. Worse, you gave advice about it (raw >>butter/UNHEATED honey mixture) based on your personal experience, >>concepts and negative view of my theoretical explanations. Kirt said: >I will always approach new information based on my personal experience >and concepts. But I can and do apologize for the unfortunate >misspellings. Aajonus said: >>Kirt, you hadn't studied and digested the material, investigated >>the results from people who had successfully achieved health, and >>reversed terminal diseases, or even experimented for yourself. Kirt said: >I read and considered every word in your book, which was the subject >at hand. If there is more information available about your work I am >very interested in obtaining it. How would I go about investigating >your results? I am very interested in doing so. As for experimenting >myself, it simply isn't clear to me how I would do that. You gave many >recipes along the way, but the plain details of what to eat is not >clear to the reader. Since I suffer from none of the afflictions you >list, I am unable to give your specific recommendations regarding >their reversal a try. Aajonus said: >>I was quite shocked. I wrote the book so that the non-academically >>minded could understand. However, perspectives that are not framed >>within our common scientific structure, with explanations that seem >>so foreign as to be mythical, may non-the-less be accurate. Many >>theories that initially seemed far-fetched were true. Whether my >>explanations and my colleague's are more or less accurate than >>established reasoning remains to be experienced. Kirt said: >I appreciate that you were writing for a lay audience. Still, you seem >to be replacing the medical dogma with notions about, say, blood types >(which can shift during one's life) and then refer to them as holding >xplanatory power. In order that even the lay reader can respect such >xplanations they need to be layed out in more detail. If you expect >nything but dismissal from the scientific world (who will hopefully be >nterested in your results regardless of your explanations) you w>ill >lso need to provide falsifiable explanations. I am much more >nterested in the details of your program and our stunning results than >n your reasonings, though, as I noted in the review, I am intrigued by >hem as well! Aajonus said: >>Unless the day arrives when we communicate with cells, >>vitamins, enzymes, et al, we will never know their intents and actual >>functions. Until then we surmise. Kirt said: >Perhaps this is what lead to my confusion. Your theoretical >explanations ounded very much more like "here is the truth" than >"surmisings". If they were preceeded with, "I have come to think of it >in terms of..." or even "Perhaps, it could be seen as..."--that type >of thing--then I doubt that I would see them as "wholesale additions >to medical myth". In other words, I found that you simply overstated >them as confirmed truth when they are only your working hypotheses. Aajonus said: >>What remains true is that every diet has positive results for >>somebody in some way or they wouldn't be pursued for long, with or >>w/o side effects. Kirt said: >I repeat, I am _very_ interested in your positive results. Aajonus said: >>Did your review elevate tragedy to comic relief? Or did it >>ridicule a tragic-life-turned-good? Kirt said: >If it did, I apologize. You are to be commended for your sterling >efforts, and I should have said so explicitly in the review. I am just >not swayed much by testimonials--perhaps it is part of the burn-out of >having read so many in the raw foods arena that I have become jaded to >a degree. It tells more about me than about your book: I apologize. Aajonus said: >>If it is fact that instincto is >>superior and can be framed in scientific terms that meet your >>cerebral criteria, why does instincto have such a high attrition rate >>of, I was told by Ron Strauss, 98%?. Kirt said: >As I mentioned to you privately, Bruno Cromby confirms this sad >statistic. Aajonus said: >I am unaware of saying that instincto is superior to your mixed >approach. Indeed, I think instincto "explanations" suffer in the same >way that some of yours do. In fact, I noted at the end of the review >that "A non-instincto take on RAF is always interesting to someone >like me who is steeped in instincto lore." I used the word "lore" to >imply that I am probably wearing some sort of blinders after years of >considering instincto explanations as Truth... Kirt said; >>My predominantly >>raw-food(80-100%)/instinctive/intuitive/rational omnivorous approach >>loses only 23% of those who actually try it for at least 30 days. Aajonus said; >This is indeed stunning news, and with such a success rate the medicos >will have a very hard time ignoring your work. >>I am 99.999% raw. I average eating one cooked starch a month, when I >>feel I need it for reasons stated in my book. Kirt said: >I am not sure that all-raw is the be all and end all of food intake. I >am most intrigued by your bread-eating experience, since I >(intellectually) consider bread to be among the least natural foods. >So when I hear of someone with vast raw experience finding it useful, >my ears perk up. I question your explanation, but not your experience >at all! Aajonus said: >>To inform readers who have not read my book but have read Kirt >>review of it (4 February), the extrapolated paragraph that began >>The thought of delicious, heavily buttered garlic bread... >>exists to reveal my early stages of climb into raw-foodism, >>instinctive considerations and confusion about how much raw-food was >>correct (1969). I was pioneering on my own. I had no references >>to guide me into raw foods as you have been fortunate enough to have >>had. Kirt said: >All the more reason that I value your incredible path and discoveries! Aajonus said: >>I did not commit to completely raw until 1972. I added a little >>cooked grain and potato starches in 1986. If read thoughtfully, my >>book has usually been easily understood. There is so much information >>in it that anyone who races through it is likely to misconstrue, >>misinterpret and lose significant info (as in the review). Kirt said: >With all the flashbacks, it is kinda hard to know when a scene is >taking place. Nevertheless, I did realize that it was early on. But >whether from decades ago or hours ago, the bread quote remains >intriguing to me. In fact, I was hoping to maybe hear more about the >value you find in bread, not to belittle you (or anyone else who is >eating it) but because I'm interested! I don't doubt that you may be >wary of that, since so many all-raw folks are so very diminutive to >any non-raw consumption, but all I can do is say I'm sincerely >intrigued. Aajonus said: >>Probably like most readers and participants of RAW-FOOD, I have >>wrestled diet through conceptual battles and found it futile, >>frustrating and confusing. I prefer using my intuition and rationale >>WITH my instincts. Kirt said: >I have my _highest_ respect for such an approach. Indeed, humans are >well designed to use all levels of their consciousness to find their >way. You are a fine example of this. Aajonus said: >>I am sensitive and I want to remain so. I have been attacked and >>slaughtered for ideologies rather than for sustenance. Kirt said: >If you are refering to my review, you surely mistook my words as badly >as you claim I did yours! I wasn't attacking or slaughtering you. >Perhaps you are refering to others...but I'd take it all back before >I'd feel any degree of comfort with your feeling that I was attacking >you! No, I wasn't. Aajonus said: >>I had done the same to others. I do not wish to battle theories and >>ideologies anymore, becoming angry and numb, and so I decline >>Peter's kindly careful invitation for now. I may visit the web site >>and read from time to time. Kirt said: >I hope you change your mind and join us. It _is_ possible to have >dialogue about these issues without battling or becoming angry and >numb. Really, haven't you maybe overreacted a bit? I can only guess >that with the constant barrage of criticism you must get from the >cooked world, that perhaps you thought the raw folks would be blindly >supportive, and my ambivilant review sounded much more scathing to >your ears than it actually was? I don't know, but I sure didn't think >that I would alienate you! Aajonus said: >>My first perusal, of the volume mentioned above, erupted so many >>frustrating memories that I actually had chills up my spine and knots >>in my stomach. I remembered when I adamantly believed that it was >>wrong, even anti-spiritual, to slaughter animals but that it was good >>to slaughter vegetables and fruits. I don't know if I can >>completely forgive myself for all the misguidance and suffering, >>often through down-right intellectual and emotional intimidation, >>that I gave people when I deftly criticized them for killing animals >>(meat-eating) and food (cooking). I possibly caused them more harm >>than good by completely closing their minds to veganism and >>raw-foodism out of shear defiance toward my self-righteously superior >>concepts. Kirt said: >This is one of the central issues in the raw world these days. There >are many raw fooders who are vegan or have been for decades, often at >detrime to their health. It is understandably hard to share the >importance of raw animal foods (RAF) with them, without tipping off >the vegan alarm, so to speak. Indeed, many would welcome your >experience struggling with the same issues. There is little doubt that >I am not fully sensitized to the vegan rap, and that I >_under_appreciate their dilemma. Your voice of consumate experience in >these matters would be very welcome on raw-food. There simply are very >few "elders" around who have come up through the raw ranks as you >have. You have an important point of view to share, and I feel >downright crummy that I have had part in "turning you off" of >partcipating on the raw-food mailing list. My intention was the >opposite: to share your book with others and discuss its many new >points of view. And, truth told, I hoped you would be interested >enough to join in and share more. Instead I have offended you. I wish >it weren't so!! Aajonus said >>Since I view everything as alive and conscious, my dietary >>considerations have simplified my ideologies to: living >>disease-free, respecting the well-being of all things >>(organic-minded; ecology), and feeling as healthy and happy as >>possible. I was 20 and dying of cancer with diabetes and 4 other >>incurable diseases. Now I'm two month away from 50, disease-free, >>happy and, I'm told, have the health and body of twentysomething >>without having exercised in 18 years. Several of my goals are to make >>more alternative information readily available Kirt said: >The raw-food list is a very important venue for such alternative >imformation! Aajonus said: >>I got healthier in some ways for years as a raw food fruitarian/vegan >>but deteriorated in others to the point of being near death from >>disease again. As described in my book, in 1976, I was fasting to >>death because I was deteriorating in the stressful outdoors as a >>completely raw fruitarian/ vegan, not simply because I did not want >>to return to a diseased civilization (misstated in the review). Kirt said: >The fruitarian "crack" was not directed at you (who are now anything >but a fruitarian!), but is part of a larger context on the raw-food >list about the mindset of many fruitarians...In any event, I probably >should not have made the crack. Aajonus said: >>After taking 1 1/2 years to completely recover from a 41-day fast, I >>turned against forced fasts. Since then (1981), whenever food is >>unappealing, I recommend raw juice-feasting and/or chewing celery >>until appetite returns. Fresh raw juices provide the best vitamin and >>enzyme supplementation. Kirt said: >Many have experienced similar trouble on a vegan diet but lacked the >whatever-it-is to explore further into RAF territory. Many have also >found fasting to be problematic as well, and favor juice fasting. Aajonus said: >>I wrote my book telling my story and giving as much info as my >>publisher and editors allowed, and my brief theories. It is there as >>help for anyone in their journey to better health rather than fixed >>ideologies. Most of the remedial suggestions are empirical rather >>than theoretical. Science leads academia. Academia leads education. >>Education is the main thrust for the media and the people. Since >>science is invested in manipulating the world, including the human >>body and spirit, instead of embracing Nature's symbiotic >>life-province that makes this planet so naturally pleasurable, most, >>if not all, of us are caught in manipulation of each other. It is a >>pity.? Kirt said: >I don't know whether you are speaking directly of me here, but Jeez, >Aujonus, I am _not_ trying to manipulate you!! Read back over my >private posts to you (and my many many posts on the raw-foods lists). >I am extending myself to you in the most honest way I know how. >Further understand that the review was written to the mailing list in >the context of months of everyone's posts on the issues you mention >above. We often discuss books, and it appeared that your "must read" >book was not on anyone's shelf yet, so I thought I would post a >provocative review of a provocative book--hoping to get your >experiences out to more of the people who are in need of it! I am not >about to make a sound-bite-like review in order to woo your friendship >(now _that_ would be manipulative!), but am very much interesting in >an exchange of ideas/information between us--or if that is not >possible (because I have inadvertantly offended you with the review), >at least the greater dissemination of your ideas to the raw world. Aajonus said: >>My main intention is to make my experiences and results available to >>improve people's health and well-being. At the present, I am not a >>dietary evangelist. Kirt said: >This is clear. And I hold you in the highest regards for your >position! Aajonus said: >>I wish you, Peter, and Kirt, and everyone reading this, the very best >>of health. Kirt said: >Now. It's far past two o'clock, and I wish you the best as well! How >can I share with you the dismay I felt when I saw that you took the >review as an attack? How about this: it made me want to eat some >french bread! ;) Anyway, I was distressed. Hopefully, you will see >things less tragically in time. >Perhaps it would help you to know that I have, on the raw-food list, >consistently confronted the fruitarian/vegan crowd as regards their >evangelism and wishy-washy metaphysics. It would have been dishonest >of me to embrace the "new-age" elements in your presentation simply >because you are onto RAF. Anyone familiar with my concerns on the >matter (as most raw-food listers are) would not have stood for such a >manipulation from me. As for your lack of evangelical posturing, I >only wish I had commended you in a very forthright and forceful manner >in my review. There are so very few rawists who are not evangelical >that I barely recognise another "comrade-sans-arms" when I read him. >Though there has been little feedback about my review (and more >importantly: about your book!) posted on the list, I am under the >impression that most listers didn't find it to be particularily >scathing. >Perhaps, I am wrong about this, but in comparison to my oppositional >response (usually quite polite, but there were a couple time when I >_was_ scathing) I gave to a recently published fruitarian book >(Nature's First Law), the review I posted on your book was about as >days, instincto or otherwise. Indeed, I am about to the point that I >would write a similarly ambivilant review of our own ms.! >Anyway, it's late, but please hear my message in all this: I am not >trashing your work! I am looking forward to hearing more information >(including clarifications of any other misrepresentations in the >review). >Indeed, I thought I was extending myself in friendship to you. >I still am. >Cheers, >Kirt Best, Peter [log in to unmask]