Hi William:

One initial question, if I may: Are you William Schnell?

I knew a certain William Schnell in another group, and if I remember well, 
he is/was very much into raw foods. I noticed similar points between you 
and him, so that I was asking myself: could it be the same person? 
Although, honestly speaking, William Schnell was rather more laconic than 
you. 

You say: "My experience is that raw requires less of those, and a better 
physical function includes support for the brain."

This is in part true, at least for me. Unless I did it wrong or my system 
was not ready yet, eating a lot of raw foods (not even all raw) demanded a 
lot of work from my digestory system. I usually chew my food well, but I 
can't spend all of my meal time chewing, and I don't like to use food 
processors or juicers to spare inner digestion, if you see what I mean. 
I'd rather use cooking. The brain, in my opinion, wants foods easy to 
digest and of course good-quality proteins and fats. Some of the latter 
can be raw, but if all is raw the brain will be asked to digest it, as 
well, side by side with stomach, and of course this is dysfunctional. For 
the brain. And don't forget the environment: if you are living on an 
island in the middle of the Pacific, where there is a lot of dancing and 
singing, and no taxes to pay, then it's perfect to go onto all raw. 

You also say: "I use the Norse definition of human, which means
approximately "great of heart and mind" and the intent is to imitate as
much as possible the state of paleolithic man." 

This is fine, William. Can you please tell me your source? Does it comes 
from Norse mythology? I've read a bit of it, but found it to be less 
attractive and less humane than the Greco-Roman version. It's possible 
that "human" comes from "humus" (earth), so it's rather surprising to see 
that Norsemen entertained such an elevated opinion of man himself. This 
appears to be rather too idealistic. I'd rather think that man is most of 
the time a lowly (I don't mean evil) creature, and this would apply even 
to our remote ancestors, mutatis mutandis, but he can of course, with some 
training and willpower, raise his head above the powder. I don't know if 
he needs to retrace his steps to paleo to do that.

Sorry, this is no longer about food anyway.

JC




On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:40:13 -0500, William <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:41:13 -0500, Jose Carlos <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>
>> But eating all raw for a modern man seems to dispatch most of his 
energy,
>> most of his blood, most of his efforts, indeed most of his obsessions 
and
>> thoughts, paradoxical as this may seem, into his viscera and brawn,
>> rather
>> than into his brain.
>
>My experience is that raw requires less of those, and a better physical
>function includes support for the brain.
>
>
>
>Isn't this a way of diminishing the human being rather
>> than putting him back into his appropriate place?
>>
>
>On the contrary. I use the Norse definition of human, which means
>approximately "great of heart and mind" and the intent is to imitate as
>much as possible the state of paleolithic man. I believe that human=wild.
>Examples are the social abilities of aboriginal Americans, closest AFAIK
>to paleo.
>
>I don't eat all raw, mostly because I haven't the required food sources,
>don't know if I would even if they were available.
>
>William
>=========================================================================