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 >=========================================================================