The Tao of Raw or Raw Redemption ?

[Guest guest]

Dear Mallon,<br><br>If we perceive by making

distinctions, then by making the distinction between raw and

cooked, we are creating a perception.<br><br>Tao says

there is no raw without cooked and are in or out of

balance.<br><br>Redemption, the religion of the West, says that by giving up

cooked, we are redeemed by raw.<br><br>That is,

Redemption says raw is good, while cooked is bad.<br><br>And

Tao says raw and cooked are in or out of

balance.<br><br>To think in more than one distinction at once, can

produce cognitive dissonance. The advantage is that it

tends to dissipate ideology, pre-digested thought,

which relies on a simple answer to a complex

question.<br><br>Should we eat raw food only?<br><br>Victor,<br>The

Instigator.

[Guest guest]

Victor,<br><br>Should we eat raw food only? How

the heck should I know?<br><br>I'm a user, a loser, a

microphone abuser. To the extreme, I rock a mike like a

vandal, light up the stage like a chump with a

candle.<br><br>Taoist philosophy seems to explain natural phenomna

best. Cooking food is not natural, although it's

debatable how bad it is. You're right, " raw foodists " could

not exist if there was no such thing as cooked food.

We would simply eat food, in it's purest sense, and

the concept of " raw " would have no meaning. Then the

laws of Tao would be relevant to say it's best to

balance yin & yang (acid and alkaline foods). With a raw

food diet, this is generally balanced without need of

conscious thought. It's cooked food eaters and meat eaters

that are usually in a state of acidosis and

unbalanced.<br><br>So, to eat 100% raw does not imply imbalance. My

personal readings and study from persons I respect who

appear knowledgable, suggest that it is best that the

majority of foods be eaten raw. A rule of thumb: Eat only

foods that will rot or spoil, but eat them before they

do so.<br><br>I think the only way to learn whether

100% is superior than, say, 80% raw with some decent

cooked food, is to study those that are 100% and follow

their progress or commit yourself to 100% raw and make

that determination. I'm inclinded to believe the

higher raw the better, but at this point in my life and

my family situation I'm only striving for 50% plus

raw. That's one reason I monitor this board to see how

the 100%ers are doing. What percent are

you?<br><br>Why do you say religion of the West thinks raw leads

to redemption? In Christianity, the common religion

of the West, most people believe redemption comes

from confesssing your sins to Jesus. Most, but

certainly not all, traditional Christians frown upon

" unusual " activities and raw foodism would fall in the

unusual category. Or are you suggesting many Western raw

foodists (regardless of the religious beliefs) are seeking

redemption and enlightenment via raw foodism?<br><br>P.S.

Excuse the " rap " above - about half of what you type in

your messages I cannot understand (I cannot figure out

if your intelligence is way beyond mine, or if

you're throwing lots of abtract thoughts around just to

open up peoples minds, but it does not bother me

whichever the case may be). Anyway, I just thought I'd

throw something your way.<br><br>Mallon

[Guest guest]

Dear Mallon,<br><br>I do actually think these

abstract thoughts but email is so short that I can only

telegraph the essence.<br><br>What seems to be true is that

most are comfortable on email with a conversational

style and are irritated with any attempt to break out

of that form.<br><br>However to discover new ideas,

sometimes it is useful to use a new or unusual

form.<br><br>It is ironic that in a group devoted to a new and

unusual eating habit, we cling so tenaciously to a

familiar and comfortable form of expression: the

conversational.<br><br>Perhaps a case of new wine in old bottles.<br><br>Victor.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mallon,<br><br>As you know some ideas are

best expressed in a particular form. Sometimes they

can only be expressed in that form.<br><br>For

example some ideas can only be expressed in their

fullness in German or Japanese or English. Some ideas are

best expressed in Mathematics. Some feelings are best

expressed by a style of dance or a style of music or

painted colour. Some converstions are best expressed on

the telephone, or by email or by an essay or book. A

myth may be best expressed by one particular religion

or another.<br><br>------------The medium is the

message.------------<br><br>The medium we use here is the conversational form.

This form is particularly good at providing

reassurance, maintaining self-esteem and conveying facts. It

is less good at expressing abstract ideas or,

interestingly, strong feelings.<br><br>What I find most

interesting is that, moving away from the conversational

style provokes irritation.<br><br>Why irritation? Why

not anger or apathy or curiosity?<br><br>Victor.

[Guest guest]

OK Victor, Glad to hear you confirm you are

actually thinking in abstract thought...just need to

challenge you occasionally to make sure you're not pulling

our leg (joking with us).<br><br>I agree that even

under the best of circumstances language and

communication barriers sometimes let us down (especially when

crossing from one language/culture to another), so we need

to focus on the essence in all things and not get

caught up in the linguistics. Some of the best things in

life have to be experienced, rather than read from

text, to gain a full appreciation. The challenge then

is picking and choosing where you want to devote

your time and focus to make the most of temporal

life.<br><br>So stick with your abstract text rather than bow to

the masses. And if in the future I need a point of

yours clarified, I'll simply ask.