Its me!

Lets start a quick philosophical topic this time around just for the heck of talking. Since the industrial revolution, there is a strugle with identity. People are born being nobody or blank and need to become someone. Thus, the dilema of chosing identity. Middle class based its identity around social recognition since they were born blank. Money, possesions, objects, etc, became the new method to adquire social identity. I can see something similar in the raw food people but now the new target is health. The new social place is the internet. And the identity does not revolve about material possesions. Forums become the new meeting place. Conversations are crafted to create images. Some people try carry the scientific look that gives recognition outside. Others look for spiritual and mistic angles. Others carry religion angles. But all identify with the type of food, raw. Is raw food enough to give an identity? Maybe. Inside the raw food, there are other subsets like Natural Hygenist?, juicer gurus, wheat grass gurus, sick people with a body problem, etc. Hmmm, maybe we all became part of raw food because of a problem.

Oh well, got tired of writing. Hope anybody answers something

Uh, I'm not sure what the question is . . .

The target is talk...but the question for a mission could be:

Does raw food (or raw diet/lifestyle) give you a sense of identity? For example, do you see yourself different than a non raw food person?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2012 11:17PM by Panchito.

Panchito,

Isn't it inevitable that one would automatically, in considering one's raw foodism, be aware that this separates one from SAD eaters, say? I don't know if this necessarily speaks to identity; that may differ from person to person. I don't really think of it as a core characteristic, the way that my cosmology and origin story are. Maybe it's because I'm not a 100%er . . . I hope one of the long-term 100% raw foodists chimes in

identities are kind of like clothes
you try them on for size
but then , depending on one's state of mind or mood
u decide to maybe change to a different scarf, blouse.. shoes etc.

sometimes u try to change your entire wardrobe
but at the end of the day

when u get in the shower
let's face it

we'are all naked

and , well, some people may wish to put some water proof spray coat so they can still wear their clothes while in the shower

but what's the point?

whose looking at you?

identities are like playing with a house of cards
and expecting it to hold up
to a hurricane

its fun for a while...

If a person becomes too rooted in something like raw food, then this creates a point of view. From this point of view, the life orientation of this person would revolve around raw food. In a way, a person identity could come from raw food. For example, if you move to another country because of raw food, then your identity was probably taken by raw food even if you don't know it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2012 12:12PM by Panchito.

I see what you're saying Panchito and certainly when I first started out with raw I become obsessive and compulsive and it did shape my life in many ways. And limit it. I think that's a natural phase when you really get into anything new though, relationships, new hobbies, etc. With time there is a leveling off where it becomes less something you're doing and more lifestyle, in that the things that are difficult to integrate seamlessly into your daily life fall away and the parts that are natural and nearly effortless (insomuch as daily chores can be effortless) are what is maintained.
In that respect, I stopped agonizing over every little particle of my life having to be as natural as possible. I found a balance and a new way to reintegrate myself into community and society at large. At this point diet no more defines me than does my choice of underwear, they are both private and simply a facet of my personality and desires. I will mention here that I don't and will never again follow a 100% raw vegan diet as it didn't and does not work for me. I aim for high raw and also eat seasonally, focussing on being as local as possible and that works very well for me.
That doesn't mean that I don't still feel like a fish out of water at times, I certainly do, but it's more a cumulative thing based on my differences regarding natural living as a whole. The total of which I base my life choices on, where to live, who to befriend, habits and hobbies, etc.
At this point, I feel as though diet is but a fingernail on the hand that shapes my life. Not any more or less important than any other aspect. Sometimes I pay a little more attention to it, sometimes a little less. I don't let it rule my life though, that IMO is stressful and unhealthy.
There's my 2 cents.

yes, raw foods can be another thing to identify with

so ?

what of it?

If an identity is very deep, it can create imbalance. It depends on how deep it is. Why imbalance? because it would be rigid and not supple. The deep rawfood perspective would prevent you from seeing other things/perspectives. Everything would be raw food. There is a trade off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2012 09:57AM by Panchito.

That's the problem with labels - too many take them on as identities. I think of labels - whether they be raw foodist, christian, muslim, liberal, conservative, etc. - as boxes in which to crawl into, and if you're not careful, you're in danger of becoming blind to anything outside the walls of your chosen box. I keep coming back to raw foods, but like coco I'll never call myself a raw foodist and have no 100% goal. Such boxes can close one's mind to other possibilities, which is why some religious folks can overlook science - if the findings don't fit within their box of beliefs, it must be wrong, and it's why the country is so politically divided. I lean left, sometimes way left, but refuse to call myself a liberal or stop listening to republicans (except santorum, rush, etc...

A chosen label, I suppose, provides a sense of security, something to hang your hat on, but it's a false sense of security. la_v said it best with her house of cards/hurricane analogy. I think the only benefit, as I see it, to take on such a label/identity, is that it can help keep one disciplined. I tend to eat better when I focus on being a raw foodist. I even ate better when I focused on paleo for awhile. These disciplines both kept me from processed foods. Taking on the discipline can be beneficial, but taking on the identity IS a house of cards.

Interesting words said here... I have things to say about your post Jimtoo, some that are on topic and some that aren't but address what you've written. I have family coming over today though so it will have to wait a bit but this is note to remind myself to reply. Funny how this topic is crossing over to some of my recent reading. I like synchronicity like that .

my standard, Becoming Raw defines one on a raw vegan diet as one who eats 75 to 100 percent raw food by weight, and one who eats 50 to 74 percent raw as "high raw" . I'd introduced another thread about metrics regarding weight and calories and most folks agreed with weight. Though calories remains an alternative metric.

Paul

panchito

<<If an identity is very deep, it can create imbalance. It depends on how deep it is. Why imbalance? because it would be rigid and not supple. The deep rawfood perspective would prevent you from seeing other things/perspectives. Everything would be raw food. There is a trade off.>>

There is nothing wrong with so called "imbalance". Its the only thing that will teach an individual what balance truly is. There is nothing wrong with rigidity either. Its like you gotta have the pendulum of the clock swing to the farthest direction before you realize that its kind of hard to be hovering in the air for too long ( especially if you are neither an angel or a hummingbird...but some people really are...shhhh....!!). But you'll never know unless you get in the deep end.


umm.. yeah

that's my take on this identity thing
its a game
i like games

wanna play?

la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is nothing wrong with so called
> "imbalance". Its the only thing that will teach an
> individual what balance truly is. There is nothing
> wrong with rigidity either.

for a hammer, everything is a nail

Here's a quote from a fantastic book by A.J. Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically.

Following religious food laws sharpens your discipline. The famous twelfth-century philosopher Maimonides says this is precisely their purpose: "(they) train us to master our appetites; to accustom us to restrain our desires; and to avoid considering the pleasure of eating and drinking as the goal of man's existence."

And, Jimtoo, in response to your post on labels, I just came across this Krishnamurti quote recently that is more about differentiating ourselves with religious or regional labels in order to create a mental separation that allows us to justify the waging of war but as I was reading it I felt a correlation in the labelling of ourselves based on dietary choices and how that also feels judgemental and violent. This separating of ourselves from others, it is not conducive to connection. I find it very odd that we seek to illustrate our differences rather than finding common ground, we are more likely to find similarities than differences and yet, we place more importance on filing ourselves into categories. There is a lot of worse-than/better-than inherent in the labelling of people. We call "them" SAD eaters instead of simply referring to a their diet as one choice in many, as though that defines a person entirely.
No, I am not a vegan, a vegetarian, a raw-foodist. I am not even a mother or a woman or a Canadian. I am a BEING with many aspects, those individual aspects do not define me or have a claim on my entirety. I think I'd rather not categorize myself with labels at all, they can be things that I do rather than what I am and I think working on changing the language I use to express those things is a goal I'll strive towards. The power of language... maybe that deserves a post of it's own.

"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind."
--J. Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known, pp.51-52

So dang, I guess I can't claim my thinking to be original, others have figured it out, too...

Those are great quotes.

"I find it very odd that we seek to illustrate our differences rather than finding common ground, we are more likely to find similarities than differences and yet, we place more importance on filing ourselves into categories."

I see this as a fear-based issue. My biology background forms my view. We find safety and security in numbers, in community, as our natural instincts know we are more likely to survive predation if we stick together (and also are not so easily selected out of the group). And if everyone around us shares the same beliefs, we are more comfortable with them; we feel safer because we have that common ground and think we know them better as a result. People who don't share the same beliefs make us uncomfortable - where are they coming from? Are they commies? Savages? And on and on. It's natural; I feel it all the time. I tend to trust those around me more who share the same beliefs. My extremely religious sister only listens to those who share her religion. It's something we have to fight against, as it does lead, as you say, to being judgmental and even violent. Now that I'm back to focusing more on this diet, I immediately recognize the pull I feel to take it on completely and "join" the community, and if I did so, I'd more readily defend the group against attacks - which leads to hatred of the other. Better, no doubt, to find common ground and thus peace, as organisms sharing the earth.

So far I'm doing better at resisting that pull. I'm eating a better balanced diet, because I'm focused on using the discipline of raw foodism to avoid processed foods and eat more raw foods, but am avoiding extremism to allow non vegan, non raw items as I feel necessary.

Well, you've just forced me to share some thoughts that are in my own book. In fact, I might have to use the above as part of my ending.

Last Sunday, I was watching tv and saw this video:

[www.ted.com]

It resembled the experience of Byron Kattie (www.thework.com) to the tee.

We use the left brain to categorize, analyze, and criticize. If we somehow shut it down, and we use the right one, we feel happier and pay attention to the good things instead of the bad (left brain)

Check out the vid of the link above

Enjoyed the video Panchito. Thanks for posting it.

I wonder what the world would really be like if we could all shut down the left side of our brains. It all comes down to balance, in the end, doesn't it...

some people are born that way

They say that drugs affect only the right emisphere. Thus, people on happy drugs start using the right part of the brain, which suggest an idea of how right brain people feel

Would be cool to figuere out how to train to use the right emisphere. Any ideas?

The bottom line for me is eating to be healthy so that the body can serve its purpose as vehicle for the transporting the our Essence thru this incarnate journey on planet earth.

eating to be healthy..... must above all things have perfect awareness of the laws of proper food combining. in fact all different diets which observe the laws of proper food combining.......can keep a person healthy as long as they stay away from chemicalized and processed foods.

raw food may be the highest for of eating and i personally think it is ...but without proper food combinations ...raw can actually work against being vibrantly healthy. Dr.William Howard Hay a medical doctor from the 1930's who healed himself from a very serious illness..... is very good source for proper food combinings.

Now for the second part...identity. Whoa..... is all i can say.

to have identity with things outside or external from what is our "Inner"... is to cease being ourselves for the time whenever we identify with anything good or bad. its snatches our consciousness up like a vacuum cleaner snatches dirt.

"as long as we do not sell ourselves to any outside object,do not participate in anything external, we stand by ourselves. otherwise,in some percentage we cease to be ourselves and become another." from this link:

[www.swami-krishnananda.org]

my opinion is that identification is like being in a daydream, hypnotized, zapped, sucked into something that makes you forget who you really are during the time you are identified.

Identity IS..... as in Being.

juicin' john



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2012 07:40PM by juicin' john.

Like la_ver said, in the shower, we're all naked.

What matters is, are you happy with yourself in that moment?

phantom


<<Like la_ver said, in the shower, we're all naked.

What matters is, are you happy with yourself in that moment?>>

i guess "happy" is the goal
gratitude is the master key

whose got the key?
give it to me
i want it!
LOL

do you think maybe there could be an obverse equivalent to"The Emperors New Clothes"...that is as regards the naked in the shower business?

And ...do most people Really know for sure what "theirself" is?

...but what if they just kinda think they know ....but can't for some strange reason admit that they don't really know really who "theirself" is?
evan worse ...totally convinced that they do when they actually don't have as much as a clue?

....and is it possible to be illusively happy in the " moment"? that is identified with some magic picture of which they have of "theirself".

i realize that a small percentage of people might be actually Naked in the shower and that a small percentage of people may qualify to be genuinely happy in their Self.

sorry phantom...but happy in the moment is nothing but a vain and meaningless illusion which could easily change instantly the very moment...that someone steps on your toe.

the human being is a legion of imaginary "selves"... external circumstances inevitably dictate which of those will be in control at any given moment.

we only imagine in our vanity that we are in control and because of it we refuse to admit that which we need to admit so that we can move on to a better psycholgical location.

jj

JJ, and what would we need to "admit?" See, I realize that I cannot control what happens "out there" but I CAN control how I respond to it. I can even reframe what "it" is...

JJ


<<sorry phantom...but happy in the moment is nothing but a vain and meaningless illusion which could easily change instantly the very moment...that someone steps on your toe.>>

the seeking cannot be separate from the goal of which one seeks

one who has the wherwithal to seek something, it is only because they sense that they ARE what it is they seek

it is going towards oneself

all "illusions" contain the core of truth
because they reveal the seeds of desire

and what one desires
is what one truly is

my two cents
while taking a shower

with some dr. bronner's sudsy peppermint soap
and shampooing my hair with lavender soap

this is what happens
when you mix the two herbs together

such thoughtness occurs

i feel like i spelled " occur" wrongly
but ,, uh.. i don't care

maybe spelled should've been "spelt"

but i'm happy being entrenched in such illusions of arbitrariness
and if someone steps on my toes, well then, i will more better fit into my feminine little chinese torture shoes


[suite101.com]


all things serve a purpose

admitting that we think we are one certain person..... when in fact we are only that which our momentary situation "dictates".... what we should be based on the external circumstances and the database of behaviours which we have acquired from our "role models etc.".....through our developemental period in life.

we only imagine that we are one and the same person all the time. in your vanity you may imagine that you can control and reframe ....but that is only a byproduct of your pychological insulation or "buffers" which are there protect you from the truth ....so that you so not flip out by seeing the horrificness of your actual situation.

here is a little experiment....try to be aware of yourself observing yourself and what you are doing at any given moment. how long before your associative thinking takes you off into a myriad of sidetrips ...before you evan realize that you have lost your "goal of observing yourself". that is what identification is .....and identification is what usurps our consciousness...its silent because we are not as conscious as we would like to imagine.

we only imagine that we are one and the same person at all times because we are so identified with a body and personality that has our name attached to it.

you just imagine that YOU are in control and that you can reframe. unless of course you are an ascended master ...if so please accept my humble apologies.


jj

LV

Your post is too much for my comprehension abilities. i think that i may not agree with all that you said...but until i can grok it al ittle better i shall abstain.

smiley without a wink.

jj

panchito

<< Would be cool to figuere out how to train to use the right emisphere. Any ideas?>>

stop thinking and let yourself be thought instead

JJ

<<Your post is too much for my comprehension abilities. i think that i may not agree with all that you said...but until i can grok it al ittle better i shall abstain.

smiley without a wink>>

i can hardly grok it myself
that makes the two of us
just some gibberish that fanned through my brain
while i was dreaming of abstaining from parsley

smiley with a wink