Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 Hi ALL ye readers! I was just reading all the comments about whether or not to include in raw discussion, the catagories of philosophy etc...While i do agree that many are looking for a specific, usually more practical type information...I can't help but feel THAT one of the major challenges " we the people " face is in the ideas we have held reguarding 'specialization'. In a mostly utilitarian, rational, " point A to point B " society such as ours (at least in the realm of institutional society, anyway)...We have tended to neglect the areas inbetween what the supposed distinct and seperate " official " subject(s) is supposed be about...Raw is raw. But, what does being raw mean if it not in RELATIONSHIP to that wich is not raw. THere ARE no subjects, after all, that aren't relative to the raw lifestyle. Let them make a CLEAR connection to RAWNESS, for debate...Or let them go elsewhere! Its an idea? - RawSeattle 16 Sep 2002 13:50:16 -0000 RawSeattle [RawSeattle] Digest Number 399 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 What if I went to the store and the cashier said " you can't just but those veggies, you have to stand the and listen to MY philosophy for the next five minutes. " I don't have the time or inclination. I am a single dad, a business owner and I meditate for one hour every day! What strikes me about the phosophizers is that they seem to ignore others needs, they are defensive and passive aggressive. Lets hope they find some enlightenment on the new chat group. Niz RawSeattle, " jeremy wood " <bendito@c...> wrote: > Hi ALL ye readers! > > I was just reading all the comments about whether > or not to include in raw discussion, the catagories > of philosophy etc...While i do agree that many are > looking for a specific, usually more practical type > information...I can't help but feel THAT one of the > major challenges " we the people " face is in the ideas > we have held reguarding 'specialization'. In a mostly > utilitarian, rational, " point A to point B " society > such as ours (at least in the realm of institutional > society, anyway)...We have tended to neglect the areas > inbetween what the supposed distinct and seperate > " official " subject(s) is supposed be about...Raw is > raw. But, what does being raw mean if it not in > RELATIONSHIP to that wich is not raw. THere ARE > no subjects, after all, that aren't relative to > the raw lifestyle. Let them make a CLEAR connection > to RAWNESS, for debate...Or let them go elsewhere! > Its an idea? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.