B"H
Eating as Tikkun
The following is a response that I got from a usually very "anti" interlocutor whom I often encounter of the Forum of the Tzfat web site www.safed.co.il . My response to it involves the moral/spiritual substrate of food and so it will be published here.
Doreen makes some interesting points, not necessarily all wrong either.
An interesting work on the creation of woman, the original androgyny of man, the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the dimunition of the Moon and womanhood's staure , the Exile of the Shekinah & the Jewish People, and the ultimate restoration to pre-Edenic times is to be found in "Kabbalistic Writings on the Nature of Masculine & Feminine" by Sarah Schneider 2001.
Sarah's site is
www.amyisrael.co.il/smallvoice/founder.html
---------------------------------------------
My response:
21:54 28 Apr 2004
B”H
Eating As Tikkun
Caryn,
Thank you for recommending the site above.
I went to the site you gave the URL to and found the face of a woman I’m sure is very nice and well-meaning smiling back at me.
However, I should like to point out the differences between what she’s (apparently) “on about” and what I am. I think it only right that I send her this critique as well. I’ll send a copy to Rabbi Ginsburgh as well, be’ezrat HaShem.
At the outset I should say that I read on the site that she studied under Yitzchak Ginsburgh. I bought one of his books, The Hebrew Letters, some years ago. Even then I was left unimpressed and found the book simplistic. Evidently, what Mrs. Schneider learned the art and craft of marketing books from her mentor, who knows but a smattering of Torah, something that Rabbi Ginsburgh does excel in. I have chastised Rabbi Ginsburgh before for his “ufaratzta” (and marketing) approach to teaching about האותיות. That was after I found a Xian on the net using what she found on his site and interpreting it in the perverted way that only Xians know how to do. He remained obdurate and unrepentant. Evidently his reputation and income are more important to him than that the Torah should be in Jewish hands. Forgive me, then, if I do not trust one of his disciples entirely.
In contradistinction to Mrs. Schneider and Rabbi Ginsburgh I do not use the Torah I learn as a spade to dig with. I have never received remuneration for my research and never asked for it. I do not receive money to learn and disseminate Torah. I have also been quite stern with those who tried to encourage me to make myself generally known. In actually, I expend money to share that which HaShem has granted me – lots of it – and as a result I am reduced financially to living in a slum. I don’t think that’s any great moral shakes. It is the least a Jew can do for the זכות of serving HaShem. If we were living in communal societies, such as the Isi’im did, a scholar of Torah would not have to be poor. S/he would live at the same economic level as everyone else, no better no worse, and respect would be accorded on the basis of how much Torah one had learned and internalized. However, in the Diaspora there is no choice but to be poor if one intends to remain true to Torah, because the minute that one earns an income for it s/he must compromise her or his morality. As I have written in a number of essays, diverging from Torah morality even a hairsbreadth results in a vast divergence as the resulting “time” and “space” stretch out before us and the קץ is pushed indefinitely away.
Thus, I am immediately wary of Mrs. Schneider, lovely and ingenuous though she may look.
I clicked on the link Eating As Tikkun that is on her home page. This is the URL to that page: http://www.amyisrael.co.il/smallvoice/eatingastikkun.html I should like to request the reader to turn her or his attention to that site now in order to understand the rest of what I intend to write here, be’ezrat HaShem.
I was dismayed at seeing yet another misuse of the Kabbalah on the site, although I should not have been surprised. It is an avera, as it is a sneaky manipulation of people’s emotions, insecurities and confusion to hold out the promise of getting over eating disorders by learning the psuedo-Kabbalah that is so prevalent today. Chaba”d is the perhaps the worst offender of holding out the promise of solving all of one’s problems by learning their teachings, although many groups do this today. I have written about the deleterious effects of doing this. Here in Tzfat, the pseudo-Kabbalah capital of the world we see on an everyday basis that the city is cursed.
While it is most certainly true that foods are physical representations of deep spiritual truths, the Pharisaic/Rabbinic tradition has only scratched the surface of what the moral/spiritual substrate of the physical expression that is food is.
It is also certainly true that the addiction to food, as all addictions, is the Soul desperately trying to find the Truth that was lost. We understand innately that the sensations of all addictive substances, including food, are in essence Godliness and we try again and again, futilely, to get to that level. It is our hunger for the kernel of Torah that compels us to overeat. It is the desire for the spirit of Torah that compels some to drink excessively (thus alcohol is called spirits), it is the desire for blissful union with HaShem that makes some sex addicts, and so on with every addiction. All this is a result of the terrible galut that we are in.
Mrs. Schneider, as all Jews blindly loyal to the Pharisaic/Rabbinic tradition, has some inkling of the depth of what eating is, but not enough to understand. Actually, she has just enough knowledge to sell lessons to those who know even less than she does.
Let us examine what the Torah teaches us about eating:
ויצו ה' אלקים על-האדם לאמר מכל עץ-הגן אכל תאכל: ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות. בראשית ב:טז-יז
Please note that the word תאכל is written in the pasuk with a חלם חסר and not with a חולם. However, the very next letter after the word תאכל is a ו'. The word תאכל taken together with the ו' directly after it produces the word תאכלו. An anagram of the word תאכלו is כל אות. HaShem is given us a directive to ingest, as it were, every letter of the Torah. We are not talking about trees and fruits; we are talking about the basic building blocks of the Torah, which are also the basic building blocks of consciousness, and thus the creation as it appears to us. The physical trees and fruits that arise in the created world are expressions of how we learn Torah. It is because we do not know how we create the worlds that we do or even that we do, although we do, that we live in a world in which there are fruit-bearing trees and not fruit trees. We live in a world of cause and effect in which there is the artifact of time that our minds create. Thus there is a time delay. If we were not in the galut there would be no time continuum as we are now experiencing it. Creation would occur “simultaneously” concurrent and in accordance with our kavvanot in learning Torah. We would produce fruit trees, not fruit bearing trees. In fact, all creation would arise spontaneously and instantly without delay at all. That is what reality is like when we are not in galut. We can only create this completely satisfying food if we learn כל אות and טעם of Torah.
Note that every letter is the word תאכלו and, necessarily, in its anagram כל אות is an אות שמוש. The words מות and תמות as similarly comprised entirely of אותיות שמוש.
Depending upon the moral/spiritual level of the reader one will see death, another will see the secrets of how to read and permute the letters of the Torah. As Rabbi Kook wrote: “The Book is The Book, but it is the heart that does the interpretation.”
Another example of a story from Torah that is actually a lesson in how to read Torah is the (ostensible) story of the binding of Yitzchak. Without digressing, nor revealing more than those who might abuse the information should know, let it just be said that the word מאכלת is also comprised entirely of אותיות שמוש. Anyone who sees עקדת יצחק as a story about אברהם almost shechting יצחק instead of lessons in the secrets of אותיות השמוש and cannot see the fact that the word צדק is contained within the words עקדת יצחק has a serious spiritual/moral problem. Did you every notice that the letter ח' in the name יצחק is equal to ד+ד? That being the case we can clearly see that using the letter ק' in the radical עקד and the letter ק' in the name יצחק we have the root דקדק contained in the phrase עקדת יצחק. The story is actually lessons in דקדוק, which are not only the laws of Hebrew grammar, but also the very Laws of אמת וצדק that the universes should be conducted according to. Yet people see some horror story in עקדת יצחק, even as they see horror stories in their own lives, in the lives of others and in Jewish history. The Torah is called aspaklaria because it reflects who you are back at you. Understand this.
So, we see clearly that we don’t all have eating disorders, as Mrs. Schneider contends. We all have Holy Language reading disabilities, which is the result of having been given "tincture of diluted Torah" to drink by the Rabbis for so many generations.
---------------------------------
B"H
This is a letter I sent to Sara Schneider, the owner of the site "A Small Still Voice". The subject title was: I'm sorry I had to be gruff. I also sent a copy to Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, her mentor.
Dear Sara:
I'd like to share a short passage from my book נקבה - הקרבנות והכפרות with you. I hope it will help make you understand why I reacted to your "Eating as Tikun" as I did:
Here is the passage:
Please consider the following חילופים:
השטן = 700+9+300+5 = 1014 = 15 = י-ה
The author is aware that the reader will most probably find the above חילופים for the value 15 disturbing. Upon opening our hearts and minds to the חילופים we become increasingly aware that everything, absolutely everything, without any any exception whatsoever, is ה' יתברך בהתגלמות....We have gone beyond the duality of "good" and "bad" - all is השם. We are now able to understand the meaning of the מדרש that tells us that before אדם וחוה ate the fruit of The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil השטן = י-ה was external. After they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil השטן = י-ה became internal. That is, they understood that both the "good" and the "evil" are י-ה.
Consider this חילוף too:
הנחש = המשיח
You have been taught that אדם was led into sin by חוה. How wrong your teachers are! המשיח came and taught the secrets of Torah to חוה. Your teachers have never had this truth revealed to them. They do not know and presume to teach.
It is because I am aware of this that I cannot conscience the dissemination of pseudo-Kabbalah. It is also the reason that I am not all sweetness and light. God is not all sweetness and light. How, and why, should I be? When I have to rally my yetzer hara to defend the Truth of Torah I can, and do.
Sara, I am sure that you are well-intentioned. I am also sure that you have been mislead by those who understand but a smattering of Torah. Please, be careful and responsible about what you teach.
--------------------------------
Please allow me to demonstrate one last חילוף:
משיח = נחש = השמחה = ספר הגי = את ספר תורה = 1357 = 358
You, my dear lady, *are* the ספר תורה. Understanding this is משיח.
Everything you have been taught about what משיח is in the Pharisaic/Rabbinic tradition is wrong. Now go and learn from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
With blessings for a Shabbat Shalom,
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat
B"H
Rotten Food, Rotten Thinking
This entry is a copy of a conversation that I have been thoroughly enjoying with one of the members of my Yahoo! group The Moral Spiritual Substrate of Eating. It is recopied here with the written permission of my interlocutor, Michelle:
This one goes like this: "If you're not open to any and all ideas, you're cutting yourself off from truth."
That's like saying if you don't eat everything that's put in front of you, no matter in what quantity, without checking the nutritional value, without checking that it is fresh, without checking that it is perhaps poison, you won't be healthy. :-/
Should we be less discerning about what goes into our consciousness than we are about what goes into our body?
Doreen
I have to disagree. It's a bit different than eating. It's more like
considering all the food in front of you, THEN deciding (what you agree with ) what to eat. You may miss out on something if you don't at least consider the entire buffet spread first....and sometimes trying something new turns out to be a wonderful experience.
Michelle
B"H
It's kind of like rotten eggs, actually. If one isn't wise enough to
stay away from them from the very first whiff one may become one of those people who develop a penchant for them, even as they poison the body (burying eggs for some inordinate amount of time until they turn utterly black and malodorous is considered a delicacy in the some cultures).
Once a penchant for the unhealthy and unwholesome has been developed all ability to discern between the salubrious and the insalubrious is not only muddled, but often reversed. The wise keep away from that which will harm them, even as it tempts them with errant charms, very first experience.
Doreen
Maybe it is a delicacy, and our judgment is keeping us from experiencing it.
Michelle
B"H
Rotten eggs a delicacy? I don't doubt it. That is merely a matter of
taste and, more, convention.
It doesn't really matter what a food might taste like (although I'm
sure rotten eggs taste putrid for the simple reason that they are);
if the food doesn't nourish, and even harms, the body it is not wise
to eat it.
Caviar, an example more familiar to us, is loaded with salt and is
probably the food highest in cholesterol on the planet. Who cares if
it's considered a delicacy according to some baseless social
conventions defined by persons whose wisdom has not been
demonstrated? It's poison. Why is it an "acquired taste"? Because
the body's first healthy reaction to it is - "Ugh. Get this away from
me!" Only those who bow to social pressure and the desire to
*appear* gourmet force their bodies to eat it until their bodies give
up and begin to accept it. Then, at later stages of surrender, their
bodies become accustomed, then addicted, to the poison and they begin to crave it. The very same process happens with drinking liquor. We may be certain that spiritual/moral debaucherie and physical pathology have set in when that which was once abhorrent and repellent when the organism was pristine and healthy becomes so desirable as to be an obsession, although it brings nothing but harm.
The wise way to go in eating, as in living, is requiring that that
which we eat and do fulfills the following requirements: It good to
us and good for us and it strengthens us to be of service.
The rest are meaningless and vacuous sensational thrills that weigh
the Soul and body down with confusion and dead weight.
P.S. Almost anything can be convincingly argued for with sophistry.
Often the wise way to go is not as easily argued for rationally.
That is not because wisdom is irrational; but rather because it is
super-rational.
Doreen
B"H
Though it is true that there are particulars that impact on
individuals in different ways, there are also universals. It
behooves us to be able to discern between two.
Wheat is an excellent example. While it can be very healthy to some,
it is unhealthy to others. That's quite true.
Rotten food, in contradistinction, is unhealthy to all, in all
places, in all societies, in all times. This is an example of a
universal law. It is generally applicable.
One of the cliche, and boringggg mantra-like, social pressure
mechanisms used today is "I bet you're not absolutely perfect either!"
Another is: "You don't have every single fact. Therefore, you can't
make any kind of determination whatsoever."
Last, and perhaps least on the convincing hit parade, is: "Who are
you to say that...? It's arrogant to claim that you are privy to
knowledge that others don't have." There is certainly a good measure of self-assuredness in being confident of one's basic values. It is not hubris to be aware that one is in possession of basic common sense. The confusion of self-assurance with hubris is meant as a social control mechanism to keep people confused about a lot of
things. I just never bent under that pressure.
Few people today have a highly developed ability to discern: between the salubrious and the insalubrious, between wisdom and sophistry, between the particular and the universal, between self-assurance and hubris. These were once matters of common sense. Today it is rare indeed to find a person in possession of this faculty of understanding, basic though it is.
A lot of money is being generated by that generalized confusion, and
it is being cultivated and perpetuated by financial concerns.
Michelle said: "I don't drink, so that doesn't apply to me."
Neither do I drink, to speak of. I should hope that we concern
ourselves with matters that impact on society as a whole, not just on
matters of immediately personal relevance.
Doreen
B"H
Michelle writes:
There are no objective universals.
Rotten food, in contradistinction, is unhealthy to all, in all
places, in all societies, in all times. This is an example of a
universal law. It is generally applicable.>>
Generally, NOT universally.
We eat some foods that are "rotten." Blue cheese, for example. Fermented
foods.
One of the cliche, and boringggg mantra-like, social pressure
mechanisms used today is "I bet you're not absolutely perfect either!">>
.and one which I never used, so I"m not sure why you are making the comment
in reference to me.
Another is: "You don't have every single fact. Therefore, you can't
make any kind of determination whatsoever.">>
You don't. Any determination you make is yours. That doesn't mean I have to
adopt it.
Last, and perhaps least on the convincing hit parade, is: "Who are
you to say that...? It's arrogant to claim that you are privy to
knowledge that others don't have." There is certainly a good measure
of self-assuredness in being confident of one's basic values. It is
not hubris to be aware that one is in possession of basic common
sense. The confusion of self-assurance with hubris is meant as a
social control mechanism to keep people confused about a lot of
things. I just never bent under that pressure. >>
I find it quite arrogant, actually. Your values are not the same as everyone
else's. "Basic common sense" is arguable and circumstance and socially
determined. You never bent because you are rigid in your beliefs and refuse to
consider that perhaps there are other ways of processing reality. It is within
your right to be that way. MY point is that by clinging so blindly to your
preconceptions, you are probably missing out on a lot that may be valuable.
Few people today have a highly developed ability to discern: between
the salubrious and the insalubrious, between wisdom and sophistry,
between the particular and the universal, between self-assurance and
hubris. These were once matters of common sense. Today it is rare
indeed to find a person in possession of this faculty of
understanding, basic though it is.>>
These things are largely subjective. Your judgment of "good' and "bad" only
holds water in your own mind. If it is rare, did you ever stop to think maybe
it's you and not everyone else?
OF course it's rare...everyone has a unique set of value judgments that they
use to process the world around them, and it is unlikely that anyone else's
will exactly line up with yours.
A lot of money is being generated by that generalized confusion, and
it is being cultivated and perpetuated by financial concerns. >>
Oh? How so?
Michelle said: "I don't drink, so that doesn't apply to me."
Neither do I drink, to speak of. I should hope that we concern
ourselves with matters that impact on society as a whole, not just on
matters of immediately personal relevance.
Doreen>>
"To speak of"........means you do drink, from where I stand. I never drink.
It's relative. See my point?
Michelle wrote: PS. The world would be a better place if people would mind their own
> business and let other people mind theirs.
> Michelle
This is partly true. There are matters that are strictly personal and do not impinge on the welfare of anyone else.
Your tats and my having painted my bathroom shades of purple are examples of that. Someone may not like the aesthetics of it and cluck their tongues at it. That is empty judgment and a waste of a good tongue that could be put to much better use :0)
I had a dear friend where I once worked who didn't get a well deserved promotion, although it was generally acknowledged that she was the best in the office at what she did, because she wore ankle-length folksy skirts. Her attire was not thought professional enough and she didn't get the promo - to the detriment of the office as well as her family's income. That's bullshit and passing judgment based on nothing.
However, there are matters that do impinge on the welfare of others. One of them is widespread alcohol addiction. The nice people from M.A.D.D. can most likely support this position better than I.
One might also argue that it is a value judgment to pass judgment on those who pass judgment. Should enough power to make the world a worse place really be attributed to them?
Doreen
In MoralSpiritualSubstrateOfEating@yahoogroups.com, HelleHathNOFury@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/26/2004 3:40:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> MoralSpiritualSubstrateOfEating@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> --- B"H
>
> > Michelle wrote: There are no objective universals.
There is an inherent contradiction in the above statement, Michelle. Maybe you didn't see it because it glares so.
>
>
We eat some foods that are "rotten." Blue cheese, for example. Fermented
> foods
Bleu cheese and pickled vegetables, while not number one on the health hit parade, are not out and out poison. Eggs become poisonous when they go bad. Your nose knows.
Michelle, in another post you wrote that every individual is unique. That just about nullifies the meaning of 'unique'. If every being is unique then none can be said to be unique. Existence is not an all or none proposition. Each individual is a blend of that which is unique to that individual and that which is general to that individual's species, and to all of existence. The vast majority of individuals are specimens, not a species unto themselves, wholly unique in every way and unlike any other individual in existence unless in some extenuating circumstances. When we say that something or someone is unique it means that given the expected variances that might occur among individuals of that species that particular individual is off the graph in some way, not in all. A person with say, an IQ of 200 is uniquely intelligent while s/he may be of average height, etc.
> I find it quite arrogant, actually. Your values are not the same as everyone
> else's. "Basic common sense" is arguable and circumstance and socially
> determined. You never bent because you are rigid in your beliefs and refuse to
> consider that perhaps there are other ways of processing reality. It is within
> your right to be that way. MY point is that by clinging so blindly to your
> preconceptions, you are probably missing out on a lot that may be valuable.
No; there was a time in my life when my motto was: I'll try anything at least once and I used to collect experiences.
The result of collecting experiences was that I learned to discern what was worthwhile and what was not and could eventually spot which was which before actually partaking in the experience. I learned, much to my surprise, that the "old wisdom" has a lot going for it and that there really is common sense. However, I learned it at a high personal price. Had I listened to those who knew the tried and true I could have saved myself from doing a lot of things that are still impacting on me negatively to this day. The price I paid for my right to make my own mistakes was very, very high in some cases. As the old saying goes: The wise don't get into the situations that the shrewd know how to extricate themselves from.
> Few people today have a highly developed ability to discern: between
> the salubrious and the insalubrious, between wisdom and sophistry,
> between the particular and the universal, between self-assurance and
> hubris. These were once matters of common sense. Today it is rare
> indeed to find a person in possession of this faculty of
> understanding, basic though it is.>>
>
These things are largely subjective. Your judgment of "good' and "bad" only
> holds water in your own mind. If it is rare, did you ever stop to think maybe
> it's you and not everyone else?
> OF course it's rare...everyone has a unique set of value judgments that they
> use to process the world around them, and it is unlikely that anyone else's
> will exactly line up with yours.
Again, value systems are not wholly unique. People do not each invent the wheel when adopting a value system. They build on that which has come before and they adopt a lot from their surroundings. Fact: I've read and heard many people saying exactly what you're writing. Actually, I think I remember saying about the same thing.
> A lot of money is being generated by that generalized confusion, and
> it is being cultivated and perpetuated by financial concerns. >>
Oh? How so?
Advertising. Censorship.
> Michelle said: "I don't drink, so that doesn't apply to me."
>
> Neither do I drink, to speak of. I should hope that we concern
> ourselves with matters that impact on society as a whole, not just on
> matters of immediately personal relevance.
>
> Doreen>>
> "To speak of"........means you do drink, from where I stand. I never drink.
> It's relative. See my point?
Yes; drinking is a relative concept to some extent. This example is a good one. No one can drink down a quart of hard liquor in a short period of time and still function properly. Then the fuzzies come in: Some people can handle a pint. Some people get into trouble after having even one drink. Do you see? A mixture of universals and individual cases.
I'm reminded of a joke I made up. There is someone on a message board who refers to fuzzy logic quite often. He calls a particular type of fuzzy logic a "fuzzy bottom". A "Fuzzy Bottom" sounds like it ought to be the name of a cocktail made with a shot of peach flavored schnapps and a shot of one's favorite plonk. If you have it straight up it's a "Fuzzy Bottoms Up". If you have it on the rocks it's a "Fuzzy Rock Bottom".
-------------------------------------
Continuation of the Discussion:
Doreen: There is an inherent contradiction in the above statement, Michelle.
Maybe you didn't see it because it glares so.
Michelle: Explain. No objective universals..........there is nothing objective.
Nothing.
Doreen: Bleu cheese and pickeled vegetables, while not number one on the
health hit parade, are not out and out poison. Eggs become poisonous
when they go bad.
Michelle: Blue cheese would be poison to some people. Peanuts are poison to some people. Eggs, apparently, are not poison to some people even when bad. Everyone is different, and the human body is an amazing thing; also very individual.
Doreen: Michelle, in another post you wrote that every individual is unique.
That just about nullifies the meaning of 'unique'. If every being is
unique then none can be said to be unique. Existence is not an all or
none proposition.
Michelle: Everyone is unique. This does not nullify the meaning. It means you can't group people accurately in many ways. People like to try.it's the way our minds are organized, but it leads to a lot of problems.
Doreen: The result of collecting experiences was that I learned to discern
what was worthwhile and what was not and could eventually spot which
was which before actually partaking in the experience.
Michelle: Worthwhile to YOU.Not to anyone else.
Doreen: I learned, much to my surprise, that the "old wisdom" has a lot going for it and that there really is common sense. However, I learned it at a high
personal price. Had I listened to those who knew the tried and true
I could have saved myself from doing a lot of things that are still
impacting on me negatively to this day.
Michelle: And you would have done so at the price of many tings that made you who you are today. We have to live our own lives.
Doreen: Again, value systems are not wholly unique. People do not each invent
the wheel when adopting a value system. They build on that which has
come before and they adopt a lot from their surroundings. Fact: I've
read and heard many people saying exactly what you're writing.
Actually, I think I remember saying about the same thing.
Michelle: They are culturally determined. Mob mentality. Groupthink. That doesn't mean they are 'right."
Doreen: Advertising. Censorship. (In response to her question as to how I think people's opinions are shaped and manipulated in society).
Michelle: That's why one has to form one's own judgments. And one needsa access to all information, not just that which supports his or her view, in order to make any sort of meaningfyl assessment.
Doreen: Yes; drinking is a relative concept to some extent. This example is a
good one. No one can drink down a quart of hard liquor in a short
period of time and still function properly. Then the fuzzies come in:
Some people can handle a pint. Some people get into trouble after
having even one drink. Do you see? A mixture of universals and
individual cases.
Michelle: When I said I don't drink, I mean never. You said you don't drink to speak of. That means you do.
Anyway, I respectfully disagree with you on many points. Can you respect my
view as well?
-----------------------------
Continuation:
Doreen: There is an inherent contradiction in the above statement,
Michelle. Maybe you didn't see it because it glares so.
Michelle: Explain. No objective universals..........there is nothing
objective.
Nothing.
Doreen: It is positing an objective universal to say that there are no
objective universals. There, now we have one. Are there more?
Furthermore, even if objective universals only exist in the realm of
illusion they have the reality of existing in the world of illusion.
Michelle: Everyone is different, and the human body is an amazing thing; also very individual.
Doreen: Yes; but not completely individual. Again, a mix of universals and
particulars. For instance: by definition every aerobic organism needs
oxygen. We are aerobic organisms. Ergo, we all need oxygen.
Objective Universal. Simple syllogistic logic.
Michelle: Everyone is unique. This does not nullify the meaning. It means you
can't group people accurately in many ways. People like to try.it's the
way our minds are organized, but it leads to a lot of problems.
Doreen: Wholly unique? Nope. Everyone is unique in some ways and quite common in others. However, I agree with you that people do categorize willy
nilly in order to be able to deal with their emotions. The fact that
this is true should not serve as reason to "throw out the baby with
the bathwater" and posit that everyone is unique and that a whole lot
of Boolean algebra isn't occuring in nature amongst individuals. The
reality you are describing is very atomic, categorical, absolute,
inhabited by very discrete beings. My world is messier and less
easily defined, but it's very touchy-feely and allows for the
comeraderie that can only come from identification with another's
being because we share in that being.
Michelle: And you would have done so at the price of many tings that made you who you are today. We have to live our own lives.
Doreen: I suspect I could have emerged an interesting person and a bit better
off in other ways too had I balanced doing my own thing and heeding
the advice of older and wiser people better than I did.
Michelle:They are culturally determined. Mob mentality. Groupthink. That
doesn't mean they are 'right."
Doreen: No need to try to convince me on this one. If I'm prejudiced it's in
the direction of assuming that the mobsters and groupthinkers are
generally wrong.
Doreen: Advertising. Censorship.
Michelle: That's why one has to form one's own judgments. And one needsa
access to all information, not just that which supports his or her view, in order
to make any sort of meaningfyl assessment.
Doreen: Yes, I agree. The problem with pseudo-democracies, though, is that
they present their citizens with about 5 or 6 state-sanctioned modes
of thought. This provides the illusion of having choshen one's own
way of thinking, when in fact it is nothing more than having chosen
to be one of the types that the gummint knows how to deal with.
Michelle: Anyway, I respectfully disagree with you on many points. Can you
respect my > view as well?
Doreen: Actually, I kinda like you.
-----------------------------
Response
Doreen: There was one interchange between us that I overlooked responding to, Michelle. I'd like to treat it at this juncture. It was thus one:
Doreen: The result of collecting experiences was that I learned to discern what was worthwhile and what was not and could eventually spot which
was which before actually partaking in the experience.
Michelle: Worthwhile to YOU.Not to anyone else.
Doreen: This type of thinking makes for a very lonely world. Deep associations are bonded together by shared experiences and shared values. In fact, I would venture to say that the strong bonds in relationships are the shared values and shared basic moral proclivities and structures. We cannot trust or share ourselves with those who invalidate what we find worthwhile or whose value system offends us or seems petty to us. Over the long haul, it is with the people who share our basic ideas of what is worthwhile and what is not that we can enter into the deepest communion and form the longest-lasting relationships. Of course, it is the differences that provide the interest and the spice in relationships - the spice, not the entree.
I am enjoying this interchange with someone who thinks so very differently than I. There are rational bases to what you contend, Michelle, and there is certainly a measure of truth in what you say. I ask myself though: What if that were the prevailing way of thinking? The answer I see is that every individual would be an island, so essentially different from every other being in its utter uniqueness that there would be no common ground for communion.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
B"H
Michelle wrote: PS. The world would be a better place if people would mind their own
> business and let other people mind theirs.
> Michelle
This is partly true. There are matters that are strictly personal and do not impinge on the welfare of anyone else.
Your tats and my having painted my bathroom shades of purple are examples of that. Someone may not like the aesthetics of it and cluck their tongues at it. That is empty judgement and a waste of a good tongue that could be put to much better use :0)
I had a dear friend where I once worked who didn't get a well deserved promotion, although it was generally acknowledged that she was the best in the office at what she did, because she wore ankle-length folksy skirts. Her attire was not thought professional enough and she didn't get the promo - to the detriment of the office as well as her family's income. That's bullshit and passing judgement based on nothing.
However, there are matters that do impinge on the welfare of others. One of them is widespread alcohol addiction. The nice people from M.A.D.D. can most likely support this position better than I.
One might also argue that it is a value judgement to pass judgement on those who pass judgement. Should enough power to make the world a worse place really be attributed to them?
Doreen
I have to disagree. It's a bit different than eating. It's more like
considering all the food in front of you, THEN deciding (what you agree with )
what
to eat.
You may miss out on something if you don't at least consider the entire
buffet spread first....and sometimes trying something new turns out to be a
wonderful experience.
Michelle
B"H
It's kind of like rotten eggs, actually. If one isn't wise enough to
stay away from them from the very first whiff one may become one of
those people who develop a penchant for them, even as they poison the
body (burying eggs for some inordinate amount of time until they turn
utterly black and malodourous is considered a delicacy in the some
cultures).
Once a penchant for the unhealthy and unwholesome has been developed
all ability to discern between the salubrious and the insalubrious is
not only muddled, but often reversed. The wise keep away from that
which will harm them, even as it tempts them with errant charms, very
first experience.
Doreen
Maybe it is a delicacy, and our judgment is keeping us from experiencing it.
Michelle
B"H
Rotten eggs a delicacy? I don't doubt it. That is merely a matter of
taste and, more, convention.
It doesn't really matter what a food might taste like (although I'm
sure rotten eggs taste putrid for the simple reason that they are);
if the food doesn't nourish, and even harms, the body it is not wise
to eat it.
Caviar, an example more familiar to us, is loaded with salt and is
probably the food highest in cholesterol on the planet. Who cares if
it's considered a delicacy according to some baseless social
conventions defined by persons whose wisdom has not been
demonstrated? It's poison. Why is it an "acquired taste"? Because
the body's first healthy reaction to it is - "Ugh. Get this away from
me!" Only those who bow to social pressure and the desire to
*appear* gourmet force their bodies to eat it until their bodies give
up and begin to accept it. Then, at later stages of surrender, their
bodies become accustomed, then addicted, to the poison and they begin
to crave it. The very same process happens with drinking liquor. We
may be certain that spiritual/moral debaucherie and physical
pathology have set in when that which was once abhorrent and
repellent when the organism was pristine and healthy becomes so
desirable as to be an obsession, although it brings nothing but harm.
The wise way to go in eating, as in living, is requiring that that
which we eat and do fulfills the following requirements: It good to
us and good for us and it strengthens us to be of service.
The rest are meaningless and vacuous sensational thrills that weigh
the Soul and body down with confusion and dead weight.
P.S. Almost anything can be convincingly argued for with sophistry.
Often the wise way to go is not as easily argued for rationally.
That is not because wisdom is irrational; but rather because it is
super-rational.
Doreen
B"H
Rotten eggs a delicacy? I don't doubt it. That is merely a matter of
taste and, more, convention.
It doesn't really matter what a food might taste like (although I'm
sure rotten eggs taste putrid for the simple reason that they are);
if the food doesn't nourish, and even harms, the body it is not wise
to eat it.
Caviar, an example more familiar to us, is loaded with salt and is
probably the food highest in cholesterol on the planet. Who cares if
it's considered a delicacy according to some baseless social
conventions defined by persons whose wisdom has not been
demonstrated? It's poison. Why is it an "acquired taste"? Because
the body's first healthy reaction to it is - "Ugh. Get this away from
me!" Only those who bow to social pressure and the desire to
*appear* gourmet force their bodies to eat it until their bodies give
up and begin to accept it. Then, at later stages of surrender, their
bodies become accustomed, then addicted, to the poison and they begin
to crave it. The very same process happens with drinking liquor. We
may be certain that spiritual/moral debaucherie and physical
pathology have set in when that which was once abhorrent and
repellent when the organism was pristine and healthy becomes so
desirable as to be an obsession, although it brings nothing but harm.
The wise way to go in eating, as in living, is requiring that that
which we eat and do fulfills the following requirements: It good to
us and good for us and it strengthens us to be of service.
The rest are meaningless and vacuous sensational thrills that weigh
the Soul and body down with confusion and dead weight.
P.S. Almost anything can be convincingly argued for with sophistry.
Often the wise way to go is not as easily argued for rationally.
That is not because wisdom is irrational; but rather because it is
super-rational.
Doreen
B"H
Though it is true that there are particulars that impact on
individuals in different ways, there are also universals. It
behooves us to be able to discern between two.
Wheat is an excellent example. While it can be very healthy to some,
it is unhealthy to others. That's quite true.
Rotten food, in contradistinction, is unhealthy to all, in all
places, in all societies, in all times. This is an example of a
universal law. It is generally applicable.
One of the cliche, and boringggg mantra-like, social pressure
mechanisms used today is "I bet you're not absolutely perfect either!"
Another is: "You don't have every single fact. Therefore, you can't
make any kind of determination whatsoever."
Last, and perhaps least on the convincing hit parade, is: "Who are
you to say that...? It's arrogant to claim that you are privy to
knowledge that others don't have." There is certainly a good measure
of self-assuredness in being confident of one's basic values. It is
not hubris to be aware that one is in possession of basic common
sense. The confusion of self-assurance with hubris is meant as a
social control mechanism to keep people confused about a lot of
things. I just never bent under that pressure.
Few people today have a highly developed ability to discern: between
the salubrious and the insalubrious, between wisdom and sophistry,
between the particular and the universal, between self-assurance and
hubris. These were once matters of common sense. Today it is rare
indeed to find a person in possession of this faculty of
understanding, basic though it is.
A lot of money is being generated by that generalized confusion, and
it is being cultivated and perpetuated by financial concerns.
Michelle said: "I don't drink, so that doesn't apply to me."
Neither do I drink, to speak of. I should hope that we concern
ourselves with matters that impact on society as a whole, not just on
matters of immediately personal relevance.
Doreen
B"H
Though it is true that there are particulars that impact on
individuals in different ways, there are also universals. It
behooves us to be able to discern between two.>>
There are no objective universals.
Rotten food, in contradistinction, is unhealthy to all, in all
places, in all societies, in all times. This is an example of a
universal law. It is generally applicable.>>
Generally, NOT universally.
We eat some foods that are "rotten." Blue cheese, for example. Fermented
foods.
One of the cliche, and boringggg mantra-like, social pressure
mechanisms used today is "I bet you're not absolutely perfect either!">>
.and one which I never used, so I"m not sure why you are making the comment
in reference to me.
Another is: "You don't have every single fact. Therefore, you can't
make any kind of determination whatsoever.">>
You don't. Any determination you make is yours. That doesn't mean I have to
adopt it.
Last, and perhaps least on the convincing hit parade, is: "Who are
you to say that...? It's arrogant to claim that you are privy to
knowledge that others don't have." There is certainly a good measure
of self-assuredness in being confident of one's basic values. It is
not hubris to be aware that one is in possession of basic common
sense. The confusion of self-assurance with hubris is meant as a
social control mechanism to keep people confused about a lot of
things. I just never bent under that pressure. >>
I find it quite arrogant, actually. Your values are not the same as everyone
else's. "Basic common sense" is arguable and circumstance and socially
determined. You never bent because you are rigid in your beliefs and refuse to
consider that perhaps there are other ways of processing reality. It is within
your right to be that way. MY point is that by clinging so blindly to your
preconceptions, you are probably missing out on a lot that may be valuable.
Few people today have a highly developed ability to discern: between
the salubrious and the insalubrious, between wisdom and sophistry,
between the particular and the universal, between self-assurance and
hubris. These were once matters of common sense. Today it is rare
indeed to find a person in possession of this faculty of
understanding, basic though it is.>>
These things are largely subjective. Your judgment of "good' and "bad" only
holds water in your own mind. If it is rare, did you ever stop to think maybe
it's you and not everyone else?
OF course it's rare...everyone has a unique set of value judgments that they
use to process the world around them, and it is unlikely that anyone else's
will exactly line up with yours.
A lot of money is being generated by that generalized confusion, and
it is being cultivated and perpetuated by financial concerns. >>
Oh? How so?
Michelle said: "I don't drink, so that doesn't apply to me."
Neither do I drink, to speak of. I should hope that we concern
ourselves with matters that impact on society as a whole, not just on
matters of immediately personal relevance.
Doreen>>
"To speak of"........means you do drink, from where I stand. I never drink.
It's relative. See my point?
B"H
A Fallacy Commonly Heard Nowadays
This one goes like this: "If you're not open to any and all ideas,
you're cutting yourself off from truth."
That's like saying if you don't eat everthing that's put in front of
you, no matter in what quantity, without checking the nutritional
value, without checking that it is fresh, without checking that it is
perhaps poison, you won't be healthy. :-/
Should we be less discerning about what goes into our consciousness than we are about what goes into our body?
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat
B"H
Is Chaba"d Sh'chitah Kosher?
Point of Information for the Public: HaRav Auerbach, Head of the Beit Din in T'veria, has forbidden Chaba'd sh'chitah because their kavvanot during the time of sh'chitah are heretical.
Today the safest kashrut is Landau and Bada"tz for meat and everything else. HaRav Machpuz is the greatest authority on chakla'ut in Eretz Yisra'el today according to the Rabbinc tradition. When it comes to buying produce he is the ultimate authority that we have to rely on.
Chaba"d are the last to know that they are inching out of the pale. The only reason that they have not been excommunicated is that they provide such good amusement. They are the laughingstock of the Orthodox world.
Personally I have mixed feelings about Chaba"d shchitah. On the one hand I know they do have all kinds of unkosher kavvanot when they shecht. On the other hand I am loathe to reject their kashrut as it is one more step in ousting them from the fold. I would not buy Chaba"d shchitah, but for the time being if it is served at friends' houses I will eat it. Yes; I do have Chaba"d friends, even though the way is errant and Chaba"d attracts as many loo-loo chozrim b'tshuvah as does Breslov, there are individuals in both Chaba"d and Breslov whom I like very much as individuals.
Unfortunately Chab"adnikim are completely convinced of the correctness of their way and are quite sure that the rest of the Jewish world are just not spiritual to understand what they're on about. If they continue that line of thought they will fall over the edge at some point.
It's interesting that Chaba"d are so obsessed with other heretics and so quick to accuse others of heresy. Offen ganif brent das hittle.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan
B"H
I just discovered the wonderful world of Ekiben. My husband was given a translation to do about it and not only is he drooling the whole while doing it, I too am enjoying reading the piece immensely.
Wouldn'tch just know the Japanese would find a way of making fast food chic, artistic and, well, all the artsy things that the Japanese do so well. Ekiben puts Western fast food to shame. While much of it is definitely not vegetarian, much is or can be made to be, as rice features prominently in Ekiben.
Ekiben is typically sold in train stations in Japan. Ekiben is a contraction of eki 'railroad station' and bento 'box' (or something to that effect).
Unfortunately there is a dearth of information on the net about ekiben. I've found three links I can recommend.
The following link is a general introduction.
http://mtc.kthulah.net/bento/bento.html
The link above leads into the next link. Evidently there are Yahoo! groups devoted to ekiben. There are also some cookbooks on the site.
http://mtc.kthulah.net/bento/bentoboxes.html
This last link shows some very simple ekiben lunch boxes. It also shows some anime. Don't ask me why. The boxes shown on this site are evidently very simple. According to what is written in the piece my husband is translating, some of the wrappers are so artistic they are collectors' items. The boxes may be made of bamboo, plastic, paper mesh, foil, leaves, wood and other materials.
http://www.jlist.com/SEARCHES/bento_boxes
It is the food, of course, that is the main attraction. Artistic expression knows no limits in ekiben. In addition to sushi, the food in the boxes may be in the shape of sports equipment, a blossoming camellia, a chestnut and other flora, fauna, sprinkled seaweed and sesame seeds representing mountain ranges, even the Milky Way.
Sigh.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat
B"H
The Backlash on the Road to Self-Improvement
Someone whose opinions and general attitude on life are very positive wrote the following to a Yahoo! group we both belong to:
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2004-04-01.htm
The Atlantic has an interesting interview with a guy who wrote a book
about agriculture and civilization. It does seem like it would be
agood read although he does make some odd comments about
vegetarians: "But religion also gets into display behavior. Part of
that is the self-denial that goes with religious observance. People
fast because it's the opposite of what normal people would do, so
it's a display of fealty. And though I don't mean to disparage
vegetarians, we've all seen that kind of display behavior there, too:
the vegetarian who orders very loudly in a restaurant so that
everyone knows he is morally superior in some way."
Her response to the quote is:
"self-denial. . . fast" So, is a vegetarian diet some sort of life-
long fast? I don't feel that I'm denying myself anything, not
struggling to avoid meat, not in any 12-step program.
"normal people" I do hope he's using that term in its
mathematical/statistical sense,and not the popular meaning as
in "those who think correctly". Am I really abnormal?
"we've all seen that kind of display behavior. . ."Oh, have we now? I
will at times question a waiter about the ingredients of a dish, but
never in a loud voice and never with anattitude of moral superiority.
I would suggest that if this guy feels that way it's more an
expression of his own latent guiltfeelings than of my sense of
superiority.--
To which I responded:
B"H
I'd like to request permission to copy your post below and myresponse
to it on both my Yahoo! group The Moral/Spiritual Substrateof Eating,
which is located on: http://tinyurl.com/27gfy and on my new BLOG by
the same name, which is located on: http://tinyurl.com/2or5f
These are just the kind of questions that I entertain in those fora.
In response I should like to say that there is truth in what the man
has observed both about the religious and about vegetarians.
However, he lacks understanding of the matter. What he has not taken
into account is that there is always an avalanche of spiritual faults
that we get buried under when we embark on the journey to bettering
ourselves. Some of the character faults that one can invariably
expect to be aroused in force on the road to improving onself are
pride, superiority, smugness and self-satesfiedness, even as we are
struggling valiantly and sincerely to acquire a measure of humility.
Those who do not actively exert themselves to improve themselves morally/spiritually are not assailed by all this. It is one of the classic spiritual tests and is well nigh inevitable, as has been elaborated upon in every
spiritual discipline in every culture.
Doreen
Someone else on the group responded with a lovely endoresement:
That is terrific, Doreen. thanks for the
insight.
I asked her if I could publish what she wrote and my response to it on my Yahoo! group and on this blog. She not only answered in the affirmative, she also joined my Yahoo! group The Moral/Spiritual Substrate of Eating.
she also did us the privilege of joining our group as well.
Welcome! It's great to have you aboard.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat
B"H
The "Cheeseburger Bill"
Someone posted on a board:
The US House of Representatives has voted 276-139 for a bill that
would prevent lawsuits against the food industry for making people
fat.
The so-called Cheeseburger Bill bans frivolous lawsuits against
producers and sellers of food and non-alcoholic drinks arising from
obesity claims.
The bill supporters say consumers have to realise they cannot blame
others for the consequences of their actions.
Critics say the food industry now does not have to worry about public
health.
The vote came a day after a new study said obesity was likely to
become the nation's biggest preventable killer, overtaking smoking.
The study found that poor diet and lack of exercise caused 400,000
deaths in the US in the year 2000 - a 33% jump since 1990.
Two thirds of US adults and nine million children are either
overweight or obese, the study said
'Insane lawsuits'
On Wednesday House Majority leader Tom DeLay praised the passage of
the bill, which is formally called the Personal Responsibility in
Food Consumption Act.
Several overweight teens recently tried to sue the McDonald's fast
food chain
After the vote he said "Ronald McDonald made me do it" should never
be considered the basis for a lawsuit.
The bill's sponsor, Florida Republican Representative Ric Keller,
said the legislation was all about "common sense and personal
responsibility".
The first US fast food lawsuit was filed in 2002 by a New Yorker who
blamed his frequent visits to McDonald's for his obesity and
diabetes.
Since then, there have been a number of similar cases across the
country.
The new bill has also the backing of the White House and much of the
food industry.
"This issue isn't about any restaurant or any particular food, it's
all about personal responsibility and individual decisions,"
McDonald's spokesperson Lisa Howard said in a prepared statement.
'Wrong message'
But mostly Democratic critics - who have the support of a number of
consumer groups - argued that the courts, not Congress, should
determine when "obesity" lawsuits were frivolous.
They pointed out that all the lawsuits had been eventually dismissed.
Opponents also said the bill a clear signal to the food industry that
it did not have to worry about the public health.
"That's the wrong message," said Democrat Representative James
McGovern.
The bill still has to be approved by the Senate. In the past senators
have blocked measures to protect certain industries from lawsuits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To Which I responded:
B"H
I disagree with this law entirely.
A child who became a food addict claiming: "Ronald McDonald made me
do it" is not the same circumstance as an adult who became an
alcoholic claiming: "Jose Cuervo and Johnny Walker made me do it".
I remember well how alluring the junk food commercials aimed at
children were to me when I was a kid. As a child it was virtually
impossible to distinguish what I saw on TV from reality.
Although there may be mitigating circumstances in some of those
lawsuits, e.g., the fact that parents do give the kids money for that
food and even drive them to the fast food outlets, the sophistication
and aggressiveness of the ad industry aimed at children cannot be
denied. Battalions of PhDs in psychology work in the ad industry and
make mucho buckos for finding ways to tempt children to get addicted
to food and other substances. They should be legally responsible, as
should be their employers.
Parents who are overworked and may themselves have an eating or other
substance abuse problem may not have the strength to stand up to
their kids' relentless whining for junk foods.
Children are given lunch money and pocket money. A parent may tell a
child to spend it wisely and well. There is no guarantee the child
will do what s/he is advised to do. Even children who come from homes
in which the parents eat well are subject to peer pressure to eat
with all the other kids in hamburger joints.
It is unrealistic to expect children to have the level of self-control we expect from adults.
Clearly the junk food industry has been preying on children. In my
book: You prey you pay.
----------------------------------------------------
A person who posted agreement with this law originally wrote a
response to my reaction:
I wrote:
Battalions of PhDs in psychology work in the ad industry and make
mucho buckos for finding ways to tempt children to get addicted to
food and other substances.
S/he responded:
"I had completely forgotten about this part of aggressive, high
powered marketing.
My best friend worked for a "new" toy company in the '70's and she
just updated me on the money that is spent on these professionals.
She was one of the script writers and all the work had to be passed
by these psychologist, who would choose the ones that were more
appealing to children.
I would be inclined to agree with you from this perspective."
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
B"H
Food Addictions, Inter Alia
Like most food addicts I am a generally addictive personality.
Addictions are like those potato chips - betcha can't have just one.
I'm also a sex and love addict. The two addictions feed off one
another (pardon the pun). The one addiction morphs into the other.
I go on diets to let my sex and love addiction thing out of suppression. Then
disgusted with myself I crawl off to lick my wounds and an ice cream
cone (or two or three) or some such thing. I'm pretty sure that I've
searched out dissatisfying relationships with people so as to have an
excuse to isolate and eat. I'm not sure which is the primary
addiction or even if one or the other predominates.
Anyone sympatico?
Didn't you just guess these two issues would have to come out in one
post? Food and love are inextricably bound in the human psyche. This is more
than a matter of the way our brains are wired, and I'd like to explore this
issue openly with the members here.
I know this subject is a taboo and I'm opening myself up to misunderstanding, ridicule and judgement from people who don't understand. But this is a matter that causes Human beings a great deal of suffering and, as such, someone has to have the courage to explore it - even in provinicial, Orthodox Israel. I'm sure there are other people who have interrelated eating and sex issues.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat
B"H
More Considerations About Alcohol - Bioethanol - As Fuel and Freedom
The existence of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security recently came
to my attention. They are a R&D group dedicated to developing alternatives to
fossil fuels.
You can read about the Institute on the following link, if you'd like:
http://www.iags.org/home.htm
The raison d'etre of the Institute is not a subject that is germane here, at
least not directly. However, one of the projects that they are working on is
getting bioethanol from surplus grain harvests, particularly corn. If on the
off chance there is anyone here who is even less knowledgeable about alcohol
than I am, you can read about ethanol on the following link:
http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/eth_general.html
Of course, most people are familiar with ethanol in a glass. Ethanol is ethyl
alcohol. It is the form of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages.
The fact that ethanol, like all alcohols, is combustible intrigues me. If it is
combustible it can be used as a source of energy. What does that mean? What
does that really mean, on a level far deeper than its chemical composition and
properties? I'm not asking about ethane with an hydroxyl radical and how that
contributes to the combustibility of ethanol here.
There is far less drinking here in Israel than in the West, although in recent
times there has been an increase in recreational drinking. There are no liquor
licenses and no liquor stores, except for fancy-shmancy stores that sell "the
good stuff". The small amount of liquor that a community desires to buy is more
than adequately supplied by what appears on two or three shelves at the
supermarket. 95 percent, not proof, percent, alcohol is sold in supermarkets
for the occasional party where punch is served. I use it as rubbing alcohol.
That brings me to the next property of alcohol that intrigues me: it sterilizes
by killing bacteria. What does *that* mean? What does that really mean?
What are the lessons to be learned from alcohol?
Doreen
B"H
Proceeding From Self-Acceptance
Please take a look at the site below:
http://tinyurl.com/29s8j
It is *not* intended as an advertisement or endorsement on my part.
I simply came across the site in searching for web sites that treat
the issue of recovery from obesity that springs from self-acceptance,
and I resonate with what is said on that site.
Clearly that which is written there does not pertain exclusively to
obesity.
Doreen
B"H
Cross Culinary Pollination
I was recently at a dinner party that some friends threw. The women
who prepared the food are both from The Netherlands. One is from
Tiel, the other from Haarlem. To my delight they served Indonesian
food.
Indonesia was, as we know, colonized by The Netherlands.
Manufacturing and trading emporia were set up in Indonesia by the
Dutch.
Since the time of the colonization there has been mutual cultural
influencing going on between The Netherlands and Indonesia and that,
it doesn't take much to guess, shows up in the cuisine.
The phenomenon of culinary cross pollination is very interesting, methinks.
Doreen
B"H
Questions About Spirits
I don't drink to speak of except on the holiday of Purim. I have
half a glass of sweet wine on Friday night and Saturday afternoon
before we have our Shabbat meal and if I go out with my husband for a
birthday or with a friend to a coffee house I'll have a tequila
sunrise or a Kailua (only the Kailua that is kosher, not all is) or chocolate liqueur or Tia Maria in coffee.
So, I don't really understand the phenomenon of two-fisted drinking,
even though as a young woman I worked as a barmaid and cocktail
waitress.
I've wondered about alcoholic drinks. They all have one necessary
element in common, i.e., rot. What, after all, is fermentation if
not the process of vegetable matter rotting? I wonder at that.
Another common element among all alcoholic drinks is that they
evaporate easily. Well, that's not surprising. They contain ethyl
alcohol. It is the phenomenon of the liquid becoming gaseous that I
wonder about. What does that mean? What does that really mean?
Related to the phenomenon of alcohol being so volatile is the fact
that it is called "spirits".
Let's look at that terminology; it is very interesting, at least to
me.
The carbohydrates in vegetable matter rotting produce alcohol. People
come to rot morally from too much drink as well.
Volatile means easily evaporated, but it can also mean easily
combustible or given to explode. Many, if not most, of the people
who drink too much are, likewise, volatile.
Finally, we have the reference to alcoholic beverages, specifically
the alcohol in those beverages as "spirits". Alcohol can raise or
lower our spirits. Also, in evaporating matter becomes more
elusive. Alcoholics too are often emotionally unavailable.
Evaporation is a process that allows matter to float away, become
ethereal. Is that what heavy drinker wish to be - ethereal?
Doreen
B"H
Teachings From Fruit and Wine
I'd like to share a number of teachings that come from mystical
Judaism that relate to fruit and a by-product of fruit, namely wine.
It is not my intention to foist my beliefs on you. It is my intention
to share what I mean by food being physical representations, symbols
of far deeper truths with you by using the teaching and the imagery I
am most familiar with. When I use the word "substrate" it is to
those profound, unseen moral/spiritual truths that I refer. It should
be needless to say that I'd like you to share the benefit of the
richness of your traditions as well.
It was explained to me, in the form of a parable, that God intended
that the trees in The Garden should be fruit trees, not fruit bearing
trees. The Rabbis who taught me this went so far as to tell me that
the entire tree was intended to be edible, in fact the tree and the
fruit were to be one and the same. The earth did not respond to
God's command and instead of producing fruit trees, the earth
produced fruit-bearing trees.
The above teaching confounded me. I know and trust the wisdom of the
Jewish tradition enough to know that if something sounds childishly
simplistic to me it is I who does not understand and the deceptive
simplicity is no reason to dismiss the teaching out-of-hand. "Fruit
trees and not fruit-bearing trees?", I wondered for years. "Whatever
does that mean? What does it really mean?" "The earth was able to
do other than what God had commanded?!" That was even more confusing
to me than the business with the trees.
A goodly number of years went by before I picked up a little book and
in it was the explanation of the proverb. The author of the book
will forgive me. We are supposed to name those from whom we have
received a teaching, but I was so excited by having finally
understood the proverb that I neglected to note the Rav's name. He
explained that God intended a world in which cause and effect would
be one. God intended no delay or dichotomy because cause and
effect. They were intended to be one. The fruit tree, then,
represents a world of cause and effect that are simultaneous and
identical. The world of cause and effect as we know it is represented
by the fruit-bearing trees.
The "earth", it transpires, is the human mind – the paradigmatic
fertile field. (I shoulda known that. Guess I was too close to the
forest to see the trees.) It was our minds that are not responding
to God's call. This is an effect of the free will be are given. We
can choose to ignore God, or to misunderstand. However, God's will
is for us to live in a world in which cause and effect are
simultaneous and identical, if and only if those fruits are morally
and spiritually sweet. We are not intended to live in a world of
hardship. The fact that we do is our own will, not God's.
We Jews celebrate a holiday known as Tu B'Shvat. I won't go into
details here. Suffice it to say that it is the New Year for Trees
(we have four new years every year – any excuse to party). We hold a
Seder (step-by-step ceremonial meal) on Tu B'Shvat which is both like
and unlike the seder we conduct on Passover. The following about
fruit and wine is learned from that Kabbalistic ritual:
The three types of fruits correspond to three types of characters.
Some people are like fruits that are edible inside and inedible on
the outside; they are difficult to get to know, but you are rewarded
when you peel away the top layer.
Other people are like fruits that are edible on the outside, but have
an inedible pit; you meet them quickly, but you will never know them
completely.
Then there are those fruits that are edible inside and out, like the
people with whom you form quick and lasting friendships.
We do not discard fruits because of an inedible peel or pit;
likewise, all kinds of people are worth knowing.
The fruits that we eat on Tu B'Shvat also correspond to the different
worlds in Kabbalah. According to the Kabbalah, there are four worlds
or levels of creation: EMANATION, CREATION, FORMATION, and ACTION
(our world of physical reality).
The first fruits we eat tonight are fruits with inedible peels, which
symbolize the world of ACTION: pomegranates, almonds, tangerines,
kiwis, walnuts, pistachios, pine nuts, chestnuts, hazelnuts, peanuts,
grapefruits, coconuts, and oranges.
We now take fruits from the second category. These fruits are edible
on the outside, but have inedible pits, symbolizing the Kabbalistic
world of FORMATION: olives, dates, peaches, persimmons, avocados,
apricots, loquats, plums, cherries, and mangos.
Now we take the fruit form the third category, those fruits that are
completely edible, symbolizing the Kabbalistic world of CREATION:
grapes, figs, carobs, citrons, apples, strawberries, lemons,
raspberries, and pears. The Torah may be compared to the fruits in
this category. Every part of these fruits is good to eat.
The fourth Kabbalistic world of EMANATION is purely spiritual and
cannot be symbolized in any concrete way; therefore it cannot be
represented by physical food. The world of Emanation relates to God's
love, mercy, wisdom and other essential and omnipresent realities
that people perceive with their hearts rather than their five senses.
During the Tu B'shvat seder we use white wine and red wine. The white
wine symbolizes the dormancy that there is during the winter months.
It also symbolizes the realm of the spirit. The red wine symbolizes
the earth and the fertility of life. There are four parts to the
seder. The first cup of wine is with the white wine and we take a
drink and say a blessing. A little while later, we move to this other
realm where we put a little bit of the red wine in the white wine to
acknowledge another level of existence and the introduction of the
earthly in combination with the with the spiritual. The third cup of
wine is more a balance between the spiritual and the physical. And
finally, the final cup of wine is entirely red; it's really
representative of our connection with the earth and the hope and the
prayer that the Spring will be productive and that the trees will
bear their fruits and the earth will offer what it offers.
The above post is, perforce, perfunctory and abbreviated. I have
edited out as much of the specifically Jewish content as I could,
leaving what seems to me to be the most universal symbolism.
The fact that the juice of the fruits that have the hardest shells
(nuts) is actually oil, and not juice at all, has entertained my mind
for some time. Oil gives us the richest source of energy and can be
burned – this burning produces light and heat. Oil is a salve and a
preservative. All of the nuts give us oil. Oil can be extracted, of
course, from olives and in Roman times a very expensive oil was
extracted from the pit of a fruit we think is apricot. The
relationship of juice and oil in fruits makes me wonder at the
phenomenon. I am quite sure there are worthwhile moral/spiritual
lessons to be learned from that phenomenon.
When we eat and drink mindfully, noticing the physical phenomena that
characterize food and drink as well as our reactions to food and
drink, we can gain entry into subtler, more delicate worlds - the
levels from which our world is being emanated.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
B"H
Love & Trust -OR- Ugh! How Can You *Eat* That???!!!
I'm going to present two recipes here. One is for a traditional
Jewish recipe for a dish called kishke, which is stuffed cow's
intestine. The second is for haggis, a traditional Scottish dish
that is also made from stuffed innards.
When I see the recipe for kishke I get the warm fuzzies thinking
about Nana and Mama and wonderful childhood memories come back of
dishes I loved being prepared and little me waiting impatiently for
them to be done while the house filled with smells of my favorites. I
also remember the happiness on their faces upon serving me the fruits
of their labors and their satisfaction in watching me enjoy their
cooking immensely.
When I see the recipe for haggis I want to puke.
What's funny about this is that haggis is so very similar in
composition to my beloved kishke. That got me to thinking (as so many
phenomena having to do with food are wont to do). Why if I love
kishke, do I turn green when I think of haggis.
Let's look at the recipes and we'll perhaps get an idea about why:
Recipe for KISHKE: http://tinyurl.com/2ozjj
Recipe for HAGGIS: http://tinyurl.com/32gm7
The similarity between the two dishes is very obvious. So why should
the former make me swoon, while the latter makes me gag?
I think it has to do with love and trust. Both of those recipes are
made from innards – the most inward part of the animal and the parts
one has to be most careful to clean thoroughly before preparation.
The hands that do that cleaning and preparation have to belong to
someone we trust implicitly to both know how to do the work and to
belong to a person who loves us very, very much and wants only our
welfare. They are the ultimate "Trust Me" foods.
Now I loved trusted enough Nana and Mama to allow them to serve me
kishke, the taste of which I found delicious. There is no one is
Scotland I presently love or trust enough to prepare haggis for me,
although I am sure that haggis is delicious too. So, when my
consciousness is focused only on the ingredients, per se, they make
me nauseous.
I think that we can pick up cues of a long-standing tradition of love and trust when we are served a food we have not yet eaten by people
we love and trust and become sentimental about new to us foods too.
Perhaps one of the reasons that people become addicted to mass
produced food is that while we like the taste, we keep looking for
the love in it, love that can't possibly be there. No one slinging a
zillion hamburgers a day or producing bread on a conveyer belt can
possibly love you personally. The taste is there, perhaps, but the
deep satisfaction of feeling loved when eating prepared food is not.
If we are not getting our need to be loved fed from the sources we
really want it from we are likely to get hung up on the sensual
aspect of food and the sensual aspects alone. It is then that we
become addicted to food - addiction to food being the irrational
demand that food which has not been prepared and received in love
will satisfy us profoundly. Not desisting from demanding that food
not prepared and received in love will satisfy our deepest needs for
love and trust is the insanity of the addiction to food.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan
B"H
JUICE!!!
I am a compulsive overeater. When I go on a bender I do it like
nobody's business. I have a long history of bulemia behind me too.
There. I've said it. The ugly truth is out. At least some of it...
I was in the supermarket doing my bi-weekly shopping today whilst
thick in my most recent binge, when suddenly I was overcome by a yen
for juice far more powerful than any I had ever had for junk food. My
body starting screaming: "JUICE!!!"
I wasn't surprised. A few months ago I went on a bender that left my
body so toxic that my feet and legs were bloated up to the ankles.
The swelling exerted so much pressure on my skin that it felt it
would burst. I could no longer walk because the curve of my arches
was convex.
Knowing that I was in serious trouble I began to clean up my act and
began to do the singly best thing for my body that I could do – I
began to drink vegetable juice every day, a pint of it. In the
morning I ate fruit, or put frozen chunks of fruit (it was summer) in
the blender and had an all-fruit smoothie, using just enough filtered
water to get the blades to turn. I ate one healthy meal per day. I
also bought a good, but inexpensive juicer. Every day I made juice
from about five different fresh vegetables, always including a small
beet, at least one green juice vegetable (cucumber is great for
juice), and carrots.
My body was terribly poisoned and it took time for it to come around,
but within a couple of months my body had allowed the clean water
from the vegetables to replace the water that was diluting the
poisons in my body. The swelling subsided and I began to lose weight.
This bender has been of shorter duration and not as "junkie" as
binges in the past. I firmly believe that having the memory of juice
on my tape helped me back to health. I bought vegetables in the
store for juice, and while I was at it I bought some whole wheat pita
and tomatoes and broccoli sprouts for a lovely sandwich too.
I'm getting back on track. I came home, made a pint of juice and I
feel cleaner and more energized.
I can't promise you that drinking juice will change the fact that you
are a COE if you are, in fact I can promise you that it won't, but it
is a powerful tool for health. It will become a craving that rivals
all of the others.
Please check the sites below out. I am not endorsing any site or any
religion, I'm simply pointing you toward the sites that have the best
information about juice on the market. Take what you want and leave
the rest:
http://www.mercola.com/nutritionplan/juicing.htm
http://www.living-foods.com/articles/benefits.html
This last link comes from a religious site. It is not my religion.
It may not be your religion. I certainly don't agree with what they
say on all religious matters, particularly what they have to say
about my religion :0). However, when it comes to juicing, these
people know what they're talking about:
http://64.106.220.190/
To your health,
Doreen
B"H
How Did The World Get So Fat In Just One Generation?
I'd like to pose a question. On the link below we find
the following excerpt.
http://64.227.194.66/brett/news.htm
The percentage of overweight Americans has increased by about one-
third in the last 20 years. This disturbing trend even afflicts our
young people with more than 25% of today's children overweight. The
National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys show that 23
percent of adults were obese in 1994 compared with 15 percent in
1980. The percentage of overweight or obese Americans is even greater
now. "Today about 65 percent of U.S. adults are overweight or obese,"
according to Surgeon General Richard Carmona," and more than two-
thirds of all adults are trying to keep it off."
Americans who live in the States me tell me that from glancing around
they think that a 65% figure for obesity in the US may be very
conservative. Do those members of M-Vegetarian who live in the States
agree?
I left the US in 1982. That was a little less than two decades after
Twiggy supplanted "The Shrimp" as the most famous model in the world.
It was the time before George Bush promised a "kinder gentler nation"
(whether or not be delivered on his promise is not the issue here).
1982 was a time of "You can never be rich or think enough." It was
the time of women executives proving themselves in the corporate
world, donning rather severe business suites on rail thin bodies,
projecting an aura of workaholic chic. It was a time of regarding
people of normal weight as being "chubby", not to mention those who
were overweight as being eyesores. It was a cruel and heartless time
in which the impossible was expected of people professionally,
personally and in the way they looked.
Now, a mere ~20 years later, obesity is rampant in the US and is
spreading like wildfire in all of the countries that are in the US
sphere of economica and cultural influence. What do you think
happened? Feel free to speculate wildly.
Doreen
B"H
These Substances Should Come With A Health Warning
The following link will take you to a site that will show you
the "nutritional" information of most of the items available in the
most popular fast food chains.
http://www.chowbaby.com/10_2000/fastfood/fast_food_nutrition.asp
In addition to the vegetarians and those who keep kosher who were
misled by the McDonald's Corp. that did fry its freedom fries, sic.,
in animal fat despite their advertisement that they fry them in 100%
veg oil, there are numerous health hazards in eating those food that
the public-at-large, certainly young children, are truly unaware of.
IMO, we must recognize that foods, like drink and drugs, are
substances that must be used in accordance with proper
administration, lest they become both addictive and deleterious to
the body.
While foods, if wisely and properly ingested, are one of our greatest
allies in the war against disease, foods are mind altering and mood
altering because they are biochemistry altering. Foods also alter our
spiritual state, for better or for worse depending upon how we relate
to them and if we respect their inherent powers. They are potentially
addictive, potentially destructive substances if abused.
Therefore, I recommend that the very same measure that are taken to
regulate the abuse of substances already recognized to be potentially
harmful also be applied to foods in ways that are appropriate to
foods.
For starters: I think that posters depicting health guidelines for
men, women and children should be posted in every establishment that
sells food. Fruits, nuts, legumes, vegetables and grains rich in
natural complex carbohydrates should be sold with recommendations of
how many servings should be had per day. Processed foods (and this
includes homogenized and pasteurized milk and its products and meat
products) sodas and "junk" should have health warnings written
clearly on the package, just as cigarettes do. People should be
educated about the egg and fish industry and about the nutritional
values of these foods such that they can make a reasoned decision as
to whether or not to eat these foods or rely on purely vegetarian
sources of nutrition.
Doreen
B"H
A Proposal For Dealing With The Problem of Overweight and Obesity in Children
An overview of a proposal for dealing with the problem that I wrote
up upon first consideration of the problem is found below.
It's not good enough to get mad or sad, something has to be done when
people, particularly helpless children, are being hurt.
My tentative suggestions are as follows:
I would suggest that all parents be required to register at La Leche,
or a similar program, and show up there for regular classes in
nutrition while their babies are still nursing or drinking formula,
or that parents be required to pass a test demonstrating that they
know the basics of proper nutrition for children. First-time parents,
even those who appear healthy, should be encouraged to take the
course and not rely on their own understanding of the proper feeding
of a weaned infant.
Any parents who are obviously overweight themselves, or who are known
to be suffering from any chronic diseases that are related to
nutrition, should be targeted for special counseling. They should be
approached gently but authoritatively with the suggestion that they
voluntarily agree to take courses in proper nutrition.
At the end of the course at La Leche, or a similar program, a test
should be required of all participants who were not able to pass the
examination in nutrition before taking the course. A certificate
should be granted upon successful passing of the exam.
Having taken the examination in proper family nutrition and having
received the certificate parents would then be required to keep to
nutritional guidelines in feeding their children. The certificate
for proper feeding and nutrition would be no less binding on parents
than is a drivers' license is on a driver. Parents who having taken
the course in nutrition and/or having passed nutrition examinations
will be held fully legally responsible for the proper feeding and
nutrition of their children.
Pediatricians, child care workers, teachers, school nurses, social
workers and children's psychologists at all level should be trained
to spot malnutrition and improper nutrition in the children in their
care. Special attention must be paid to children of the obese and
those suffering from chronic diseases related to poor nutrition. If
there is any history or suspicion of substance abuse or addictive
behavior in the family the family should be most carefully monitored.
In cases where a child is suspected of being improperly nourished the
appropriate authorities should be called in including: doctors and/or
nurses and/or, psychologists and/or social workers. In some cases
law enforcement authorities may be called in as well. Yes, there are
forms of actual physical and psychological abuse involving food.
Ad hoc panels of experts should be convened to deliberate how to
handle each case of improper nutrition, and/or malnutrition, of
children individually. The determination and recommendations for
follow-up of those committees, be it family therapy, social workers
being brought in to monitor the family, charges of abuse, etc. will
be legally binding upon the parents.
Legislation must be enacted forbidding the sale of unhealthy foods
within 15 minutes walking distance of schools. It should be needless
to say that all junk food dispensers and machines must be removed
from within schools, together with advertisements for such foods.
Doreen
B"H
Addiction And How It Impinges On Morality
The following is a slightly revised version of a post I made on
the Yahoo! group M-Pol that got me run off for being a "troll". As a result of the visceral, unbridled reactions to this post and others in which I raised the issue of morality I officially resigned from Mensa.
I originally asked how much drinking the other members assume goes on
in the group. I chose drinking because it is, I believe, the most
prevalent of the addictions that causes cognitive distortion. (By
cognitive I mean intellectual as well as emotional perception and
processing of information). Afterward I realized that I should
elaborate on the question to include other addictions, including the
addiction to food.
This is what I wrote in reply to the many, rather heated, responses I
received in response to my query:
It was asked why I raised these questions on the M-Pol Yahoo! group
specifically. I'd like to explain myself and, hopefully, elucidate
the point in such a way that it does not seem accusatory.
Whether or not one can be intellectually lucid when inebriated is
questionable. Certainly there is an inverse relationship between
degree of inebriation and ability to think lucidly. I must allow that
people who are accustomed to drinking alcohol can drink a good amount
and still be able to think analytically and creatively and discuss
matters cogently. Some of the most creative artists and prolific
intellectuals are/were alcoholic, not just drinkers, but truly
alcoholic. Some are/were drug addicts as well.
However, there is also the matter of emotional lucidity to be
considered. Drinking impairs our emotional faculties no less, and
sometimes even more, than it does our ability to think. Many of those
very creative artists and prolific intellectuals mentioned above who
are/were drinkers are/were well nigh dysfunctional in their private
affairs and wholly incapable of moral improvement either in the
personal or societal spheres, despite the fact that they can/could
speak and write about morality quite lucidly indeed.
In order to be able to bring about improvements in our club, and in
society at large, and I assume that objective has something to do
with what this discussion group is about, the majority of the members
of our club will have to be able to discipline themselves emotionally
most of the time. To do so one has to be sober and straight most of
the time. This is not Doreen's opinion. This is the opinion of AA,
NA, OA...(Yes, OA too. A compulsive eater can not be relied on to
demonstrate the ongoing discipline and self-sacrifice needed to be a
true altruist and reformer any more than an alcoholic or a drug
addict can. We have to take this addiction into account too. Same
with sex and relationship addicts and so on.)
Without being able to bring our emotions under control and focus them
to the extent necessary, and in the ways needed, to realize purpose,
in this instance to better our club, all further discussion is
pointless. That is why it was of more than casual interest to me to
know how much emotional focus, restraint and selflessness for the
sake of the cause of improving our club can be expected of the
members.
Doreen
