|
So far we've heard from one person questioning the belief of "God" in macrobiotics and two that claim that one must believe in "God" to be macrobiotic (only two?). One who believes that macrobiotics could colaborate with food co-ops (not become food co-ops!) and two that feel that the colaboration with would dilute the function and meaning of macrobiotics (and take away the useful role of leaders). By the way, I never proposed the end of leadership roles in society, I just don't feel that all or most of the people in our greater society need to be led (many, yes; all or most, no). I wonder if my articulate acquaintances, here, propose that we go back to living in a society rule by royal (with a king/queen or emperor/empress) decree (that's leadership for you!)! By the way, a colaboration that has been going on for some time has been a famous macrobiotic teacher giving specially designed macrobiotic seminars to doctors and physicians. About 20 years ago, the same macrobiotic teacher's magazine was offering copies of Ivan Illich's "Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health" (ISBN 0553105965) with new subscriptions to the magazine. Going back to leaders, I believe the only people that will be led are those who choose to and I also believe that less and less people will choose to be led in the future (as more and more people learn how to make decisions and take action on their own). By the way, when one argues that collective action eliminates the role of the individual (which is not always true), one could also argu e that leaders can usurp the power of the individuals that follow them. From a distance, a group of people is just a group of people, whether they are functioning as a collective or following the lead of an individual. And individuals surrender some of their personal power in each situation. By the way, not all democractic bodies make decisions by majority rule, some make decisions by consensus or try their hardest to do so. If the current elected body in this country made decisions by rule of consensus, the impeachment process would have never taken place. And co-ops that make decisions by majoritarian rule (opposed to consensus) usually do their membership a disservice. Going back to the question of whether macrobiotics is exclusive (believe all that we believe or begone) because some believe that one must believe in "God" to be macrobiotic, reminds me of a time when the doctrine was expressed almost 20 years ago, that one must be heterosexual to be macrobiotic or that there couldn't be any women macrobiotic leaders. Boy, have times changed! I realize that most folks is the greater society when asked the question in a certain way, will claim that they believe in "God", and many of those believers will go as far as to say they believe in a "savior", but I wonder how many folks you can get in the macrobiotic movement (both professionals and consumers) to claim they believe in "God". And going back to the point of asking a persons belief before treating them, if you believe that the macrobiotic treatment will not benefit the patient if they don't believe in "God" then you'd be deceptive to reveal that fact only after the treatment. If one believes that oriental medicine works, one doesn't always presume that this is because they believe in "God". Electricity is invisible and both believers in "God" and non-believers believe that the switch will turn on the light without fully understanding the principle behind the function. I believe that macrobiotics is inclusive (to include those who believe in "God" and those who don't). And while I feel that macrobiotics is even inclusive enough to inlude those who feel that they must be armed (and ready to fight), there is a suggestion that these folks put their guns away and act in less threatening ways when we all sit down to eat together! Thank you, very much. Bruce |