These
energetic concepts seriously conflict with modern scientific opinions. Since most
people place (actually "displace") a deep belief that most things scientific
are factually proven, this, we must understand, is their observational standard.
So here come our Asian teachers (with no doctorate or physician status), claiming
that 100 years of science is fundamentally wrong. Now, regardless, of whether
there is truth in this, unless we can prove these things on their levels, how
can we expect them to support any of these contentions? It's just creative fabrication,
as far as they're concerned, and this, is the problem when you enter the mainstream.
I
learned a long time ago that a five minute national televised interview can be
immediately sabotaged if I mention macrobiotics because there is such a fixed
(and incorrect) public understanding of what macrobiotics actually is. I'd have
to spend four of those minutes explaining what it's not and then for the remaining
minute of my interview few can really listen anyway, they're still digesting with
my previous reasoning.
It's difficult for the general public to see the
benefits of a grain vegetable based diet; they don't see food economy, simplicity,
regulated blood sugar, consistent bowel health, greater energy, deeper sleep,
a stronger sense of autonomy and a deeper calm. Instead, they see deprival of
their favorite goodies, a bland food prison diet, the promotion of "unproven"
information and assorted counselors (usually without any accepted form of degrees)
telling (and charging) people that their "kidneys are shot and they need
salt, aduki beans, certain vegetable drinks and maybe a compress." Come'on--think
about how this sounds to most people!
I think, if the situation described
in Foster's letter was originally approached as a "Whole Foods Community
Health Project" that, as its basis, promoted a whole foods diet not dependent
on animal protein and with natural sugars not artificially concentrated, there
might be a fighting chance. It's no secret that plentiful research supports the
simple validity that this dietary method has proven helpful for handling diabetes
2, early stage arthritis, heart disease, etc.--common conditions that have already
seen dramatic reversals. Instead, someone fed them the whole ball of wax and expected
them to not chew and just swallow it all. Obviously, it scared the dickens out
of them--foods and recipes with Japanese names, theories and claims put forth
as fact and not possibility, thin people talking a lot about foods, cooking techniques,
balancing energies and endless chewing... etc.
As macrobiotics attempts
to enter the mainstream again, this issue will continually come up and the reactions
will be more severe and heavily critical, until we consider attempting to redefine
it all—an unlikely possibility due to vested interests, tradition and an
inability to come to some basic agreements, because somebody always wants to be
chief cook, emperor or king.
There are so many wonderful things about macrobiotics
that can benefit humanity. I think we have to more aware of how this information
is perceived by the general public, and at the same time, more humble in how we
express our views since the proof for such statements as mentioned in what I've
bulleted, is still, in many cases, conceptual or "proven" only on a
very small and contestable scale. We can mention our theories as possibilities
but not as practical realities, since they still remain unproven. This only invites
more conflict and negative publicity.
I hope this article you've forwarded
to me encourages some lively debate. It'd be interesting to hear other reactions.
Thanks for your interest in my opinion.
Verne Varona,
Toronto, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear
Macrobiotic Guide,
Thank you for forwarding Nigel Foster's article from
the Netwon Tab and the subsequent response from Verne Varona. I promptly forwarded
the article to Michio's office and we are planning to address this locally. I
have also passed along Verne's response to Michio and to Marc Van Cauwenberghe
(who was an editor of the book that was mentioned in the Nigel Foster article)
and have asked for their opinions of the article and of Verne's response. They
are preparing a response for clarification for the benefit of your readers. When
that is ready I forward that to you for circulation.
In the meantime, I
would like to share with you some personal views and concerns of mine regarding
a trend that I see happening among macrobiotic educators. While it is important
to cater one's presentation to the listening of the audience I believe it is important
not to do so at the expense of losing one's own principles, integrity and most
of all, creative imagination. To yield one's imagination to "proven"
facts such
as Nigel Foster and Verne suggest is to give up the very source
of what makes those "proven" facts possible in the first place. I am
not suggesting that we ignore "proven facts" which we should embrace,
but that we also not let them limit our imaginations. If it were not for the fantastic
imaginations of great thinkers and scientists of the past then we would not have
the science we know of today. Where do the ideas to research and prove something
come from in the first place? It comes only from the imagination and courage of
the person who dared to dream and realize it regardless of convention.
The
questions of how blood types can change is obviously theory and not "proven
fact." The present medical view is primarily concerned with only the four
major types. The study of blood types has no major application in medicine other
than for transfusions. However, medical scientists that have studied blood types
know that there more than just four types.
Indeed, the quality of blood
differs from individual to individual. What medical science also has not really
studied is how these blood types are created in the first place. Ohsawa and Michio's
perspective is based on the dynamic principles of yin and yang and the idea that
what makes a human being including their blood is nothing more than food and environment.
As such, while it is most probably difficult to change one's blood type in a single
lifetime there is nothing that has disproved this possibility either. Furthermore,
how blood types form and differentiate over succeeding generations is still unknown,
and according to Michio's ideas, they are simply the result of changes in food
and environment overtime. I talk about blood type here only as an example that
what maybe viewed as a "proven fact" may indeed, still have room for
other possibilities. To categorically deny such possibilities is to deny the freedom
of our curiosities and imaginations that could lead to future discoveries and
the furtherance of real science.
To me, the true charlatans on the planet
are those that would have all of us limit our imaginations, creativity, and the
ability to dream and explore freely, the wonders of the universe. They are the
one that demand "proof" and will not accept anything else but "convention."
They are the ones that do not dare to dream and cannot truly create happiness
for themselves and others. If there is any directive that Ohsawa and Michio have
been consistent about, it is the message to play and enjoy life; to live life
fully and freely.
The great scientist, Einstein, valued imagination above
knowledge. Let us not forget this and let us play to our heart's content.
Sincerely,
Phiya
Kushi
