posted August 14, 2010 10:22 AM         

Indigenous Nutrition & Physical Evolution - Daniel Vitalis

posted August 14, 2010 01:35 PM         

Now I have questions.

Is there an assumption here that the closer we get to the origins of things, the more pure, natural, and real they become?? What about evolution? Where do we separate domestication and evolution? If these indigenous "warriors" are so well-equipped, why are they in danger of being extinct?

And this notion that we lost something fierce... My research suggests the existence of peaceful, egalitarian civilizations where interdependence (not independence) was paramount. These societies seem to have existed for thousands, even tens of thousands, of years. Of course, we can also ask, "If they were so well-equipped, why aren't they still around?"

Why do people go to war? Is it because they are in-tune with their inner warrior? Some kind of fierce, assertive, war-like tendency which springs from the deepest, most potent parts of our species? Or, is it because they are passive, and easily led (into war)? Or is it both? Not an imbalance in one direction or another, but, rather, placing fierceness where passivity should be, and vice versa?

I like the ideas he discusses in the last part (about six minutes in), where he's talking about being politically incorrect, ferocious, and fiercely independent. And how we've been convinced that spirituality is about "letting it happen", and "it's all good", and how disempowering this can be. I've often wondered about this. Are the best among us, as Vitalis suggests, becoming ineffective? Because they go with the flow, etc.? And, yet, what does this say about someone like Thich Nhat Hanh? It's clear that his influence is profound, and that tremendous effort, discipline, and single-mindedness of purpose is required in order to reach those states of deep "passivity".

I'm pretty sure Vitalis has Sun/Pluto in early Libra...