Kirt = even number of >       Peter = odd nuber of >

>>>Sure, no diet will cure neurosis. But a nourishing diet will bring
>>>the urges & cravings down to a manageable level.

>>This sounds right on to me. Indeed, it sounds like what I have said.

>Not unless you have changed your mind. You have indicated that you
>believe people mainly go off their diets for psycological reasons. And
>I believe that a truly nourishing diet will have a balancing effect no
>matter how many untreated neurosises somebody might have. After a few
>months initial phase of cleansning and adaption if somebody is having
>difficulties staying on a diet and is having strong cravings, probably
>the diet is wrong - not the person.

>>This, again, sounds like expecting a bit much from food nourishment
>>alone. Imagine a "perfectly fed human" raised in a cold cage away from
>>mother (breastfeeding via a tube?) or something like that. S/he may
>>get all the molecules needed but that isn't going mean it will
>>automatically right itself.

>No, but a decent diet might keep her out of psychosis.

Now you say diet may prevent pschosis (which admits some neurosis, no?),
where you have consisently said that it should be satistfying enough to

eliminate any and all exceptions and cravings, which to my mind _could_ be
examples of neurosis, and/or examples of an incomplete diet (as you argue).
If someone could be "at least not psychotic" as a result of non-mammalian
childrearing, why not admit to the possibilty of being nuerotic, part of
which might include acting out with food, even on the perfect diet?

>>Above you mention "For the body to heal it needs to be properly
>>nourished at all levels - including the nutritional level" but seem to
>>think the "truly nourishing diet" is primary.

>As is fresh air & water, exercise, love & touch etc.

Sounds right, but I'm curious, if we judge the perfect diet by our lack of
cravings, how do we judge the "perfect excercise program" or the "perfect
love & touch"? Both arenas seem ripe for neurosis, yet I doubt that one
would properly say, "You don't love me perfectly and that's why I continue
to look for love neurotically" or "The excercise program (an arbitrary
invention, like most every diet, raw or otherwise devised) is deficient and
that's why I lose interest (take a week off, or whatever)".

In a sense, Peter, your insistence on the perfect diet eliminating all
cravings seems the most reductionistic of all. You seem to say, "Food is
molecules, and when I have the right molecules, there will be no food
issues left."

>>Probably it is. But, food alone, isn't  going to do it all. Perhaps
>>it is a necassary "pre-condition" (though 1000's of primal patients
>>might agrue otherwize).

>Considering the modest success rate of primal or any other therapy for
>that matter, I am not so sure. People in therapy are often on terrible
>diets, and I believe they would do much better in therapy were they
>properly nourished.

>>OK, I hear you. I even agree to a large degree. But we do have a
>>difference of opinion about how far food alone can take us.

>Indeed.

>>Perhaps what you're pointing out is the "acid test" for the "truly
>>nourishing diet".

>Exactly!

>>BTW, what do you think this TND is?

>A diet high in whole & raw foods.

And your experience is that you have no cravings on such a diet? Or that if
you have a craving it should be satisfied, even if it's not raw or whole?
If M2M is any survey, it sounds like there are cravings/urges (and health
problems) aplenty on a mostly whole raw diet. I'm curious. If instincto is
not the "perfect diet" because I overeat avocados, a diet "high in whole &
raw foods" must have its troubles as well, no?

>>>>Outer stress can be a useful trigger, but it is rarely the cause of
>>>>anything in our adult life.

>>>This is a mute point. With too much outer stress the organism will
>>>never have the strength to heal itself.

>>Lost me there, but I'm usually lost so no harm done. :)

>Your comment above is a typical example of the arrogance and inflated
>sense of self-importance one so often finds in the therapeutic
>community. No insinuation intended, but you must have lived quite a
>sheltered life to come up with such a flippant remark (see above: >>>
>Outer stress...), or maybe you just spent too many hours engrossed in
>Janov's books - A less sentitive person than myself might have gotten
>offended. :)

I'm just saying "I don't get it". You trash the idea of stress as a trigger
by saying it's a moot point becuase too much stress is weakening. I still
don't get it, and I often don't "get" things. I must've typed poorly for
you to consider ignorance as arrogance...

>>>Primal is alot more than 'the pre-verbal thing'. Janov speaks of 3
>>>levels of consciousness, that reflect the 3 levels of the human
>>>brain:the neocortex, the limbic system & and the brain stem.
>>>(thought,feeling and instinct)

>>Instincto is a lot more than a taste-change as well. But IMO the
>>pre-verbal thing is the basis, the foundation.

>True, but the downfall of both primal & instincto has been in reducing
>almost everything to the pre-verbal instinctive stage thereby
>neglecting the importance of the later stages of development. Dealing
>with romantic notions of a lost and traumatized pre-verbal existence
>can easily turn into a convenient form of escapism and justify rather
>than prompt to the facing of & dealing with the often painful
>re-represensations of these early traumas in the present.

And the opposite may be true: that dealing with romantic notions of "the
painful present" may keep one stuck at the "level of thought" at the
expence of deeper integration on the feeling and instinct levels. If such
integration happened "the often painful re-representations of these early
traumas in the present" would be less "loaded" and experienced as much less
painful.

I agree in part with your position. People can and do use primal theory
(and every other line of pschology) as an excuse for their acting out
behavior instead of as a tool for feeling. (ie --I overeat because I wasn't
breastfeed, I feel trapped because of my difficult birth, etc.) But "the
romantic notions" are _ideations_ which prevent growth/integration; they
are not useful, but labeling them as such doesn't dismiss the importance of
the brainstem/limbic system's role in righting a neurotic organism (but I'd
bet that this sounds like more romanticising of the role of pre-verbal
experience to you, so maybe I fail here in communicationing the
difference).

My own experience is that when I "face and deal with the often painful
re-representations of these early traumas in the present" they are in turn
attached to earlier experiences (often at the pre-verbal level) and that it
is in my history that the most damage was done.

>The more
>totally & appropiately  present problems & needs can be met, the easier
>the access to and unlocking of the traumas of the past will be. - And
>not to forget, man is a lot more than just a product of his past - a
>point that so far seems to have eluded reductionst primal & instincto
>theory.

Primal and instincto (and General Semantics) are reductionist until one
experiences them, at which point they are very holistic. The processes of
primal and instincto makes most every other therapy seem "reducable to
ideas" which is a huge limit to the other therapies' effectiveness. I think
this is what pisses people off the most about both instincto and primal: if
they are true, then most every other diet and therapy is more or less not
true. Traditional vegan Natural Hygeine is seen as "on the right track" but
flawed, Reichian ideas are also on the right track but flawed.

Relativity or plate techtonics or Godel's incompleteness stuff similarly
pissed of folks in physics, geology, and mathematics. While I'm sure the
analogies sound grandious to many people, I do think history will judge
both primal and instincto well, regardless of their modest success rate.
Regarding which, I offer a different point of view. Instincto has a better
success rate (in terms of recovering health) than NH which has a better
success rate than allopathic methods, though just about everybody eats SAD
and uses allopathy. (And the SAD eaters can eat most anything while not
have cravings or "going off their diet"--perfect diet?). Primal therapy is
"scientifically" effective in reducing longterm metabolic stats, and thus
may be the only effective therapy discovered so far in the short history of
pyschology. I only mean to point out that "success rate" has at least two
faces: #1] reversing (or at least halting) the degeneration of health, and
#2] the stats about how many people can stick to a particualr regime. (#3
#4 etc.???) Physics, mathematics, etc. have less trouble with success#2 as
they are largely in the abstract domain, whereas food and psychology hit
everyone deep down.

>>cheers Kirt
>>(who is probably lucky Peter can't find his old reply to an older
>>instincto post!)

>You are right on that one. It was about 55k, and our server only takes
>up to 40k per post. So it needs some editing, apart from being freed
>from my harddrive, where it is still stuck.

I am interested in your 55k reply, Peter.

Overall, I am quite comfortable (arrogant, no doubt :)) as a "reductionist"
and demand no more of my afterlife than to fetilize the little topsoil left
on the planet. (I part company with most raw fooders in that I don't have
the slightest notion of spiritualily or higher consciousness. I am also
very comfortable with people coming to different conclusions for themselves
(To Each His Own!!!)).

In any case, while we probably disagree on some core issues, we seem to
have a lot of common ground as well. I enjoy the challenge of your
responses to my mindset and hope that my tendancy to sound arrogant isn't
going to drag our dialogue into the mud. At best we make each other pause
at times to reflect on a new point of view (I know I pause), and at worst
I'm just another pompous, selfish, instincto more interested in hedonism
than anything else, and thus am the problem, not part of the solution.

Cheers,
Kirt