Stephan:
>I am referring to your message of 6/5/97 titled "Re: Again universal
>ethics."
>I don't know how you come to the view that I always have the true answer.
>I didn't claim that. Sure, I have my oppinions and maybe a lot of them
>are similar to those of other instinctos including Mr. Burger. What's
>wrong with them? If you don't like Mr. Burger and his oppinions, what has
>that to do with me?
>I also scanned my recent posts again. Here is, what I found:
<snip>
Your "defense" of your posts is unnecassary. The reason I posted was to go
on record that JL's posts are, IMO, of a much higher critical character
than yours, that I see you as more guilty of what you are accusing JL of,
that I find your "frustration" with JL's posts audacious.
>As a mathematician Jean-Louis should know, that conclusions drawn from
>an assumption A and conclusions from the conclusions all turn out to
>be wrong, if A turns out to do so. I expected him to take this into
>account. Also this wasn't his first post with this sort of logic.
Huh? He seems to be one of the few people on the list who has no sacred a
prioris, who realizes that all thought is based on initial _unproven_ and
_accepted_as_fact_ assumptions. Burger's assumptions are not GIVENS. You
might be willing to question your own "assumption A" (standard instincto
lore) before you criticize others.
>In general my posts are lengthy, some even essay-style. If this is too
>much for you, this is your problem. At least I won't let you call them
>superficial (or without deep thinking.)
You can not prevent me from saying so or believing so.
>Perhaps you could be more specific and tell me where my thoughts were
>too superficial and I missed the point.
You make your points. My point is that instincto lore is not the be all and
end all of nutrition. That many instinctos (like yourself apparently) seem
more interested in tweeking reality to fit the theory than exploring
reality. JL is pleasant exeption to this tendency.
>You may skip the following paragraph if you hate psychological analysis:
>Psychologically spoken you seem to be in your depressive mood still.
>And it seems I hit your nerves by attacking Jean-Louis because you like
>him very much. In fact you seem to have taken my post to Jean-Louis as
>an offence to yourself.
I take it as an offence to JL and want to go on record that I disagree with
your "analysis". It seems that any reasoning which finds instincto lore
lacking hits a nerve for you.
>I hope I could make several things clearer and I hope to read again
>some enthusiastic and positive contributions from you.
You know, the older posts from me which you seem to find so enthusiastic
and positive are in the context of a pretty much non-instincto audience.
Never did I imagine that as more instinctos showed up on this list that the
dialogue would be so...well, old-fashioned. Much of what gets said could be
cut and pasted from Burger's book, verbatum. Further, there is no need for
my posting about instincto lore with you all on board. ;) All I ever did
was confront silliness (NFL, etc.) and try to offer a fresh point of view
about RAF. I sure don't remember waxing enthusiastically about instincto
per say. Indeed, I was searching for instincto criticisms!
Your desire for enthuisiasm is telling. You have said that you want to hear
the positives and not the negatives about instincto, but how is anyone to
learn if it is a matter of enthusiastic testimonials only? There seems to
be a schism in the world of idealistic diets between the personal and the
scientific. People (you, me, apparently most everyone) need some
enthusiam/testimonial/conversion experience in order to embark to a pure
regime (instincto, frutarian, etc.). As time goes by there appears some
results that are not "supposed" to be happening according to the
ideological lore. These negative results (n-results) are then minimized at
best, or explained away as proof positive of the initial theory through
some unfalsifiable posturing (ie. only third generation will be "pure",
modern foods aren't good enough, and everyone's favorite: it's just detox,
etc etc).
It has been disappointing to experience these n-results personally, and
further disappointing to hear of other's n-results. But, however
disappointing, it is the only way to forge forward, learn, and stay out of
a behavioral rut. It seems to me that if instincto has a future on this
planet as something better than an ideological diet (ie. cult), we all need
to stop swaping testimonials and half-baked theorizing/defense/etc (of
n-results!) and put our cards on the table--meaning start talking seriously
about the n-results. Yeah, instincto decreases my body odor, steels my
erection, calms me, etc etc but who cares--that's old hat, you know? You
want to revel in the positives and minimise the negatives, which is the
same rut I have been in previously. I want to engage in some post-instincto
dialogue, but while there are plenty of instincto wannabes and some
eureka-I've-done-it instinctos like yourself, there seem to be precious few
folks willing to abandon the search for absolutes and/or belief systems
which portend to explain everything. But they do exist fortunately.
If I am currently without a belief system, and that rubs you the wrong way,
I guess that is just how it will be. I had previously looked forward to
more European instinctos finding their way to this list (for the
post-instincto dialogue!) but have little enthusiasm in perfecting the rut
of instincto lore as given, which is all that seems to happen sometimes.
Put it this way: if less than one percent of instinctos stick with the
"pure" diet, I am now interested in the larger percentage that does not.
What are they up to and have they found practical and personal successes?
And, importantly, what n-results are _they_ dealing with?
Rah rah rah for instincto? Jeez, that's a tough road where the leaders are
in tatters or cults and the gutters are littered with "failures". The
supposed elegance of instincto lore falls away with the inelegance of the
posturing and immature bickering and in-fighting (not to mention the
n-results!!) of today's instinctos. Everyone seems to have a vested
interest of some kind, from the financial to the egotistical. In the States
we now have a raw (vegan) movement associated with the religious right (at
least they are up front with their religion!), a raw (vegan) movement with
the trappings of a Richard Simmon's infomercial (and throw in some
intolerance and conspiracy theory to boot), and a couple mailing lists with
sometimes raging debates about denatured nuts and RAF and the best sprout
methods, and, of course, M2M (which I consider without a conscionse since
Ward stepped down) that specializes as an audience for a slew of
self-styled self-appointed gurus. The US instincto "community"? Pretty
embarassing it seems...
What is it like in Europe? As far as I can decipher, Burger is continually
deteriorating and further cult-ifying instincto, and there is a babble of
folks who like the bandwagon as much as the permission to eat a shitload of
sweet fruit. Where are the intelligent instincto off-shoots? As far as I
can see they are happening in the form of a very few individuals only. But
surely I can't see far enough ;)
Sorry, Stephan, but my enthusiasm for reheated Burger has abated. Something
may come from this rubble but I doubt it will have all that much to do with
Burger's cult. As you say, you are not Burger. But neither have you
un-deified him or instincto lore and that may be a limiting factor for you.
Perhaps you want instincto to be true more than you want the truth?
But trashing JL!? Shame shame shame...;)
Cheers,
Kirt
|
