Hi Kirt and Jean-Louis,

your messages give me the impression of a pair of perfectly fitting shoes.
Each of you is defending the other. Jean-Louis answers the first part of
my post of 6/6/97 while Kirt goes to the second part. I didn't know you
two are married. Was there any announcement? :-)

Most of the following is a walk through your posts in the same order.

Jean-Louis, for you arguing about eating food A/B was getting boring.
It seems that sophisticated arguing isn't boring as long as   y o u
are doing it. For me your original post already was boring. But I
answered it to give my two cents and at least tell, what I thought was
obviously wrong logic.

You say, I give the impression that everything is logical. That's right.
I intend to do so. I think that everything is logical. But taking into
account all necessary factors to make the correct conclusions can be
an awful task. Who can count thousands of factors that determine which
food you will need at the next meal? I think, only the instinct of that
person can.

If my smiley in my post to Tom wasn't enough I don't know what to do.
It must be allowed to state ones oppinion and the smiley is given to
make things more smiling that otherwise would have read quit hard.

I have had discussions with lots of people about ethics. No difference
whether intelligent or not, most of them hadn't set up an ethical sytem
they were able to defend logically. Instead they had a mixture of oppi-
nions, from their parents, from their society and other sources. Not
very satisfying. If I give the impression, that I have found the truth
about ethics, it may come from the fact, that I have set up such a system
and can explain and defend it where necessary.

Wrong conclusion:
Sentence A: my lenghty discussions with others about ethics didn't yield
a result I could grasp.
Conclusion B: There is no such thing as universal ethics.
Conclusion C: People who claim to have found an universal ethic are wrong
and have too much self-esteem.

I can't enforce positive posts. But if the tendency of the posts of this
list goes to cynic, depressive and negative, I am sure the list will lose
subscribers quickly and finally dissolve into nothing.

So far your message, Jean-Louis (thank you for it!).

Kirt,
not all conclusions are based on initial unproven facts. The sentence A
I gave above is just a fact. It really happened. Everyone's experience
is a fact, at least for that person.

I will immediately question instinctive theory if I am unable to answer
questions within this system. It's difficult to say when this point is
reached. There are a lot of soft defenses, as the always cited "you must
be instincto of third generation to be fully healthy" and "your food
supply isn't instincto quality".
I do what I can and have e.g. admitted, that I wouldn't expect a malaria
to be cured by instinctive eating only and instead would immediately go
for medical treatment.

There is a sentence, that says, that a system that is complete, cannot
be without contradictions. And that a system, that is without contradic-
tions can't be complete. Mr. Hofstadter explained this sentence of Goedel
nicely in his fat book Goedel, Escher, Bach. Did you read it? Very famous!
Instincto lore underlies this sentence of course.

As long as upcoming questions are standard questions that are successfully
answered by instincto theory I can't see why I shouldn't use these
answers. I may sound like a copy of Mr. Burger then. I can't help it.

It doesn't hit my nerves to see instincto theory challenged. I wished I
got much more challenging posts on several thoughts I posted. I take
instincto theory as a very good base for arguing about nutrition. So far
I haven't found a better system but if anybody offers one I will be glad
to try it out and immediately switch to it if it works.

I didn't say that I don't want to hear the negatives about instincto. I=20
said that I don't want to hear    o n l y    the negatives. I demanded
for a big bit of more balance.

I think it's a deep (instinctive) need of humans to search for the ab-
solute truth. I don't expect people to ever giving this up unless they
are severely sick.

In Europe, I can speak for Germany only. The problems of people I have
met are very similar to the people in the U.S. There is only one excep-
tion: we have got our monopolistic food supply (Orkos) and whoever can
afford can relax a bit because he knows they are selling only good food.
It's another dependency, yes, but I prefer being dependent from at least
one reliable dealer over being dependent from my local supermarket where
the quality will undergo arbitrary changes and I'm the one to suffer.

I understand your demand for a higher level. I am not living for eating.
And I would prefer less discussions about food supply, recipes, combina-
tions and all that technical stuff. But as long as people are struggling
hard just to tackle these issues, it's useless to try to discuss with
them about meditation, psychological instinctive needs, pregnancy if
you're instincto, finding out mentally what the day will bring,
abilities like the one to determine electrical fields with your nose and
so on...

If the level shall raise, each individual has to raise his/her level.
And now you tell me, Kirt, that you are back to cooked eating. ;-)
(Is there a weeping smiley? Say it is X. Then: XXX!)

Hope I didn't sound too much burgerish. :-)

Best wishes,

Stefan