Stefan:
> 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? :-)

You know, I am under the impression that you have been married with
Karl for quite a long time... :-)

> 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.

Still don't understand what is wrong.
A,B: there is probably no universal ethics
C: I just give an explanation why people believe there is an universal
ethics.

> 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.

Don't know what to say. I wouldn't have tried raw food if I hadn't
read all the positive things that are written in books. On the other
hand, I have never found a book dealing objectively with the negative
part. I did read criticisms of raw food in a few books, but most
arguments proved to be wrong.

Now, the reason why I joined this list is that I have encountered a
few problems in my diet, that things were not as perfect as written in
books. The best support I found here was other persons telling about
their problems, which are sometimes the same, sometimes different from
mine, and that finally some members of the list have overcome most of
their problems (or at least prefer raw to cooked after their x years
experience).

Tom was criticized on the veg-raw list by 33.33% of the NFL folks for
talking exclusively about the 10% bad part, instead of the 90% good
part. I won't discuss whether the 90-10 is the exact proportion, but
since every book about raw food and most people talking publicly about
their experience on raw food only talk about the positive aspects, it
seems fair to reequilibrate the debate. Only talking about the
positive effects only leads to disappointments about the diet. The
situation would be "healthier" if every newcomer to a raw diet had
realistic expectations.

> 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.

Maybe you have misunderstood Godel's results.
An axiomatic system that contains ordinary arithmetics cannot be proven
to be uncontradictory within that system (i.e. you would have to add
more axioms to prove that the initial system is non contradictory),
and a non contradictory system which contains oridinary arithmetics is
incomplete (i.e. some assertions cannot be proven within that system).

If instincto were to be considered as a system containing arithmetics
(which I doubt; the notion of "system" as defined by Godel is very
formal), and is without contradictions, there would be unprovable
propositions (e.g. "all possible viruses are beneficial" is a
proposition in instincto theory).

> 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.

Instincto works for you because you had the courage to pass the
initial difficult stages, you eat Orkos stuff (and maybe you have the
support of other instinctos). Suppose someone doesn't want to spend
twice the money for his food, he will have to serach for a compromise
with the food he can find and afford.

> 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!)

There is no shame to eat cooked stuff...

Best wishes,

Jean-Louis Tu
[log in to unmask]