Hi Stefan,
> 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?
That's OK, but please accept to be challenged. If Kirt doesn't like
Burger's opinions, do not ask him to post something positive if he
doesn't want to. We are not asking you to criticize instincto theory,
so do not ask others to post things that conforms to your opinions.
> A post about instinctive food selection (5/22). Jean-Louis worried about
> eating food A and being hindered to eat enough of food B then. A lot of
> mathematical conclusions. And all wrong in my oppinion because the
> instinct handles it all. One of the posts of JL where he draws
> conclusions and conclusions from the conclusions and gets confusing
> results finally because his initial conclusions were wrong.
> This is what I stated. (I didn't get an answer from Jean-Louis.)
I didn't answer because it was getting boring. You admitted yourself
that if you eat A first, B would become more attractive at the
following meal, so that in fact you fulfill more the needs of A than
of B in the first meal. But that point is of no importance, I prefered
not to answer (I generally avoid posting uninteresting ideas).
> Postings concerning universal ethics. But I didn't claim (and have never
> done) to have found the one and only truth. Instead I explained what
> ethics is n o t and why. You could have engaged in the discussion
> but you didn't.
You always say the same afterwards, but your tone is rather
ambiguous. Instead, by reading your messages, I am always under the
impression that you have found the universal truth about nutrition and
ethics, that everything is logical, and if there are other diets or
ethical relativism, it is because people didn't think enough, contrary
to the enlightened person that you are. If I have misread your message
(and then I wouldn't be the only one), please be clearer in the future
and accept to be challenged.
> In my answer to Tom's EXPO postings I not only wrote (with a smiley
> you seem to have overlooked) that I found his posts a bit too much but
> also that I appreciated his tone and style.
This seemed inappropriate to me. Most of Tom's posts are interesting
and informative, I waste less time deleting messages from him than
from you (I am not saying all your messages are uninteresting;
actually, I have kept a few in my files).
> The answer to Jean-Louis where my tone was becoming sharper because I
> lost patience.
Sorry, but I am not writing messages for you. Our list il collective,
some topics may not interest you but others. The best compromise is to
limit the number of messages.
You say that I don't think enough before posting, which is wrong. I
have posted 15 kbytes long messages (quite time-consuming). If you
think my ideas are too simplistic, please forgive me, raw food doesn't
improve intelligence. I also told you that I have several megabytes of
discussions about ethics in my files, and you answer that I haven't
thought enough about the subject. You assume that people with whom I
exchanged ideas post without thinking, which is wrong (they are all
PhD's and have at least as much knowledge than you).
> May I remind you, that Jean-Louis stated, his discussions with others
> about ethics yielded nothing.
Hence my skepticism about universality. That's not an "overly fast
conclusion", it came after _months_ of discussions. That's why my
conclusions are mainly "negative". Saying that "there is no definite
answer" is very different from saying that "there is a definite one".
> This didn't hinder him from drawing con-
> clusions and saying, that people dreaming of universal ethics have
> too much self-esteem and do pray only western values.
Again, it is far from being an "overly fast" conclusion.
> 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.
Show me a contradiction or a wrong conclusion, I didn't find any.
> 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.)
> Perhaps you could be more specific and tell me where my thoughts were
> too superficial and I missed the point.
I could say the same thing to you.
> (to Kirt:)
> I hope I could make several things clearer and I hope to read again
> some enthusiastic and positive contributions from you.
You cannot force anyone to be enthusiastic or to be positive. If
someone is unhappy with his diet, he should change it. As Tom said,
you are not the slave of your diet; instead, your diet should serve
you. If you are successful with instincto, fine, but do not tell
others "be enthusiatic, and you will succeed". Everyone would like to
be enthusiastic, but if it doesn't work, you have to look into another
direction.
Regards,
Jean-Louis.
|
