Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 1 Sep 1998 21:38:11 -0400 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
No, it DIDN'T go all over my head -- whatever that's supposed to mean.
My reference was to the tendency of the book to cast the paleolithic diet
in either/or terms -- which is a characteristic of the way religions view
the world: a set of hard-and-fast, exclusive truths to be accepted on
faith, along with a leader who determines that faith.
Obviously, a system of beliefs doesn't have to be a religion per se in
order to fit this paradigm. All you need are (1) people who want a
guaranteed path to some important goal (in the case of religion, Eternal
Life; in the case of a dietary regimin, the assurance that they're either
going to remain healthy or recapture the health they once had); (2)
somebody who is willing to provide a simple-to-understand-and implement
path that he or she believes will lead to that goal. Possibly I wasn't
clear in my earlier assessment, but that's basically what I was referring
to.
Like in most areas of life, a simplistic either/or approach to food
selection is going to prevent a lot of people from engaging in the ongoing
inquiry so necessary to tailor a dietary lifestyle to their own specific
requirements. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with adopting aspects of a
recommended diet, even a lot of aspects, that appear to work for you. But
if I were you, I'd continue to leave the door of inquiry wide open.
|
|
|