Robert Wynman <[log in to unmask]>:
>Tom, many thanks for your great & sane posts & my acknowledgements for your
>great choice of ancestors.  Anyone who could survive 8 years as fruitarian
>must have superior genes.  That "diet" nailed me in 5 MONTHS when I lived it
>on Fry's advice in 90!

Tom:
Thanks to you Bob, for your interesting posts, and your gentle humor!

Robert Wynman <[log in to unmask]>:
>I don't equate realism with pragmatism.  Didn't the pragmatists declare that
>there is no such thing as objective reality at all!?! Are "idealists" equated
>with "zealots" & defined as anyone having a strong Belief System (yep, B.S.)
>that differs from mine? & "realists" are those who appreciate my truth?

Tom:
Interesting point re: pragmatism vs realism - I will look into it when I have
time.  I would not define {idealist = zealot = someone with a different, but
strong belief system}. Instead, I would consider the effects of their beliefs.
An idealist is someone who holds beliefs that are hazardous to themselves.
A zealot is someone who promotes beliefs that are a threat to others, or who
promotes beliefs in a confrontational/hostile way. (The preceding is not a
complete description or characterization - just a clarification in the
context of the current discussion.)

>Bob:
Robert Wynman <[log in to unmask]>:
>Any chance that nature IS simple & perfect & we just haven't yet understood
>it's simplicity & perfection?

Tom:
Another poster reminded me, (not in these exact words), that a complex system
can sometimes be explained in simple terms.  I agree, and have amended the
master to say:

1.0  Views of Nature

I: Nature is simple, nature's laws are simplistic, and nature is perfect.

As an aside, I have made significant revisions to the Supplement to the
Idealism vs. Realism post  (I might post them combined, in their current
revised form - as they will appear in the SF-LiFE  newsletter.) I added
the following paragraph at the end of the "Supplement" post:

Finally, it is not my objective here to insult or attack non-zealous idealists.
You have the right to run your life as you see fit. I am only trying to
get you to open your eyes, and see the risks of excessive idealism when it
is incorporated into diet. The combination of diet and excessive idealism can
be hazardous to your health.

Bob:
> I don't suppose it's possible to become an idealist about your realism, eh?

Tom:
A good point. Given that I avoid making promises or claims, it seems unlikely.
But it is possible. If I start writing my name in only capital letters, then
you should be concerned. :-)

Bob:
>Why must we accept the dreaded binarism here?  Why either identify with
>spirit or body.  Why must there be a dichotomy.  I prefer to identify with
>spirit AND body, idealism and realism.  Can do?  Your proof that the spirit
>is immortal?  Received a postcard from great grandpappy lately?

Tom:
There is no proof that the spirit is immortal, as there is no proof (in
the materialistic, scientific veiw) that spirit exists. But then science has
some limits - it is an intellectual field, an exercise in thought. However,
one cannot prove scientifically that "thought" exists! (One can show energy
in the brain, but not that they are thoughts.)

I mentioned in another post (might be on veg-raw rather than raw-food), that
I appreciate spirituality, and that some will find that to be idealistic (but
not part of the discussion of idealism in diets).

I don't like to split off the body from the mind and spirit. Indeed, that is
one of my criticisms of many aspects of rawism: litt;e or no attention is
paid to the mind & spirit.

BOB
>BYE, Y'ALL, 'EALTH, 'APPINESS & FREEDOM TO YA

Tom:
We will miss your contributions, Bob. One comment: you might want to look
int different e-mail software. I think Eudora will allow you to download
your mail, then read/answer at your convenience - no need for late night
sessions.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]