jean-claude:
> the Instinctive responses to food don't protect you from anything . If you
>believed that at one point , no wonder reality brought you back to
>reconsider this belief.

<snip>

>(i am far of being a masochist ). The danger when i do is
>to not  listen again to the instinctive stop and eat too much of it throwing
>me again in unbalance

OK, I am understanding that, though we have an instinct for food that can
regulate what is and how much is eaten, it is very possible to ignore it,
in which case it will throw one into an umbalanced state.

So the intellect and/or emotion, which doesn't have a food instinct, can
very much interfere with one's instinct for homeostasis. Then one has to
use their intellect to stop the intellect from messing with the "lower
brain's" instinctive purity.

When all is said and done, it seems to me that you can't "follow your
pleasure" as an instincto--that you are _constantly_ modifying your diet
intellectually to try to make it more ideal, to try to get it "perfect". If
this is the case it is perhaps the most intellectual form of eating there
is--and certainly not much what animals in wild nature do (they simply
follow their pleasure with modification). Perhaps "instincto" should be
called "intellecto".

>Now it appeal more to me to listen when enough meat have been swallowed to
>avoid that  crazy ride.

I get ever more confused about how it has gone for you. I thought you ate
too much fruit until you started eating meat. Now it is the same thing
overeating meat? And more recently you are now _experienced_ enough (wise
enough? what's the word?) to listen to the true "instinct" and not to
follow your pleasure (since you are no masochist).

Cheers,
Kirt



Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]