Hi Jean-Claude,

I'm sorry to hear that you have become a little afraid of being
enthusiastic.

You said:
> If you are enthousiast to the present moment that is great , the problem
> arise when you get enthousiast for the future ( expecting certain outcomes
)
> or for ideas that might not hold their promises . the result often is a
> counterreaction of blocking the source of enthousiasm . And you end up
> sarcastic at the enthousiasm of others judmental and cynical.

I like enthusiasm.
I think "enthusiasm for the future" is a wonderful thing.
I think that "expecting certain outcomes" is a
great way to approach life. (The word for this in English is
"optimism").
I think that "expecting certain outcomes," even when -
as you say above - "ideas might not hold their promises" - is a
terrific point of view to adopt.

If, as a result, you end up "sarcastic" or "judgemental and
cynical," then there is some other problem going on.

Think again of children: If they became "sarcastic, judgemental, and
cynical" after all the zillions of failed attempts at learning to
walk (or all the other things they rush into with great "enthusiasm"
and with no "adult discretion") - then they (we) would probably all
be sarcastic, judgemental, and cynical - and at a very young age.

I like to see people be "foolishly" expectant of great things,
"naively" enthusiastic, "maddeningly" cheerful, and STUBBORNLY
optimistic. In my opinion it is a healthy attitude.

And if things don't turn out the way you had hoped (as in - fruit
makes your teeth fall out) - you laugh about what a mistake THAT
was, and then go on enthusiastically to try your hand at your next
thing, now that you're a little smarter.

You said:
> I  just would
> prefer  the paleoidea  not ending up under the fire like the vegan one do
>  it just doen't help understanding). IMO they have both valuable things to
> say., and an underlying common ground .

I agree that both schools have lots of common ground, and I like
your concern about paleo ideas being misunderstood or discredited.
I'm glad you continue to write, and I always enjoy reading about
your unusual, thoughtful, and very demanding dietary life. Thank
you.

> addictions are not horribles  a definition of insanity given in the 12
> step program ( who deal with adictive behavior ) is to do the same thing
> over and > over and expecting a different result ,it is like sin who
> means missing the target.
> We expect satisfaction from denaturing our foods and obviously we don't
> because are going farther and farther in that direction.

I don't agree with this definition of addiction, and I don't see the
eating of cooked foods (which you call "denatured" above) as an
addiction. (Well - ANYTHING can become an addiction, as you know.
Anything. Bowling can be an addiction. Scratching your chin can.
Writing emails can. Eating carrots can. Excercising can. Sticking to
highly defined diets can. So "eating cooked foods" can too.

But in my opinion "eating cooked foods" is not BIOCHEMICALLY,
physiologically addictive like, say, heroin or nicotine.

I don't think that "doing the same thing over and over and expecting
a different result" has much at all to do with the reasons for, or
mechanism of, addictions.

> an essential element in the trend we are collectively following.
> The trend is  one of self abuse and self destruction ( either by
> autoimmune processes or destruction of the environment and genocids.

Jean-Claude, this is a terribly negative view of life, and of us
humans. It's a lopsided, jaded, and inaccurate way to look at our
history, and I'm sorry to hear you have to go along through your
days, seeing things in this way.

The reality is that the history of our speedy evolution is one of
remarkably "pro life" trends, not at all "self-destructive" ones.
Life has gotten incomparably better for us as a species. Think about
it!

Life is incredibly good!

Love Liza