Stefan:
> I must protest. This is not fair. The one-day-a-week-rule is something that
> is set for people who work for Orkos. Every guest of the Chateau can choose
> of the full range of available products on every day.
Even if it only applies to people who work at Orkos, I don't consider
such a rule as very "instinctive"... Why not limit to avos once a
week? Fruits once a week? Stop eatinf fruits for 3 weeks to see if you
are sugar-addicted or not?
> But the consequences drawn in this case seem to be plausible to me:
> Mr. Burger said, that the outcome of his experimenting with meat finally
> was, that meat of cultivated animals (beef, sheep, pork,...) is similar
> in cheating the instincts as overbreeded fruits. The latter has been
> discussed on this list, a lot of posts came from Thomas Billings. (Wild
> versus cultivated fruits,...)
> Therefore the new rule added to instincto theory was, that one should eat
> meat of cultivated animals only if it smells and tastes great and only as
> long as it tastes very good. One shouldn't go on until the stop comes.
> Generally one should prefer game meat. Consequentially Orkos is offering
> much more game meat. This meat gives clear stops. (oh yes!)
> All of this sounds reasonable. And it is necessary just because we are
> living in today's world with all of its pitfalls. In ancient times there
> were no cultivated animals and that's that.
>
OK, but why not eat only wild fruits, then?
My opinion is that if you are just careful with meat like with fruits,
it's OK, but I am sure that some instinctos are not really at ease
with the problem of morality. When I was at Montrame, we were talking
about tropical fruits and their price. I added that meat is expensive
too, and someone responded: "but you don't eat meat often", as if it
was a rule, as if eating meat was "bad". One woman at my table, who
had been a vegetarian for 19 years, ordered some deer meat, and she
commented "I only eat meat once every 3 months" (did she feel guilty,
and needed to justify herself?). Another ordered some beef, but wasn't
satisfied because it wasn't aged enough. A man said that if she really
was "on" beef, she would find it attractive at any stage; but then,
why not eat bananas only when you find green ones attractive?
A young woman working at Montrame, when questioned about meat, said "I
eat very little meat. I can stay without meat for 1 month, and
sometimes even 3 months", as if she needed to justify herself, to say
"yes, I have sinned, but I do that the less possible, only when
necessary, and meat is really the least important part of my diet". At
least, that's what I guessed at her tone. No one had talked about the
pleasure of eating RAF, and the only attitude about meat was "be
caruful of addictions, eat the less possible", etc...
I think that the problem of eating meat, and possibly of morality, is
not clear in their mind, and they are careful about meat because their
worshiped guru G.C. Burger had told them to, or because of underlying
vegetarian/vegan ethics (or both). There are no convincing scientific
arguments that meat can cause diseases such as cancer. The only
serious issue is that of parasites, although very few are actually
dangerous. Adopting the philosophy that "OK, I don't know if meat can
be dangerous or not, but as there is a risk, I prefer to eat it only
at the luminous stage" seems reasonable, but feeling *guilty* about
eating meat is not a healthy (mentally speaking) attitude.
> Be baffled or not but my experience with organic food here in Germany has
> shown also that a lot of it is of low quality. The problem is the high
> heaps of compost. They are a cooking device, generating temperatures much
> higher than 40 degrees Celsius (104F). Thousands of unknown substances
> are created in this pretty oven. On the other hand a commercial fertilizer
> contains may be 20 to 40 known substances. Therefore it's not so unbe-
> lievable that organic food can be drastically worse than commercial one.
I think that composts can reach something like 60 degree C (140F),
which is mild cooking (not sure of the figure, I'll have to
check). And eating a vegetable grown on a "cooked" compost is not the
same as eating a cooked vegetable, since the concentration of
"abnormal" molecules is much lower in the first case. Anyway, some
wild plants actually grow on ash, since wildfires occasionally occur.
You wouldn't say that eating a living plant that has grown on ash
amounts to eating hyper-cooked food, would you?
I would worry more about antifungi (sulphur, copper oxydes...) and
heat treatments (mangos, papayas,...)
> At least I had to face the fact that wild animals seem to live with para-
> sites (the mongoose, the fishes with their worms,...) and human beings,
> even instinctos die of them. A nice evolution that lets those who are
> higher in evolution die while the others survive. I wonder how our world
> has managed to evolve over the state of bacteria.
>
Please refer to any good reference about parasitism in the animal
reign, you will see that many animals *die* from parasitism.
Of course, a parasite that is harmful for a species can be innocuous
for another one, just as viruses.
> If the immune system would fail
> y o u would be digested instead of the meat you ate. Nice, eh?
> It might be a good idea, not to increase the burden on your digestion
> by eating a mono-meal in this case.
I disagree. Suppose you cut your finger and eat it, it would probably
be digested; and autolysis occurs during fasting.
> Yes, the concept is essential. Tolerance is, what your body does to
> protect you from the consequences of toxins you ate. If in cooked times
> your body would have reacted adequately to the toxins you put in, you
> already were dead. Instead it went into tolerance with all the toxins.
> Only the worst toxins cause a heavy reaction from time to time.
> (This is called disease then. :-))
> Didn't you know this concept? And the conclusions, the breaking of
> tolerances with raw food?
>
Of course, but my opinion is that too much stress is put on the
concept of tolerance. Many persons seem to consider that a low
tolerance means a low level of intoxination, and the less tolerant,
the "Purer" you are, like an innocent child smoking his first
cigarette. Very few seem to consider that strong reactions can also
indicate a low immune system, for instance. If I had to choose between
smoking 1 cigarette/day and become tolerant to it, or not smoke at all
and cough like crazy each time I smoke one, my decision would be clear
(since I am occasionally in the company of smokers, and obviously 1
cigarette/day is not really harmful).
Same thing for allergies: my mother almost died when she was
administered some penicillin 30 years ago. I wouldn't conclude that
her low tolerance was due to the fact that she was very "Pure", but
rather that her boy is not able to deal with penicillin correctly.
Tolerance is not necessary a bad thing. My 0.02$ opinion about it is
that if you are exposed to a toxic substance (but not too much of it),
you will produce more antibodies, so that you are almost not intoxicated.
>
> One personal thing:
> Kirt, <snip> Where all your good ideas have been gone?
What do you mean by "good" idea? An idea that agrees with your
thoughts? (Sorry to comment about a question that was actually
addressed to Kirt).
To Stefan:
you aked me in another post to say something positive about
instincto theory. Of course, I could, but as you and Karl are so
enthusiatic and have so much knowledge, it is useless to add a third
unexperienced voice... Of course, I could say many positive things
about the way my health has improved, etc... Maybe I'll do that some
day, when the situation will "stabillize". Anyway, instincto works so
far rather well _for me_ (if it didn't, I would try something else, or
return to cooked food).
Please excuse me if I express some doubts and sometimes seem arrogant,
questioning aspects of the theory that had been established after many
years of research by experienced persons, but doing that way is a
means to understand things better, more deeply. Maybe one day I will
be 100% convinced, and maybe not. There are as many "good" theories
as successful raw-foodists. And there are many successful
cooked-foodists too (persons who have changed from SAD to another diet
which still includes cooked food, and healed from their diseases).
Best wishes,
Jean-Louis
|
