Kirt = > + >>>       Peter = >>

>>Sure, no diet will cure neurosis. But a nourishing diet will bring
>>the urges & cravings down to a manageable level.

>This sounds right on to me. Indeed, it sounds like what I have said.

Not unless you have changed your mind. You have indicated that you
believe people mainly go off their diets for psycological reasons. And
I believe that a truly nourishing diet will have a balancing effect no
matter how many untreated neurosises somebody might have. After a few
months initial phase of cleansning and adaption if somebody is having
difficulties staying on a diet and is having strong cravings, probably
the diet is wrong - not the person.

>This, again, sounds like expecting a bit much from food nourishment
>alone. Imagine a "perfectly fed human" raised in a cold cage away from
>mother (breastfeeding via a tube?) or something like that. S/he may
>get all the molecules needed but that isn't going mean it will
>automatically right itself.

No, but a decent diet might keep her out of psychosis.

>Above you mention "For the body to heal it needs to be properly
>nourished at all levels - including the nutritional level" but seem to
>think the "truly nourishing diet" is primary.

As is fresh air & water, exercise, love & touch etc.

>Probably it is. But, food alone, isn't  going to do it all. Perhaps
>it is a necassary "pre-condition" (though 1000's of primal patients
>might agrue otherwize).

Considering the modest success rate of primal or any other therapy for
that matter, I am not so sure. People in therapy are often on terrible
diets, and I believe they would do much better in therapy were they
properly nourished.

>OK, I hear you. I even agree to a large degree. But we do have a
>difference of opinion about how far food alone can take us.

Indeed.

>Perhaps what you're pointing out is the "acid test" for the "truly
>nourishing diet".

Exactly!

>BTW, what do you think this TND is?

A diet high in whole & raw foods.

>>>Outer stress can be a useful trigger, but it is rarely the cause of
>>>anything in our adult life.

>>This is a mute point. With too much outer stress the organism will
>>never have the strength to heal itself.

>Lost me there, but I'm usually lost so no harm done. :)

Your comment above is a typical example of the arrogance and inflated
sense of self-importance one so often finds in the therapeutic
community. No insinuation intended, but you must have lived quite a
sheltered life to come up with such a flippant remark (see above: >>>
Outer stress...), or maybe you just spent too many hours engrossed in
Janov's books - A less sentitive person than myself might have gotten
offended. :)

>Aren't the two sentences above in oppostion to the two sentences
>below?

Now I am lost.

>Then again, real truth is a paradox, eh?

Only on the surface.

>>Primal is alot more than 'the pre-verbal thing'. Janov speaks of 3
>>levels of consciousness, that reflect the 3 levels of the human
>>brain:the neocortex, the limbic system & and the brain stem.
>>(thought,feeling and instinct)

>Instincto is a lot more than a taste-change as well. But IMO the
>pre-verbal thing is the basis, the foundation.

True, but the downfall of both primal & instincto has been in reducing
almost everything to the pre-verbal instinctive stage thereby
neglecting the importance of the later stages of development. Dealing
with romantic notions of a lost and traumatized pre-verbal existence
can easily turn into a convenient form of escapism and justify rather
than prompt to the facing of & dealing with the often painful
re-represensations of these early traumas in the present. The more
totally & appropiately  present problems & needs can be met, the easier
the access to and unlocking of the traumas of the past will be. - And
not to forget, man is a lot more than just a product of his past - a
point that so far seems to have eluded reductionst primal & instincto
theory.

>>Boy, they sure did a good job on you.

>Who might "they" be? I have a bone to grind with them, if I could just
>figure out who "they" are!

I thought you knew. Or am I missing something? :/

>Spirulina? Our ancestors were eating spiru....oh enough for today, eh?

Our ancestors I do not know, but many native cultures have traditions
going back at least a few thousands of years of eating seaweed and
spirulina.

>cheers Kirt
>(who is probably lucky Peter can't find his old reply to an older
>instincto post!)

You are right on that one. It was about 55k, and our server only takes
up to 40k per post. So it needs some editing, apart from being freed
from my harddrive, where it is still stuck.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]