Stephan: >I am referring to your message of 6/5/97 titled "Re: Again universal >ethics." >I don't know how you come to the view that I always have the true answer. >I didn't claim that. Sure, I have my oppinions and maybe a lot of them >are similar to those of other instinctos including Mr. Burger. What's >wrong with them? If you don't like Mr. Burger and his oppinions, what has >that to do with me? >I also scanned my recent posts again. Here is, what I found: <snip> Your "defense" of your posts is unnecassary. The reason I posted was to go on record that JL's posts are, IMO, of a much higher critical character than yours, that I see you as more guilty of what you are accusing JL of, that I find your "frustration" with JL's posts audacious. >As a mathematician Jean-Louis should know, that conclusions drawn from >an assumption A and conclusions from the conclusions all turn out to >be wrong, if A turns out to do so. I expected him to take this into >account. Also this wasn't his first post with this sort of logic. Huh? He seems to be one of the few people on the list who has no sacred a prioris, who realizes that all thought is based on initial _unproven_ and _accepted_as_fact_ assumptions. Burger's assumptions are not GIVENS. You might be willing to question your own "assumption A" (standard instincto lore) before you criticize others. >In general my posts are lengthy, some even essay-style. If this is too >much for you, this is your problem. At least I won't let you call them >superficial (or without deep thinking.) You can not prevent me from saying so or believing so. >Perhaps you could be more specific and tell me where my thoughts were >too superficial and I missed the point. You make your points. My point is that instincto lore is not the be all and end all of nutrition. That many instinctos (like yourself apparently) seem more interested in tweeking reality to fit the theory than exploring reality. JL is pleasant exeption to this tendency. >You may skip the following paragraph if you hate psychological analysis: >Psychologically spoken you seem to be in your depressive mood still. >And it seems I hit your nerves by attacking Jean-Louis because you like >him very much. In fact you seem to have taken my post to Jean-Louis as >an offence to yourself. I take it as an offence to JL and want to go on record that I disagree with your "analysis". It seems that any reasoning which finds instincto lore lacking hits a nerve for you. >I hope I could make several things clearer and I hope to read again >some enthusiastic and positive contributions from you. You know, the older posts from me which you seem to find so enthusiastic and positive are in the context of a pretty much non-instincto audience. Never did I imagine that as more instinctos showed up on this list that the dialogue would be so...well, old-fashioned. Much of what gets said could be cut and pasted from Burger's book, verbatum. Further, there is no need for my posting about instincto lore with you all on board. ;) All I ever did was confront silliness (NFL, etc.) and try to offer a fresh point of view about RAF. I sure don't remember waxing enthusiastically about instincto per say. Indeed, I was searching for instincto criticisms! Your desire for enthuisiasm is telling. You have said that you want to hear the positives and not the negatives about instincto, but how is anyone to learn if it is a matter of enthusiastic testimonials only? There seems to be a schism in the world of idealistic diets between the personal and the scientific. People (you, me, apparently most everyone) need some enthusiam/testimonial/conversion experience in order to embark to a pure regime (instincto, frutarian, etc.). As time goes by there appears some results that are not "supposed" to be happening according to the ideological lore. These negative results (n-results) are then minimized at best, or explained away as proof positive of the initial theory through some unfalsifiable posturing (ie. only third generation will be "pure", modern foods aren't good enough, and everyone's favorite: it's just detox, etc etc). It has been disappointing to experience these n-results personally, and further disappointing to hear of other's n-results. But, however disappointing, it is the only way to forge forward, learn, and stay out of a behavioral rut. It seems to me that if instincto has a future on this planet as something better than an ideological diet (ie. cult), we all need to stop swaping testimonials and half-baked theorizing/defense/etc (of n-results!) and put our cards on the table--meaning start talking seriously about the n-results. Yeah, instincto decreases my body odor, steels my erection, calms me, etc etc but who cares--that's old hat, you know? You want to revel in the positives and minimise the negatives, which is the same rut I have been in previously. I want to engage in some post-instincto dialogue, but while there are plenty of instincto wannabes and some eureka-I've-done-it instinctos like yourself, there seem to be precious few folks willing to abandon the search for absolutes and/or belief systems which portend to explain everything. But they do exist fortunately. If I am currently without a belief system, and that rubs you the wrong way, I guess that is just how it will be. I had previously looked forward to more European instinctos finding their way to this list (for the post-instincto dialogue!) but have little enthusiasm in perfecting the rut of instincto lore as given, which is all that seems to happen sometimes. Put it this way: if less than one percent of instinctos stick with the "pure" diet, I am now interested in the larger percentage that does not. What are they up to and have they found practical and personal successes? And, importantly, what n-results are _they_ dealing with? Rah rah rah for instincto? Jeez, that's a tough road where the leaders are in tatters or cults and the gutters are littered with "failures". The supposed elegance of instincto lore falls away with the inelegance of the posturing and immature bickering and in-fighting (not to mention the n-results!!) of today's instinctos. Everyone seems to have a vested interest of some kind, from the financial to the egotistical. In the States we now have a raw (vegan) movement associated with the religious right (at least they are up front with their religion!), a raw (vegan) movement with the trappings of a Richard Simmon's infomercial (and throw in some intolerance and conspiracy theory to boot), and a couple mailing lists with sometimes raging debates about denatured nuts and RAF and the best sprout methods, and, of course, M2M (which I consider without a conscionse since Ward stepped down) that specializes as an audience for a slew of self-styled self-appointed gurus. The US instincto "community"? Pretty embarassing it seems... What is it like in Europe? As far as I can decipher, Burger is continually deteriorating and further cult-ifying instincto, and there is a babble of folks who like the bandwagon as much as the permission to eat a shitload of sweet fruit. Where are the intelligent instincto off-shoots? As far as I can see they are happening in the form of a very few individuals only. But surely I can't see far enough ;) Sorry, Stephan, but my enthusiasm for reheated Burger has abated. Something may come from this rubble but I doubt it will have all that much to do with Burger's cult. As you say, you are not Burger. But neither have you un-deified him or instincto lore and that may be a limiting factor for you. Perhaps you want instincto to be true more than you want the truth? But trashing JL!? Shame shame shame...;) Cheers, Kirt