-
>

>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".
It is a good one.
The intellect is there to set up the frame work in which we can unleashed
our instinct , so we can relax from the overcontrolling intellect. so yes
inside the frame work which is subject to reevaluation and   fine tuning , i
can follow the law of pleasure , letting go of the innerstruggle of a split
mind.
the animals don't need  to do that ,  the frame work is set up for them
without effort  from their part ( a human could set up a radical frame work
like that and will eat like an animal - see the wild children raised by
animals or on their own in nature)
Animals can't do that ever -see domestic animals killing themselves with
denatured food.
The intellect brought us into trouble it will bring us out of it.
The intellect is out of the way when i actually eat.
>
>>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).
>
actually i allways have been overeating of whatever is in front of me .
Feeling of lack.
The overeating of meat at one meal was actually occuring more frequently
when i was overeating fruit at the previous meal, they go together. Since i
eat globally more animals and less fruit , i got a step farther from
overeating in general, the big step in that direction have been when i
switched from cooked to instincto.
So yes i am becoming closer to my inner wisdom .
This wisdom have allways been available to me,  i just didn't trust it and i
am on a path of trusting it more and more.
About intellect and its multi uses or about the millions of different ways
to perceive one phenomenon , or the thousands and one ways to answer a
simple question.. I just read this following true story.
Make me wonder about scientific facts

Sir Ernest Rutherford, President of the Royal Academy, and recipient of
the Nobel Prize in Physics, related the following story: "Some time ago
I
received a call from a colleague.  He was about to give a student a zero

for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a
perfect
score.  The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter,
and I was selected.

I read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine
the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."

The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the
building,
attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up,
measuring the length of the rope.  The length of the rope is the height
of the building."

The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really

answered the question completely and correctly!  On the other hand, if
full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his
physics course and certify competence in physics, but the answer did not

confirm this. I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the
student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the
answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five
minutes,
he hadn't written anything.  I asked if he wished to give up, but he
said
he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best
one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go
on. In
the next minute, he dashed off his answer which read:  "Take the
barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the
roof.  Drop the
barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch.  Then, using the formula
x=0.5*a*t^2, calculate the height of the building."

At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up.  He conceded,
and gave the student almost full credit. While leaving my colleague's
office,
I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the
problem, so I asked him what they were.

"Well," said the student, "there are many ways of getting the height of
a
tall building with the aid of a barometer.  For example, you could take
the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the
barometer,
the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building,
and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the
building."

"Fine," I said, "and others?"

"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you
will like.  In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up
the stairs.  As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the
barometer along the wall.  You then count the number of marks, and his
will give you the height of the building in barometer units."

"A very direct method."

"Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the
barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine
the value of g [gravity] at the street level and at the top of the
building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of

the building, in principle, can be calculated."

"On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of the
building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street,
and then swing it as a pendulum.  You could then calculate the height of

the building by the period of the precession".

"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the
problem."

"Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement
and knock on the superintendent's door.  When the superintendent
answers,
you speak to him as follows:  'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine
barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give
you this barometer."

At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the
conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, but said
that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to
teach him how to think.

The name of the student was Neils Bohr."

jean-claude