>
>    **Obsessed is a subjective term.  You have your
> own definition of
> obsessed.  For someone else, the definition may
> differ.

Then let's hear your definition of obsessesed.  Are
you trying to say that addiction does not exist and
that that term includes only "physical" addiction?
Are you saying that there is not such a thing as
addiction to something generally healthy (when taken
to extremes)?

>
>      You certainly did suggest that people's
> priorities were misaligned when
> asking the rhetorical question about the American
> Dream.

What I said is do you consider working 40 hours a
week, followed by a consequent obsession with health
and diet that takes up all of your free time as being
the "American Dream".

In fact, it is part of what has been classically
called the "American Dream"...because, as Hans points
out, the American Dream is something to be wary of.
The "American Dream" says more and bigger is always
better.
More cars, bigger houses, etc.  However when your life
gets consumed by that pursuit, it does not bring
happiness.  I think good health is important.  And
once again, I eat a basically paleo diet and I
exercise regulary.  However, I do think that some
people believe that diet and exercise is a cure-all to
everything or they think that if they just find the
"perfect diet", or pursue diet more rigourously, that
they will obtain super health...All I am saying is
that diet and exercise are not cure-alls....and some
people go on for years thinking that they are...there
is no end to the search because there is always
somebody with a new diet or a new trick.  Very often
there problem (as someone noted) derives from a domain
outside of physiology ...problems with society or
family or "mental problems".

But then too, I think, the search for perfect health
takes on a life of its own sometimes.  It becomes a
habit, people's social life revolves around it, it
becomes a sort of religion.

Now, Siobhan, if you really dont think this applies to
you, then ignore it.  I have, however, seen the above
mentioned things happen to people that I know (and
sooner or later they came to realize it themselves).
So, I had hoped that a discussion of the issue might
have helped such people.  That's all.

>
> **  It's interesting how many different ways a
> person can express prejudice.
> Perhaps you can supply me with a list of what you
> have decided are the
> "pop-psychobabble terms that are so dear" to me.

Why do I accuse you of psychobabble?  First, you said
I must have issues.  Then you accused Nancy of
"projection".  See, these are very convenient
responses.  Anyone who does not agree with you can be
accused of (1) having issues, or (2) projecting


I will admit that science has its limitations.
However, some people, in this instance you Siobhan
(and more generally, New Age pop-psychologists) want
to abuse the fact that much of the human dimension
cannot be reduced to scientific formulas.  So, in that
void they preach "subjectivism"...Any old opinion that
sounds good, makes you feel fuzzy, is just as good as
any other.  That's the reason just about anybody who
can find a marketer to publish them can put out any
totally unsupported claim or silly idea that just
happens to enter their head.  Ok, fine. But, I do not
have to be a passive consumer of this fluff.

>
> You said you're a scientist.  Scientists seem to
> have an intolerance for
> things that have no one true answer.

Who is projecting now? ;)
You are obviously talking about certain scientists,
but not all.  I dont think that there is one true
answer for some things.  Advancing towards truth is a
dialectical process.  It is also not value free.
Because "truth" is not value free (I may have
prejudices, etc) all the more reason for me to be
critical of my own thought processes and judgements.
However, instead of going through the difficult task
involved in moving towards truth, you take the easy
way out, Siobhan.  You just throw up your hands and
say "there is no truth"....anything I think or seems
right to me is true (subjective).  For you appearance
and reality are identical...rather than read your
idiotic pop-psychology texts you should read Plato or,
better yet, Hegel.

>
> **  People choose to spend their money whatever way
> they want.  They decide
> if his work feeds them spiritually.  If it does,
> they spend more money. >>

This needs to be questioned.  I am not saying that all
spirituality issues from fear...but some of it does.
It is quite natural to fear death, to fear misfortune.
I suspect that many writers of these "spiritual books"
have no direct experience themselves with what they
profess...it is based on speculation and second-hand
knowledge.  I guess, one considers "assuaging fear of
death with fairy tales" to be a form of spirituality
then I would have to agree.

Mind you, I am not condmening spiritual
reflection....however, if we are going to be honest
about it, we have to be wary of this tendency to want
to banish the fear of death.


<< No
> one is locked in to purchasing what he sells.

True...but the marketers have found a gold mine.
Playing upon peoples hopes and fears.



>
>   I'm much more concerned with the greed shown by
> companies like Monsanto,
> that is willing to commit bribery, lie about, and
> hide information that
> would have a negative impact on their profits.  I'm
> more concerned about a
> government that closes its eyes to this.  I'm more
> concerned about a
> government that continues to allow the dangerous
> practices in food
> production that other countries have long eschewed
> (GMOs, grain-fed animals,
> antibiotic and hormone-laden animals).  I'm more
> concerned about the highly
> corrupt pharmaceutical companies that have the
> people convinced that good
> health cannot be had without multiple chemical
> formulations that cost a

I dont see why I should have to choose.  Both the
new-age marketers, companies like Monsanto and the
govt are guilty of manipulating people.  You are right
to be critical of Monsanto and the govt.  However, you
might want to include the Deepak Chopra's of the world
in your list worth of critical scrutiny.

 Would it be too "paranoid" to suggest that
> perhaps the government,
> food industry and pharmaceutical companies are in
> bed together?   Deepak
> Chopra looks relatively benign compared to these
> things.
>

No, I dont think you are "paranoid" to suggest those
things.  Some people choose to hide their own greed
behind the label "alternative medicine".  Now that
isn't to say that there are not some very good things
in alternative medicine.  However, it is not
SUFFICIENT to say that you are "alternative"...In
other words, just because you claim to be alternative
(hence in some ways opposed to "regular" medicine)
does not mean that you are better, more holistic or
not unethical. So,
I agree with you that the pharmaceutical industry is
greedy and corrupt in the main, that does not mean
that Chopra and company are benign.  The New-Age
industry is a huge one and we need to be suspicious of
profiteers who are riding it like a Trojan horse.

Thomas
> Siobhan


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/