PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jim Swayze <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:26:42 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (14 lines)
Todd> Are these rules, and the principles on which they rest, internally consistent?  They are not.  And that, frankly, bothers me.

There is a type of person who requires airtight theory before belief.  I remember studying philosophy as an undergraduate.  There were many arguments for and against God's existence.  Bertrand Russell gave what seemed to me an excellent argument against.  C.S. Lewis' argument for seemed to me equally powerful for.  But you know what?  One of them is right and one isn't.  And the really cool thing about this world is that you can't prove or disprove God's existence.  You have to make an a priori assumption before you even GET to the arguments.  God is bigger than our limited human understanding and His nature is such that, if someone was to come up with an airtight argument for his existence, one which couldn't be disproven, we'd have no choice but to believe.  He's not like that, He wants us to have the choice.  Many find that maddening, they just HAVE to have proof before believing.  Those types generally discredit the power of intuition as a means of knowledge.  But again,
 it is the nature of this world that you just have to make a priori assumptions.

So *apparent* inconsistency is part of life.  It has partly to do with out a priori assumptions and partly to do withour limited ability as humans to see the whole picture.  And you are to be commended for attempting to do so, to piece this thing together.  But just because you're unable to do so, to tie up this mass of confusing strings into an intelligible whole doesn't mean that the whole doesn't exist.  Perhaps others can help you.  Perhaps their experiences and intuition can be of help.

My way of looking at this is to start with a minimum and expand from there if necessary.  Something tells me that one could stick with Ray's vision of this thing -- follow his guidelines exactly -- and have a very, very healthy life.  And I have some data that to me add to this intuition and make my belief that this is the way to go even more firm.  And let me say this too: I am not closed to conflicting or contradicting info.  Quite the contrary, I welcome it.  But intellectual honesty allows me to say that I've yet to see much to shake my belief that this diet's the way to go.

Sorry for the strange ramble.  I do feel better now.
--
_______________________________________________
Get your free Verizonmail at www.verizonmail.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2