Jaques:
>First, excuse my english I'm basically french speaking.
What do you call a person who speaks one language? American. ;)
Thank you for speaking english.
>Secondly I'm not in the business of selling Instinctotherapy
Sure you are. Deciding that there is one "true" alimentation and
sharing
that view in public is tantamount to selling an idea IMO. What other
point
is there to such a blatent testimonial?
>and I lack the self discipline to practice it alone.
Strange that such a perfect nuritional regime is beyond the capacity
of
well over 95% or the people who want to do it.
>But I did not learn Anopsology by hearsay or vague approximations,
>but by practicing and studying it with the inventor for several months.
I certainly don't doubt this. You have all the verbiage, and logical
detours, down pretty well.
>> I was similarily enamored with instincto for many years but learned for a
>> "fact" that it's track record is somewhat shoddy. Perhaps you could
comment
>> on the following:
>
>Then shoddiness is everywhere because nothing seems to work perfectly all
the
>time. But I wont comment about the medical track record or any other.
You claim that the only "only therapeutic way to practice paleolithic
diet
is Instinctotherapy (Anopsology)" and then say the medical track
record is
off limits for comment! And not just the medical track record, but
"any
other"! Perhaps you would like any discussion of instincto to be
limited to
non-original molecules and elimination.
>> 1] Nicole Burger's death by cancer at a relatively young age.
>
>Unfortunately, nobody was inside her to see how she was living and
>secondly, we
>will never know at what age she would have died under different conditions.
"Different conditions" meaning without the abuse of the "father" of
instincto, Guy-Claude Burger? If so, I agree, probably anyone would
live
longer if they were treated with love and respect by their spouse.
>Lets put aside the fact that the quality of the food we eat can have an
>impact on our instinctive perception.
Except to use it as an unfailing excuse for any non-success on the
regime,
eh?
>Very few of us practice instincto since we are born.
And the other standard excuse for all "failure".
>Many reward and compensation patterns have been put in place in our
>subconscious (along with many other things), and it is indeed a huge
>upheaval to modify our whole way of being to the world. To simply
>relearn the profound meaning of attraction is not that simple...
Oh come on, if we could chuck away our cerebrum and rely on pure
"instinct"
in food selection on a continuing basis, you wouldn't have to make all
these excuses-- excuses which, to me, simply say that instincto is
probably
not the best, the only, or the most practical paleo-diet around.
>> 5] Mr. Burger's continued inability to refrain from seeking sex with
>> young boys and girls.
>
>This is indeed difficult to understand without having the proper frame of
>mind to look at it.
Perhaps you could share with us the proper frame of mind then.
>But I'm going to answer your question differently : Keith Jarrett is
>the most offensive person I've ever met, but I still think he is one of the
>greatest jazz pianist of this century.
Ha. But Keith Jarrett is not buggering children is he? Further he is
not
claiming that he has found the one perfect tune that works for
everyone,
nutritionally, intellectually, sexually, emotionally, everything. Nor
is he
claiming that playing great music will cure all obsession and
neurosis,
even war, as Burger claims about his regime. Yes, you answered my
question
a little differently, but in doing so, you cast Burger in an
unreasonably
positive light (yes, I am a Jarrett fan too). ;)
>> 6] Why the benefits are so often overstated (to the point of lying).
>> Examples: painfree childbirth, resistance to all microbal disease,
>> clarity of thought and freedom from neurosis which Mr Burger himself
>> rarely exhibits , etc.)
>
>Saying this as you do looks to me as exactly reproducing what you condemn.
>These examples are generalizations that apply to most people. Exceptions
>exist everywhere and someone that says otherwise is a fool, and Burger is
>certainly not one.
He is not a fool or not an exception? I suspect he may be both in
important
ways. These generalizations do NOT apply to most people on the regime.
Enough exceptions exist as to make the generalizations false-to-facts.
>I am not aware of any specific cases. Maybe my friend Andre Paillet can
>help me on those points.
Yes, maybe he can finally share with you the non-examples of instincto
in
the real world. It is not surprising that in your in-depth personal
study
of instincto you have apparently heard no mention of the "darker side"
of
instincto. Perhaps this will surprise you when you here about these
things
from the instinctos you respect so much. But perhaps you will be able
to
minimize and ignore and never repeat them, because, as we all know,
the
food isn't perfect, the instinct is warped from childhood, and hardly
anyone can do instincto without exceptions, etc. ;)
>From my experience, very few people really know how to let go their
>intellect and obey their instinct. From your tone, I sense that you fall
>in that category with the result that you may be confusing hedonism with
>anopsology.
Perhaps. But you may be confusing "instinct" with Burger's
abstractions. In
any case your response is the typical one. I point out some
counter-example
of perfect instincto health (to put it mildly ;)) and you say that I
have
no idea what instincto is really all about, that hardly anyone
(including
yourself without support) can really do it right.
>> 10] To what degree you agree with the tenets and practice of "meta" and
>> what value you feel these tenents hold for humanity.
>
>Meta is a revolution, but it is useless to talk about it when the
>principles of anopsology are not even understood and far less integrated.
Oh, man, you have swallowed it whole and missed the stop, my friend.
Meta
is not a revolution, it is Burger's warped intellectual justification
for
buggering children and treating his wife very very poorly. It is also
what
makes instincto a cult instead of anything that deserves the respect
of
science.
When the Europeans who are so much under the "spell of Burger's
'genius'"
grow up and dump both him and his meta crapola, then, and only then
will
anything come of the whole idea of sensory selected foods as a
theraputic
tool. IMO.
>Anopsology : Science of man and life when are avoided culinary artifices,
>and more generally the characteristic artifices of conceptual intelligence.
There is no science without the artifices of conceptual intelligence.
Doesn't this make your grandiose definition a little bit silly? Forget
that
it claims all aspects of humanity (not simply alimentation) as its
subject.
Forget that we have evolved conceptual intelligence for good reason
;).
Forget that a very mentally unhealthy person is the conceptualizer of
this
definition. Yeah, forget it all, man: you have found the "ideal" and
your
life now makes sense because of a silly definition. (I've been there
myself, Jacques, and wish I had someone challanging the party line
back
then.)
>If the difficulty of application of this method is sufficient to make you
>deny its basic validity, your place may definitely be near the warmth of
>your cauldrons.
Ha! I will never ceased to be surprized with how many ways the above
sentiment can be verbalized. How about: If it doesn't work in reality,
and
you say so, then you are under the evil spell of cooked foods!
>Seignalet Dr. J. - L'alimentation ou la troisieme medecine,
>Collection Ecologie humaine, Francois-Xavier de Guibert, 1996, 452 p.
Perhaps you could summarize the points that he disagrees with Burger
on?
This would be very interesting to instincto-watchers wordwide who
don't
read French.
Cheers,
Kirt
Secola /\ Nieft
[log in to unmask]
|
