Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Instincto / Anopsology => Topic started by: Ungullible on April 07, 2012, 09:34:50 pm
-
" The truth of food instinct should enable all men and women to embrace one of the main mystery of our own life. It summons human beings to open its reason to the transcendent, whilst respecting both their autonomy as creatures and their freedom. By educating one's instinct for food, the true nature of freedom is demonstrated more completely , and one understands the full meaning of the words: “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free".
The food instinct is the true lodestar of men and women as they strive to make their way amid the pressures of erroneous philosophies of mind and constrictions of technocratic logics. The theory of food instinct is the ultimate possibility to know in all its fullness the seminal plan of love which began with creation. To those wishing to know the truth, if they can look beyond themselves and their own concerns, there is given the possibility of taking full and harmonious possession of their lives, precisely by following the path of truth.
Here the words of the Book of Deuteronomy are pertinent: “This commandment which I command you is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven that you should say, 'Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear and do it?' But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that you can do it” (30:11-14). This text finds an echo in the famous dictum of the holy philosopher and theologian Augustine: “Do not wander far and wide but return into yourself. Deep within man there dwells the truth” (Noli foras ire, in te ipsum redi. In interiore homine habitat veritas).
The truth thus made known to us is neither the product nor the consummation of an argument devised by human reason, for the evidence of instinct has preceded the evidence of reason. It appears instead as something gratuitous, which itself stirs thought and seeks acceptance as an expression of love of nature and humanity. The question is raised : is this revealed truth set within our history as an anticipation of that ultimate and definitive vision of God, which is reserved for those who believe in him ? "
-
" According to the Apostle, it was part of the original plan of the creation that reason should without difficulty reach beyond the sensory data to the origin of all things: the Creator. But because of the disobedience by which man and woman chose to set themselves in full and absolute autonomy in relation to the One who had created them, this ready access to the Creator diminished.
This is the human condition vividly described by the Book of Genesis when it tells us that God placed the human being in the Garden of Eden, in the middle of which there stood “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”. The symbol is clear: man was in no position to discern and decide for himself what was good to eat and what was evil, but was constrained to appeal to a higher source, his instinct. The lure of cooked foods and the blindness of Chefs' pride deceived our first parents into thinking themselves sovereign and autonomous, and into thinking that they could ignore the knowledge which comes from God. All men and women were caught up in this primal gastronomic disobedience, which so distorted reason that from then on its path to full truth would be strewn with obstacles. From that time onwards the human capacity to know the truth was impaired by an aversion to the source and origin of truth : Raw Food. It is the Apostle who reveals just how far human thinking, because of sin, became “empty”, and human reasoning became distorted and inclined to falsehood (cf. Rom 1:21-22). The eyes of the mind were no longer able to see clearly : reason became more and more a prisoner to itself. The coming of "Christ-master " who, by the mere power of His exemple, became the driving force behind the advent of Catholic Chemistry in the course of the XIXth century was the saving event which redeemed reason from its weakness, setting it free from the shackles in which it had imprisoned itself. "
-
Lol by christ master do you mean the jewish fella 2000 years ago who was preaching to jews, for jews, telling them to obey the jewish law which necessarily included cooking and consuming meat?
Jesus of nazareth was an apocalyptic jew who believed in the false dichotomy of 'good' and 'evil'. The only way you can consistently assert that he was divine, is if you're going to accept all other myths and legends as true. Meaning herculese, fairies, unicorns, yeti's, krishna and all the other thousands or millions of gods, and spirits and miracles the earlier humans believed in.
While there may be some coded truth in the torah, the rest of the 'bible', while it may contain some wisdom and insight, is mostly rubbish, and not at all what was originally written, which is also not exactly what would have been passed down for long time before in oral tradition. In other words, the bible is a very very poor place to get your spiritual guidance!
You, and your own connection to source/god /whatever, is a much better place to start!
-
In reply to "You and your own connection to source/god is a much better place to start........" : the place where we all start is never a cartesian/ leibnizian isolated monad , an "I think therefore I am" but always a (marxian) "they" : we are born a product of a culture designed by overwhelming ( although mostly invisible) economic forces.
" Human beings are not made to live alone. They are born into a family and in a family they grow, eventually entering society through their activity. From birth, therefore, they are immersed in traditions which give them not only a language and a cultural formation but also a range of truths in which they believe without questionning. Yet personal growth and maturity imply that these same truths can be cast into doubt and evaluated through a process of critical enquiry. It may be that, after this time of transition, these truths are “recovered” as a result of the experience of life or by dint of further reasoning. Nonetheless, there are in the life of a human being many more truths which are simply believed than truths which are acquired by way of personal verification. Who, for instance, could assess critically the countless scientific findings upon which modern life is based? Who could personally examine the flow of information which comes day after day from all parts of the world and which is generally accepted as true? Who in the end could forge anew the paths of experience and thought which have yielded the treasures of human wisdom ? This means that the human being—the one who seeks the truth—is also the one who lives by belief.
In believing, we entrust ourselves to the knowledge acquired by other people. This suggests an important tension. On the one hand, the knowledge acquired through belief can seem an imperfect form of knowledge, to be perfected gradually through personal accumulation of evidence; on the other hand, belief is often humanly richer than mere evidence, because it involves an interpersonal relationship and brings into play not only a person's capacity to know but also the deeper capacity to entrust oneself to others, be it a master, a guru or a teacher, to enter into a relationship with them which is intimate and enduring.
It should be stressed that the truths sought in this interpersonal relationship are not primarily empirical or philosophical. Rather, what is sought is the truth of the person—what the person is and what the person reveals from deep within. Human perfection, then, consists not simply in acquiring an abstract knowledge of the truth, but in a dynamic relationship of faithful self-giving with others. It is in this faithful self-giving that a person finds a fullness of certainty and security. At the same time, however, knowledge through belief, grounded as it is on trust between persons, is linked to truth: in the act of believing, men and women entrust themselves to the truth which the other declares to them.
It is the nature of the human being to seek the truth. This search looks not only to the attainment of truths which are partial, empirical or scientific ; nor is it only in individual acts of decision-making that people seek the true good. Their search also looks towards an ulterior truth which would explain the meaning of life. Such truths are attained not only by way of reason but also through trusting acquiescence to other persons who can guarantee the authenticity and certainty of the truth itself. There is no doubt that the capacity to entrust oneself and one's life to another person and the decision to do so are among the most significant and expressive human acts.
It must not be forgotten that reason too needs to be sustained in all its searching by trusting dialogue and sincere friendship. A climate of suspicion and distrust, which can beset speculative research, ignores the teaching of the ancient philosophers who proposed friendship as one of the most appropriate contexts for sound philosophical enquiry and transmission of traditional wisdom. It emerges that men and women are on a journey of discovery which is humanly unstoppable—a search for the truth and a search for a person to whom they might entrust themselves."
-
haha dude has to be trolling. Not even professor KD can bust out so many paragraphs :P
-
Most here are non believers and non theist. I seriously doubt that there is a universal truth that is capable of setting us free.
Its the imagination that sets one free, and imagination the source of untruth.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.
-
haha dude has to be trolling. Not even professor KD can bust out so many paragraphs :P
;D Could someone be kind enough to provide us with a somewhat readable summary? ;)
-
A summary
Instinctive nutrition is part of a traditional teaching, transmitted by (inter alia) homosexual comradeship, which, like many traditional teachings, advocated the difference between mental knowledge (an obstacle to real understanding) and the knowledge of "being"—the only real knowledge. As stated in the text above, reshaping self-trust thru first hand experience and belief in the Tradition incarnated by the teacher has always been the most essential element in maintaining any tradition alive. Entrusting oneself to the acknowledged truth is a pure act of faith without which no traditions could have ever survived.
It is not yet clear whether this tradition, like other traditional forms of knowledge, forbade or prohibited imparting complete information to ordinary minds, at least until GCB's started teaching on food instinct to the wider audience.
-
Instinctive nutrition is part of a traditional teaching, transmitted by (inter alia) homosexual comradeship (…)
Total nonsense.
-
In response to "total nonsense"
Little Know It All (Iggy Pop)
I'm the kid that no one knows,
I live a life I never chose,
But these thoughts in my mind,
Are my own, my own
I'm face to face with the unknown,
My scary movie will be shown,
I've got one evil mind,
Of my own, my own
We take from one another,
And never stop to wonder
How it feels from the other side,
But nothing lasts forever,
When stupid turns to clever,
Why are you surprised ?
Little Know-it-all
Ten bucks in my hand,
Little Know-it-all
Don't cry, I understand
I'm a target although smart,
They got ambition I got heart,
I'm analyzed and tagged,
Before I start
So tell me who can I respect,
I feel the leash around my neck,
As I find out the shame,
In the game
And I feel like I've crawled outside the box
And I feel like I'm sleeping when I'm not
Looking for the real thing
Looking for the real thing
-
Ungullible
Are you sure you are in the right place?
or even in your right mind?
Iggy Pop did a lot of drugs. He was a punk rocker who almost killed his self shooting heroin up in a bathroom stall. His songs are hardly words of wisdom.
-
Ungullible
Are you sure you are in the right place?
or even in your right mind?
Iggy Pop did a lot of drugs. He was a punk rocker who almost killed his self shooting heroin up in a bathroom stall. His songs are hardly words of wisdom.
Not every use of drugs is negative. Think of that poet who wrote "Xanadu" after taking drugs, for example.
-
Pretty sure Iggy Pop knows more than most about mostly-veg nutrition as its always been practiced..like combining carbs with proteins, eating dairy for necessary calcium and minerals in lieu of bones/blood, emphasing regular vit A, sodium etc...
plays that skinny/cut look better than any natural hygiene proponent I've seen in their 40-60's anyway, even with all his body trashing. @ 64 he was looking pretty good on 'Idol'
---
I guess trolling (even smart trolling) is not ok tho.
-
To Sabertooth
I started this thread to welcome Paleophil's historical finding on Dr Cleave, the "bran man" as he was called by his friends.
The first three messages ( the longest ones) are ( 99% ) cut and paste from John Paul II Encyclical letter on philosophy "Fides et Ratio" (15-09-1998). I made some very light changes to the original text .
I basically used His letter to make my point in the "summary" further down ( which I wrote)
I thought it was cool to have Iggy Pop and the Holy Father together.
-
Welcome to the the twilight zone ...
-
Why any of these 'experts' participate in nutrition discussion forums when they already have all the answers - 'answers' which implicitly aim to undermine the sharing of current information on nutrition to replace it with pure faith and fantasy- and not be referred to as trolls themselves, Is the real mystery.
Oh wait, people do love to sniff and then recycle their bullshit to believe it internally, thats the real human instinct apparently and one seen deeply in organized religion.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg40759/#msg40759 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg40759/#msg40759)
The ultimate truth IMO is that these folks and natural hygine raw vegans are one in the same in how they choose their 'truths' over others. Both prattle on about how this and that is toxic or wrong even in natural foods with little real evidence other than personal experience of un-healthy individuals. Both, usually have no real understanding of human physiology and substitute all kinds of conjectures and ultimately end up tipping their logic to some kind of natural paradigm guessing to apply to modern complex problems. Both spend most of their efforts online making-up excuses why their lifetimes of nonsense are well spent, and crafting fun theories why people *appear* healthy and fine on other diets, usually not taking time to even take a blood test, hormone panel, or even basic vitals and check if their diets do magically account for all their needs. Needs that others outside such dogmas can satisfy, but can become regular problems unecessarily. Both will knee-jerk against anything that seems foreign to their personal conception of nature which is rooted totally in the 20th century myopia of self-appointed gurus- and which virtually no experts on human anthropology or animals would agree is even accurate.
Ironically these people should take responsibility for scarring people into the very extremes that they criticize, away from a balanced intake of foods, due to such similarities to long term raw vegans.
-
Not every use of drugs is negative. Think of that poet who wrote "Xanadu" after taking drugs, for example.
I love drug inspired art as much as anyone, I just didn't expect such a reference in a post that began on a biblical note,
Then again if you believe as I do; the bible was written by drug users. There have been some reports that the wine they drank in those days was often laced with a mixture opiates and hallucinogenic plants. It could explain much of the insanity professed by the holy men of the holy-land.
Jesus himself was offered an opiate mixture before he was to be crucified, Which is proof that these drug concoctions were widely used at the time. He refused to take it, but it still seems probable that he and his followers were familiar with drug use.
To Sabertooth
I started this thread to welcome Paleophil's historical finding on Dr Cleave, the "bran man" as he was called by his friends.
The first three messages ( the longest ones) are ( 99% ) cut and paste from John Paul II Encyclical letter on philosophy "Fides et Ratio" (15-09-1998). I made some very light changes to the original text .
I basically used His letter to make my point in the "summary" further down ( which I wrote)
I thought it was cool to have Iggy Pop and the Holy Father together.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought from the first post you were a Jesus freak, then when you quoted Iggy, I began to think you were just a bit conflicted.
Welcome to the raw forum, Maybe we can B.S more in the future on more meat centered topics.
-
To KD
"Why any of these 'experts' participate in nutrition discussion forums"
Even though I do not consider myself an expert in nutrition, I will reply to your sarcasm as I understand that it is directed towards me. It's been many years now since I definitely switched from "participant" to "lurk" mode on Internet fora dedicated to RAF.
"when they already have all the answers - 'answers' which implicitly aim to undermine the sharing of current information on nutrition to replace it with pure faith and fantasy- and not be referred to as trolls themselves, Is the real mystery. Oh wait, people do love to sniff and then recycle their bullshit to believe it internally, thats the real human instinct apparently and one seen deeply in organized religion."
If you think food instinct is a not a valid idea or concept which deserves careful study, why are you reading these threads dedicated to "instinctive nutrition" on the Forum ?
"The ultimate truth IMO is that these folks and natural hygiene raw vegans are one in the same in how they choose their 'truths' over others. Both prattle on about how this and that is toxic or wrong even in natural foods with little real evidence other than personal experience of un-healthy individuals. "
You seem to have perfectly understood the instinctual part of the theory. I can only concur with your skepticism vis a vis any food / nutrition authority. But please don't assimilate those folks who stand up for their food instinct with any of the "raw vegan/ natural hygiene " sects.
From a historical (and ontological) point of view , it is a total nonsense. Vegetarian movements including the raw vegetarian sect emerged at the beginning of the XIXth century in rural England amongst the so-called "Bible Christians" and then spread to the US without finding any intellectual support outside the countries of the Reformation.
If you think this is just a coincidence ( that is : if you think that there is no strong link between the history of food hygiene and history of religion) , I recommend you start reading more on sociology and psychology of religious experience. If there isn't (and there cannot be) any religion without a set of (rational /irrational/ semi rational ) food hygiene principles, chances are that food hygiene theories, especially valuable ones, have been supported by religious movements, be it on their very margins.
-
If it matters, I actually wasn't referring to you. I assumed like most, that you were just stirring the pot with a bunch of nonsense as a joke.
I don't have a good answer to your other question, other than how people consistantly troll all the other sub-forums outside of this one with their religion, and refuse - like vegans - to give any concrete and visible evidence why their claims are better arguments often with such poor seeming negative results. Usually the same old things disguised as 'purity' to discount physical deterioration from even 'normals'. There should indeed only be criticism in certain threads and peace to various principles in the sub-forums, but that isn't always how it works here. This one already seemed critical and not an asking for specific advice.
-
OK ;)
I might be "stirring the pot" though......but for a "juste cause" : to entice people to get "to the bottom" , to read more, remain intellectualy alert. There is more on this instinct theory than meets the eye.
and no nonsense on my part.
-
What about the new bohemians?
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean
Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box
Religion is the smile on a dog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean, d-doo yeah
Choke me in the shallow waters
Before I get too deep
What I am is what I am
Are you what you are or what?
What I am is what I am
Are you what you are or
Oh, I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean
Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks
Religion is a light in the fog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean, d-doo yeah
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
What I am is what I am
Are you what you are or what?
What I am is what I am
Are you what you are or what?
What I am is what I am
Are you what you are or what?
What I am is what I am
Are you what you are or what you are and
What I am is what I am
Are you what you are or what?
Don't let me get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
-
To KD
"Why any of these 'experts' participate in nutrition discussion forums"
Even though I do not consider myself an expert in nutrition, I will reply to your sarcasm as I understand that it is directed towards me. It's been many years now since I definitely switched from "participant" to "lurk" mode on Internet fora dedicated to RAF.
"when they already have all the answers - 'answers' which implicitly aim to undermine the sharing of current information on nutrition to replace it with pure faith and fantasy- and not be referred to as trolls themselves, Is the real mystery. Oh wait, people do love to sniff and then recycle their bullshit to believe it internally, thats the real human instinct apparently and one seen deeply in organized religion."
If you think food instinct is a not a valid idea or concept which deserves careful study, why are you reading these threads dedicated to "instinctive nutrition" on the Forum ?
"The ultimate truth IMO is that these folks and natural hygiene raw vegans are one in the same in how they choose their 'truths' over others. Both prattle on about how this and that is toxic or wrong even in natural foods with little real evidence other than personal experience of un-healthy individuals. "
You seem to have perfectly understood the instinctual part of the theory. I can only concur with your skepticism vis a vis any food / nutrition authority. But please don't assimilate those folks who stand up for their food instinct with any of the "raw vegan/ natural hygiene " sects.
From a historical (and ontological) point of view , it is a total nonsense. Vegetarian movements including the raw vegetarian sect emerged at the beginning of the XIXth century in rural England amongst the so-called "Bible Christians" and then spread to the US without finding any intellectual support outside the countries of the Reformation.
If you think this is just a coincidence ( that is : if you think that there is no strong link between the history of food hygiene and history of religion) , I recommend you start reading more on sociology and psychology of religious experience. If there isn't (and there cannot be) any religion without a set of (rational /irrational/ semi rational ) food hygiene principles, chances are that food hygiene theories, especially valuable ones, have been supported by religious movements, be it on their very margins.
.
I totally believe in the basic principles of instinctive nutrition. In the past three years I have honed my taste buds to such a degree that I have to spend great effort to just find meat that I can stomach. If something doesn't taste good I will not eat it. In my SAD days I had such poorly developed taste I did not know the difference between good and bad meat. Now I can tell with such minute differences in flavor its unreal.
Some grass fed labeled meat will taste sour, I often wonder if perhaps some grass fed cows sometimes get fed moldy hay or get into a patch of bitter bramble. I prefer lamb for the taste, but even lamb will occasionally get a bad taste if it gets into some grain or moldy grass.
Regarding further esoteric study;
I have been working on my own ideas about sociology, physiology, psychology in relation to food history as well having my own deeply religious experiences. I am open to being lectured on such subjects, to anyone who would preach the new fangled gospel.
-
except for the fact that following ones taste, without actually following the tenents outlined by a bunch of other humans, isn't actually following many principles of instinctive nutrition. Nor is eating almost exclusively domesticated animals, not picking from a wide range of foods regularly, not eating sweet and/or tropical fruits, eating/praising packaged and refined foods like coconut products, ever being in ketosis which implies extended deprivation from plant foods, constantly crediting your carnivorous diet with your success etc... Sorta like how between 200,000 b.c. and the 20th century..no one ate instinctively as they were corrupted by cooked foods and/or diets and thus wern't healthy.
why not just mentally go back to three years ago, and exclusively run the exercises through your head surrounding your house with various foods likely regularly imported from other places, with the general understanding that your intake should roughly resemble that of a chimp as presented in this sub-forum's explanation series. Restricting yourself to following only to these ideas till you master your real instinct, with the understanding that everything else leads to unbalance, sickness and disease. Making sure not to folow any other external ideas or philosophies around eating..as these are The Modern and that would contaminate you. Maybe not so much the same turnout possibly, but yeah, same principles.
-
Forgive me for not being able to articulate more fully the change that has come over me since I eliminated civilized foods from my diet. You can rag me all you want about coconut butter, but my intuition tells me its doing me good.
Perhaps the line between intuition and instinct is often skewed for us humans.
I have always had a strong intuitive drive, its what lead me to seek out such radical solutions to my health issues.
When my health problems began. I just intuitively knew that the foods I was eating was giving me issues. Every time I would eat something I would have terrible effects such as blood sugar spikes, or gluten induced dementia.
I am not claiming my current regiment is 100 present instinctual or that it will work for anyone else. I was only trying to explain that after I became adapted to this diet my powers of taste began to become stronger, and I started to follow its ques, much in the same way instinctive eaters claim to do.
BTW, I instinctively avoid eating most fruits veggies, If that isn't instincto then so be it.
-
not ragging on anything my friend. Just pointing out what I understood to be the subject of the thread, the difference between following ones true intuition and instincts, and following those within a string of caveats and rules which those instincts have to follow.
Intuition and instinct without dogmas, with intellectual ability and freedom to access a full spectrum of tools, or respecting how humans and even ape like animals actually ate in nature without guess work or interpreting it through the same religious concepts of what is 'good', is something else entirely.
-
I agree with KD that "pure" instinctive nutrition must be way different from the purported "instinctive nutrition" of the "classical theory" put up by GCB which most instincto have to follow due their sedentary life habits.
Our denatured food environment ( even when raw) sets an internal limit to the validity of the theory without invalidating the theory itself. It just shows that changes in our food habits must go hand in hand with changes in agricultural practice.
If appropriate food quality is essential , a proper mental setting is as essential to the correct functionning of one's instinct. This is where the "money factor" and "stressful life" must be factored in.
Having spent a couple of months in Montramé as a "working guest" who did not have to pay for his meals, I could see how the lack of concern for the actual price of food helped produce a detached attitude REQUIRED by our food instinct. The situation of instincto at home is different in so much as one wants to eat all the food before it gets wasted. So you end up caring for your "investment" as much as you care about your smell and taste reactions. Unless you do not care for money (apart from religious minded people, few can offer such disregard ) you just can't help eating that much fresh food you have purchased.
The stress factor and the quality in life in general play a great part in the overall volume of food intake, as they determine our level of attention to internal signals. The fact that internal signals of hunger can be made imperceptible under dramatic psychological circumstances ( lovers living only by fresh water....) is a proof that no only our physiological status but also our psychological mindset can render taste /smell signals more or less perceptible. If we would live in a congenial atmosphere, replete with beautiful landscape, fine music and architecture, caring humans, and squirrels eating the remains of our hazelnuts at our feet, chances are that we would not be caring as much about getting our daily dose of wild mangos.
I'm probably stating the obvious so I'm stopping here. Don't want to "teach grandmother how to suck eggs"
-
Living a life in harmony with ones instincts and intuition unbound to stagnant lifeless dogmatic beliefs, is the Ideal.
The problem is there seems to other dimensions involved in this thing called humanity besides the need to satisfy our innate biological drives. There is this ever present call out for providence within the human soul that seeks the guidance of something more divine. Man kind seeks liberation from perpetual servitude to the animal instinct, and its constant demands to maintain biological homeostasis, and pass on DNA. This call for religion, and the desire for an orderly, purpose filled mind seems to often trump out the call of the wild in modern man. In following religious dogmas mankind has learned to cull his primal instincts, and redirect the primal energies toward the development of the humanities.
The refinement of lofty and divine ideals, that can be passed down the generations is our legacy as a species. The Petrifaction of those ideals into stagnant belief is the curse of of species.
Perhaps the formation of human belief could be called cultivating the fruit of knowledge. It may have been what was responsible for the figurative exile from Eden and the cause of the birth of humanity.
The ability to move contrary to ones instincts is the hallmark of the human spirit and something I am not yet willing to give up entirely.
The task at hand is to develop a way to have the best of both worlds. Use the power of the mind to cultivate a deep connection and awareness of the primal instincts separate from dogmatic belief. Focus the minds eye on finding ways to attain the biological imperatives necessary for living in tune with ones true nature. Its up to the individual to decide what that nature may be.