Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - nummi

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
General Discussion / Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« on: June 28, 2017, 02:23:52 am »
From this wider scope when discussing specific benefits of specific foods such as the alleged benefits of sprouted wheat, anecdotal evidence isn't enough proof of anything...Where are the trans-generation groups of humans who have been known to thrive on diets high in sprouted grains of any kind??
Who, except you now, has here ever said anything about diets high in sprouted grains of any kind?

Sure there are people who claim that sprouted grains are healthy, but how do we quantify those claims???
Sure there are people who claim that eating raw meat is healthy, but how do we quantify those claims???
Are you really so blind regarding yourself? Simply looking for justifications and excuses why to demonize something you have never even tried on yourself to see what truth regarding it is. And just because something has on it label "scientific proof", is in actual reality mere opinions and personal views and personal experiences of someone else, based on measurement systems that are themselves again based on someone elses opinions. Such a thing as "scientific proof" does not exist.
To get it right, anything right, have to see relativistic functioning (not "science" relativism garbage). One thing or aspect of something, in relation to or relativized by others connected to it or influencing it, thus determining its condition and being, thus real truth.

Either you have something personal you can show/describe/explain, and especially verify for yourself, thus can inform others how verification process works so that others could perhaps do same, or you don't. Personal bodily and environmental conditions, how and when and why, discriminating differences and comparing them, trying on ourselves. But not some fanatical cultistic dogmatic regurgitations merely for sake of glorifying some ridiculous dogma.

Are there any examples sprouted grain champions who would best the top cage fighters, mountain climbers, apex breeders, intellectually powerful, or the longest living, people in the world?
This too attached directly to your overconsumption of sprouted grain nonsense... Delusional much, or severe prejudice, bias, preconception? Same exact type of excuses vegans use for glorifying their far worse garbage. And you assume yourselves to be better than them, yet behave essentially same.
Are you really so delusional that you assume that eating basically only one food item one can become some great and powerful entity? I would very much like to see you be "oh great and powerful" by eating almost only/mainly bulls balls, or whatever. Severe health issues would quickly follow... starving yourself of so much essential, and overconsuming many other nutrients.

Perhaps there are some individuals who can indeed thrive on diets high in sprouted grain,
And the only one who began talking about eating sprouted grains in such excessive amounts, is you and none else.

though generally speaking I just dont see the evidence that sprouted grains provide any advantage over diets based on animal foods which could be combined with various ratios of non grain based plants that were used as human staples before the age of cultivation.
Civilizations here on Earth have existed for millions of years and longer. Civilizations that have been far far more advanced than this current humanity.
For example statues from hundreds/thousands of years ago, making of which requires by "modern" standards at least very highly advanced 3D printer that can print marble to perfection. Printers that officially do not even exist yet (not that printers were used, as there are other ways too; but sculpting out such sculptures with chisels and hammers is impossible). You want specific "links" to such "sculptures" and examples? Then go do some honest research, and honest thinking that must follow such honest research.
Age of cultivation... there have been many.
And this "paleo times" that gets constantly repeated here over and over, personally none of you ever having seen that such time actually existed, and base your own "opinions" regarding it solely on opinions of someone else, some "scientists" and other dogmatists... This paleo time that you so childishly favor, never existed. Proof? Only ones who can prove it to you are you yourselves, but this does require honest research and honest thinking.
You have truly absolutely no conception nor idea what was staple dieting in those "paleo times" that never existed to begin with. There were people at those times, many different peoples, they did eat stuff, they also cultivated things. But running around wild with simple tools and such? Sure, just as people doing essentially same exist right now at this time too, mostly in jungle areas.

On a personal note I cant stand the taste of sprouted wheat or any other grain enough to even consider a long term experiment...I have from time to time added some sprouts to my salads, but have always been somewhat repulsed by the flavor, and had a strong aversion to anything more than a trace amount.
That might be you specifically. Or it might also be dogma in your brain dictating what and how to regard. Or you're simply missing the fact that being on very specific way of dieting, and then trying something that really does not fit that kind of dieting, simply cannot work just as easily as trying a few times.
And obviously, as should be well known to all here, tastes change as diets change. Digestion changes as diets change. So if you keep yourself stuck to one specific way of eating that discludes other specific food items, and have formed such way of eating over years, stuck to it, then perhaps it would be best if you simply stay quiet regarding that which you do not eat and never will, because you are keeping specific digestion that does not suit to sprouted grains and many others and as such sprouted grains would not taste as good nor digest as good either.
It is rather dumb to base "grains are all and only bad" merely because you dogmatically haven't eaten them, don't and won't, and your personal digestion does not suit them.

Nummi, for all of your claims about how you don't care for dogma/rules/scripture/orthodoxy, you are entangled in an awful lot of it. What's worse, you seem to be utterly oblivious of this fact.
Those stuck cannot see themselves as they truly are. Oblivious are you not I.
You haven't even personally tested whether claims about wheat, you keep yourself stuck to, are true or not... Instead you have preconceptions and you look (research) for any justifications how to "justify" those, and attempt to make up newer seemingly sane excuses to justify and glorify your cultistic dogma.
I had those exact same claims before me about wheat, from exact same dogma that you still are stuck to, but I tested their validity. And you call me "entangled" and "oblivious" while you don't even bother testing for yourself, on yourself, truly honestly, claims you hold as absolutely true, whether claims you fanatically adhere to actually hold up to reality.
Claims about agriculture being "bad". Ridiculous, as after animal/beast/savage stage development, agriculture becomes necessity, as societies emerge and become civilizations. And agriculture also is supposed to improve, and eventually become obsolete as something yet greater is supposed to take its place -- all of which has to be done right, not wrong; that these things can be done wrong does not mean all of them are wrong and bad.

Agriculture is bad only for those who are incapable of doing it themselves and sustaining and improving themselves with its aid, and/or by attempting to do it they would instead mess things up so bad that they would be better without. This does not mean it is bad overall, it just means there are those so dumb or low advanced they simply can't with it.
Just because some can't use toilet paper without having their finger go to shit, does not mean ass is some big bad thing that should be done away with.

You call me entangled, trying to convey to it sense of stuckness? Why use this word "entangled"? Entangled sure, as everything is in relation to all else, thus entangled as dependent on all else and actively anyones identity being created/caused by all else. But not stuck. How much "entangled" is, depends on how much of world one can perceive and feel and use, and how straightforward and honest to oneself one is.

I have eaten sprouted wheat for months on end in my twenties.  I put it through a juicer auger type.  I ate it raw. To it I added my own dressings etc.   Otherwise I found it quite unappealing.  I wonder how you eat it, how you hopefully enjoy it, how much you eat, and do you still eat it?  It's in the details, and they seem to be missing from your lectures.
I eat them raw, sometimes together with other seeds, sometimes I add spices and stuff (not due to taste but due to spices-etc having metabolically and health wise great effects). Taste wise best timing to eat is 2-3 days after they begin growing small roots (weather also effects their germination and growth and taste), before that taste isn't that great and after that begins tasting grassy.
I eat a handful to two at a time. Not every time, not every month. I've eaten 6 months straight, every day some, then 2-3 months none, then 3-4 months again. They are constantly available as I have chickens and I sprout for them, and eat same myself. Closeby me there's a family whose children cannot eat any eggs, nor many things at all, due to allergies and stuff that are due to parents not having been smart enough in time for children, they can't eat eggs except those from my chickens (regardless whether those eggs are massproduced garbage or from homegrown chickens; they are all fed with unsprouted grains), because I sprout all wheat I give my chickens. Eggs from chickens who have eaten unsprouted wheat, taste is awful; but when chickens on sprouted wheat, then there is no bad taste and instead is very good.

Your behavior, most of yours here, is exactly same as that of vegans trying to defend their cultistic garbage. Your responses are also exactly same in essence and effect -- short garbage that is meant to attack instead of ask questions and provide explanations and descriptions of causes that determine what is what and why. As tyler said "paleo concepts" -- only that which is within "paleo" dogma borders, only that which paleo dogma allows. A cult just like veganism, both are bad, one worse than other.
All you do is say short things, but not ever describing your own processes as to how you came to those "conclusions". Because you don't have any, you simply believe and follow. If you don't describe how you came to them, then how are readers supposed to verify whether your conclusions are correct or false? Vegans do same thing as you do, nothing at best but mostly attacks and excuses when in light of information that shows them to be wrong.

General Discussion / Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« on: June 28, 2017, 02:06:35 am »
I first came to this forum 4 years ago? I've read posts older than that. I see what is talked about now... what has been talked about inbetween. You are all stuck. You are simply regurgitating same old, only difference is that you are wording same thing somewhat more nicely or strongly. Seeming appearance seems to change, but essence is still same; essence has not improved at all.

One thing I've noticed, not just here but overall everywhere, is that truly extremely few can actually describe and explain their own info-processing steps, how they came to their assumptions and conclusions. Reasons and causes why. Honesty especially to self. Most people simply blurt out short replies that say and give at best nothing but are rather insults and other such low garbage that brings less than nowhere.

Rather astonishing how short and narrow field of view of almost everyone is. Field of view regarding written texts and especially thoughts and meanings within those texts, but also field of view when it comes to making logical connections and conclusions. And when such short and narrow perspective meets one that requires significantly wider and deeper so to even hope to comprehend what is said and why... And because of this shortness/narrowness, short blurts of nothingness and insults and demeanings follow instead of actually at least trying to explain and reason, to be rational and logical.

Self-perfection of this sort just leads to dietary orthodoxy or dietary orthorexia in the end. Nature is not perfect nor does it ever seek perfection. Perfection is a mere manmade concept, which is wholly unnatural in and of itself.
Not selfperfection, but selfimprovement. There's distinct difference. Selfperfection alone yes leads to orthodoxy/stuckness, but not selfimprovement as there is always some way to make better. But even for selfperfection there is place within selfimprovement; some aspects of living that require perfecting to whatever degree before can move onto next.

About nature and its "perfection" I already said some.
Perfection is not solely humanmade concept, there is actual such aspect/functioning/processing to working of world/nature. There is that which humans have made up (which is nonsense), and that which is real (cannot be described by words we use); of that natural/real perfection can somewhat describe direction toward it, and up to reader whether reader can comprehend or not. World/nature also has like layers of perfection, and all that which lies between layers/points of different perfections, regions of becoming and unbecoming so to say.

But why are you even talking about perfection and assuming everyone regards it same way you do? How about you define what you regard perfection as? So that anyone could immediately see what it means to you, thus what exactly you are talking about (or is another issue that you can't understand what others are talking about because you don't know things as well? simple solution to this is selfimprovement, this very thing you apparently are very much against).

Perfection does exist, it can be achieved, but each aspect of life and living, and functioning of world, has its own levels of perfections. This world, as it at present is, has conditions and factors. Nature, life of nature lies within those factors. Conditions/factors which have their own perfect forms; nature which has its own perfect forms; entities/creatures/organisms that have their own perfect forms -- interchanges and workings between all these that also have their perfect forms and ways. Different perfections clashing, different becomings to perfection clashing. So obviously world is a mess, and manifestation of true perfection seems to be nonexistent and truly impossible.

Anyway, we all do indeed experiment all the time with palaeo concepts, myself included. As regards sprouts, given my lack of success with sprouts, I find it rather difficult to believe that sprouted wheat could be any different, a sort of superfood. It's arbitrary,  like stating that raw 100%  grassfed beef is way better for one's health than raw 100% grassfed lamb.
"Anyway, we all do indeed experiment all the time with palaeo concepts, myself included." -- this means that you are dogma follower. Because you specified phrase "paleo concepts". It means severely limited views and disregarding anything that goes against paleo dogma. I personally am not talking from perspective of some "paleo" dogmatic limitation/garbage, I'm talking about functioning of body and what it needs so that it could function as good as can achieve and ever better if possible -- this is what dieting and health is about when regarding food, not any "paleo" or any other dogmatic cultistic prohibiting garbage. Only body and its needs and how to fulfill those needs, and how to become ever stronger (ever stronger as in improving, similar to what you might regard as "evolution"; self-improvement comes when "evolution" has achieved its goal in enabling organism self aspect, thus self-improvement; point from which onward movement can not occur if you keep yourself subject to only instinctive ways).

Sprouts and superfoods? They are not. They are simply nutritious food, and that's all.
That sprouted wheat "could be any different". This means that you have never even tried on yourself to confirm whether it is or not, that all you do regarding it is simply believe something you've read somewhere and believe what some priest (like Iguana) is telling you.
When you tried sprouts, how was your overall diet, balanced and stable or rather not? And how would you ever know what is balanced and stable if you're merely a follower of something that tells you to regard things some, whatever, way? And how was your nervous system functioning at that time when you tried them, was it lower/weaker/numbed, any issues that could compromise your sensings, or could you actually honestly feel effects of food after consuming them? Because if nervous system functioning is too weak/numbed, can't feel much anything. And considering that you've practiced veganism in your past, how much nervous system damage, thus sensing and also logic-process damage, did you cause to yourself?

And, even when leaving previous aside, it isn't arbitrary. Buckwheat, barley, wheat, and all other grains and seeds have different effects specific to their species/varieties. Just like fish, beef, kangaroo, sheep, chicken, pig, etc are different. Even more so that consistencies of all grains and seeds are differ, more so different when they are sprouting and already synthesizing vitamins and doing all those other sprouting things. Yet more so different as to soils they grew on. More so that some sprouts are not that good, and some sprouts can be eaten safely only during very limited sprouting period.

So really, your claims about seeds/grains/legumes overall, regardless condition they are in, is based on what? Belief and dogma, not reason/logic/mind. Same apparently goes to all of you.

You may not approve of Iguana, fair enough,  but bear in mind he has been rather  longer at this RPD lifestyle than  you, as regards raising chickens, experimentation etc.
Exactly same as some vegans/meat-avoiders attempt to assume some position of authority and that "they are absolutely right" merely because they've practiced those ridiculous ways for decades. You think with Iguana this is any different? How long he has practiced is of no significance other than it shows how long he has been stuck; just like those vegans/meat-avoiders are totally stuck; for decades.
Could as well say that wars and raping and killing, etc -- that these are all something all of us should actively practice, merely because they've been done for thousands of years and more.
Whether someone is right or wrong is not determined by how long someone has practiced that whatever, but whether what he practices and does is right or wrong, and how right and how wrong; and more importantly how big and bad wrongs are attached to rights of those practices, and likewise what rights are attached to wrongs.
Easy to claim things, and apparently very easy to get stuck to claims without actually ever verifying truth regarding them.

Re animals:- bacteria are actually very highly complex organisms, too. So are many animals. Indeed some of their behaviours are far more complex than humans can achieve without technology., such as electroreception. Also, human intelligence also requires access to and use of the primitive animalistic(ie mammalian/reptilian) parts of the brain, to some extent.For example, most of the world's really brilliant geniuses were loners like Tesla, Newton, Archimedes etc.etc., who clearly had unusually well-developed/enhanced frontal lobes but poorly-developed animalistic parts of their brains, thus leading to them becoming incapable of the usual human relationships, and therefore none of them had children.
There isn't anything that cannot be learned. All that those "loners" did is not anything special. All abilities and skills they had can be learned, trained, achieved, and it is very easy to do. But it takes quite some while because nervous system, metabolism, overall body functioning has to be improved -- self-improvement -- for example to train/learn reading speed up to 100 words a second took me 8 months (also depends on difficulty of texts, but I read books regarded as most difficult, so...). This increase in reading speed, not looking words but looking at thoughts behind words, significantly improves thinking capability and speed of thoughts, depth and width and other dimensions. Overall info-processing functions of body are improved.
One day I took a magnet into my hand and it felt weird, realized by moving my other hand around it that I could feel magnetic fields, couldn't do this ever before. My senses are more sensitive/sharper (or is word improved more appropriate?). Also flashes of true 3D vision; picture any (most likely) of you see via your eyes is not 3D, but is same as 2D picture on paper; true "3D" vision is such that you can literally feel shapes-textures-surfaces with eye-sight; to have such vision actively part of self, not 2-3 very short flashes, for that need rather significantly more powerful functioning of nervous system and whole body than I currently have. Many more things not any of you have ever even remotely mentioned of having achieved or being on path toward achieving; all you, any of you, do here is merely rewording same old you've already achieved; totally stuck.
As body improves, deeper issues reveal that need to be corrected so to heal more fully. What nearly all of you are doing is assuming a "normal" position of health and body functioning and instead of making yourself ever better you are keeping yourselves stuck at that specific chosen "normalcy" condition.

I know how to achieve all this and much more, will take very long time, years upon years of work, and will be rewarding beyond my current imagination. And will come to know exactly how to achieve all this and more, which means can likewise easily give advice to self-willing listeners as what to do and what not to do so to be on path of self-realization and self-improvement. Instead of keeping self stuck to some dogma.

Most of you here have no life's purpose, you don't even know what life and living is, and many of you here are imitating being on purposeful/lifeful road. Belief/fanaticism/dogmatism nullifies purpose and living, thus also nullifies self aspect within yourselves, thus self-improvement cannot occur, thus completely stuck, for decades and for entire life-time like in case of some already mentioned.

If cannot see self then cannot see others. Before can see others first need to learn to see self. I can see myself very well, which means I can see you all very well. Blindness regarding self at same means blindness regarding others; blindness regarding others means misinterpretations and mistranslations of others, because you don't see others as they are because you don't see yourself as you are. Simple logic, world is weird.

General Discussion / Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« on: June 24, 2017, 05:17:13 pm »
Personally I don't care for any dogma/rules/scripture/orthodoxy. Instead I care for functioning of nature and world in relation to my own body, as my existence depends on these. I want real truth. I need to know how world and nature truly work, so I could know how I myself truly work. There is only one way to find out what real truth is -- have to actually try things out myself, instead of believing and parroting same things over and over, again and again, year after year, decade after decade, getting not even nowhere and in truth never improving self. Doesn't even measure up to ridiculous what some are doing. I was away from these forums, as Iquana said 2.5 years -- I haven't been wasting all that time, significant selfimprovements instead and a lot, many tens and hundreds of times more to do which will take years and more. What many of you here do, is jabber about same things over and over, there isn't anything new, there is no onward movement. You're not getting anywhere with yourselves, you are stuck -- dogmatic cultistic following does this.

Personally have chickens, next year some meat rabbits and some quails, have bees and need to get more hives. Growing plants (for example simple plant as pumpkin has very powerful effects for internal info-processing functions, which I have observed from experience; can any of you find anything about this from googling "science" articles or anything? no), and next year will begin growing mushroom (reishi, shiitake, lion's mane, some others, as apparently it is very easy to grow them and they have high health values). As a newer thing will begin growing plants that have leaves-flowers-stems-roots of higher health values, that are commonly regarded as medicinal plants. Will try and see how my body will function when making them part of my daily food (smaller amounts as regular food as they are potent).
And most of you here do what? You just jabber about same thing which is eating meat this much or that much, this way or that way, then or then instead; and "wheat is bad", yourself never having even tried eating wheat for months in its correct edible state, so to see what is actual truth about it.
I too regarded wheat as "bad", merely because such ridiculous dogma was only source I was aware I could get information at first, but then eventually I tried for myself to see whether such claims about wheat are of truth or lies.

Whatever the case, I notice that many  long-term RPDers, myself included,  do tend, over time, to adopt many of the Instincto ideas that Iguana advocates. Not all of them necessarily, but a significant proportion.
Iguana is someone who attaches some simple truths to severely wrong directions. Wrong directions that keep one from moving on with their self. Exactly same thing why cults "sell" so well and hoard followers instead of guiding people to become truly selfsufficient, selfaware, selfconscious, and selfimproving; it is easier to follow than to actually do things truly self. As a very good example cults like veganism which has some truth aspects to it, but extremely severe and debilitating wrongs. Or this "Flat Earthism" cult that is most strongly propagated in vegan circles because their logic processes are ruined or gone entirely, also has some very simple truths attached to severe wrongs (in reality isn't mainstream ball nor is flat; there are reason why can seem either of them; main reason being that light is not straight, does not travel, is instant, is energy field similar to magnetic field, there is reaction time between matter and light and this is this so-called "lightspeed"). Or common Christianity and all those other ones, which again have very simple truths attached to severe wrongs that make people stuck.
They all have simple truths that fool those unaware and naive. They impress them, cause wonder in them, state of wonder that makes them stick very strongly to whatever cult they got stuck to. Many different ways to cause this "wonder" in people. For example cannabis is another thing that causes wonder to such naive and unknowing young souls and minds, and then they begin using it far too often and too much, thus literally burning away their consciousness processes thus leaving them solely functioning on memory they had thus far obtained (consciousness which is aspect about info-processing functions that enables one to admit to oneself what one is actually doing and why), thus in a state of utter stuckness.
Iguana does same thing. Simple truths to sell big bad wrongs that get people stuck. He is just another common fanatical cultist priest directing people to get stuck.

Only creatures whose activities and behavior are supposed to be dominated by instincts are those lower than humans. Among humans is supposed to be perhaps 50% instinctual, since humanity is a point of "choosing/proving" (but each of two choices within them also contain different directions, plus combinations-variations...).
The way we can process information, read, make conclusions, think, etc -- none of this is instinctual.
If some creature were to remain purely instinctual, it could and would never reach a state where it can read, write, build things, etc. Why go back?

Basically, the more we turn away from Nature, the worse off we are re health and many other issues.

Incidentally, we ARE animals.So far, scientists have been desperately trying and failing to determine what makes humans different from animals. Suggestions, such as that laughter or tool-use or complex social societies etc. etc. are supposedly unique to humans, have been proven wrong again and again and again.

Personally, I think it`s great to hear  different viewpoints as that challenges dietary orthodoxy etc. But it would help to avoid the (CK-inspired?) notions of self-perfection. Perfection does not exist in Nature/Reality, either.
Never supposed to turn away from nature, but instead are supposed to work ever better with nature, while at same time developing ways that are independent from nature in ways that don't harm nature. Because we all depend on nature. If by our activities we harm nature then we also harm ourselves. But there are ways to become more than what nature alone can enable for us; nature's prime function or goal, is to have its subjects reach a state where they can get true hold over themselves, to begin guiding themselves little by little ever more, which would be best done without harming nature. And there are ways to even improve functioning of nature. Nature is essentially some basic circling/cycling intelligent processes, which has no self aspect to it; intelligence yes, self aspect no; something neutral, that can be used for whatever purposes by anyone who has reached such stage of developemnt, but those who use it shouldn't destroy it as they themselves depend on it. There is this ancient picture depicting a serpent with its own tail in its mouth... if those old/ancient peoples were so dumb and their knowledge so "primitive" then how could they possibly have known this, and knowing this how could they possibly let themselves ruin themselves and that which they themselves depend on? If you knew, would you ruin yourself thus also doom further generations? Conceptions about old and ancient peoples, that are propagated in "science" circles, via media, are biased and wrong; belief gets nowhere but stuck.

Agriculture is not supposed to be about simply taking a plot of land and growing some plants there and then hope for good results. Doesn't work, is not supposed to, quite like that. Is supposed to be about seeing how and why nature works and how nature can be guided and directed toward producing results that we need for our own improvement and betterment. And preferably that nature also benefits.

Regarding us being animals. We are not animals. We do have in us qualities that are same that animals have, but those are under newer qualities. Newest qualities, those that require perfecting, those determine who any creature is. Animals do not have capability for mind as we do, these inner infoenergy processing functions and possibilities. Same thing if you take a seed and put into soil and let it grow to a tree... which is it then? Still a seed? Or a tree? What determines its being, that which it has been thus internally on some level sort of still is, or rather that which it actually is in present moment? Same way about children growing in mothers stomach, and infants, and grown ups...
Animal is like a child, human is like teenager. Then man stage. And then other stages.

If we say we are animals, then we also must say we are bacteria. Obviously not true.
Animals and humans are stages of development, of advancement. Who how far is. Animals are specific general stage. Humans are specific general stage. Man (not male, not masculinity), as in older times people called themselves and was gender neutral term, denotes mindhood; those who have achieved mind, which is stage of development after human. These are things not any of you know, because to find these things out, can't simply follow some "science" articles and notions nor dogma, actually have to truly think things through for oneself (in other words no place for dogmatic fanatical behavior; no place for belief, humans believe, not Men).

Difference between animals and humans, and man, and all other stages, are primarily about info processing functions and not so much about looks. These inner processes and capabilities determine who any of us are. This is according to nature and functioning of this world, we ourselves have not created these infoprocessing functions but are born around them, and after human stage can slowly begin getting own hold over them thus also personally directing how they develop further and turn out to be one day.
Being human and then getting self stuck to animalistic ways, is degeneration/devolution. Is path back to animalhood, should anyone after generations somehow survive such degeneration. It's like a grownup degenerating back to infancy. Why would anyone want to go back to previous stage of development instead of onward and forward?

Animals have "embryo" capabilities and abilities that humans do. They have to have them because nature determines their path of development, which is for them toward human stage, human stage that is supposed to be toward mind stage, etc. They could not "evolutionarily" move on if they did not have in them something that would enable them to develop newer senses. They need something with which they can gradually, slowly step onto newer/higher plane of being -- which is determined by nature and those who have before them achieved mindhood and higher stages, and thus have shaped world and nature, thus also effected in which directions newer generations of organisms and animals will develop with their organs/senses. Very many aspects to it all that need to be considered before any truly true conclusions can be made. What I know are some very general, but true, things; not copy-pasting from nor combining some dogmatic scripture lying in memory.

Selfperfection is necessary, and this requires concentration of nutritional value, thus by necessity agriculture. Those who do not recognize it as necessary and something that must be done and fail to do so during their life, or do it wrong, have failed life and nature.
Perfection does not exist in nature, but nature has perfection as its active direction. If everything stopped changing, conditions remained same, then eventually nature would achieve its own perfect form according to those conditions; but since everything is in constant change then this perfect form cannot be achieved. This direction toward perfection is why organisms adapt to newer conditions if changes haven't been so severe as to kill them out.

General Discussion / Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« on: June 23, 2017, 03:31:24 pm »
Agriculture is necessary so to be able to rise higher than instinctive-animalistic stage development. So to move on, to advance.
Instincts are based on body's adaptations and what body has thus far received into itself and learned about. What body already knows, but not what body does yet not know.
Instinctual eating is for animals and beasts, not humans nor anyone who is capable of creating civilizations.
Body's inner functionings can be raised significantly higher than that which instinctual eating enables and allows. For that have to use mind, to think things through, how and why things work, and so how to make everything more than was before.

Trying to keep ourselves to instincts alone is lowering ourselves to animalistic ways. We are are not animals. We are not supposed to behave and act and eat like animals. We are supposed to behave, act, live like us, as is appropriate to us and to our stage of development.

Animals cannot do better than instincts. Instincts are their "mind", it is who they are. The fact that all of us here can talk about instincts is absolute proof that instinctual way is not appropriate to us. Our way is supposed contain in it instinctual sense also, but is supposed to be dominated by higher info-processing functions than instincts. In our case we have more than instincts, we shouldn't be nor keep ourselves stuck to instincts when we can do better. We should be concentrating nutritional value into food items we eat thus into our own bodies, so to be ourselves ever stronger and clearer and more powerful and likewise to make this world ever better.

Agriculture is necessity after animal/beast stage of development. Animals/beasts don't do it because they can't, because they lack inner info-processing tools for it, thus also lack need for it.
That agriculture has been done wrongly, especially in these modern times, and that food items grown have been treated and eaten wrongly, does not mean agriculture is bad or wrong. It just means practices regarding it have been wrong, not that the entire thing itself is wrong.

General Discussion / Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« on: June 23, 2017, 03:06:36 pm »
I personally tried raw sprouts (100% sprout plus alkaline mineral water diet for something like 4-5 months)near the end of my raw vegan phase, and , for a raw vegan, they do provide some esential missing nutrients, as I found BUT they were largely useless compared to raw meats that I ate, as the latter cleared up my health problems unlike the sprouts. I would concede that sprouts consumption might prolong a raw vegan`s health for a bit longer, but not be a solution for health. This sort of view/personal account seems to be rather common on RVAF diet forums, judging from past endless posts.
Alkaline diet is bad as stomach and intestines require acidic environment. Eating sprouts during alkaline diet practicing and near end (or during) of vegan phase does not and can not give sufficiently correct experiential awareness/knowledge so to make correct conclusions about them, because not eating animal meats disables a lot about nervous system functioning and especially when having not eaten them some longer period, senses are messed up and also logic processes are severely messed up.

Largely useless compared to raw meats that you ate? Raw meats that you began eating after vegan period? And so raw meats that your body craved immensely and was likewise immensely satisfied by receiving into itself so to break apart and use, so finally over too long period debilitating deficiencies began going away. This really is not something that can be used to make impartial, thus correct, conclusions about sprouted grains.

To make correct and true conclusions that are actually based on reality, not some assumptions nor mere beliefs that themselves are also based on further assumptions and beliefs, is to personally eat sprouted grains while other aspects of diet are also sufficiently correct.

None of you have ever actually verified truth about grains by consuming them correctly. All you here base your claims on are flawed opinions and assumptions, and personal experiences that are based on false practices.
You can't get correct conclusions if method you used to arrive at those conclusions is dishonest and false and lacking.

... two and half years after a sudden nummi's plague disappearance, it has surfaced again...
Only "it" here is you, as you do not have a mind. All you do is follow some dogma, like some machine following commands and rules. Dogma that happens to be significantly better than vegan nonsense, but dogma the same. You are a fanatic, thus no rationality about you when it comes to pointing out simple logical facts that many things about your dogma are simply false when compared to actual reality and of course your assumptions and beliefs that you have about yourself.
You have shown before that you completely mistranslate and misinterpret me and my saying, trying to force and attach your delusions to what I say, and trying to claim that your delusions are what I meant. Try to keep yourself from doing that again. Try to be straightforward and honest, especially to yourself, advisably (but decades of you being stuck in your severely dogmatic and fanatic ways... have done their job...).

Keep away your insults, and there can not occur any issues. Because you won't be creating any.

General Discussion / Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« on: June 23, 2017, 04:38:48 am »
I've made sprouted wheat bread many times.
Bread means cooked with high temperatures. High temperature means starches-sugars are ruined, along other constituents and balances that are ruined. Starches and sugars that due to too high temperature have energetic value lowered significantly, making body require many times more oxygen and minerals-vitamins to metabolize them. Affects nervous system quite badly (thus info processing functions, thinking, logic, feelings, emotions, all of it) as energetic influence lowers electrical-energetic functioning of nervous system and whole body. A big bad mess, simply because too high temperature ruins food severely, not just nutrients but also energetically.
Even starches in cooked potatoes have same effect as white sugar. Due to heat treatment that ruins.
This ruined starch and ruined sugar. These cause addictive like condition in body. They are also easy meal for yeast/candida while body has trouble using such ruined nutrients.

Another that causes addiction-like condition is when unsprouted, they have antinutrients that associate minerals, thus mineral deficiencies in body, thus body asking for more food. When sprouted there is no such issue.

General Discussion / Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« on: June 23, 2017, 04:26:33 am »
Reading your post, it looks like you and I will have to agree to disagree on a lot of things.
No, simply I know and am aware better than you. There are things I know and am aware that you are not. Things I've done that you have not. There isn't anything "to agree to disagree on". Wrong is wrong. There are no two correct answers.

Have you yourself ever eaten sprouted wheat for months, then not for months, then again? So to get real personal experience, thus also real knowledge and awareness as to truth about wheat, and then comparing this to research you've done and whatever claims are made about wheat? Or is everything you "know" merely something someone else has said before, and you essentially merely copy-pasting same opinions without actually ever yourself having verified truth of any of what you are saying, and those who before you have said, about wheat?

Conclusions based only on research, but no actual personal experience in comparison to that research, are worth nothing at best. Research alone does not, can not, suffice to get real truth.

It is easy to say that you've done a lot of research about something, by so doing asserting some tone of authority, and so credulity follows much more easily for readers of less awareness and knowledge. But conclusions based of falsities and fallacies, are simply wrong; research done when materials themselves omit many relevant facts, because creators of those materials themselves knew and were aware of too little and were biased -- conclusions based on such materials alone are wrong. They cannot be right. Comparing materials with materials, but not materials with something unbiased/neutral like actually trying it yourself, leads nowhere good.

Personally, I know that many things are said about many things. But how do I myself verify for myself with true certainty as to what is truth? Mere copy-pasting of opinions of others without myself ever having tested anything regarding whatever it is, is playing dumb. I don't like playing dumb, so I don't do it. If I don't have true personal experience then how am I truly supposed to know whether the said is true or not? How is anyone supposed to know for certain if they lack true personal experience regarding the said?

Truth regarding wheat is easy to test for oneself. Only takes 6-9 months.
Wheat is not bad, wheat is good, very good. I advise to eat it, sprouted of course. Also buckwheat (soaking for 8 hours suffices, has to be raw of course, not heat-treated) and barley (just soaked is enough; cleanses entire body quite well, easily noticed about skin as makes skin smoother-softer-nicer).

General Discussion / Re: The Addictive Origins of Agriculture
« on: June 23, 2017, 02:17:42 am »
There is no addictive component to wheat when wheat is sprouted. Soaking 24 hours, after that 2-3 days to let it grow small white roots and this is best time to eat it taste wise and otherwise.

What creates this "addiction" about wheat is when it is consumed unsprouted, as are almost all commercial products and "eco" products made -- from unsprouted wheat. Regardless whether is mass-produced thus deficient of many minerals-vitamins and full of toxins, or grown on rich and clean soil. Wheat has to be sprouted before consumption (or other natural processes, like fermentations).
Having eaten sprouted wheat for months every day, then for 2-3 months of not eating any wheat, and then again eating it. There is no addictive component when sprouted. In fact sprouted wheat has positive effects on functioning of body, it like gives sharpness/strength/surety/balance/stability, not much but some and its quality is distinctive to wheat, if sensitive enough then can feel it and its deeper qualities.

Wheat itself, if grown on rich and unpolluted soils and is sprouted before consumption, is highly nutritious. Far more nutritious than raw animal fat.
What gives food its nutritional value, any food, is not proteins-fats-carbs-sugars-starches because these are very easy to get enough of, but are vitamins and minerals and other such micro nutrients because official daily requirements are on average about 5 times too low (varies from vitamin-mineral to vitamin-mineral, some have their official requirements many tens of times too low). How much vitamins-mirnals has fat? And wheat grains? Difference is immense and sharply in favor of wheat. If to choose what to eat by nutritional richness alone, between raw fat and sprouted wheat, then sprouted wheat should be preferred due to its significantly higher nutritional value.
Not that raw fat isn't needed, it is needed, but if to maximize body's functioning in all regards then have to choose and eat that which is of highest nutritional value without overeating (fats-proteins-carbs) and also without causing deficiencies in any regard (due having to see to it that deficiencies do not occur, fat must also be eaten, brain and solar plexus, nervous system overall, does need it).

Mentality/bias of grains being cause of many modern failures, is essentially completely false.
Grain causes harm only when it is unsprouted (or when unfermented, as that can also neutralize its debilitating effects). Ancient peoples fermented and sprouted grains, also soaked them in ash water to get natural toxins out of it. Old and ancient peoples knew of negative effects of wheat and processed them accordingly -- they knew about food many tens if not even hundreds of times better than any of us here and now. Of course there are stupid peoples in all eras, but are also smart ones, so best not to look at stupid ones and identify everyone in that era as stupid. Smart ones don't pollute and live in harmony with nature, which means they don't leave much signs of themselves ever having existed to newer generations of peoples, while stupid ones are very loud and expansive and so leave many signs and ruins behind because they failed. Failures can go a long way before they truly die out, can leave a lot of crap for newer peoples to work out and prove themselves successful.

Off Topic / Re: Earth's shape?
« on: November 07, 2015, 05:07:15 pm »
Isn't it odd how of all the topics, this always gets the strongest opposition and aggression from "ball-earthers"? Why such inability to take this calmly with a sober mind, like adults? The only occasions such behavior is also present is with religious fanatics. Religious fanatics such as the bible worshippers, and vegans, also capitalists, patriots, nationalists, most scientists, etc. There is one common thing among all of them, which is that they take as true something that in reality is not true.
Truth is hard if life is based on lies, and so they lash out to try to prevent getting hurt. Instead of at least admitting that they might be wrong, not necessarily that they are wrong but at least that they might be.

I was rather specific and pointed out to not give negative comments and to actually think the material through. Well, if you cannot even understand this little bit, then of course all the rest will very likely evade you.
I also said: "Some points might be false, but that doesn't mean all of them are; because all of them definitely are not false, especially some of the most direct and important ones."

If anyone intends to reply, then do answer the questions and do take into consideration what has been said. I am not interested in any "pissing contents" nor ignoring what has been said and the not answering of asked questions that are relevant, and the not explaining oneself. - Elementary things like this should not even be said, but since I know and see and have seen mentalities of people, I see what is coming in general following something that is labeled as "controversial", and so make some fore-suggestions (best to heed these suggestions if you don't want to make yourself look like an idiot).
I know very well what a "pissing contest" looks like, from beginning to finish. And you, not me, have already begun. But I'm not interested in such literal nonsense, and if you continue the same path, then piss alone.
Hopefully you can get past the said without making yourselves angry and aggressive and thus lashing out... After all, truth is hard if life is based on lies.

Quote from: cherimoya_kid
Then how does GPS work? It uses satellites.
GPS is man-made. GPS is not real land, not real world. It is programmable and manipulable. Ever seen animations? GPS is of same essence. The world does not follow GPS.

Satellites? Did you even read the material? And if you did, did you at least try to think it over with an unbiased mind (as I suggested one should do, instead of giving negative comments based on nothing)? The material explains enough about satellites, and many other things.
It's best if instead of saying "this is so" without providing an explanation, you instead do explain why so.

If you don't bother thinking it over and if you don't bother checking the validity of your own opinions and what you think you know, then why say anything at all? This kind of behavior is exactly what I suggested not to do.

Quote from: JeuneKoq
I've got bad news for you Nummi: Your belief that the planet is flat is a "parroting" of an intellectual authority you consider more highly than the other, for whatever reason. And the view you have of the world is anything but unbiased. As it is for everyone of us, to some degree.
You know what you would find 100% impossible to do? The pointing out of the spot where I said I believe the planet is flat.
You might as well explain what you mean by the word "believe" and "belief", as these words are used so lighthandedly without even knowing what they truly mean and can mean. Do you know?

Did you read/watch-listen the material? Assuming you did, then did you also think it through? Of course you did not, for if you had you would not have given such a response. Or you did it with biased perspectives.
Why give a reply if, apparently, all you are interested in, regarding this topic, is merely the transmission of your indoctrination and your own beliefs the truth nor origin of you do not know, while such responses were specifically not asked for?
Consider the simple truth that all this "Earth is a sphere", I got the same "education" regarding it all as I grew up. So why would one want to begin questioning it? What are the reasons for beginning to question something that seemingly is so "solid"?

The world has its forms. These forms can be described and explained in many different ways, many different words and sentences and other word-constructs and even ways other than words. There are many different angles and perspective and contexts, of which all are true if they don't distort truth. Unbiased means that whatever way you choose to describe the world, that the forms the world has remain intact and true in description.
Biased is when you are describing the world to be of some forms that it is not. When the picture the description forms does not correspond to the world.
Which means I don't care if you give the description your own "slant", your own personal tone, as long as it remains in correspondence to what the world really is like (to whatever extent it is known). Not to mention different descriptions that are deemed to be true, yet are in obvious contradiction.

Quote from: JeuneKoq
The only way a person could know for sure if the world was flat or round is if he went in space, or traveled around the globe. I read Mike Horn's "Lattitude zero", where he tells his amazing journey around the earth by foot and by sailling. He followed the equator within a 20km margin North and South. He explains in the book that he was able to return to the same beach he first left, some 40,000km ago. Now, is "Lattitude Zero" some sort of illluminati propaganda aimed at the adventure book crowd? I doubt it  l) But who knows....
These also have explanations in the material.

Off Topic / Earth's shape?
« on: November 07, 2015, 03:08:54 am »
A ball or flat?
Both same material. First video (about 2 hours), second in written form.

Considering majority of mentalities and "opinions" on this: Before you say anything, and especially if what you intend to say is negative, like "total nonsense" or "bullshit" or anything like that. Best you watch the video or read the book first (both same material, of which some points might be false, but that doesn't mean all of them are; because all of them definitely are not false, especially some of the most direct and important ones).
Then think it all (enough of it) over with an unbiased mind, advisably relying mostly on info originating from personal senses and experiences and mental unbiased reasoning, focusing on that which you personally can with certainty verify for yourself (as opposed to parroting-repeating what someone or something you might or might not regard as authority consciously or subconsciously, dictates-decides what and how you must think and say without yourself actually understanding anything you are thus thinking and saying). Because there are many things Earth being a ball and rotating fast would simply make impossible to be, yet are; and/or would make this "Earth" to be different than it is.

Hot Topics / Re: What do you guys think of Michael Greger, MD
« on: November 01, 2015, 02:49:39 pm »
Aronia berries are not astringent and bitter, I have 4 bushes in my own yard. They are somewhat sweet and nice tasting, perhaps a little sour. Though climate and soil and weather effect it a little, somewhat depends on the year.
It is probably called "chokeberry" because of the quality to get easily stuck in the throat if eaten many berries at once, nothing to do with taste. Quality that is mostly removed with freezing, and maybe with drying.

A related berry that definitely is quite (very) astringent and bitter is "rowan".
Another related berry grows on the tree "Swedish Whitebeam". Quite farinaceous and lightly sweet.

Rowan and aronia and swedish whitebeam berries look similar.

General Discussion / Re: Depression
« on: October 26, 2015, 02:43:05 pm »
Minerals also absorb through skin, so a reason swimming can make feel good. Clean and pure natural water also has good molecular structure.
Is there wifi and other EM radiation at your home? These are harmful waves-frequencies thus harm the body, in turn increasing the need for minerals and good water.

Everything has an "etheric" source or "counterpart", and that etheric part of the world can become conditioned. Conditioned with "tones" of bad mood and bad health.
There's also the energies and molecules the body radiates and excretes. Bad mood and bad health have their corresponding energies and molecules, which effect the "matter" at your home, they give your home the "stench" of low health and illness.
So if you've experienced bad health and bad mood more than good health and good mood... But if you've suddenly made changes, changes big enough, thus increasing your health and mood quickly. But your home hasn't changed as quickly. So there's a huge difference you can't but notice emotionally-mentally, which is translated as "this is not a good place for me; I don't want to be here". Then imagine living for long periods in places your body nor your conscious-subconscious does not like, and gives hints of this to you for example in bad mood.
Point being your home might not correspond to your present state of being or your present direction of life, but to a state of your past. Cleaning, freshening, airing the home, perhaps even use good scents you like (I dried some mint about two months ago, to store some for later use... but the scent was nice, very nice), and other good things.
If your environment reflects illness (or any state other than the one you're after), then it's harder to acquire good health.

Other things too... Like "What do I want to do with my life?" "What do I want my life to be like?" "What world do I want to live in?" "How can I get where I want?" "Who am I?"

General Discussion / Re: Depression
« on: October 25, 2015, 02:55:22 pm »
Magnesium chloride or epsom salt. Both are magnesium salts. These are "easy" ways.
But also greens and herbs and other foods higher in magnesium (which depends on the soils they were grown, unless from the sea).
More minerals in general.

One symptom of long-term magnesium deficiency is depression.
There are many ways to become deficient, not only magnesium intake related. Excess sugar (white sugar, refined sugar) depletes magnesium; harmed gut and candida/yeast; a poisoned and toxin-filled body needs more to get rid of those toxins and heal the body; etc. And of course other deficiencies, and balance issues, etc., can also contribute.

But magnesium is one thing to surely check and try out, the sooner the better. Mg is responsible for hundreds of functions in the body, has to have enough of it, or something somewhere in the body will suffer. Daily Mg requirement at minimum is about 0.8 grams (not the 0.4 modern medicine claims); when trying to heal the body, the body's need for Mg can be even 2 grams a day, depending on many things.

Health / Re: Low energy, ED, underweight, candida... A raw newbie
« on: October 22, 2015, 02:35:56 am »
Garlic and cloves for extra help against candida? Though if issues with gut, best not overdo these, as they can irritate (maybe 3 days in a row and then skip another 3?). And if candida issue is big, the candida die-off releases toxins which can make the head ache, cause tummy issues and fatigue, and can make the skin bad. Too much candida-killing foods can this way cause issues, though temporary, but potentially nasty and quite uncomfortable.
Cayenne and ginger every day might be a bit too much for the stomach and gut. Maybe skip 3 days after every 3 days, or something like that? These and garlic and cloves best taken on the same days, as they have similar effects.

"Undigestible" carbohydrates like resistant starch, inulin, etc., to help feed beneficial gut bacteria who in turn produce from them fatty acids your gut needs for proper functioning. Raw root vegetables.
Simple potato starch the easiest. If potato starch then best to start with small amounts and go gradually bigger over a week or two, otherwise can cause big gas and other discomfort in the beginning. After that gut flora should adjust to manage the increased amount of resistant starch, etc., without issues.

The adverse effects of eating beef and fish (and perhaps suet as well?) might be that at the moment they are a bit too much for your body to handle well. And so...
Eggs. Eggs are very easy to digest. Meat, suet (and fish) are harder to digest and so burden the digestive tract more. You could try a few days to a week eating eggs instead of meat and suet. This would mean for the body less time spent on digestion and more spent on healing the digestive tract and thus easier on the whole body. And then start putting back meat and suet.

Maybe extra magnesium? Magnesium chloride or epsom salt. Internally in water solution the quickest, half a teaspoon to a teaspoon in water solution over a day but not all at once, and preferably between meals. Because it is far far too easy to be deficient of it when having a "conventional" diet background and still searching for health.
Magnesium perhaps together with some baking soda (bicarbonate a good thing), and a touch of sea salt for better taste?

Sea vegetables for iodine?

Berries, like lingonberries and cranberries and blueberries? Wild ones. And black currants? There are many other berries as well.
Cocoa. Easiest would be cocoa powder. Definitely not chocolates (because of what is put into them, unless you can get toxin free ones).
They are good in helping the body clean itself. Vitamins and antioxidants and whatever else.

Stinging nettle. Preferably ground, and make some tea or just put into water and eat/drink it. It is rather high in minerals and vitamins.
And other green stuff like this.

And drink plenty of water, but between meals so as to not dilute stomach contents too much. Water essential for many things, including carrying out toxins.

Too much honey can raise blood sugar too high, which then can feed candida. Otherwise very good.

Those cooked starches like rice turn quickly into sugar, the kind candida loves. Plus the white rice is almost empty of nutrients and minerals. Nearly same applies to cooked potatoes, but they contain more nutrients and minerals.
You could try sprouted wheat or some other sprouted grains or seeds and see how they work? When sprouted, most of the anti-nutrients are broken apart, the locked nutrients and minerals freed, meaning nutritive value is increased quite a bit and the infamous negative effects reduced to nearly zero(?).

Hot Topics / Re: What do you guys think of Michael Greger, MD
« on: October 20, 2015, 02:35:48 pm »
You said you had bowel issues that didn't seem to go away, but after eating more fiber they did go away. Fiber is directly indigestible. But indirectly, the gut bacteria, produce vital fatty acids from it. Indigestible carbohydrates like fiber, resistant starch, inulin, and others.

To some people minimal amount of animal products could be 300-500 grams of meat-organs-fat a day. Some up to 1kg a day, some 100-300grams a day or less.
People differ, bodies differ, metabolisms differ - and so needs differ. (A physically more active body also needs more animal products than one that is less active.) "Minimal" is determined by any individuals' body, not by anyone or anything else. Especially not by anyone who says things without seeing the true picture-meaning the words form and without understanding how those pictures-meanings fit into reality or not, and without first even seeing the "cornerstones" of our reality - the working "pattern" of our world.

Generally speaking, too low animal product consumption leaves the brain and nervous system with functioning issues, up to severe damage depending on how long the deficiencies occur, and up to potential lethalities.
But eating too much animal products is not good either.

That you start eating something less or more, does not necessarily mean the higher amount of one was the issue, or any other possibilities. You eat something more, but notice issues; then eat the first less but something else more, in the beginning no issues because have abundance of the first, but over a period issues start occurring again. Then what? Switch back? Maybe the problem was not the bigger amount of the first, but the too low amount of the second?
What seems to be the problem, might not always be the problem.

Best not to follow anyone or anyone's sayings, and instead find yourself, listen to your own body and learn to read and understand your own body. Others' sayings and thoughts can be of help when finding oneself, but they should not be just followed like some religion.

Hot Topics / Re: The opposition.
« on: October 15, 2015, 03:37:17 am »
The path of technology VS the path of nature.

The path of technology. You create ways and systems and design foods that are "superior" to that which already exist (but are they really superior if our Earth is so poisoned to begin with? How about healing Earth first to see the truth?). Eventually you design it all so whole that the system drives itself, where it has different organisms growing that include different nutrients and substances, where new ones create themselves, and you need ways to recognize what is what so you could eat the right thing instead of the wrong thing. Oh wait... that's nature...


Why try to use the destruction of one to end up creating the very same thing the creation of which demanded the destruction of? I'd call that insane... and for some reason there are some people who have no problem with it, or are simply blind... or worse...

Being or existence is energy. Information is the difference between different energies, but information is itself also energy. There can be no nonexistence or non-being, but there can be and is information of it. With "being" there is immediately the information of "being" which hints at "non-being". Since energy is being and information is also energy, then the information "non-being" is energy that is in direct opposition and contradiction with itself. And this contradicting energy is one of the most founding energies there is.
So... essentially, there is energy of insanity. Energy that "wants" to not be energy, but can't and thus destroys and recreates itself without stop.

Of course, those two fundamental energies would create further differences, further energies, etc. Endless possibilities.

How well does this explain what is going on on Earth? We already have nature... technology would end up recreating nature of some sort.

What energies are dominating you? I am fairly certain you all can choose. So what kind of "energy" do you want to live, what kind of world do you want to live in, and what actions correspond and lead to what you want?
There are many more options, but:
Do you want to destroy so you could recreate it in some form?
Or would you rather take the existing one and improve it? But of course after you've discovered the potential of the existing one, because otherwise in your ignorance you could instead end up harming and destroying the existing one which might be far superior than what you can even imagine.

Instead of cooking you might want to try a food drier/dehydrator. Put the pieces of meat there, let them "dry" a little with the low heat, and then eat them. They don't become cooked because it's not hot enough, but the raw flavor is definitely enhanced. I've noticed refrigerated meat doesn't taste as good as room temperature meat, and noticed that room temperature meat doesn't taste as good as warmed (but not cooked) meat.

Health / Re: Bras are not paleo. Tips for modest bra less clothing.
« on: August 22, 2015, 01:51:57 pm »
By wearing bras the muscles-tissues that are supposed to hold up breasts naturally will remain undeveloped and become atrophied?
Similar as with wearing shoes with raised heels over years, and once trying to go barefoot or "minimalist", there will be some pain and discomfort for a while in the muscles below calves (and other muscles that never could work right before), until they catch up.

Also, wrong dieting causes weakness of muscles-tissues and excess weight. How much are breasts and related muscles-tissues affected by this? Weaker muscles-tissues, but heavier breasts...

Health / Re: liver spots, moles
« on: August 12, 2015, 11:41:38 pm »
Overeating possibly.
How much do you eat a day?
The more active you are the more you'll need, but if you're not as active as the amount eaten suggests then you're overeating.

I'm ~192cm, ~80kg. Presently on average about 5 eggs a day, 60g beef fat, 150g beef meat, 20g liver, 20g honey, lots of fresh berries (sometimes too much... black currants are really good, there's something very great about them), some greens and other stuff. Don't know exact amounts as I don't count, but roughly so.
If I did less exercise, and less picking berries and stuff, I'd need less food.

Considering it is possible to take conscious control of body's organs-processes and guide them. Hair might need this conscious control to stop or guide it.

Shaving beard and cutting hair when body is naturally supposed to have them, is detrimental to health. Have noticed it on myself, the longer they are the better I feel, subtle differences but still there. And I look much better with long hair and beard than without.
Hair also has sensory functions. The longer the hair the more subtle changes, that hair can receive, can be noticed. With more hair and longer hair will be naturally able to perceive more and more easily. Same can be achieved with less, but that requires a more refined mind and body in other ways. And there's more ways than one to have the same end effect/result.

Cutting hair when hair is natural is like fighting against oneself. Like suppressing who one is, forcing oneself to be in a smaller box than one can fit into. Lessening freedom, restricting and limiting. Forcing onto oneself what one is not, thus not being oneself.
But cutting hair can be used to improve other paths of perception with more ease or emphasis.

Men are raised to know that cutting hair and shaving is the right thing to do. They grow up never thinking whether they actually like it or not, how it really feels or not. They generally do it merely because they see others doing it, or because they were raised to do it. I did it, until I thought things through and found out I have never liked shaving or cutting hair. It's like following rules that have never really been accepted; going against own will and wishes, consciously or subconsciously.

I'm not a hairless guy and I like hair, so no point imitating being one without. I'd rather be myself than try to be someone I am not.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: scar tissue
« on: August 02, 2015, 12:40:02 am »
Stretched out skin?

General Discussion / Re: Lets Discuss Raw Eggs
« on: July 26, 2015, 03:46:44 pm »
Presently about 6 eggs a day (on average). Have my own chickens, since end of may, 13 of them.
Their diet: sprouted wheat, beef fat, beef liver, fish, coldpressed hemp seed leftovers (the "cake"), a little hemp seed oil, greens-grass, bugs-worms, snails-slugs, some ground egg shells.

Yolks seem to go gradually yellower and bigger. First ones were quite light and small.

Good eggs, taste good. Nutritious and easy to digest.
Found out that eggs can be whisked to foamy mass using honey as sweetener... Like a rawist's dessert... Though the airy-bubbly mass in the stomach can be uncomfortable till the air isn't expelled.

Why they are so good is because a whole new animal is supposed to grow from them. Which means the eggs need to contain a lot of different nutrients, essentially everything a body needs.

Nummi, your stance on this matter is quite hard to catch: do you believe being gay is an illness?
A disorder, a malformation. Just like a child due to some issues would grow to have bones not right. Or any physical malformation that is caused by nutrient deficiencies, toxins, nutrient imbalance, stress. All natural in the sense that deficiencies and harmful influences cause issues.

I see why some people would think so, but the fact is that even animals who live in a pristine, pollution-free environment, eating the most optimal diet, will still display homosexual behavior, partially or totally.
Optimal diet? They might live in the wild. But they (carnivores, omnivores) have to catch food. And they have competition catching food. There will be those who don't get exactly as much as they need. This will cause deficiencies, thus health issues and stress, even end in death.

Wild animals are also much more "primal" and instinctive in their behavior and actions. They cannot think over and find the reasons and causes why they behave and act as they do. With them instincts and base emotions rule. One way or another their "needs" will be carried out (at least keeping organs functioning), whether there will be a resulting child or not. Some also use these acts to show dominance over others.

Saying "animals exhibit same qualities" is not enough. Reasons and causes are relevant, not the acts themselves.

We are humans, they are wild animals. There are similarities but also significant differences. We have our peculiar mind and ability to review ourselves and reasons we are as we are, and consciously correct ourselves. Correct ourselves according to perceived ideals, to get closer and closer to them, whichever those ideals are. They can't do this.

I think the number of "totally" gay animals may have to do with the size of the group they live in. The more individuals there is, the less breeders are needed, the more gays there will be. If a previously gay animal ends up being the last one of his sex among different-sex beings, chances are he will become heterosexual through some sort of hormonal shift for the sake of the survival of his specie.
The more animals there are the more food they will collectively need. Obviously the strongest or smartest get the best food. The rest will suffer, some might even starve. It's not paradise for them, they don't have everything they need at any given moment.

If a gay turns to be "the last" of his sex, then that means he'll get all the best food. Thus body will heal whatever was wrong. Then hormones and all will be functioning correctly. But if is the last of his sex... what other choice does he have but to turn straight? He's the only male left... and a harem of females.
With humans it's more complex than that. We have our minds and emotions. We can get mentally or emotionally stuck even if nutritionally everything's fine. Not to mention the possibility that the damage done during pregnancy is permanent (though nothing's really permanent, there's always a way, just might not know it or might not have access to it).

In a wolf pack, all non-alpha members are gay, and in a state of hormonal numbness, until the Alpha can be challenged. At that point they start producing hormones such as testosterone in higher levels again, and if one wolf (usually the beta) succeeds in taking the place of the alpha male, it becomes heterosexual. That's how they keep from spending all their time killing each other over leadership.

When two young lions who recently left their old pack stumble upon one another, they will form a couple and take part in homosexual acts to strengthen their bond and ensure better protection of one another, until the day they find an old lion to challenge for its lionesses.
Yes, not humans.

And interesting that you would concentrate on wild animals, but not talk about humans when this discussion began about humans.

And interesting you would mention only "carnivorous" animals.
Then there are apes, who are omnivorous.
But how about herbivorous animals?
They all have different food sources and different dietary needs. Carnivorous ones have the toughest life in this regard; they have to hunt, or starve and die.

Homosexuality is as much a disorder as being left-handed. It's a survival strategy for the individual, the group, and the specie.
It can be, but doesn't mean it always is. In case of humans, it is not.
Wild animals need such control, otherwise they'd run out of food to eat and starve to death, as they'd proliferate without stop, thus possibly starve to extinction. So this "gay" function has naturally developed, when population gets too high and nutrition goes down.

We humans don't need gayness. Because we have our peculiar minds. We aren't subject to instincts and base emotions without much self-control like wild animals are. We have the possibility to create for ourselves the conditions where we don't have to suffer the effects of under-nutrition. Male-male and female-female is never as satisfying as male-female. Male-female is whole, as we are not an androgynous species.
To say we humans need it when our population is ridiculously high and getting higher, even with the presence of gays... We are not wild animals, difference is primarily our mind. The reasons that apply to them do not apply to us, because we have better ways, ways more appropriate to our species and our peculiarities.

edit: reading over, there's so many places to add more details, more perspectives... can see well why telepathy would be necessary for species more advanced than us... Can't say much without saying much. Thoughts are short and simple and precise and fast, but to describe them in words...
Or better, more advanced, language.

Again that anti-gay bullshit.
The US government (and some other governments of this world) are not asking people to become gay. They are asking people to be tolerant of gays.

There are still people in America and Europe who are being verbally abused, cast out, assaulted or killed for the only reason of being gay. It happened not so long ago in Belgium. Promoting the acceptance of gays is therefor legitimate, and imperative if one's objective is to prevent hate crimes from happening some more.

As I've explained many times now, homosexuality, total or partial (bi), is natural, and is practiced by many animals. Especially the ones with great social intelligence like us.

Also, you don't become full-on gay because somebody tells you "being gay is great!". It just doesn't work like that.
Not anti-gay, but separative. Showing people that there are only two options, which of course is not true at all. Another thing that separates people into groups that become angry and violent at each other. Since they'll be occupied with this "gay-straight" nonsense, their senses are diverted from important issues, like "why?". Leaving the "bad guys" do to their evil business in peace and unhindered.

Being malformed is also natural. Caused by vitamin-mineral-nutrient deficiencies, toxins, other sources of stress and harm and damage. Humans aren't the only ones subject to such influences, thus humans aren't the only ones who'll exhibit the qualities. But from a survival point of view, in the wild at least, such individuals' line ends with them. Genetically they should all be fine, but their brains are formed wrong in some areas due to deficiencies and harmful influences while in the womb.

But the above isn't the only way to behave and act "gay". There are more possibilities.
It is possible to brainwash someone into acting full-on-gay without the individual being aware of it, coupled with a bad diet. Or indoctrinate one, coupled with a bad diet. So, this "gay/anti-gay" promotion stuff does have an effect both ways, however small or big.

Another thing they are doing with promoting gay stuff and such, is that they are normalizing illness/disorder, thus normalizing not finding causes and reasons, thus normalizing people not thinking and searching for truth, thus keeping people obedient and easily controllable sheep.

It's rather sad that in this world we humans live in, with our potential, we still suffer from such harm that some are "born gay" to various extents.
Certainly nothing to laugh over, so not exactly fitting to this thread, more like the exact opposite of this thread...
"Give us a cry!" thread material...

Health / Re: How much should you really be eating?
« on: June 06, 2015, 02:09:57 pm »
For magnesium MgCl2 (magnesium chloride). Very effective and cheap. Is use it.

For a healthy diet... One is following a given plan written down, the other is having the "plan" as an inherent part of yourself so you know yourself what, when, and why. To get it as a part of yourself you need experience and you need to think those experiences through, to understand what and why is occurring.

A diet that works for me, at the moment, is eating twice a day (rarely once, even more rarely thrice).
*In the morning 30-90 minutes after waking I drink a glass of water, then another glass of water with some salt mix solution (which includes MgCl2).
*Then another 30 so minutes and I eat. The morning meal. I begin with about half a glass of lacto-fermented buckwheat mixed with garlic and perhaps some apple vinegar, usually I let it digest a little (this to ensure candida won't have a chance, as I've had issues with it... it's a nasty creature). Some sprouted buckwheat or lacto-fermented buckwheat, sometimes potato starch for gut bacteria, sometimes some greens, sometimes some berries. Then usually fish (200-400g; 0.44-0.88lb), sometimes some liver, or if no fish then beef. Then fat (30-50g; 1.06-1.76oz).
*In between I drink just water. 30-60 minutes before the evening meal I take again some salt mix solution, with water.
*The evening meal. Usually I begin with sprouted or lacto-fermented buckwheat. Again sometimes berries, greens. Then fish or beef (200-400g; 0.44-0.88lb), sometimes liver. Then fat (again 30-50g; 1.06-1.76oz).
*60-120 mintues after the last meal I usually take drink salt solution with extra water.

Sometimes I skip the salt mix. Sometimes I take extra.
I also take dried sea vegetables for iodine. Sometimes ground egg shells.
Fermented and dried cocoa beans are good.
Sometimes some kidney. Sometimes some heart.
Sometimes I skip eating fat, sometimes I skip other things. Sometimes I wait a little, 30-60 minutes, after eating plant matter, before starting with animal, sometimes I don't wait. Sometimes I eat animal first.
Right now there are no vegetables nor fruits, otherwise I'd be eating those too. Right now I eat more greens as stuff's green and grows.
In about 20 days my young chickens will begin laying eggs, so then there'll be eggs.
Also flaxseed oil, olive oil, coconut oil, though now I have hempseed oil (which I can get quite cheap 3€/l).
Grains are also okay to eat, but they have to be lacto-fermented or sprouted.

It takes at least about 2 years to get your diet right. The goal is not having a "written out" plan that you follow religiously, but to have it all come inherently, even "instinctly". It needs to become a part of who you are. Not a closed part, but open and subject to change if necessary.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk