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 - Dorothy

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 89
General Discussion / Re: where to find truly raw nuts?
« on: November 10, 2012, 02:30:14 am »
Gathering nuts from the trees is much harder than picking them up from the ground. Also, if you are a hunter gatherer you couldn't put them in plastic to keep them dry when storing them for future eating. I bet hunter gatherers preferred the older nuts just like most animals will prefer the healthier versions of their seeds. My chickens will always go for the sprouted seeds first for instance. A hunter gatherer would be more in touch with which nuts were the healthiest and in what stage of growth I would imagine.

Barefoot - after soaking a raw almond for 12 hours you can see just the tiniest bit of a root starting to come out one of the ends like a tiny bulge. This is already growth, sprouting. A sunflower will only take a couple of hours before you can see it growing. You don't have to wait until it has a stalk and leaves to know that it is a sprout. I like to call anything that has just started the process of growing a sprout and the seeds that have gotten to the stalk and leaf stage as the young greens of the plant. Eating the seeds/plants at different stages of growth afford a different nutrient profile. In my view, as soon as those enzyme inhibitors and other anti-nutrients are released into the water I'm good to go - and you would be surprised at how fast that can happen. Pretty miraculous to be a part of/witness I think. I also like tasting the plants at all stages of their growth and let my own tastes and desires dictate at what stage I most like that particular seed.

General Discussion / Re: Can we do without vegetables/greens?
« on: November 09, 2012, 05:49:57 am »
Bio - you did an experiment for just ONE day and made such sweeping conclusions.

One day could just be placebo or the mucous could be other than detox. I'm going to let you give it some time and then I would very much like to hear more. 

Ok - I think one of the things is that we are not understanding is each other's terminology. There is a difference between sexuality and love. One can love deeply without having sexual energy. Sexual energies are generated from the first chakra and second chakras located in the lower part of the body according to some forms of thought that have more of a history of talking about energies than do our Western languages. Higher and lower chakras don't necessarily mean better or worse - just generate from lower and higher parts of the body generally.

You asked me what love means - I asked you what partnership means. You did ask me a very personal question  - what I would do if someone was in true mutual love with me or my husband and I answered it personally.

You seem to be addressing more than general love, but sexual energies and therefore the term "in love with". I tried to answer. I realize what I'm talking about is a radically different way of looking at things so I'm sorry if I'm not doing a good job in expressing myself. There aren't really terms in our culture for what I am referring to so go outside of my culture for words.

I'm going to try to answer your question again in a way that you might understand better. If you choose your partner(s) that you are going to focus your sexual energies on not just on your transient sexual desires and energies radiating from the sexual centers (to most in this culture associated with genitalia) and also the power and materialism associated with those centers but primarily upon desires generally associated with the upper chakras (I will try to find you a description on line of that terminology) the same problems that you mentioned above do not occur.

Love is a general term for deep appreciation, connection, caring etc. to me in English that does not necessarily include sexuality. Sexuality has to do with lower chakra energies whereas love can exist with energies that permeate generally from the upper energetic spheres of the body/mind.

People who are awake in certain ways can choose how they respond sexually without shutting down love. Many of us have choices. The term "falling" in love in a way my culture's way of describing how out of control we are over our sexual energies - both giving and taking.  One can choose not to engage with sexual energies with people that you love and to focus sexual energies on only certain people. I'm not saying that it has to be one, but even one is a lot to handle and fairly miraculous for someone raised in our limited society as it is.

We all make choices in our modern world and give up certain things in order to have others as mature beings. For instance you might decide not to eat sweets in order to have the less immediate satisfaction of having improved health and strength. You might decide that even though each moment is not thrilling and some even very difficult if not painful to embark on a course of study that in the long run you know could give you deeper rewards.

Falling into who you engage your sexuality with versus choosing consciously from different criteria than most cultures deem as valuable can by-pass the fleetingness and boredom and frustration that GCB was referring to.

Nobody is just going to pop into either mine or my husband's life. We create our worlds and our relationships. Inviting love is one thing, inviting sexuality is another.

I'm agreeing with GCB about the problem, I'm just not sure that his solution is really a solution. It's could so easily just become more of the same problem as the solution seems to me to be generated from within the same paradigm as the problem.

My choice of the word “boring” was probably inappropriate and led you to focus on that single word… Of course, there are exceptions and you seem to be one of them. I never assumed that “every monogamous relationship is doomed to be boring”, I just notice that in most cases, closed binary relationships finally end up in failure. The failure is not always apparent, as there are a lot of couples who have all the external appearance of being successful, but in which the partners experience frustration, often unconsciously. They seem to be going along perfectly well, but their love has become a kind of companionship deprived of the essential, while both are thinking it’s the normal evolution of a couple as we’ve been led to believe by our brilliant leading scholars. :P

Now let me focus on your words “open” as in your sentence “it's really pretty hard to be bored if you are with another person that is open as well”. I totally agree if "open" means open to others and open to the love, however it happens.

What would you do if someone happen to be in true, mutual love with you or with your husband? Would you reject that person, causing her and your husband or yourself an excruciating pain leading both to wish they would die?  >:

What I am saying is that the "inevitable" feeling of insufficiency, lack, boredom, restlessness, lack of vibrancy, frustration, lack of passion, being in what many consider the loss of the early romantic hormones that are so desired - whatever you want to call it - is NOT necessarily because in this society is monogamous, heterosexual, or doesn't condone sexuality with children - but it is because in our society we make our decisions about our partners based upon desires that are bound to lead to such experiences.

You ask what being in love means? I ask what does choosing your partner mean? I have loved many people and some have loved me, but I choose to open certain chakras only to my husband because he is the one that I choose to have that kind of relationship with. My opening my lower chakras to someone else could be entertaining as it would be entertaining to him to do so with others - but unless we BOTH wanted to open that same energy to a third person in equal degree it would cause a riff in our energies together which we both hold as the most valuable thing our lives.

My husband has never been jealous of me showing love from my heart and upper chakras towards others, including men, because he knows that I have chosen him knowing that he is the BEST for me and he trusts my ability to gauge my own energies. I have had close male friends who I loved very much and who wished they could have a sexual relationship with me if I were available, but I wasn't. They didn't turn down the love of friendship I offered because I wouldn't have sex with them.

It sounds like what you are talking about is truly a fixation on genitalia - not on love. I hold myself free and my husband free to open up to others with tremendous love. I however hold certain energies for him alone as he does with me which allows us to have a deepening of relationship which opens up a certain kind of experience based upon a level of trust and undispersed energies that would be diluted and confused if opened up generally with others.

The only way I could "fall in love" (I am thinking you mean with sexual desire) with another person is if I allowed that person into relationship with me in a particular way. If I were to do that, then I would be giving up the very sacred and deep intimacy that I have with my husband to allow someone else in. If someone else chooses to "fall in love" with me in a way that they need/want sexual interaction with me and would not accept just my heart centered love then they would be trying to force their way in a place that is not welcome and be acting from in my view an aggressive and hostile place. I would not have to turn away their love however - just the "genitalia" and the holding of the primary place my husband has in my life.

I think it is our societies fixation with the lower chakras, the genitalia, chemistry, hormones, physical attractiveness and other lower chakra concerns that makes us choose our mates based upon those and therefore makes us get bored, frustrated - whatever you want to call it.

When I say open I meant open hearts, open minds, open psychically, open spiritually, open creatively. If all that is open is the lower chakras then we think we have to get everything from our partners, including all the love, all the feelings of belonging, oneness, losing oneself as an individual - all those things that we like to get from others when we first meet them and "fall in love" that tend to fade. When inviting a partner based upon higher chakra criteria, you don't have to worry about closing off your heart to others and you don't have to worry about getting bored or frustrated.

I think few if any people in our society make the choice of partner in this way Iguana - let alone more than one. I'm just saying that perhaps the thing to change isn't just involving more and more people with genitalia and continuing to look further and further outside oneself for lower chakra satisfaction.

I know that is very important to you GS. That was not my most important consideration for this lifetime.

Remembering my lifetimes has given me quite a unique perspective. I've had more children and grandchildren than I could ever count. But I've never had a relationship like I've had with my husband - or even one like I have with myself - before. I made my choices on new ground this time.

I do realize that the raising of children can change relationships and even the choice of a relationship. I just wanted to say that the "fact" that people will get bored with one another is not an absolute given. It depends on priorities and the individuals involved and where they make their choices from. The choices based by itself upon sex and chemistry, karma, child-rearing considerations, security, family, old habits and even to fill what is missing in ourselves is one way and valid, and yes, can (and usually does) lead to boredom - especially when the person ends up being not the fantasy you projected onto them - but when you make your choice primarily from a different sphere - boredom is simply not an issue. Btw, I am not saying that this precludes children.

If you want someone else to make you into a happy person, to give you peace and security, to fill your life with excitement, to fire up your endorphins all the time and provide for everything else that you think you want materially and always perform in ways you expect then you want someone else to do for you what you can't do for yourself and you will never be able to see them for who they are instead of your projection of what you want of them. That truly is BORING! Finding someone that is interesting/creative and then assisting them in being the most of who and what they are and delighting in them, and them doing the same with you, becoming closer and closer through that process - can't be boring. Two people projecting their own desires and wants onto each other - horribly boring - and yes - bringing in a new person to project onto will relieve that boredom - that is until that gets boring too. If you multiply that over lifetimes the perpetual cycles of boredom eventually motivates to seek an alternative. I'm putting out there that there is an alternative besides adding more and more people to the mix for quick, fleeting, novelty. Once you get really truly interested in one interesting person as themselves rather than what you want of them - that is a LOT! Just the whole you with that one real other and the infinite possibilities can be almost too much.   

After some time, a couple has entirely shared it’s stock of energy/info and the relationship gradually looses its initial interest. A kind of routine remains but the passionate love we all long for has gone.

Wow, that's a pretty glum view and seems to me like a depiction of people that don't embrace life fully to begin with. I have found that when I engage fully with my Universe on all levels I'm constantly changing and quite unpredictable. If a person embraces their creativity and is intelligent how can they be bored with themselves or their partner? My husband's mind constantly fascinates me. His creativity is delightful. The only way for me to get bored is to stop my own growth in being able to more fully understand him. Slowly over the years I have learned to begin to see in my own mind the movies, jokes, skits and cartoons he makes up in his mind. If I get bored, it's only because I am incapable of learning new ways of understanding and appreciating him. I think most people get bored with others because they are bored with themselves and look for new things to titillate them from the outside to make up for their own inability to engage. As long as a person is always looking for the kind of initial romance and "passion" they will never get to explore the deeper regions of intimacy. For some, that will mean that they would have to take full responsibility and/or explore parts of themselves that they don't want to - so they look for a distraction. If one's consciousness is open, it's really pretty hard to be bored if you are with another person that is open as well - and especially someone who is creative. If you are with a boring person that is closed, well, yeah, that's boring - but I wouldn't assume that every monogamous relationship is doomed to be boring just because you have not seen or experienced one that is not. The longer it goes on and the deeper it goes - actually - the more interesting it becomes.

Off Topic / Re: Proof of Precognition?
« on: November 08, 2012, 05:20:44 am »
You are a true medium!  8)  :)

That would be true if I could control it maybe -- and then I could make money with it and convince Phil or work for the district attorney like Allison Dubois. ;)  (for those not in the US there's a tv program based on a real person called "Medium")

Phil - thanks for that video. I'm in the process of watching it - it's pretty long - but interesting. I knew I could count on your intelligent and logical mind! :D

General Discussion / Re: where to find truely raw nuts?
« on: November 08, 2012, 05:03:22 am »
I never soaked the nuts I eat, even if I told Tyler that I will try. It seems kind of artificial to me. I would be amazed if hunter-gatherers soak them. Chimps don't soak them and are not bothered by the anti-nutrients they are said to contain. I think every nutrient becomes an anti-nutrient if we eat too much of it. 

Just once I soaked some old peanuts because someone told me they become like fresh again after soaking, and it was true.

That's part of the reason why soaking is good in general - because most nuts we buy are not fresh.

When you find a seed out in the wild it is actually quite likely that it has been soaked by rain and/or dew so the hunter gatherers didn't really have to go through the trouble.

Also, hunter gatherers lived a lifestyle that is generally healthier and didn't have generations messing up their digestion eating processed foods. Soaking the nuts just feels right to me in instinctively (which I realize is different than instincto)  :)

General Discussion / Re: Can we do without vegetables/greens?
« on: November 07, 2012, 02:37:37 am »
Bio - the theory you stated above is plausible as are most theories. The problem is that there have been no studies to verify it just like there are no studies on most diets. The best you can do is test it on yourself and see. I eat very little protein - I do much better on less - so not everyone here eats lots of protein. I don't know my blood type.

You could be reacting to dairy or the raw meat or a host of other things. It does seem like in your situation with your suppositions that the most direct avenue to experiment with your theories would be to go back to eating cooked meat for a period keeping everything as it is and see if all your symptoms go away.

If they do - then I will pick your brains in depth on blood types etc. ;D

General Discussion / Re: Can we do without vegetables/greens?
« on: November 07, 2012, 12:11:58 am »
The dark circles under the eyes and back pain in the center does point to possible kidney issues popping up. It's interesting that you ate just as much cooked meat before and didn't have the problem, but then when eating it raw did! Besides adding the kefir to your milk repertoire, was that the only change?

I'd like to point out something that I think many don't take into account. When you are starting a change in diet sometimes there can be coincidences. Some reactions can take a while to build up and if you are changing things over weeks time instead of many months or years the change in what is being eaten can be mistakenly taken as the cause when it is actually something that has been building from another source or is a coincidence or an infection or detox symptom.

So, I caution you to be careful with assumptions regarding causality when you have been experimenting for such a short time. That being said, your assumption atm is the most likely correct one because of the correspondence - but it is wise to keep an open mind and do your experimenting on yourself with the understanding that your experimentation is by it's nature flawed with only one test subject for such a short period of time.

I have assumptions that I have made regarding generally the superiority of raw foods to cooked ones from my own experiences and what I have heard reported here generally so if it were me, I think before trying cooked meat again what I would do first is just cut down the amount of meat being eaten as a whole especially when you don't have access to the amount of fats and organs that so many here have reported to be important when balancing the proteins. I know for myself that I need to eat an inordinate amount of fat to balance muscle meats and do well at all with them. If the nature of the cooked meats and how it interacts with your system works at a certain amount of meat, it does not necessarily mean that the same amount of raw meat will necessarily react in the same way and therefore it might be a question of amount or degree rather than returning to cooked. It might be better to eat just a small amount of raw meat with your limited fat and organs than to return to cooked meat.... but it is my guess, and it is certainly just a guess... that eating less raw meat, more fat with your butter (and maybe you can get some avocados etc. for more fats) might be all that is necessary and worth a shot. Since you are on the primal diet do you also drink fresh juices and eat one fruit a day? How about eggs? How do those seem to effect you?


I think so, but she disagreed with him about the importance of homosexuality. Seems she didn’t have any homosexual drive, contrary to him who can have both. I also don’t necessarily agree with him on this point: I don’t know, and I hope he’s wrong on that because I never had any homosexual drive either. 

May I impose on your generosity once again Iguana and ask you to give a quick summary of what GCB thinks the importance of homosexuality is?

One of the problems with people making theories about what is important for everyone and what is natural is that they often judge it by what they deem as natural for themselves - which can complicate the matter a great deal in our society if they are attracted to the same sex and children.

General Discussion / Re: where to find truely raw nuts?
« on: November 06, 2012, 10:02:39 pm »
One thing about nuts - there is a company specifically for nuts here in Austin and the owner explained to me that organic when it comes to nuts is a real waste of money for the consumer because it makes little difference with old large trees of such a crop. It's just a way for the seller to get more money from you  - so I would save your money on the organic label and just go with the plain, non-organic choice.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Pole fitness
« on: November 06, 2012, 09:56:51 pm »
Ha ha Saber - people are commenting on your facial expression. A dancer can be concentrating so hard on those almost impossible body moves that they can forget to monitor what their faces are doing. I saw the grimaces as you having to keep extreme concentration on holding your body in such unnatural positions that need so much strength so that naturally it made you contract your face in such a manner but such facial contractions can be interpreted as pain and elicit emotional responses you don't want from your audience - which is something that I'd imagine you would learn to control more over time with practice. A calm sultry look on the face or a smile might be something you could add to your practice sessions - especially during the most intense moves. What you did above seemed almost impossible to me let alone smiling through it - but if you could do the above amazing feats, I bet you could add a smile too.  :D  Btw - I think one of the moves I liked the most in the performance was that crouching down into a squat looking at the pole almost like prey and then springing onto it like a cat. That was really cool.  8) 

General Discussion / Re: Can we do without vegetables/greens?
« on: November 06, 2012, 09:46:30 pm »
Being a raw paleo site Bio - I think most people here would suggest getting rid of the dairy instead and increasing your raw fat and organ intake. So many people have trouble with dairy that it seems like it would be the most likely candidate for the acne. I'm gathering that your meat is all grass-fed right? I might have missed it but I didn't catch you talking about your fat and/or organ meat intake. Just that could effect how your body handles the muscle meat I would think.

The blood type diet is one I didn't try, but I can't help why you would want to try that before trying raw paleo? 

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Pole fitness
« on: November 06, 2012, 02:26:21 pm »
That was a BEAUTIFUL dance performance Saber!

It's hard to believe that you have been doing it such a short time. Wasn't it just months ago that you started? I would have suspected that it would usually take a good many years to learn to do what you did there.
Did you make up the choreography yourself?

General Discussion / Re: Adrenals and raw fish?
« on: November 06, 2012, 02:15:42 pm »
There are couple of herbs that my adrenals seem to just love - licorice root and cinammon. Just thought I'd throw that out there for you.

Btw - real nice to see you again Joe! :D

Off Topic / Re: Proof of Precognition?
« on: November 06, 2012, 11:00:26 am »
If you have enough such experiences and work with dreams enough and do shamanic work enough you will know which dreams are indicating something about to happen - at least that is usually the case at this point with me. What you say is true Iguana that if you don't let the situation occur then you never have proof of it being an accurate indicator. For instance a couple of nights ago I had a dream that was clearly precognition to me where something large fell down and just missed Brian and I was told something that sounded like "trust trusts" - which made no sense to me but I knew that soon something about trusts was about to come and that there would be a dangerous situation that we could avoid. Today we went to a big wood yard for the first time and Brian wanted to go out and look at the wood but the man kept on trying to persuade him not to as it was such big place where people just didn't do that and then he started describing it and talked about the place where the trusses were made. I've never heard of a truss before. It made me stop dead in my tracks and I knew that it was what the dream was referring to. For me, the moment he said trusses I knew for sure that it was what my unconscious was talking about and that was enough of a coming forth of what was expected in and of itself so when we drove around I asked Brian to stop at the trusses in order to "trust" the trusses - in order to prevent what might otherwise have occurred. 

Once you've experienced hundreds if not thousands of your dreams becoming reality, you no longer have to test. Many of them don't matter when they come or when you hear about them in the news so there is no need to try to prevent - so it leaves you open to act upon with surety the ones that are being brought forth in order to help you to prevent something.

Then there were the times when it was first starting where I tried to prevent things but did not understand my dreams well enough to be successful. An example would be of a dream I had when I first met Brian that I was going to be mugged and killed with either a bullet to either my head or my heart within two weeks time. I had never been mugged before so figured it was because I had moved in the city. I started meditating really hard trying to change things in myself to prevent it but felt like I simply couldn't change enough. I even met with an insurance agent to possibly buy life insurance. I decided to go stay out with my parents instead where it was "safe" - but I made a mistake that I would never make at this point - I missed important clues where the robbery was going to take place in the dream. Two weeks later I was robbed with a gun to my head out in the safe suburbs. The friend I was with almost got us killed resisting - but because of my dream and intuition and all the meditation before I was able to prevent myself from getting shot. I wasn't able to prevent the mugging, but I did prevent the shooting. When the police officer picked me up he looked at me and said to me, "Forgive me for saying this, but you do not look like someone that was just robbed at gunpoint." I said, "Two weeks ago I had a dream that I was going to be shot in the head within two weeks and I'm still alive. I'm relieved - happy."

If I had the same dream today - none of it would have ever had a chance of happening because I would have known not to have gone to my parents home - which was the setting for the dream and other quite obvious (to me now) indicators.

When you have just ONE such powerful experience - you no longer doubt. If you've had as many as I've had - they just become tools that you use often - like your phone. If a hunter gatherer saw you use a phone and someone telling you in advance something is on its way to you it would seem like magic. It's not magic, it's just a phone system I have with my unconscious that other people might not have or haven't turned on yet.   

Health / Re: I keep losing weight!
« on: November 06, 2012, 02:54:41 am »

I know these things listed above are not good,and I don't eat them, just know my reaction to them.

Ah ok - figured that might be the case - but thought I'd throw in my little wrap about coffee and hypoglycemia anyway just in case - ya know - for the masses. :)

Off Topic / Re: Proof of Precognition?
« on: November 06, 2012, 02:49:14 am »

So how do you know that they exist, if they didn't tell you?

If someone reports what upcoming lottery numbers will be, that will be far more convincing than recollections of past lottery drawings. I'm not commenting on whether people's recollections or reports are correct or not, just sharing what would be more convincing.

If someone trusts me - does that mean I should tell others?

Of course if someone reports future lottery numbers publicly that would be convincing - it would also probably get them kidnapped and/or killed.

What I was saying is that usually precognition does not follow specific rules or guidelines and you can't force it - it just pops up and sometimes in ways that only one experience of it is enough to prove it to you. Anything that I tell you is not going to convince you (and SHOULDN'T convince you) until you are with a person that you trust where it happens or it happens to you. What I do suggest is that an open mind to the possibility would be in order since you do not know if or if not such experiences others report are true or not until if and when something does occur that convinces you. Afterall, it is reported by so many people that insisting that it is not true because you have not seen sufficient evidence yourself would indicate a very closed mind imho and if there is one thing I think you have Phil - it is an open and logical mind. 

Off Topic / Re: Metasexuality (from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?")
« on: November 06, 2012, 01:10:03 am »
I've got to say that the tangent that this topic has taken makes little sense to me. How does any of this detract from the wisdom of eating with natural appetite-driven wisdom, as GCB wrote about in his instinctotherapie writings?

It seems to me Eve that GCB is implying is that if we eat instincto that we can heal on other levels including societally. It is interesting, may or may not be true, may or may not be taken completely separately from his instincto dietary ideas and may add rather than detract for some. It seems to me to be a psychological extrapolation of his physiological experiments.

It's highly controversial of course just like Freud was at his time and still is.

To me it's almost like the reverse of if the psychoanalysts were to ask what kind of diet might heal neurosis and the complexes outlined in psychoanalysis individually and societally?

It's a very interesting subject and I think you make a great point that one never has to go there to still get the benefits of the diet discoveries.

GS - I would submit that dismissing GCB and what actually happened and his ideology that led to his actions by saying he did his time would be doing him a possible disservice because in the US saying that someone did their time for pedophilia does not apply. A pedophile has to disclose their crime, report where they live and have that follow them throughout their lives in a way that no other crime comes close to. Also, doing one's time implies that he accepts guilt and that he did something that was wrong societally and morally and I don't believe according to what Iguana said that GCB believes that to be true.

I would like to ask Iguana if GCB's wife held to the same philosophy? How did she interpret and feel about all that happened? Do you know?

General Discussion / Re: Can we do without vegetables/greens?
« on: November 06, 2012, 12:51:00 am »
I second this recommendation. When someone asks for a book recommendation focused on diet, this is the book I recommend to them. More balanced than typical Paleo Diet books from Loren Cordain, less commercialized than Mark Sisson's Primal Blueprint, and more current than Nourishing Traditions. We're organizing a health conference in my area in June of 2013, and Nora Gedgaudas accepted our invitation and will be speaking. Sally Fallon will be here too, as will a couple other high-profile speakers.

Eric, where are you in the US just in case someone catches this and wants to attend?

Thanks for the book review! I read over the contents and I'm betting that most of it is old hat to me so I put a hold on a copy at my library. There are a couple of chapters, like the one on the nervous system that could hold something of interest. I was also thinking that it might be quite a good introductory book to suggest to others - but I was wondering how she approached raw versus cooked? Is it a cooked paleo kind of book or a raw paleo kind of book?

I got Nourishing Traditions out the library and copied the few things that related to raw. Perhaps worth the entire book for those few recipes and ideas but a photocopy of a few pages was really I needed.

I love libraries! :D


Yes off-topic - but very interesting - at least to me. ;) Thanks for being willing.

Off Topic / Re: Proof of Precognition?
« on: November 04, 2012, 11:47:41 pm »
People are often mistaken and lie almost constantly - so you are right to question Phil - especially if you do not have the experiences for yourself. It's the sign of a healthy mind.

Phil, you don't think I would actually name people here do you?

Ok, here's an example since it's already in print, but I can't remember the book and my books are in storage. I read a book on the stock market - It might have been Market Masters, when I find it again I will tell you, but I can't remember now it's been so long - but one thing I still remember decades later is that the author, as stodgy as you can get stock market dude monitoring trading, noticed that one person was able to predict the commodity futures in a way that was virtually impossible. He tracked the little old man down and asked him what his secret was. The unassuming old one said that God was telling him what to buy and when to sell. The impossibly masterful trading stopped when the old man died not that long afterwards.

Now, in the book the author was laughing at this - saying that there were ALL sorts of ways to get good information.

The old man could have been lying, the author could be lying, maybe it was actually aliens talking to the old man. ;)

None-the-less - it was a good story and no one really knows who knows things and from whence the information comes because I assure you, if that man hadn't died he would have probably been killed by others trying to get to him. No one in their right mind would come forth and tell you that they go to casinos or play the ponies using their sixth sense even if they truly did! 

There are also all sorts of different kinds of precognition, some of them that are not controllable so not really testable, but that for the person that experiences them reliable sources of information when they do happen. I assure you, my husband has learned not to walk down a street or go some place when I stop in my tracks and say I refuse to go or that I don't want him to go. He's always seeing the little things and some times the big things that I talk about that come to pass - but making money out of it is a whole other ball of wax. It's not something that I consciously control. It just happens when it happens if it happens.

Interesting. Thank you so very much for taking the time to explain it!
I can see how such ideas could so easily be mis-interpreted in our society where incest and pedophilia are more taboo than eating raw meat or eating live bugs. I can see his point about how we have become obsessed about genitalia. I would describe it as sex and most human relationships (and our fears regarding them) as having become based upon the lower chakras only (pulling in language from other systems of thought).

I'm not sure that it would only be based upon diet though. As such social beings we do adapt to our society as a whole and what is taught to us and do get patterned. I'm not sure that just changing one's diet would be enough to turn the force of our entire society out of us - not that he claimed that of course. And of course, like GCB found out - it doesn't mean the society on a whole will tolerate it - even without neolithic foods.

Is there evidence that hunter-gatherer societies generally had more loving relationships I wonder? I think personally that the k'ung did - but I haven't made a broader study of other hunter gatherer societies in terms of their psychology. I'm not really convinced that it was just the food, but I bet it does have a tremendous influence.

Hot Topics / Re: More 'cooking gave us big brains' bullshit
« on: November 04, 2012, 10:06:15 pm »
Why does this person think it is easier to find and cook enough vegetable matter to gain calories than kill something standing in front of you at the watering hole or scavenging other carnivores kills, scooping up some bugs, picking up eggs etc.? That kind of food is so much more dense. Supermarkets are what make finding produce easier - not meat.

This stuff about the supermarket makes no logical sense. I'm so confused!

This person obviously has NEVER tried to live off of just foraging for greens and berries in the wild - cooked or not cooked. It would take all day non-stop searching and eating to get enough calories. It's only if our guts fermented tough greens leaves to get the protein from the bacteria - like gorillas' do - that greens could possibly give us enough calories and protein. .

Does she really think we have the same intestinal tracts as gorillas?  I hate it when a "scientist" makes such ridiculous extrapolations.

I've talked to lots of raw vegans who have tried to live off of foraging and failed. You'd expel all the energy you get by trying to find the next meal - whether you cooked it or not. That's why raw vegans eat constantly - like her gorillas do, but a human can't eat those leaves and twigs off the trees - so would have a much harder time finding the kinds of greens and fruits and nuts we would be able to eat with our GI tracts and that's why there has never been a vegan hunter gatherer society. Besides, our brains necessitate more fat than cooking those fruits and veggies would give us - and this thing about nuts and seeds - huh? We can't eat them raw? We need to process them to get the fat we need for our brains? Huh? Hunter gatherers didn't have oil presses! Does she have any idea how hard it is to get most seeds out their shells!? It is her supermarket and modern machinery that has made nuts and seeds and oils available - not meat! 

Does she think that cooking got us more protein and fat? That also makes no sense. You still have to kill that animal next to you at the watering hole before cooking it or harder still find the produce and seeds.

We are NOT gorillas! Why does she think we used to be? What makes her think that we ever had that kind of GI tract?

Is she trying to say that we used to eat leaves like gorillas all day and that cooking magically made us able to kill animals or that it magically made us able to find more fruits and vegetables and seeds?

I think you are right Tyler and Cheri - she makes no sense, there is no logic. I don't know if that means she is stupid. It is clear thought that she has an agenda through which she sees things and ignores everything that obviously contradicts it.

I think more likely she like most people have assumed that we can't eat meat raw so it was cooking that opened up this resource to us and now will not admit that mistake. If it is as simple as that, then just invite her here and she will learn how that premise is totally off base.

She seems like someone that doesn't understand anything more than what she can find in a restaurant or in supermaket and doesn't even know about sashimi so doesn't even understand sushi. I bet she has never gardened, fished, never experienced cuisines of varying nations and has never eaten an insect like gorillas do.

She is basing her "scientific" studies on her own extremely narrow experience. She needs to broaden her experience. Tell her to come here!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 89
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk