/pt/ – Petrarchan

>>7540 I like the outside and inside distinction you make. I guess it aligns with the classic folk wisdom, "you are what you eat". >Orthorexia, the (pathological) fixation on the right way to eat, is an expression of the belief that there is a right way to be in relation to the world and that it can be attained by managing what you let in from the world. I would be inclined to agree with this, or affirm that this concept exists at all, if it weren't for the fact that everyone is vying for the "correct" interpretation of diet. If pathological just means something like extreme, like how anorexia is caloric restriction taking to such a degree that it causes harm to the self, then sure. But everyone claims that the other diet is doing some sort of harm to the dieter, or to the world. Vegans say the meat industry manufactures untold suffering. Carnivores claim vegetables will sap your libido, or something like that. And so on. >Most diets are a play to control the uncontrollable, imo. Uncontrollable being something like death? Like the claim that the Mediterranean diet will allow you to live the longest? I agree with that, I think. Especially because food is so close to the agent, you literally put it inside of yourself and absorb it, I think it can take on kind of a magical potency.

>But nobody can prescribe anything except maxims and phrases as "truths" to the dietary science. I have used diet to regulate and even correct various ailments (to the contrary of >>7540's claim) and what I learned over 15+ years was that each diet must not only be tailored to the individual, but must also change dynamically over time. The individual must be receptive and sensitive to their own body and must make corrections to their diet on the fly based on circumstance and how their body functions. "Diets" are too broad and inflexible to be as truly useful as medicine as they *can* be. They are a legacy of our system where a group of superiors (doctors et al) pass down directions to the rest of us who obediently follow the instructions. It is my belief that in the future this mode of instruction will be seen as outdated as each individual becomes their own fully-realized, agentic master.

>>7583 I agree with you. The pathology comes from the idea that there is a proper way to eat for one individual or population that has to be uncover; while, like you put it, it's a dynamic process; the diet will change overtime. >>7541 On that outside/inside distinction, Nothomb wrote The Character of Rain, who starts by describing a human being as a long tube, from mouth to rectum (the French title is clearer: Métaphysique des tubes). The tube, despite being inside, is still an outside surface.

>>7583 I agree with you. The pathology comes from the idea that there is a proper way to eat for one individual or population that has to be uncover; while, like you put it, it's a dynamic process; the diet will change overtime. >>7541 On that outside/inside distinction, Nothomb wrote The Character of Rain, who starts by describing a human being as a long tube, from mouth to rectum (the French title is clearer: Métaphysique des tubes). The tube, despite being inside, is still an outside surface.

>>7590 I'm only kind of interested in Peat, and more in the spectacle of his fanatics and his own extremism, but I think probably it's because he answers many different questions about the human body in one fell swoop. His theory about energy circulation being the main component behind health (I know that's not totally right) feels intuitively correct and appeals to a certain segment of health overthinkers (ie, lets you feel like you're doing more than you are). I think also his condemnation of very popular food groups and approval of food groups that are tasty also appeal to people. The former allows you a satisfaction in esotericism, the latter gives you your yummy food. Asceticism without giving up anything. What book did you read, and was it worth it?

>>7617 Do you think satisfying a craving is actually bad?

>>7710 >The tube, despite being inside, is still an outside surface. Interesting, this somewhat destroys an outside/inside dichotomy, if I understand it correctly. So, everything "outside" is actually really apart of the "inside" of the human, too. I'm also interested in this uncovering vs dynamicism distinction. Because the idea of uncovering seems very crucial to the way we interpret science (ie, everything in the world can be known, we just do not have the tools or theories yet), dynamicism is basically incompatible. Maybe that is overwrought, but it makes sense in my experience. If you bring something to a doctor which doesn't align with the textbook, he thinks that you're the one who is wrong, either in your recollection or in your experience altogether. Actually, I was just thinking of something similar the other day, in a related but different topic. A family member of mine has started acupuncture for chronic pain, after attempting virtually everything under the Western approved methods (except opiates), in a desperate bid for relief. I did some mild scrolling, not very seriously, to see what the medical TM field thinks of the practice. Obviously, the evaluation is it is placebo at best, but I found the attitudes of the medical zealots very interesting. For instance, this website: sciencebasedmedicine.org/ which basically exists as a megaphone for people to voice their grievances with alternative medicine. I don't have the specific articles, but basically the attitude was, "acupuncture does not follow a scientific basis, does not work in our studies, and if it does work, it is in your head, not in reality." I find that attitude, that your experience is false, very interesting. There is no room at all for dynamicism. Everyone's experience must follow the same path for objective validity. I don't really have an opinion on acupuncture as such, but the intensity that it receives from the official TM medical professionals I think reveals something regarding the ideology they hold.

>>7783 In a world of manufactured cravings, it might be.

>>7783 No, but I have become quite fat by satisfying cravings. This, I think, is bad. Better to satisfy with nutrient-dense stuff in lower calories.

>>7790 That's fair. Sometimes, I think the game of trying to figure out authentic desires versus manufactured is an impossible one. Or at least I'm unsure what the touchstone is to tell them apart. >>7793 I guess cravings can mean different things. I can usually be satisfied by a little bit to quench some sort of whim or desire, but some people require large quantities to feel that same "satisfaction". If you get fat, then yeah, it's bad to indulge.

>>7790 That's fair. Sometimes, I think the game of trying to figure out authentic desires versus manufactured is an impossible one. Or at least I'm unsure what the touchstone is to tell them apart. >>7793 I guess cravings can mean different things. I can usually be satisfied by a little bit to quench some sort of whim or desire, but some people require large quantities to feel that same "satisfaction". If you get fat, then yeah, it's bad to indulge.

>>7794 simple whatever stands the test of time and changing contexts is an authentic one

>>8670 I'm also in the same boat. Was a vegetarian for many years and eventually had to give in at the stern advice of a doctor. I think it's a common sentiment and you seeing it concentrated on RSP is a coincidence. Certainly nowadays that place is full of suburban-Americans and their lamentable palate and is not much of a barometer for anything besides that

>>8678 > eventually had to give in at the stern advice of a doctor. for what reason? just curious. i know veg/vegans are pretty prone to various deficiencies, but i thought they were easy to avoid at least through supplementation. >suburban-Americans and their lamentable palate and is not much of a barometer for anything besides that i think suburban-americans, as you put it, are a barometer for overt hypocrisy, especially in regards to consumption. and the "vegetarian sympathy but meat eating" schema is a kind of hypocrisy. it's probably true though that most people will come to it as a conclusion, and relatively few are willing to make hard choices regarding consumption. i don't much believe in coincidences though.

>>8680 I had "dangerously low cholesterol", which at the time completely escaped me as a thing that could actually happen to someone, since we are bombarded lifelong with warnings of the dangers of high cholesterol. This was something that could only be remedied by animal products and not something vegetable-derived like coconut oil. In fact, when I returned to eating small amounts of meat, my overall health did improve -- my chronic conditions lessened and I had more energy again. I am treading on thin ice here for two reasons, one the vegans who will insist on dueling to the death over every detail of diet and biology, and from the mainstream "skeptic" understanding of medicine which will mark me as a looney retard for venturing outside of conventional medical understanding (the doctor was a naturopath, but besides that, any talk of dietary manipulation already marks you as questionable for many). That, plus the fact that I obviously still believe in the principles behind why I went vegetarian in the first place, mean I very rarely talk about this topic in depth. I do not eat meat most days but as I'm sure you're aware, in the Diet Discourse this counts for nil as it is an all-or-nothing game for many.

>>8681 >but as I'm sure you're aware, in the Diet Discourse this counts for nil as it is an all-or-nothing game for many. yes, that's part of the reason i find the topic interesting. militancy and adaption of any and all information for use as "evidence" or even "proof" of one's position being the most obvious, tenable, or even the sole way to be a healthy/moral human is all encompassing. and if you're not with your opponent, you're against them. or at least that's the perception taken. i haven't heard of a case like yours specifically, but i don't find it surprising, as it doesn't seem uncommon for some to go to veg/veganism on ethical principle and find it to be incompatible with one's health for whatever reason and then be ejected by the culture. >any talk of dietary manipulation already marks you as questionable for many i find this interesting because i both agree with it and find it to be somewhat untrue. dietary changes and fads and even optimization are extremely widespread, both in popular media and "higher" scientific or philosophical literature, that i think it is a pretty ubiquitous topic. however, i also find it to be a topic where people hold very tightly to their own set belief or intuition and won't budge, no matter what is brought before them. something that fascinated me in reading veganist and carnist rabble arguments is that usage of human teeth as evidence for the supremacy of one or the other's ideology. for instance, the vegan might say, our molars are obviously adapted for eating primarily plants, ergo meat is unnatural and a criminal, immoral thing brought into the human life. and the carnist says, no, our canines are obviously for eating meat, and plants are unnatural, immoral things, simply just starvation food, and meat is the nutrient dense basis for brain development. it is the wrapping around of the entire evolutionary world to the dietary argument. it's insane to me, but extremely common, so common that nobody sees anything wrong with it. there's something intriguingly Rousseauean about it. >>8685 what exactly stands the test of time and changing contexts?

>>8681 >but as I'm sure you're aware, in the Diet Discourse this counts for nil as it is an all-or-nothing game for many. yes, that's part of the reason i find the topic interesting. militancy and adaption of any and all information for use as "evidence" or even "proof" of one's position being the most obvious, tenable, or even the sole way to be a healthy/moral human is all encompassing. and if you're not with your opponent, you're against them. or at least that's the perception taken. i haven't heard of a case like yours specifically, but i don't find it surprising, as it doesn't seem uncommon for some to go to veg/veganism on ethical principle and find it to be incompatible with one's health for whatever reason and then be ejected by the culture. >any talk of dietary manipulation already marks you as questionable for many i find this interesting because i both agree with it and find it to be somewhat untrue. dietary changes and fads and even optimization are extremely widespread, both in popular media and "higher" scientific or philosophical literature, that i think it is a pretty ubiquitous topic. however, i also find it to be a topic where people hold very tightly to their own set belief or intuition and won't budge, no matter what is brought before them. something that fascinated me in reading veganist and carnist rabble arguments is that usage of human teeth as evidence for the supremacy of one or the other's ideology. for instance, the vegan might say, our molars are obviously adapted for eating primarily plants, ergo meat is unnatural and a criminal, immoral thing brought into the human life. and the carnist says, no, our canines are obviously for eating meat, and plants are unnatural, immoral things, simply just starvation food, and meat is the nutrient dense basis for brain development. it is the wrapping around of the entire evolutionary world to the dietary argument. it's insane to me, but extremely common, so common that nobody sees anything wrong with it. there's something intriguingly Rousseauean about it. >>8685 what exactly stands the test of time and changing contexts?

>>8704 It seems to me like GLP1 agonists are for the masses of American cattle mostly and the true upper classes have already distanced themselves from the morass of un-health in the US. Your family-in-law is definitely 'nouveau rich', which if you're really mad about the numbers on their bank statement being higher than yours sure-- but they don't exist in an entirely different class from you, let's be real, and aren't worth the whole reddit-tier spiel about "the rich getting everything"

>>8704 though i don't watch TV very much, the few times i have i've been pretty shocked by the sheer volume of ozempic ads. they're non-stop. during the winter olympics, there would be an ozempic ad from a drug manufacturer, then one from a private pay-to-play clinic, then one from a different clinic which could get you ozempic in pill form. i suppose i realized ozempic was a big deal, and i thought it was humorous when all the celebrities who made their name off being fat decided to get ozempic'd, but i didn't know it was practically everywhere in mass culture. it reminds me of the Warhol quote regarding coca cola, that every Coke is the same, all money buys the same Coke, and everyone loves Coke. the universalism of capitalism and consumerism. it can manufacture the problem (i can't stop eating McDonalds) and the solution (ozempic) at the same time. i guess my reply doesn't exactly address your point at all, but i think it is funny that ozempic moves aside the curtain, across all class and cultural divide, towards desire, change, and the inability to seriously address health in many cases. i recently read a new yorker article about GLP1s potential effects on alcoholics (namely that it ends the desire to drink compulsively), and the author used that as a sort of evidence towards a genetic/deterministic conception of desire, if food, alcohol, and other addictions (i believe there was some cursory evidence of the same effect on gambling addicts as well) are all wrapped up in the same neuro-chemical mechanism. i don't know if i'm ready to say that ozempic proves anything there yet, but the mass reaction towards the, as you say, magic diet pill is interesting.

>>8706 Wait a minute, you're telling me that money can be *counted*? And that some numbers are higher than others? OMFG where did you get this esoteric wisdom? I had no idea I was talking to a dark elf post woke gray mirror seventh sigma level sage who knows that money isn't the same as aristocratic lineage You're not like redditors at all. You're like a Nietzschean ubermensch who's LITERALLY going to be antisemitic online. This mad lad is going to actually post it! I bet you're Evola-maxxing Guenon pilled. We can all tell such a chad by his Spengler-gooning.

>>8717 The point of my comment was decoupling income from class, precisely the fact that numbers themselves don't mean much and that class divisions are quite cultural in nature.