Re: 2 Hour Radio Interview With Ray Peat On Wednesday The 20
pboy-
This evokes a very interesting aspect of Peat
and one he touches upon at the beginning of the interview.
Peat made it a point to interject that, before he pursued his science degree,
he was in the humanties,
where he studied philosophy and literature.
He then tried to explain--the host wasn't particularly swift on the uptake on this important connection--
that he looked at science much differently than most scientists because of that philosophical, literary influence.
What he was getting at, I think, is that he has a sensitivity to symbol, myth, narrative, disguised ideology,
hidden subtext, etc.
One can see this all over the place with Peat,
but it is very easily noted, for example,
in Peat's reaction to Paleo-type diets.
He thinks they are guilty of propounding a mythology of mankind and diet and health
that sounds persuasive
but is faulty logically, objectively, scientifically:
you know: this is how man used to eat when he was so great and perfect and healthy and Natural,
and so this is what we now should emulate.
Now back to your statement above, pboy.
It is reminiscent of why I was attracted to certain diets in my hippie youth.
Macrobiotics springs to mind.
It appealed to me for many of the same kinds of reasons you say
the McDougal diet appeals to you:
"...economically friendly, ecologically friendly, very affordable, non egotistical, just simple humble diet. You don't have to stress about having to have certain rare foods or supplements or anything and everything you eat is widely available world wide and very inexpensive...so its a very low stress diet."
With Macrobiotics--at least the Michio Kuchi strain--those elements also appealed very much to me:
-humble: just grab you some inexpensive, brown rice and eat mostly that!
-affordable: ditto!
-economically friendly: ditto!
-non-egotistical: the whole vibe was very much so: don't kill animals because we arrogant humans
think we are the center of the universe; don't wreck the planet like all the rich conservative sheep
by killing animals for food and thereby reducing dairy, messing up the environment, becoming too yang, etc
-widely available: eat local and seasonal and save the planet!
I do mock. But I also do find those goals appealing.
I just didn't find Macrobiotics to be very healthy for me.
And as I thought, over the years, about Macrobiotics
I became more aware of the mythology and ideology behind it.
It came to seem strongly collectivist to me.
I came to think that it reflected Kuchi's (and his teachers') ideology and mythology:
everybody sharing and caring, humbly, saving the planet, eating foods everybody could afford
(so there would be no rich and poor divisions), etc.
And I came to see that ideology/mythology as perhaps the primary motive and logic
behind Macrobiotics:
it really wasn't mainly about health--though it purported to be.
Rather, it was mostly about a ideology and mythology that had political ramifications.
Now, I know nothing of this McDougal,
and I am not saying his diet is wrong or bad.
I'm just saying that I have come to be skeptical of diets
which exert--perhaps in a submerged way--a strongly romantic poetry or ideology and mythology.
I used to trust those appeals
thinking they would lead me like a divining rod toward the healthiest diet.
In more recent years I've become distrustful of those appeals
and more persuaded by the cleansed objectivity and science of Peat.
pboy-
This evokes a very interesting aspect of Peat
and one he touches upon at the beginning of the interview.
Peat made it a point to interject that, before he pursued his science degree,
he was in the humanties,
where he studied philosophy and literature.
He then tried to explain--the host wasn't particularly swift on the uptake on this important connection--
that he looked at science much differently than most scientists because of that philosophical, literary influence.
What he was getting at, I think, is that he has a sensitivity to symbol, myth, narrative, disguised ideology,
hidden subtext, etc.
One can see this all over the place with Peat,
but it is very easily noted, for example,
in Peat's reaction to Paleo-type diets.
He thinks they are guilty of propounding a mythology of mankind and diet and health
that sounds persuasive
but is faulty logically, objectively, scientifically:
you know: this is how man used to eat when he was so great and perfect and healthy and Natural,
and so this is what we now should emulate.
Now back to your statement above, pboy.
It is reminiscent of why I was attracted to certain diets in my hippie youth.
Macrobiotics springs to mind.
It appealed to me for many of the same kinds of reasons you say
the McDougal diet appeals to you:
"...economically friendly, ecologically friendly, very affordable, non egotistical, just simple humble diet. You don't have to stress about having to have certain rare foods or supplements or anything and everything you eat is widely available world wide and very inexpensive...so its a very low stress diet."
With Macrobiotics--at least the Michio Kuchi strain--those elements also appealed very much to me:
-humble: just grab you some inexpensive, brown rice and eat mostly that!
-affordable: ditto!
-economically friendly: ditto!
-non-egotistical: the whole vibe was very much so: don't kill animals because we arrogant humans
think we are the center of the universe; don't wreck the planet like all the rich conservative sheep
by killing animals for food and thereby reducing dairy, messing up the environment, becoming too yang, etc
-widely available: eat local and seasonal and save the planet!
I do mock. But I also do find those goals appealing.
I just didn't find Macrobiotics to be very healthy for me.
And as I thought, over the years, about Macrobiotics
I became more aware of the mythology and ideology behind it.
It came to seem strongly collectivist to me.
I came to think that it reflected Kuchi's (and his teachers') ideology and mythology:
everybody sharing and caring, humbly, saving the planet, eating foods everybody could afford
(so there would be no rich and poor divisions), etc.
And I came to see that ideology/mythology as perhaps the primary motive and logic
behind Macrobiotics:
it really wasn't mainly about health--though it purported to be.
Rather, it was mostly about a ideology and mythology that had political ramifications.
Now, I know nothing of this McDougal,
and I am not saying his diet is wrong or bad.
I'm just saying that I have come to be skeptical of diets
which exert--perhaps in a submerged way--a strongly romantic poetry or ideology and mythology.
I used to trust those appeals
thinking they would lead me like a divining rod toward the healthiest diet.
In more recent years I've become distrustful of those appeals
and more persuaded by the cleansed objectivity and science of Peat.
at risk!?
