Our First Love

[Nicholas]

thank you for your comments. i do reference that there are more stimuli than food in this thread, though not in the original post.

part of perceiving is perceiving that you aren't always going to be perceiving things correctly. this is a wise place to be. resting (as in taking solace in the "irrefutable") on "good science" and therefore thinking that this is resting on truth because science is somehow more reliable and superior to perception itself is exactly the foolish place i described of those who are ever learning but unable to come to the knowledge of the truth.

a discussion like this is difficult to have in this format as i may be misunderstanding things you are saying and vice versa and the heart of the discussion can be muddied by linguistic gymnastics. The core of my perception is actually rather active and practicle.....though it has been fun to flesh it out more here in an internet forum where the full extent of what people can see of you is contained in a bunch of markings on a page.

I'd like to remind anyone that my post started out as a challenge to a healing philosophy on this forum and in the world. It was not a challenge of "good science". Reviewing the scientific literature, taking supplements or food or any of the myriad of therapies available, and expecting to micromanage the cell and body is not "good science" even if it consults "good science" in its endeavor (i.e. consulting the literature on B6 interactions). At the end of the day, this approach of micromanaging the body is a philosophy....just as my approach is a philosophy. The difference, is that i believe the philosophy i am trying to shine the light on actually uses "good science" as its FOUNDATION (i.e. using scientific understanding of the cell to dictate the very philosophy itself). In other words, the philosophy of micromanaging the cell and body....that action/pursuit.....is a very contradiction of the good science which these philosophers promote.

 

[tara]

part of perceiving is perceiving that you aren't always going to be perceiving things correctly. this is a wise place to be. resting (as in taking solace in the "irrefutable") on "good science" and therefore thinking that this is resting on truth because science is somehow more reliable and superior to perception itself is exactly the foolish place i described of those who are ever learning but unable to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So, further indulging my pull to philosophical debate ...:)

Again, science is not instead of perception, it is perception - organised in a particular systematic way. Saying perception is in any way better than well-conducted science doesn't make any sense to me.
Attending to trying to improve and maintain ones own health by any means is not really science at all in the more formal current sense (ie it does not strongly involve the 'scientific method') - it has different purpose and different methods. The purpose of science is knowledge. The purpose of taking care of oneself is one's own health (and ability to further all ones other aims). The former can be part of informing the latter.

 

[Nicholas]

yeah, science can inform the process of health. what i was trying to share is that sometimes the process of health can be in contradiction to the way the body works (which is part of that science which can inform the process of health). i think we are also dealing with word confusions - maybe i'm choosing them poorly or they aren't specific enough - we may share similar thoughts but we're using different words.

 

[Nicholas]

i am tired of having to correct your foolish twisting and eliminating of my words. my words speak for themselves. i will say one thing, though - you have a very flawed belief that belief in the Creator is the opposite of objective thought. In fact, the natural world reflects the very nature of the Creator.

So you disagree with quote from mind and tissue ?

i have no interest in reading the book and fully digesting Peat's view to truthfully comment. but page 60, of course i agree with it.

why don't you have any interest in reading the book mind and tissue ?

because i just ordered all of Joey Lott's books. jk.

 

[Nicholas]

although this quote from his book "You're Trying Too Hard" seems pretty perceptive (not to mention, cellularly accurate):

"“Look to direct experience right now. This is absolutely effortless. There is no trying required. Why? Because direct experience is unavoidable. It is what is happening.”

 

[Suikerbuik]

Well yeah could be a different interpretation maybe. I regard your writing style a bit chaotic. I am no native English speaking person myself, and with my own posts being full of errors sometimes, no offense!

Still you say: "to come to the knowledge of the truth.", it's fairly straightforward but leaves me little clue. How do you define this? Obviously I am not looking for the knowledge of truth itself. Perhaps a general outline of your expectation or interpretation?

 

[Nicholas]

Well yeah could be a different interpretation maybe. I regard your writing style a bit chaotic. I am no native English speaking person myself, and with my own posts being full of errors sometimes, no offense!

Still you say: "to come to the knowledge of the truth.", it's fairly straightforward but leaves me little clue. How do you define this? Obviously I am not looking for the knowledge of truth itself. Perhaps a general outline of your expectation or interpretation?

as far as the process of coming to the knowledge of the truth in how to be in a state of health is this: taking what we know about the way the body works and BELIEVING it and acting accordingly. my first post here was showing that despite us here knowing very much about the way the body works, a lot of the healing philosophies and protocols given here show that we do not believe and understand (perceive) what we know.

in a manner of speaking, even a young child can perceive the truth without knowing what we know.

not sure if that is along the lines of what you are asking...

(and why would you not be looking for knowing truth?)

 

[Suikerbuik]

I find it rather difficult to make chocolate out of that to be honest. Here is my shot, hope it makes sense.

taking what we know about the way the body works and BELIEVING it and acting accordingly.

Do you mean that knowledge of truth is: if our believes and knowledge act in concordance with our experience?

my first post here was showing that despite us here knowing very much about the way the body works, a lot of the healing philosophies and protocols given here show that we do not believe and understand (perceive) what we know.

I also need a bit help with your last sentence: ”We do not believe and understand what we know?” How can something we don’t believe or understand be something we know? And we humans in general, or a particular group? And which philosophies or protocols? Here on the RPF or else?

Or do you mean that our experiences generally not support what we think we know or believe?
And do you really think humans know very much? We might have come pretty far compared to only 400 years ago, but humans know not that much. If you get the idea that we know much by reading Peat’s work then we probably read it differently, as I do not.

in a manner of speaking, even a young child can perceive the truth without knowing what we know.

I think a baby simply has a heightened perception, because his frame of life are his senses and not made-up brain. So, a child experiences his or her temporal reality more closely and dares to instinctively act accordingly. In most adults this flow is blocked, mostlikely because of their thinking and/or ego i.e. false knowledge, believes or dogma, etc. - their illusionary empire, distracts them from their senses. If you call this ‘the child’s truth’, then it is just matter of interpretation (no argue), however, I still doubt 'the child’s truth' implies 'real truth' or wisdom.

 

[Suikerbuik]

(and why would you not be looking for knowing truth?)

Looking for knowing the truth is a distraction in my opinion. Looking for something to be more likely and less likely, also defined as science or knowledge, cannot be defined as truth. And so is our everyday experience, subject to our physical state and illusionary mind. Unless it’s a feeling from deep within you.

The universe with current human perspective is a mindf*ck. (I am not religious.)

If truth is: if our believes and knowledge act in concordance with our experience?, truth would be a temporary phenomenon and scattered and, like science being a moving target, nature can be seen as a moving target without any defined set point.
I’d find perception more likely (or is it hope?) to be temporary and scattered, and truth something fixed and universal. With the goal (truth) being defined in nature itself and the road (perception) a non-defined journey. What else would be the point of living? In nature things always have a purpose. The way she operates, her matter, her laws (intrinsically the same?), so many things all just seemingly perfect and showing little sign of randomness.

No... Obviously my mind is tricking me now. With a weakness for illusionary connections and reasons. Of course it is just all luck! Because if we hadn't had all this luck, I would not be writing right now.. And by chance the luck has to be happen somewhere. We're simply blessed and everything apparently have appeared without reason, and life in the end has no purpose. It’s nothing more than a present of Mother Nature, however, not perceived as by those not listening to her.
It is scientifically plausible though, in which case perception is truth. Anyhow still not making me interested in looking for knowing the truth. No..that will be a waste of this beautiful present.

I’ll just experience. Guided by hope. Hope that springs eternal. Hoping that the beautiful masterpiece of Mother Nature and a sign of truth (or truth itself) can be experienced by thoroughly experiencing life. Not an experience like driving a car, or being super busy with work, or accept something science considers defined** i.e. as of something in brain circuitry, (epi-)genetic regulation, neurotransmitter behavior or whatever. That might all well be a distraction of truth.
I think of it as something more deep, the inner self? - our real first love? Not something ordinary and not something to strive for, since that won't work, humans are generally focused on survival and ensuring their future - nothing wrong with by the way, it makes you survive. But more as of something to happen without force, just driven by the natural the flow of life, hoping that it simply happens by opening up to nature.
What else did I feel that is so indescribable? Or.. was it simply a psychological event?

Enough drivel. It doesn’t bring us any further. And it’s only my interpretation of the world, in whereas everything generally considered truth might well be an illusion. The universe is a mindf*ck. For now it seems to me that humans have to live the experience of nature's experiment, and should try to increase their perception, without looking for knowing truth.

**Human definition of reality is never complete, because we can’t simply measure or see everything. And do measurements really represent truth? At the quantum level observation alters the state of particles.

You are referring to functionality of an organism by referring to the cell. It is the operational unit of life. But actually, understanding the functionality of life forces you to go deeper. The molecular level. Ultimately the functionality of cells lies in the functionality of proteins derived from our DNA. We know don’t know much about proteins and wuantum phenomena normally thought to occur in physics and laboratory settings appear in everyday life and found to drive/ occur in proteins. Humans may possibly never find out.

Then, considering how compromised our knowledge is about nature/ health and even far more compromised with regard to disease. I don’t think anyone is in their right to judge micromanaging or pretend they know better. Sure, micromanaging is not always helpful and can be distraction if not done properly, but so is looking for knowing truth’. Done properly is (in my opinion) with pre-set goals accompanied by other (not stress inducing) ‘lifestyle’ changes and possibly knowledge, so that it becomes a way for people to experience and increase their perception about nature, cells, life and the world; despite no given certainty for health improvement and unlikely to be a cure. Note that Dr. Peat is generally no fan of supplement use, neither am I based on personal experience, nevertheless I don't think physiological doses of some minerals or temporal use of supraphysiological doses of certain B-vitamins are harmful, in fact it I found those to aid the cellular function - especially thiamine.

Enjoy the experience,

 

[Nicholas]

sbulk & others - yall are making this way too complicated and philosophical. lol.
i will just accept that i don't have the gift of communicating (to those who have responded, at least) the truth i have come to see.
my whole premise is that there are no more rabbit holes when it comes to the healing process...i certainly didn't mean to incite them.
i was "philosophically" challenged in this thread so i tried to meet those challenges and answer their "questions"...then it unraveled into a full on "philosophical" rumination by others.

we have not attained to the full truth, and i'm honestly not that interested in the full physical truth (only the spiritual)....but i have found that the physical reflects the spiritual, too, and we have certainly found enough physical truth to sustain us for a long time without researching a moment more. If we would only understand what we have uncovered. For those who are not aware of the Christian spirituality, the science of the body which has been pushed by Peat and others is completely harmonious and reflective of the Christian spirituality. Yall may disagree, but this is my litmus test for what is true and false science.
however, none of my post or conversations afterwards have anything to do with the spiritual - only the physical. i say this before others (jag) accuse me of being a religious dogmatist or having an ulterior motive.
i don't want to go on and on discussing this topic - because i have shared this understanding (though not as fully or intentionally) in all of my posts for a long time. From the very beginning, i think there have only been two visible people which seemed to understand or agree or share my voice. After a while i began to slowly accept it as being something that might be, unconsciously even, offensive.....because it completely strips all authoritarian perspectives away and makes you very much alone with your body. Nothing i have shared is in contradiction to the way the body works, which is supported by the science which we (seem) to all agree on.....or we wouldn't be here at the "ray peat" forum, right? Then, shortly before i wrote this post, it dawned on me that i was right - that a lot of the posts here reflect that many do not understand the *truth of the matter* in the physiology which we attest to understand.
i am not saying i have found all the answers or that my perception is complete - i am just saying that i understand what all of the true science implies about the healing process and it seems that this view is not popular.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Dear apostle Nicholas, glad you've seen the light

You’re free to share your message, but when things are about truth and reality this is inevitable. In essence we’re having the same idea, living is a necessity for healing and humans should invest in perceiving what they’re undergoing. Only thing is (because of your religion(?)) you seem to consider your views as reality, something I leave in the middle.

In all fairness, you've put 'your view on cells' too simple and too theoretical to argue with. It is indeed this aspect that is so important, hence people invest so much time and effort in it (just like you do/ have done), and demands good research. But your view isn't offering anything, other than seeding confusion – despite your best intentions maybe, as I do feel that humans have a large responsibility for their health and do have control or 'power' over it. Only look at how animals and babies behave. It’s biologically programmed.

 

[Nicholas]

i've said many times that we *do* have control and power over our bodies - many times emphatically. yes, there may be a language barrier issue causing or adding to your confusion. it's fine to debate....but only if you understand my position. my first post is very simplistic and right in line with Peat....
because.....my view on cells and the body is the same as Peat's. if that comes as a shock, then....well, i've done my best.

my spirituality has nothing to do with my first post. the reality i've conveyed is the reality that Peat conveys (even if he does it somewhat cryptically).

 

[Suikerbuik]

First my excuse, it strikes me now that this is your log and no discussion or whatever, though it is written like one. And since I am wasting your and my time, this will be my last reply.

@your post: ... Yeah.. Sure..

If so, I'd suggest a biology course. See you around,

 

[narouz]

The universe with current human perspective is a mindf*ck.

This would make a great t-shirt, Suik.
At the very least
you should make it your signature line here.

 

[Nicholas]

First my excuse, it strikes me now that this is your log and no discussion or whatever, though it is written like one. And since I am wasting your and my time, this will be my last reply.

@your post: ... Yeah.. Sure..

If so, I'd suggest a biology course. See you around,

your time would have been better spent correcting me on how my understanding of the cell is in opposition to Peat's, if you believe so. that would have been an intelligent discussion. hopefully you don't mind me being as forward as you have been.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Nicholas, I can’t get it over my heart to not answer you, although I said I wouldn’t. Hope you don’t mind another silly post.

Have Ray Peat and others illuminated the cell physiology just as documentarians or are they illuminating it to communicate a deeper message?

It’s this deeper message that sounds rather spiritual to me.

The knowledge and information here is exhaustive - a hundred times over anything Peat and others have written. But where has it gotten us?

It’s because of people having a different context. And as you can read in Peat’s work; peat uses may and similar words a lot, and it shines through that he hints for yet currently undefined influences. I.e. all the knowledge of why, for example, it’s obvious that thyroid is affected by a lot environmental aspects and found to be causal for a lot a symptoms in a large range of chronic diseases, but it turns out not to be that it’s not that straightforward and people respond very differently to thyroid. I see Peat’s work as a decent coat reck, yet without accessories.

If the cell feels like it is in a resourced and peaceful environment, it can do its job without our interference.

How is anyone certain that food is not enough? Maybe they've misunderstood the cell all along and this is why they couldn't get food to get the ball rolling. Humans cannot treat symptoms. We must banish that thought. Only cells can.

Humans are collective cooperation of cells. It is humans informed by their senses and cells that treat symptoms, and it is cells that respond or not accordingly and influence those symptoms.

Dysfunction *proves* how functional the body is. Symptoms are not indication of a localized dysfunction, they are indicative of a *cellular* dysfunction.

Getting a prove how functional a body is, because of dysfunction, make little sense from a biological/physical perspective. Only from an ‘immune response’ point of view when that means the cells have been under prolonged energy deprivation.
Also, symptoms can be an indication of localized stress, to whatever insult they’re going under. But yeah symptoms can also be systemic, or a sign of general negligence.

How do we overcome manifestations of dysfunction? By not focusing on it. Because it's a good thing. It's perfectly normal. It should encourage us that our body has the functionality to be dysfunctional.

Actually, the origin of a dysfunction can be caused not by focusing on it. And by focusing you bring it love and attention and this may well solve part of your issue.

So if i have any manifestation of dysfunction at all - whether it's skin issues, or constipation issues, or libido problems, or anything else - all of these things are not something we have any power over. All of these things are nothing we have power over. The *cell* is the only thing which has power over these symptoms.

It’s generally shown that the environment is equally or more important for cellular behavior than local cellular resources (as you state further on). But let me give an example; a major point you seem to miss is toxins from micro-organisms and associated food intake. It’s micro-organisms we have very limited control over. For example adding fiber may or may not influence bowel movements and possibly affect eczema. We do not have to necessarily change our own cellular function to improve these symptoms. Besides, these signals are also informed by humans senses and not only cellular stimuli (e.g. what does my poop like or how does my skin look.)

I do agree that increasing cellular function by optimizing pancreatic function may well do the same, and is far more likely to be sustainable. But even Peat seems to have enduring issues, if he is still using those antibiotic for whatever particular reason. So whether the an increased pancreatic function is self-sustaining or also subject to some insult.. Who knows.. (will depend on the context )

So all these things, though with best intentions, were a bit confusing to me.

So if we take that understanding and apply it to the healing process we are left with one huge reality: our one and only contribution to the healing process is to look out for the cell - to keep cellular emergencies at bay. if the cell feels like it is in a resourced and peaceful environment, it can do its job without our interference. How you get there will be different for everyone, but it's about each individual meeting the demands of their cell and creating a balanced environment so that cell feels confident.

The is what I mean simple and theoretical. Of course this is true, but rethinking, maybe I was a bit too direct here, assuming that even kids in kindergarten now this. But I am possibly wrong. Guess I’ve read too much and it’s time for a break maybe.
Nevertheless, still, that ‘if’ I underlined is a huge IF, and biology seems to dig a lot of rabbit holes.. digging itself deeper with every cellular emergency, without necessarily leaving a security line behind. Which again isn’t an argue to anything you state, if anything, it supports that living is healing.

If we take this approach to healing and actually believe it and live it out, we are being freed from false beliefs and doctrines about the body. If any of us consider ourselves students of Peat and true science of the body, then this is the only possible conclusion you can come to regarding healing. A generalization in this instance is very useful and necessary as there are so few with anomalies which don't fit into this context. When this approach is adopted and consistently lived by, the word "healing" becomes something more equivalent to "living" - it's not about attaining anything that we can see beyond the cell. Health is not something that you reach, it's something you have a limited responsibility over till the day you die.

I came into this forum already believing these things and for a while this has all been interesting to see different angles of research and new studies and areas i'd never thought about....but there is nothing new under the sun. Peat is not a revolutionary and neither are we. The cell is the revolutionary and always has been. Just because it may have taken us years to put it down onto paper or illuminated under microscopes, it's always been there all along doing what it was designed to do....and humans have always been here as well - recognizing the things that we always think are new things but are actually things people have understood since the beginning of time. Research doesn't lead to truth. Perception leads to truth.

It is difficult because the general false beliefs and doctrines of the body here (amidst all the valid studies) can start to invade your mind and after a while you lose the truth, you lose your first love.

I feel this is the most important part of your post. Aside from a few little remarks, I really do resonate with this and that should have been clear from my posts, if not, I’ll get myself an English course.
Except the part that we don’t have responsibility over it, which still makes little sense to me. (limited control you should've said)

And humans these days are wayyy too distracted from their very nature that ‘How’ (you mentioned earlier) is nearly impossible without the knowledge about certain mechanisms involved, neither can they distinguish between false and dogmatic or real. So this again: right in theory but confusing in reality.

Hopefully in the nearby future we can present a model about the cell that really gives people understanding, and subsequently their lives back without the need for so many people being soaked in false believes and end up with a, literally from from toe to ear, distressed body because of those damaging paleo diets and other nonsense such as candida diets or whatever. Hope you didn’t see my posts as offensive as I did not intend them to be so.

 

[Makrosky]

Nicholas, how are you ? Summarizing, please. What's up, man, what is it ? Are you feeling bad and you find you spent so much time trying things that didn't work and then you think you've been fooled ? Or are you just intelectually angry about the narrow-minded perspective of some people on the RP community ?

Are you feeling hopeless ? Or what ? All this rant, man ... Normally when someone doesn't like a place, he/she just leaves. You keep discussing and becoming angry and frustrated with strangers over a computer screen. Tell us, what's going on ?

It's a sincere question.

 

[Nicholas]

yeah, i guess it is frustrating to be surrounded by people who know so much and have all the same references as you and have similar interests but don't SEE things the same way as you. For example, i would love to be able to talk and discuss things with Dr. Schwarzbein because she SEES things the same way as i do. And she has all the same interests and references and knows all the things that people know on this forum. But there's the disconnect of perception. I guess i'm (perhaps) unnaturaly passionate about what i have discovered. And just like with anyone, when you are passionate about something you've discovered, you naturally want to be able to share in that excitement - it feels good to be talking to someone and know that they understand you, that they get you. well that doesn't really happen on this forum - and it's the only place where i would be able to find it in a sense because my perception is based on the information which others on this forum have discovered as well - it's just that there's a disconnect in perception and how people understand that material. pboy has been the only member of this forum which i felt shared the same understanding and perception. there may have been others, but i was not aware. occasionally i would receive comments from others that were in agreement but it was rare (and encouraging). I have replied to so many posts on this forum offering help to others (a particular moderator recently accused me of always saying everyone's wrong, which you can just search through my posts and see that that is not accurate by any stretch of the imagination) and when i post a question or i am seeking help or advice, i am met mostly with silence. So at the end of the day, i don't really feel like i belong here. which is fine, i know i should have moved on a long time ago...i just keep pressing on in hope that i will find someone else who understands the same things as me. When my post yesterday was DELETED, yes i became quite angry. Because i was sharing a video that completely related, was in complete harmony with practically everything we talk about here, but the woman SEES differently, she PERCEIVES all this information correctly. So i found someone else who sees the same way, and right away it's deleted? Maybe ok if the moderator had at least watched it? no, yes i became angry because that's when i realized that this is just not going to work anymore. that it's hopeless for me to think that it will work out. I don't even know if the moderators will allow me to answer your question (i would have answered privately but i'm not allowed to privately message now). I can't respond any further after this or answer your other questions in other threads, i just need to do the healthiest thing and count my losses.

 

[charlie]

post 115216 I have replied to so many posts on this forum offering help to others (a particular moderator recently accused me of always saying everyone's wrong, which you can just search through my posts and see that that is not accurate by any stretch of the imagination) and when i post a question or i am seeking help or advice, i am met mostly with silence.

@jag2594 said it better...

post 94999 What do these quotes have in common, you tell the members of this forum what they can't do.

post 115216 I don't even know if the moderators will allow me to answer your question (i would have answered privately but i'm not allowed to privately message now).

Your PM's have been restored.

 

[Nicholas]

post 115221

post 115216 I have replied to so many posts on this forum offering help to others (a particular moderator recently accused me of always saying everyone's wrong, which you can just search through my posts and see that that is not accurate by any stretch of the imagination) and when i post a question or i am seeking help or advice, i am met mostly with silence.

jag2594 said it better...

post 94999 What do these quotes have in common, you tell the members of this forum what they can't do.

post 115216 I don't even know if the moderators will allow me to answer your question (i would have answered privately but i'm not allowed to privately message now).

Your PM's have been restored.

so is nobody going to vie for the fact that i don't tell people what they can't do? is nobody going to vie for the fact that i am always contributing from the mindset of what people *can* do? You don't have to like me for whatever reason (wish i knew!), but to use that dislike to spread misinformation about my 7mo. involvement with this forum is tasteless and not a characteristic of a good moderator. I feel badly that you publicly have accused me of this. I hope that this leaves a bad taste in your mouth and is a reminder for how to deal with members in the future.