The Ray Peat Philosophy Should Be Spread Everywhere

[dfspcc20]

For Ray's philosophy to be spread, it has to be proven beyond any doubt.
Which means taking each statement separately and backing him up with unimpeachable science.

Let's take for example his motto about PUFAS not being essential; let's assemble a documentation on cell cultures not using any PUFAS. Then let's explain the B-Vitamins story; how a higher metabolism burns more calories, etc...

It takes time, but it needs to be done.

I'd like to believe people (including scientists) are swayed by facts alone. I'm scared Max Planck might have been right in this quote: "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

I believe miracles can happen, though.

 

[dfspcc20]

You hit the nail on the head with that last point. People don't understand just how reliant we are on our environment (whether that be diet or one's physical surroundings).

Yep. If you want to avoid dualistic overtones, you could say we are our environment, or we are reflections or projections of it, or whatever.

I think that was the original intention of the Golden Rule or the concept of Karma. It wasn't supposed to be a commandment instructing people how to live, or device of Cosmic retribution; it was just a statement of fact. What we do to the environment (or others, or the "other", that which is outside of the "self") we are essentially doing to ourselves. The outside becomes the inside; as above, so below; and whatever other new-agey idioms there are.

 

[lollipop]

Yep. If you want to avoid dualistic overtones, you could say we are our environment, or we are reflections or projections of it, or whatever.

I think that was the original intention of the Golden Rule or the concept of Karma. It wasn't supposed to be a commandment instructing people how to live, or device of Cosmic retribution; it was just a statement of fact. What we do to the environment (or others, or the "other", that which is outside of the "self") we are essentially doing to ourselves. The outside becomes the inside; as above, so below; and whatever other new-agey idioms there are.

+1

 

[Constatine]

Yep. If you want to avoid dualistic overtones, you could say we are our environment, or we are reflections or projections of it, or whatever.

I think that was the original intention of the Golden Rule or the concept of Karma. It wasn't supposed to be a commandment instructing people how to live, or device of Cosmic retribution; it was just a statement of fact. What we do to the environment (or others, or the "other", that which is outside of the "self") we are essentially doing to ourselves. The outside becomes the inside; as above, so below; and whatever other new-agey idioms there are.

I simply think that every level of our biology is dependent upon and even woven into the nature of this world. We are a subsystem of a mighty system. We exhale carbon dioxide needed by plants, we harbor many organisms, we are influenced by that which we consume, we absorb the energy of the sun, etc. The matter that is us is simply (or not so simply) an incredible organization of the environment that allows for even more incredible information storage and processing (that stems form environmental stimuli). What are we without our environment (or rather environmental stimuli)? Simply empty meaningless thoughts? If you took the external world away would we have anything but its memory? As for more "whole picture" theories I am afraid I do not yet know enough about the world I live in to make any guesses.

 

[OrangeJuice]

People won't get past "sugar is good for you".

Peat said he should have restated it as "Carboydrates are good for you, not just sugar". When he says 'Sugar' people think he means Table Sugar or White Refined Sugar when he really means Carbohydrates...he just calls Carbs Sugar.

 

[charlie]

Peat said he should have restated it as "Carboydrates are good for you, not just sugar". When he says 'Sugar' people think he means Table Sugar or White Refined Sugar when he really means Carbohydrates...he just calls Carbs Sugar.

There it is.

 

[DaveFoster]

Ray peats concepts have had such a profound effect on me... it's unbelievable. But on the concept of spreading his ideas... I know a lot of people who deal with depression. And a lot of them are so Wrapped up and attached almost invested in their depressed state that if you try to explain why they are depressed they'll have none of it. It's part of their identity. That's just one small example that came to mind.

Absolutely; worldviews prioritize identity and self-image, not knowledge, and certainly not facts.

 

[Regina]

Yep. If you want to avoid dualistic overtones, you could say we are our environment, or we are reflections or projections of it, or whatever.

I think that was the original intention of the Golden Rule or the concept of Karma. It wasn't supposed to be a commandment instructing people how to live, or device of Cosmic retribution; it was just a statement of fact. What we do to the environment (or others, or the "other", that which is outside of the "self") we are essentially doing to ourselves. The outside becomes the inside; as above, so below; and whatever other new-agey idioms there are.

This is how Karma is talked about the seminal historical texts. It is not some superstitious Santa Claus who knows if you were naughty or nice. It just says to be aware of the causes and effects and you can reverse that "karma" just by not doing the thing that causes misery anymore. There is no 'payback' or 'revenge'.

 

[burtlancast]

I am not familiar with the B-vitamins story? Can you give a quick summary or link to your sources?

Unsaturated fatty acids: Nutritionally essential, or toxic?

 

[Entropy]

Drop that canola oil!

PUFA police reporting in!