munch foods

[nick]

Not only that, but the old forum was much more strict with the sample diet. If you screwed up one day then you were back on day one, this rule was used all the time, until people got the idea behind it. It is still pushed by the board but not to the degree that is used to be. Things change and not everything has to be done the same way all the time. Though for those who have acne, take a special note of it.

[avalon]

Oscar wrote:

Of course you can interpret the book (or any article) as you see fit, but telling RRM what the book means is like telling a composer how his work should be interpreted.

Nonsense Oscar. No interpetation needed. It's written. There's no maybe here. No, "Here's the munch food section for you to interpet how you wish". There's a difference comparing a composer to a diet. That's Art to Science. If the Wai Book was meant to be interpeted openly it would have been written differently.

Hi nick, you wrote:

If you screwed up one day then you were back on day one, this rule was used all the time, until people got the idea behind it. It is still pushed by the board but not to the degree that is used to be. Things change and not everything has to be done the same way all the time. Though for those who have acne, take a special note of it.

I agree with you.

Best wishes,
Avalon

[Oscar]

No interpetation needed. It's written.

Maybe you should tell that to the people who argue about what the Bible means.

There's a difference comparing a composer to a diet. That's Art to Science.

Read a bit more carefully...let me make it a bit more clear:

...telling RRM what the book means is like telling a composer how his work should be interpreted.

[avalon]

Oscar wrote:

Maybe you should tell that to the people who argue about what the Bible means.

Rrriiiggghhhttt And I'm really glad you brought this up because I have a theory

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... 713_52.asp

Genesis 1:29-30 makes it obvious that originally, animals and man were vegetarian. Some would say therefore that plants died before sin. However, the Bible in Genesis 1 makes it clear that animals and man have a 'nephesh'-that is, a 'life spirit,' or soul. Plants do not have this. Plants were given for food-they are not living in the same sense that animals are. Man was told he could eat animals after the Flood in Genesis 9:3. Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 make it clear that death came into the world because of sin.

I now believe that Noah was asked to build more than one Ark. But he didn't much care for those other vegetarians, so he left them all to drown, and took the animals for food for himself and his meat eating family.

Read a bit more carefully...let me make it a bit more clear:

Oscar wrote:

...telling RRM what the book means is like telling a composer how his work should be interpreted.

Sorry, erhh, isn't 'Author' or 'Writer' more appropriate then? For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composer

A composer is a person who writes music. The term refers particularly to someone who writes music in some type of musical notation; thus, allowing others to perform the music. This distinguishes the composer from a musician who improvises or plays an instrument.

In which case we are talking Art.

[avalon]

The Free Acne Book is not a movie with alternate endings. RRM and Wai could rewrite it so I suppose. Then there would be two versions I and II. One could end up in a cave by the Dead Sea

What I feel and seems likely to have happened here is RRM wants the 100% Sample Diet to work as a complete diet unto itself. Why not. I see no reason for this to work- oh...

But Wai does in her Book and she says so. Does this mean she's 100% right? No. Because beyond her intent lies free will to dismiss the obvious. RRM is free to prove what she has written is wrong. It just gets sticky because as he said, he co-wrote it with her, so essentially he would be proving himself wrong as well.

[Oscar]

Sorry, erhh, isn't 'Author' or 'Writer' more appropriate then?

A writer writes a book using letters. A composer writes a piece using (music) notes. Both can be interpreted, may have several layers, themes, etc. I think the comparison works.

The Free Acne Book is not a movie with alternate endings.

Life also isn't a movie. It's not just black or white, good or evil, right or wrong, there are also shades of grey, other colors, and all possible variations between good and evil, or right and wrong.

What I feel and seems likely to have happened here is RRM wants the 100% Sample Diet to work as a complete diet unto itself.

Slowly we're getting back to the big discussion from a while ago.

To go back to one of your previous posts, where you quoted:

But we do not have absolute self-control, and we still want to enjoy eating chocolate, chips etc., because we are constantly confronted with the flavors and sights of such foods.

Eating such munch-foods, therefore, is essential in maintaining this diet.

The line before that states:

If we would have absolute self-control, losing cellulite (and acne, and overweight) would be easy: we would simply eat only fruits and some sashimi / fresh raw egg yolk.

(my emphasis)
What does this imply? It implies that the ideal diet is fruits + fish/egg yolks, which essentially is the Acne Sample Diet. In my opinion the crux of the problem here lies in the word "absolute", because it's the self-control which determines whether one can follow this ideal diet or not. One does need some degree of self-control to stay on this ideal diet, but not "absolute" as stated in the book.

[avalon]

Wai wrote:

If we would have absolute self-control, losing cellulite (and acne, and overweight) would be easy: we would simply eat only fruits and some sashimi / fresh raw egg yolk.

Oscar wrote:

In my opinion the crux of the problem here lies in the word "absolute", because it's the self-control which determines whether one can follow this ideal diet or not. One does need some degree of self-control to stay on this ideal diet, but not "absolute" as stated in the book.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have war, drugs, all kinds of abuse and unspeakable atrocities. No one would be over-weight and everyone would be just like everyone else- Perfect.

For now, the world isn't perfect. Those lines go together and I should, I guess, have quoted them that way.

She writes:

If we would have absolute self-control

I would pick out the word if- because it plays into her saying-
But we do not have self-control

This Ideal Diet, you refer to, I believe is The Sample Diet. I refer to the Book as a whole where The Sample Diet is a part of the whole.

She writes:

How can I know whether my acne is caused by certain foods, without having to buy anything?

That is easy. All you need to do is to eliminate ALL foods that can cause acne, for about one to two weeks.

and under the rules section #8 states:

During these two weeks...

Though you and RRM have absolute self control, and others may as well, Wai writes we don't. At the moment, I am one of her 'We'. I don't have absolute self-control. I'm not saying I never will either. I'm just saying again -

That what she has written is pretty plain to see.

If you like you can continue this protest, get the last word in... But I think-
The Book speaks for itself.

Beast wishes Oscar,
Avalon

[Oscar]

It looks like we're in agreement.

I've thought about this "absolute" self-control a bit more, and I think that in this case it does apply for diet and smoking (and other addictive drugs), but not necessarily for other areas of personality.

In accordance with your previous post, I think we can agree on interpreting the phrase:

Eating such munch-foods, therefore, is essential in maintaining this diet.

as:

For those that do not have absolute self-control (yet), eating such munch-foods, therefore, is essential in maintaining this diet.

Don't you think?

[avalon]

Good morning Oscar!

OMG!!! I had an idea

So just as Sean Connery returned as James Bond in Never Say never, I'm adding one last posty...

If we look to the world around us for examples, anything too rigid is bound to fail. A tall building is built to give in the wind. A rubber seal will crack if not flexible. People will revolt against restrictions(blanket statement I know). A branch will snap if it does not sway.

Wai understands what we confront everyday. That our wills are constantly tested. She gives us the bend that is, an option to sway, so we don't break.

[nick]

Avalon,

That is a great point.
I really like that.
Artfully said!

[RRM]

anything too rigid is bound to fail.

True. But what is "too".
What is too rigid for you, may not be too rigid for me.
So, yes, if this diet is too rigid for you, you must adapt it so that you can still do it. We introduced that in the book so that people would not be turned off, thinking that the diet is too rigid.
You can do the diet on the 'level' that fits you.

[Corinne]

hear hear and hear!

We're getting back to the idea of relativity: Each and everyone of us is free to make the diet as rigid or as flexible as we want for ourselves... It's our own personal choice.
Yet there are still criteria which are used to define whether one is on this diet or another one.
However, what might feel like a rigidity or a restriction to one could be freedom of the other and that is an individual process.

[avalon]

Hey Corinne! You wrote:

...Each and everyone of us is free to make the diet as rigid or as flexible as we want for ourselves... It's our own personal choice.

So very true!

RRM wrote:

What is too rigid for you, may not be too rigid for me.

I've been saying this all along.

We introduced that in the book so that people would not be turned off, thinking that the diet is too rigid.

Wai, went to great lengths with the Munch Food section, as mentioned above. Stating emphatically its importance several times and laying out all the recipes.

Of course these are my opinions. And my opinion is you are back-peddling. This does not mean I don't respect your and Wai's work. The thrust of the Munch Food section is not tapered in anyway as to suggest you were adding it in as appeasment to the masses. And, if it was actually the case, which I feel was not, it's a shame that you did not follow your true desire, for you will have compromised yourself in doing so.

Sincerely,
Avalon

[RRM]

Wai, went to great lengths with the Munch Food section, as mentioned above. Stating emphatically its importance several times and laying out all the recipes.

We did that because the diet would otherwise be too strict for most people. Stating the importance of the munch food section is essential in helping those people to do the diet. And those that can do the strict version will not be hindered by it in any way, so...

my opinion is you are back-peddling.

On what?

The thrust of the Munch Food section is not tapered in anyway as to suggest you were adding it in as appeasment to the masses. And, if it was actually the case, which I feel was not, it's a shame that you did not follow your true desire, for you will have compromised yourself in doing so.

That actually was the case, and I'm not ashamed because I do follow my true desire. Helping others does not feel as if I'm compromising myself.

[Marty]

In re: helping others:

You have certainly done that.


Many thanks,
Marthe