The minds role in diet

[Sugarcoat]

I keep seeing these different diets trending. Recently it’s been a lot of “animal based” or even something like carnivore. 
 

I notice this tendency of people to become obviously identified with being on a certain diet and they defend it from this position. Applies to for example some vegans too ofc. 
 

I notice how they are emotionally involved in what diet they think is the best and this influences their decisions. Then they will also be affected by the people who follow certain diets, so for example if a vegan is acting mad and crazy someone might judge veganism as a diet. Or if someone is into a certain aesthetic they’ll agree on the diet of that aesthetic. Or if someone is a conspiracy theorist they will disagree with anything the government recommends and resonate with people that follow diets that go against the recommendations. 
 

it’s like people miss how much their own mind, worldview and identification plays a role in what they consider the best diet for them. It’s like they don’t have an unbiased view on diet to truly find out the truth for themselves. 
 

in my experience, the mind plays a big role so for example if you think a diet is great for you, it can make you feel better. If you judge some foods as bad for you it can seem like they affect you worse than they would if you didn’t judge them. If you obsess over food it can make it seem like different foods make a bigger difference than it actually does. This applies to health in general too, so if you obsess over certain symptoms and judge them it can seem to amplify them. 
 

im not saying i have some ultimate unbiased view, but I’ve just made some observations that I wanted to share.

Edited September 23 by Sugarcoat

[Schizophonia]

Yes ofc, foods are representations of frequencies that we identify with or on the contrary that we reject.

So depending on our ego (so our personas, even archetypes) we will be sexually (in the sense of Deleuze) attracted to images like veganism or on the contrary carnivore ("Plants, green, progressivism, ethics, equality, purity, variety..." vs "Density, comfort, law of nature, pragmatism, masculinity, cynicism..."). It's the same with politics, beyond the rationalization process, people are primarily motivated by images. "Blue, Brown, Agrarian, Calm, Order, Discipline, Downers, Minimalism..." for a conservative, "Red, Green, Multiplicity, Vitality, Openness..." for a more left-wing person. All this has to do with memory and therefore once again the way in which the ego is constructed, what is captured, then who will be subject to identification or projection (duality).

Back to nutrition, from a relative point of view, we could say that excitement induces a placebo/nacebo effect on foods, but to take a more "perched" point of view lol, we can say that the placebo effect is a quantum shift towards another reality.
If we pay attention and put our ego aside, we end up observing that we can obtain proof of anything and everything.

As my "mentor" franck lopvet would say, that's why spirituality is not provable, because whoever wants to play the persona of "pretentious atheist" who thinks that there is only matter, will obtain the concrete evidences.

Edited September 23 by Schizophonia

[Sugarcoat]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes ofc, foods are representations of frequencies that we identify with or on the contrary that we reject.

So depending on our ego (so our personas, even archetypes) we will be sexually (in the sense of Deleuze) attracted to images like veganism or on the contrary carnivore ("Plants, green, progressivism, ethics, equality, purity, variety..." vs "Density, comfort, law of nature, pragmatism, masculinity, cynicism..."). It's the same with politics, beyond the rationalization process, people are primarily motivated by images. "Blue, Brown, Agrarian, Calm, Order, Discipline, Downers, Minimalism..." for a conservative, "Red, Green, Multiplicity, Vitality, Openness..." for a more left-wing person. All this has to do with memory and therefore once again the way in which the ego is constructed, what is captured, then who will be subject to identification or projection (duality).

Back to nutrition, from a relative point of view, we could say that excitement induces a placebo/nacebo effect on foods, but to take a more "perched" point of view lol, we can say that the placebo effect is a quantum shift towards another reality.
If we pay attention and put our ego aside, we end up observing that we can obtain proof of anything and everything.

As my "mentor" franck lopvet would say, that's why spirituality is not provable, because whoever wants to play the persona of "pretentious atheist" who thinks that there is only matter, will obtain the concrete evidences.

I understood some of it. When you say people are motivated by images. Do you mean literal images of more the image of a person, so their “persona “if you get what I mean. And what do you mean with quantum shift towards another reality  ? And “we end up observing that we can obtain proof of anything and everything”?

and the last paragraph 

hehe

 

[Keryo Koffa]

"Now: Generally speaking, those who advocate health foods or natural foods subscribe to some of the same overall beliefs held by your physicians. 

They believe that diseases are the result of exterior conditions. Quite simply, their policy can be read: "You are what you eat." Some in this group also subscribe to philosophical ideas that somewhat moderate those concepts, recognizing the importance of the mind. Often though, some strong suggestions of a very negative character are given, so that all foods except certain accepted ones are seen as bad for the body, and the cause of diseases. People become afraid of the food they eat, and the field of eating then becomes the arena. 

Moral values become attached to food, with some seen as good and some as bad. Symptoms appear, and are quite directly considered to be the natural result of ingesting foods on the forbidden list. In this system, at least, the body is not insulted with a bewildering assortment of drugs for therapy. It may, however, be starved of very needed nourishment. Beyond that the whole problem of health and illness becomes simplistically applied, and here food is scrutinized. You are what you think, not what you eat — and to a large extent what you think about what you eat is far more important.

What you think about your body, health, and illness will determine how your food is used, and how your chemistry handles fats, for in- stance, or carbohydrates. Your attitudes in preparing meals are highly important.

Physically, it is true, but again generally speaking, that your body needs certain nourishments. But within that pattern there is great leeway, and the organism itself has the amazing capacity to make use of substitutes and alternates. The best diet in the world, by anyone's standards, will not keep you healthy if you have a belief in illness.

A belief in health can help you utilize a "poor" diet to an amazing degree. If you are convinced that a specific food will give you a particular disease, it will indeed do so. It appears that certain vitamins will prevent certain diseases. The belief itself works while you are operating within that framework, of course. A Western doctor may give vitamin shots or pills to a native child in another culture. The child need not know what particular vitamin is being given, or the name for his disease, but if he believes in the physician and Western medicine he will indeed improve, and he will need the vitamins from then on. So will all the other children.

Again, I am not saying, "Do not give vitamins to children," for within your framework this becomes nearly mandatory. You will find more vitamins to treat more diseases. As long as the system works it will be accepted — but the trouble is that it is not working very well. 

If you are feeling poorly and happen to read an advertisement for vitamins, or a book about them, and are impressed, you will indeed benefit — at least for a while. Your belief will make them work for you, but if your insistence upon poor health persists, then the counter suggestion represented by the vitamins will not be effective for long. 

The same applies to the "public service announcements" dealing with tobacco and drugs alike. The suggestion that smoking will give you cancer is far more dangerous than the physical effects of smoking, and can give cancer to who people who might otherwise not be so affected (very intently).

The well-meaning announcements pertaining to heroin, marijuana, and acid (LSD) can also be damaging, in that they structure in advance any experience that people who take drugs might have. On the one hand, you have a culture that publicly points out as common the often exaggerated dangers that can occur with drugs, and on the other holds out drugs as a method of therapy. Here the dangers become something like initiation rites, in which loss of life must be faced before full acceptance into the community can be established. But those involved with native initiation rituals knew far more what they were doing, and understood a framework of beliefs in which the outcome — success — was fairly well assured.

All of this involves natural hypnosis."

[Sugarcoat]

3 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

"Now: Generally speaking, those who advocate health foods or natural foods subscribe to some of the same overall beliefs held by your physicians. 

They believe that diseases are the result of exterior conditions. Quite simply, their policy can be read: "You are what you eat." Some in this group also subscribe to philosophical ideas that somewhat moderate those concepts, recognizing the importance of the mind. Often though, some strong suggestions of a very negative character are given, so that all foods except certain accepted ones are seen as bad for the body, and the cause of diseases. People become afraid of the food they eat, and the field of eating then becomes the arena. 

Moral values become attached to food, with some seen as good and some as bad. Symptoms appear, and are quite directly considered to be the natural result of ingesting foods on the forbidden list. In this system, at least, the body is not insulted with a bewildering assortment of drugs for therapy. It may, however, be starved of very needed nourishment. Beyond that the whole problem of health and illness becomes simplistically applied, and here food is scrutinized. You are what you think, not what you eat — and to a large extent what you think about what you eat is far more important.

What you think about your body, health, and illness will determine how your food is used, and how your chemistry handles fats, for in- stance, or carbohydrates. Your attitudes in preparing meals are highly important.

Physically, it is true, but again generally speaking, that your body needs certain nourishments. But within that pattern there is great leeway, and the organism itself has the amazing capacity to make use of substitutes and alternates. The best diet in the world, by anyone's standards, will not keep you healthy if you have a belief in illness.

A belief in health can help you utilize a "poor" diet to an amazing degree. If you are convinced that a specific food will give you a particular disease, it will indeed do so. It appears that certain vitamins will prevent certain diseases. The belief itself works while you are operating within that framework, of course. A Western doctor may give vitamin shots or pills to a native child in another culture. The child need not know what particular vitamin is being given, or the name for his disease, but if he believes in the physician and Western medicine he will indeed improve, and he will need the vitamins from then on. So will all the other children.

Again, I am not saying, "Do not give vitamins to children," for within your framework this becomes nearly mandatory. You will find more vitamins to treat more diseases. As long as the system works it will be accepted — but the trouble is that it is not working very well. 

If you are feeling poorly and happen to read an advertisement for vitamins, or a book about them, and are impressed, you will indeed benefit — at least for a while. Your belief will make them work for you, but if your insistence upon poor health persists, then the counter suggestion represented by the vitamins will not be effective for long. 

The same applies to the "public service announcements" dealing with tobacco and drugs alike. The suggestion that smoking will give you cancer is far more dangerous than the physical effects of smoking, and can give cancer to who people who might otherwise not be so affected (very intently).

The well-meaning announcements pertaining to heroin, marijuana, and acid (LSD) can also be damaging, in that they structure in advance any experience that people who take drugs might have. On the one hand, you have a culture that publicly points out as common the often exaggerated dangers that can occur with drugs, and on the other holds out drugs as a method of therapy. Here the dangers become something like initiation rites, in which loss of life must be faced before full acceptance into the community can be established. But those involved with native initiation rituals knew far more what they were doing, and understood a framework of beliefs in which the outcome — success — was fairly well assured.

All of this involves natural hypnosis."

From where u got that quote?

[Keryo Koffa]

5 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

From where u got that quote?

Bible 2.0

[Sugarcoat]

4 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

Bible 2.0

Cool quote

Edited September 23 by Sugarcoat

[Keryo Koffa]

11 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Cool quote

Click a random time on the video and you got yourself a "cool quote generator"

Finally I can outsource that role, now I'm freeeeeee

Edited September 23 by Keryo Koffa

[Sugarcoat]

1 minute ago, Keryo Koffa said:

Click a random time on the video and you got yourself a "cool quote generator"

Finally I can outsource that role, now I'm freeeeeee

A full time job 

[Schizophonia]

36 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

I understood some of it. When you say people are motivated by images. Do you mean literal images of more the image of a person, so their “persona “if you get what I mean.

Both.

If you want you can see the ego as a third person camera who tells a story, and Sugarcoat ("I") is just the main character, but it's still a character.

Images are symbols that serve as scenery for plays (a table, a potato, the red roller, a human being, a planet).
Then the personas are the way in which the images are articulated to give an experience, here in a linear time (He is mean and wants to hit the other human, "I" (always a character!) prefer to eat potatoes than music, "I" am persecuted in such a context, "I" do everything better than everyone else, it was still better at the time etcetc).
And finally, to go a little further, we can speak in Jungian psychoanalysis of archetypes, that is to say ideas of simple and particularly recurring personas in the collective unconscious.
For example "the hero", "the victim", the pragmatist", "the magician", the fascist", "the communist" etc.

51 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

And what do you mean with quantum shift towards another reality

I think everything we believe becomes true, so we can literally change of (manifest an other) reality.

A priori humans can't practices too heavy quantum shifts, for exemple we can't come from a persona of a radical physicalist atheist, and the next day having enough faith to materialize a car lol.

But we can still.

59 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

and the last paragraph

If you want to play a "radical atheist" persona, you will manifest stupid/naives spiritual people here and there, and so having the demonstrations that spirituality is dumb to give reason to you ego.

The only exception come from the fact that ego have multiples layer, and layers "above" that you don't control (your "higher self" in some sort) will eventually go on the opposite direction of the conscious parts of the ego.

For exemple, if you try to become religious for some reason but your unconscious, higher self isn't agree, this time you will manifest "boring radical atheist" to make you remember how you don't want to play a religious persona, that you actually find that silly etc.

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

hehe

 

No problem, my queen.

 

[Schizophonia]

43 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

From where u got that quote?

ChatGPT

[Sugarcoat]

13 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Both.

If you want you can see the ego as a third person camera who tells a story, and Sugarcoat ("I") is just the main character, but it's still a character.

Images are symbols that serve as scenery for plays (a table, a potato, the red roller, a human being, a planet).
Then the personas are the way in which the images are articulated to give an experience, here in a linear time (He is mean and wants to hit the other human, "I" (always a character!) prefer to eat potatoes than music, "I" am persecuted in such a context, "I" do everything better than everyone else, it was still better at the time etcetc).
And finally, to go a little further, we can speak in Jungian psychoanalysis of archetypes, that is to say ideas of simple and particularly recurring personas in the collective unconscious.
For example "the hero", "the victim", the pragmatist", "the magician", the fascist", "the communist" etc.

I think everything we believe becomes true, so we can literally change of (manifest an other) reality.

A priori humans can't practices too heavy quantum shifts, for exemple we can't come from a persona of a radical physicalist atheist, and the next day having enough faith to materialize a car lol.

But we can still.

If you want to play a "radical atheist" persona, you will manifest stupid/naives spiritual people here and there, and so having the demonstrations that spirituality is dumb to give reason to you ego.

The only exception come from the fact that ego have multiples layer, and layers "above" that you don't control (your "higher self" in some sort) will eventually go on the opposite direction of the conscious parts of the ego.

For exemple, if you try to become religious for some reason but your unconscious, higher self isn't agree, this time you will manifest "boring radical atheist" to make you remember how you don't want to play a religious persona, that you actually find that silly etc.

No problem, my queen.

 

I’ll have to reread that a few times. Thanks

[Princess Arabia]

I thought cashews were good for me until I saw the symptoms and did a little research to learn they can be inflammatory. I think all this "if you think a food will be bad for you it will, and if you don't it won't affect you" is bull. I've seen too much evidence of the contrary. Too many poor eaters fell sick, and a lot of healthy eaters remained healthy. A lot of those poor eaters weren't even aware that the food was causing harm. Lots of fat people are eating fatty foods and lots of people aren't even thinking if the food is healthy or not; they're just eating whatever they want.

Edited September 29 by Princess Arabia

[Schizophonia]

18 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

I thought cashews were good for me until I saw the symptoms and did a little research to learn they can be inflammatory. I think all this "if you think a food will be bad for you it will, and if you don't it won't affect you" is bull. I've seen too much evidence of the contrary. Too many poor eaters fell sick, and a lot of healthy eaters remained healthy. A lot of those poor eaters weren't even aware that the food was causing harm. Lots of fat people are eating fatty foods and lots of people aren't even thinking if the food is healthy or not; they're just eating whatever they want.

non duality  

[Sugarcoat]

On 2024-09-29 at 11:54 PM, Princess Arabia said:

I thought cashews were good for me until I saw the symptoms and did a little research to learn they can be inflammatory. I think all this "if you think a food will be bad for you it will, and if you don't it won't affect you" is bull. I've seen too much evidence of the contrary. Too many poor eaters fell sick, and a lot of healthy eaters remained healthy. A lot of those poor eaters weren't even aware that the food was causing harm. Lots of fat people are eating fatty foods and lots of people aren't even thinking if the food is healthy or not; they're just eating whatever they want.

I agree with you. My post isn’t saying all foods are equal, that some aren’t healthier than others. Ofc there’s a significant difference between different foods and they can give real health benefits or negative symptoms. I just mean the mind still plays a role in this and can amplify the effects. From personal experience. 

Edited October 1 by Sugarcoat

[Princess Arabia]

13 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

I agree with you. My post isn’t saying all foods are equal, that some aren’t healthier than others. Ofc there’s a significant difference between different foods and they can give real health benefits or negative symptoms. I just mean the mind still plays a role in this and can amplify the effects. From personal experience. 

Yes, I can see that. I think it does to an extent. Not denying that. I guess it's something like the placebo effect.

[Sugarcoat]

3 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Yes, I can see that. I think it does to an extent. Not denying that. I guess it's something like the placebo effect.

Exactly. I have experienced it myself for example with certain health issues that when I obsessed about them it seemed like the symptoms got worse vs when I was relaxed about it . Stress plays a role too 

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Sugarcoat said:

Exactly. I have experienced it myself for example with certain health issues that when I obsessed about them it seemed like the symptoms got worse vs when I was relaxed about it . Stress plays a role too 

Yeah, the hormones that causes stress goes out of whack and causes a disruption in the system. Stress is up there all right.