I was reading Danny Roddy’s latest post about a fish tank or something (just kidding Danny, I Love You) which I thought was quite good and remembered this thread from a while back.
Gosh, were we all so immature in those days. The growth we’ve all experienced over the years has been amazing.
This naturally brings me to Dr. Peat. I once wrote quite a bit on the Ray Peat Forums, eventually was banned and moved on to grow into addressing problems I deemed more important. The thing that annoyed me with the cult like Peat following was that they reminded me too much of religious people. They interpreted his work as if it was biblical scripture, and when something didn’t fit they would endlessly try to justify their position or just ignore it or say that you don’t truly understand his work. Not much different then groups of church people and their endless interpretations of biblical scripture that pit themselves against each other.
What initially attracted me to Dr. Peat in the early days was his view that energy and structure are interdependent, something which at the time as I was studying mitochondria, struck a chord with me and gave me the confidence that the way I was thinking about things was something worth pursuing. My armchair background in physics and other sciences, and as Danny Roddy put it in his article in so many words, a pursuit for a universal theory, whirl-winded me away from the cult-life and towards synergizing my own ideas most of which aren’t published publicly. There are some people who I confided in and shared a portion of my work with who were also Peat “followers” who said in so many words “that this is the light at the end of the tunnel”, the thing that will bring everything full circle. That was a few years ago.
Such compliments scare the shit out me. And after which, I became reclusive to examine the finer details. Exceptions and outliers are my kryptonite. It is all too easy to generalize and miss something. Which is why to this day I haven’t published my general theory on the nature of nature.
Recently I was listening to the KMUD interview with the makers of “On the Back of a Tiger” and Dr. Peat. There were a lot of good and positive things said. But the one thing that bothered me was that the host kept asking what Dr. Peat thought, asking for an opinion is not a sin, but my impression was that the host wanted verification for the work that others have dedicated the majority of their lives studying, annoyingly so, as if in one swift word Dr. Peat could invalidate their work. I find that mentality troubling.
That mentality is the antithesis of Dr. Peats work. It is the opposite of thinking, the opposite of stimulating the organism. It is authoritarianism.
This might be confusing for some as Dr. Peat is definitely is anti-authority. To illustrate what I mean here is an excerpt from my work about the concept I’m trying to convey:
“Entrenching is not the new idea but rather the aversion to self-confessing an error approaching things in a new way. The conflict does not arise out of the new idea but arises out of the individual. These individuals place too much power in words and ideas. These people are the real dangers in society—not the originators of new ideas. It takes much more than an individual to do anything with a dangerous idea just as it takes much more than an individual to do something with a useful idea. Ideas have to be stated and different people must implement them to become a useful or dangerous reality.”
In other words, it is the followers the perpetuate dogma. Not the originator of the idea. That is, the state of the sciences and its application is not the result of authoritarianism per se, it is the complacency of people that facilitates authoritarianism. Governments and institutions become authoritative because people are poor consumers. They are poor consumers because they have no self-confidence, have a lack of curiosity, and/or they lack the belief that they can think for and figure things out for themselves. This mentality is self-reinforcing and over time systems in place become more and more authoritative and resistant to change. But the solution is not to destroy, the solution is to evolve. Nothing good really comes from destruction, usually repetitive cycles between the garden of Eden and Doomsday.
Once a follower understands that it is they who facilitate dogma, they are faced with a multiple dilemmas:
“What is difficult for the entrenched individual is not the new shift, but the shift that points to years or a life wasted and genuine interests forsaken. There is a saying: “You can’t teach an old dog a new trick.” Few people are so downright stubborn. But these defining qualities are common enough that most of us are familiar with these individuals.”
“And what follows is a revolution in cultural knowledge to try and rationalize why we did things the way we did in the past and why it is justified to change things for the future. Radicals entrenched in their beliefs usually, but not always, die in these shifts of thinking; literally or sacrificing the personality. Being a martyr for a particular paradigm has never been a personally natural inclination. When the individual is cornered and experience is conflicted with lacquered beliefs, the individual is faced with options of entrenching themselves behind belief or taking steps to evolve in another direction. It is the collateral damage of opposing extreme views in groups of people that often drive cultural evolution. At some point we must put aside belief and continue moving forward. A fight to the death is not a viable option except for the delusional.”
The proverbial foot in mouth is not an easy situation for anyone. Easier for some harder for others. Once somebody is convinced they are on to something and build a model around it for their livelihood they are doomed to confirmation bias. They themselves become the antithesis of life. It is why to this day I refuse to put a price tag on sharing information and ideas. It is crookery. Dishonest. And egotistical. It is what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s like the FDA, maybe the founding intentions were good, but it evolved into a completely different monster, that is the nature of trying to protect people and/or inform them, bias almost always follows, and where there is bias there is destruction.
A lot of people who should be scientists and have the charisma and passion to change things don’t become them because they are disenchanted with the system in place. What cowards. If you want to change something you have to participate and help the system to evolve. You do your small part and help to change things for the future. Being reclusive from that hostile environment only demonstrates the compliant temperament to bowing down to authority.
Being critical and passive demonstrates one thing, it demonstrates the type of energy flowing through you. An energized organism is resistant and resilient to stress, thrives, and has the ability to fundamentally change things, be it themselves or their environment. For example, Dan Wich noted my ability to levitate chairs with large amounts of saturated fat.
For years I thought that avoiding stress was healthy, to my surprise, the opposite occurred and was demonstrated to me over and over again, during the most supposedly stress free portions of my life I suffered from the most debilitating health issues. But as I began to participate in life more and more, confronting adversity, my health, my spunk, my problem solving abilities, etc., all rebounded regardless of my diet, regardless of how much sleep I got, regardless of everything just short of exhausting myself, stress (thinking is stress for example) gives life purpose.