Just started reading this one, and while its flaws have been mentioned already (doesn't talk about gluten, casein, carbs), there is some REALLY fascinating stuff in it. First of all, the author, Catherine Shanahan, writes about epigenetics and how much influence diet and nutrition has on the proper expression and functioning of our genes (and the effects carried over generations). She mentions one well known experiment where lab animals deprived of Vitamin A will give birth to offspring without eyes. The genes read the environment via nutrients, and intelligently conclude that the environment is one in which eyes aren't necessary (lack of the vitamin is interpreted as lack of need). When then given an adequate supply, the offspring are born with eyes (showing that it's epigenetics and not a permanent mutation). Generalized, when our DNA lacks the communication of particular nutrients, it shuts off those systems as unnecessary. Which makes me wonder just how much 'human potential' has been atrophied over thousands of years of an increasingly degenerate and nutrient-poor (in every sense of the word) environment. That's not to mention the effects of toxins which disrupt gene expression (she cites vegetable oils and sugars as two of the main culprits, affecting hormone regulation and communication).
Now, this talk of "intelligent" DNA got me thinking. What she describes is kind of a 'negative epigenetics'; a toxin or deficiency leads to the atrophy of previously active genes (in the above case, those for eyes and vision). The nutrients provide information about the environment and the genome reacts accordingly. As she mentions, this is a seemingly intelligent process. But there's also a more 'positive' epigenetic effect. When you eat the right nutrients, they communicate with DNA, leading to the 'turning on' of dormant genes. This by itself is really fascinating stuff with all kind of implications. But does it go further? I'm wondering if new environment conditions could also lead to the activation of dormant or potential genes? In other words, current evolutionary thought sees adaptation as a random process: chance mutations are beneficial to the organism, promoting its survival and 'sticking' for future generations. This is the approach pretty much all scientists take. For example, Porges in his Polyvagal Theory says as much about the social engagement system, how it was basically an accident, a "byproduct of the neural regulation of the autonomic nervous system". But as Laura pointed out, perhaps a better way of putting it is that of "a neural regulation system evolved to meet the demands of the morphogenetic field influences of soul incarnation which included a need to develop a way to express emotions and prosocial behavior."
Maybe epigenetics, and specifically nutrition (but perhaps more; see below), which seems to have the greatest effect, is part of how this takes place? The way I see it, DNA is like the great ocean of potential (6D thought forms which contain all possibilities). It is the alphabet out of which every living thing grows, or takes its 'name' perhaps. Given the right nutrients from the right environment, the DNA reads this information and "turn on" genes to foster thriving in that environment. There's light, so eyes develop; there are tall tree species, so long necks develop; there are predators, so camouflage and defensive systems develop; etc. This brings in a kind of teleology or purpose to seemingly 'blind' evolutionary processes. When a species lives in a more 'nutritious' environment (as was the case with mammals perhaps?), new systems 'appear' and develop to provide for their further evolution and survival. Evolution proceeds along to a specific (yet open) end, along a specific path. It follows the "Divine Plan" which is really Nature, possibilities and probabilities, throughout levels of density.
Shanahan goes so far as to call the nutritional traditions passed on in traditional cultures an "ancient technology". This immediately brought to mind the old title of Secret History, which was Ancient Science. Highly specialized information was acquired and passed on in order to foster the health of babies and the tribe. Nowadays, we've lost most of this information, as it was guarded closely (she even brings up the high technology of megalith builders to make her point, which I thought was cute). I couldn't help but think of the image of the Grail, empty one minute and overfull the next. Our DNA is like the Grail, and when given the right stuff, is like the Horn of Plenty (which is how John Schumaker, I believe, described Paleolithics' access to food resources).
Anyways, this somewhat random (and hopefully not too tedious) stream of associations led me back to Gurdjieff and EE. Of course we know about all the benefits of vagal stimulation - basically it's what makes us truly human. But then there's that thing Gurdjieff said, which Laura quotes in the EE presentation:
The human body truly is a "chemical factory", and maybe conscious breathing (and assimilating all those "active elements" Gurdjieff talks about) is another method of creating the right conditions, providing our DNA with messengers for positive changes?
Back to Deep Nutrition, she also says this:
She's talking about physical features, but the same could apply to psychopathology. City-living allowed individuals who would otherwise have not survived (e.g. psychopaths) to thrive.
She also makes an offhand comment about how physical deformities are not brought about by "intermixing races" (she's quoting outdated theories for it), but by epigenetic degeneration. This brought to mind the quote from Lobaczewski about skirtoids, and the possibility that intermixing races would lead to possibly great numbers. Maybe it's not the breeding, but the epigenetics at play here?
Anyways, rambling off for now. Back to reading.
Now, this talk of "intelligent" DNA got me thinking. What she describes is kind of a 'negative epigenetics'; a toxin or deficiency leads to the atrophy of previously active genes (in the above case, those for eyes and vision). The nutrients provide information about the environment and the genome reacts accordingly. As she mentions, this is a seemingly intelligent process. But there's also a more 'positive' epigenetic effect. When you eat the right nutrients, they communicate with DNA, leading to the 'turning on' of dormant genes. This by itself is really fascinating stuff with all kind of implications. But does it go further? I'm wondering if new environment conditions could also lead to the activation of dormant or potential genes? In other words, current evolutionary thought sees adaptation as a random process: chance mutations are beneficial to the organism, promoting its survival and 'sticking' for future generations. This is the approach pretty much all scientists take. For example, Porges in his Polyvagal Theory says as much about the social engagement system, how it was basically an accident, a "byproduct of the neural regulation of the autonomic nervous system". But as Laura pointed out, perhaps a better way of putting it is that of "a neural regulation system evolved to meet the demands of the morphogenetic field influences of soul incarnation which included a need to develop a way to express emotions and prosocial behavior."
Maybe epigenetics, and specifically nutrition (but perhaps more; see below), which seems to have the greatest effect, is part of how this takes place? The way I see it, DNA is like the great ocean of potential (6D thought forms which contain all possibilities). It is the alphabet out of which every living thing grows, or takes its 'name' perhaps. Given the right nutrients from the right environment, the DNA reads this information and "turn on" genes to foster thriving in that environment. There's light, so eyes develop; there are tall tree species, so long necks develop; there are predators, so camouflage and defensive systems develop; etc. This brings in a kind of teleology or purpose to seemingly 'blind' evolutionary processes. When a species lives in a more 'nutritious' environment (as was the case with mammals perhaps?), new systems 'appear' and develop to provide for their further evolution and survival. Evolution proceeds along to a specific (yet open) end, along a specific path. It follows the "Divine Plan" which is really Nature, possibilities and probabilities, throughout levels of density.
Shanahan goes so far as to call the nutritional traditions passed on in traditional cultures an "ancient technology". This immediately brought to mind the old title of Secret History, which was Ancient Science. Highly specialized information was acquired and passed on in order to foster the health of babies and the tribe. Nowadays, we've lost most of this information, as it was guarded closely (she even brings up the high technology of megalith builders to make her point, which I thought was cute). I couldn't help but think of the image of the Grail, empty one minute and overfull the next. Our DNA is like the Grail, and when given the right stuff, is like the Horn of Plenty (which is how John Schumaker, I believe, described Paleolithics' access to food resources).
Anyways, this somewhat random (and hopefully not too tedious) stream of associations led me back to Gurdjieff and EE. Of course we know about all the benefits of vagal stimulation - basically it's what makes us truly human. But then there's that thing Gurdjieff said, which Laura quotes in the EE presentation:
The human body truly is a "chemical factory", and maybe conscious breathing (and assimilating all those "active elements" Gurdjieff talks about) is another method of creating the right conditions, providing our DNA with messengers for positive changes?
Back to Deep Nutrition, she also says this:
She's talking about physical features, but the same could apply to psychopathology. City-living allowed individuals who would otherwise have not survived (e.g. psychopaths) to thrive.
She also makes an offhand comment about how physical deformities are not brought about by "intermixing races" (she's quoting outdated theories for it), but by epigenetic degeneration. This brought to mind the quote from Lobaczewski about skirtoids, and the possibility that intermixing races would lead to possibly great numbers. Maybe it's not the breeding, but the epigenetics at play here?
Anyways, rambling off for now. Back to reading.
