Thinking out loud here on some meta issues... I personally appreciate the obvious ambition to weave together epistemic problems and dietary / biochemistry problems. Because he's obviously doing a lot of thinking about thinking, it makes sense that he has a bit of an artful approach to communication on the blog and elsewhere. "Art" (ideas conveyed in a non literal structure?) is the most natural way we deal with our world, so the slow stiching of the quilt pieces, just its form, can be a great catalyst for others to think through, to think laterally, to approach old problems in fresh ways. Thinking more clearly, becoming better 'artists', doing better self analysis / self experimentation, etc. That's certainly one of my life goals, at least as important as being free of ND into the later years.

It could very well be that the role of the brain and its patterns of reasoning will become more important than it already has in the ancestral health movement or whatever you want to call it. Because of the inherent interdisciplinary nature of the movement, like with any interdisciplinary movement, there needs to be more exploration into useful, descriptive models to demonstrate cause and effect on any given overlapping topic. Imagine an organized arena for instance to get the neuro surgeon's perspective, the physicist's perspective, the biochemist's perspective, and the anthropological perspective on the same thing. I think Dr Kruse might implicitly be pushing more for something like this (and the symposiums sort of stab in that direction as well)? He and some others seem to be a few steps ahead so its hard to know.

For instance he alludes to gut intuition at one point in the interview; it would be wonderful to see more of that spelled out and explored from across disciplines, coherent theories proposed from competent disciplinarians, what this means for the ancestral movement, if and what are formal models of information evaluation. Or perhaps it already has been worked out from several angles and needs to be further dispelled in the public arena.

What I'm sensing is we can't just try to think logically about the things related to health, but also our role of thinking itself and how the health related matters fold back on that. I'm wondering if situation theory (google Barwise and Perry's work) may be helpful in working this stuff out.

Thinking out loud here on some meta issues... I personally appreciate the obvious ambition to weave together epistemic problems and dietary / biochemistry problems. Because he's obviously doing a lot of thinking about thinking, it makes sense that he has a bit of an artful approach to communication on the blog and elsewhere. "Art" (ideas conveyed in a non literal structure?) is the most natural way we deal with our world, so the slow stiching of the quilt pieces, just its form, can be a great catalyst for others to think through, to think laterally, to approach old problems in fresh ways. Thinking more clearly, becoming better 'artists', doing better self analysis / self experimentation, etc.

It could very well be that the role of the brain and its patterns of reasoning will become more important than it already has in the ancestral health movement or whatever you want to call it. Because of the inherent interdisciplinary nature of the movement, like with any interdisciplinary movement, there needs to be more exploration into useful, descriptive models to demonstrate cause and effect on any given overlapping topic. Imagine an organized arena for instance to get the neuro surgeon's perspective, the physicist's perspective, the biochemist's perspective, and the anthropological perspective on the same thing. I think Dr Kruse might implicitly be pushing more for something like this (and the symposiums sort of stab in that direction as well)? He and some others seem to be a few steps ahead so its hard to know.

For instance he alludes to gut intuition at one point in the interview; it would be wonderful to see more of that spelled out and explored from across disciplines, coherent theories proposed from competent disciplinarians, what this means for the ancestral movement, if and what are formal models of information evaluation. Or perhaps it already has been worked out from several angles and needs to be further dispelled in the public arena.

What I'm sensing is we can't just try to think logically about the things related to health, but also our role of thinking itself and how the health related matters fold back on that. I'm wondering if situation theory (google Barwise and Perry's work) may be helpful in working this stuff out.

Thinking out loud here on some meta issues... I personally appreciate the obvious ambition to weave together epistemic problems and dietary / biochemistry problems. Because he's obviously doing a lot of thinking about thinking, it makes sense that he has a bit of an artful approach to communication on the blog and elsewhere. "Art" (ideas conveyed in a non literal structure?) is the most natural way we deal with our world, so the slow stiching of the quilt pieces, just its form, can be a great catalyst for others to think through, to think laterally, to approach old problems in fresh ways. Thinking more clearly, becoming better 'artists', doing better self analysis / self experimentation, etc.

It could very well be that the role of the brain and its patterns of reasoning will become more important than it already has in the ancestral health movement or whatever you want to call it. Because of the inherent interdisciplinary nature of the movement, like with any interdisciplinary movement, there needs to be more exploration into useful, descriptive models to demonstrate cause and effect on any given overlapping topic. Imagine an organized arena for instance to get the neuro surgeon's perspective, the physicist's perspective, the biochemist's perspective, and the anthropological perspective on the same thing. I think Dr Kruse might implicitly be pushing more for something like this?

For instance he alludes to gut intuition at one point in the interview; it would be wonderful to see more of that spelled out and explored from across disciplines, coherent theories proposed from competent disciplinarians, what this means for the ancestral movement, if and what are formal models of information evaluation. Or perhaps it already has been worked out from several angles and needs to be further dispelled in the public arena.