Is there any truth to old wives tales?
2017 January 8th Old Wives Tales, Myths and Truths.
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
Is there any truth to old wives tales?
You know me by now, yes and no. (For those who don't, you have to understand the conditions or variables that created the tale or myth or truth, at the time it was created.
Which in this case means you have to know some history).
To answer the question properly or correctly you have to understand the question and the context in which it was created.
A simple answer of "no", because of your ignorance, is only sufficient if the person asking the question is also ignorant.
This answer may sound a little harsh, but needs further clarification for you to understand it fully.
Let us delve into a little bit of history. As always, first you have to understand the concepts.
Concept 1. History appears to change according to the person, people that interpret what has happened in the past. This is just their interpretation, it is not intended to mislead.
Concept 2. History is changed by the conqueror. I.e. History is rewritten by those who conquer or overtake a previous people or nation or idea. This is not interpretation, it is intended to mislead.
Concept 3. Concept 1 is also used on Concept 2 after that event.
Once you understand the above concepts you can put the following into perspective.
I am using my logic ('Simplified Complex Logic', explained in another Tea Break Book) to see how 'Old Wives Tales' were created.
I go back to before the written language was formed. Any information and knowledge would have been by word of mouth. Passed down through the ages, as were stories which were probably based on some truths with embellishments added to make them more interesting or easier to remember.
An old wives tale would have been some form of useful information at that time and would have been truthful as far as it could be interpreted to be true.
For you to understand the above a little clearer I will take the old wives tale of "An apple a day keeps the doctor away". Now it is obvious that this saying was not in its current form if it existed before the written language, but it can still be used as our example.
Before I use the example above let us look at a few general principles first, relating to all information passed down.
Let us first assume that at the time it was said it was based on a lie (untruth). E.g. It had some form of poison that was intended to kill someone, and had no long lasting benefit to it. This saying would not be passed on to the next generation and would eventually die out. (It may be reworded to say something like "Don't eat that black fruit" which would survive to the next generation).
If on the other hand it had some truth in it, e.g. It healed the person or people it was administered to, then this information would be valuable to the next generation and would be passed down.
The last option is that it is totally useless, in this case there is no benefit, this option would eventually also disappear. (I will come back to this option later).
Now back to our 'apple', if at the time the saying was based on a truth it would survive as a truth, but if somewhere along the course of history the meaning was misinterpreted as in concept 1, then it would become an old wife's tale, or in the case of a story based on a truth, it becomes a myth. The old wife's tale in time would also become a myth. Eventually if all original true information is lost or the use of concept 2 is used then the sayings or myths disappear altogether.
In short I am saying that the original information is based on truth.
Some people will debate the truth because they believe the truth is open to interpretation, (I could and may write a Tea Beak Book just on this). The truth is only open to debate because the people that debate it do not have a common mental framework, in other words they use the same words to mean different things (you have to read my Tea Break Book 'The meaning of words').
For those that do not accept the above statement let us assume the 'truth' means that there is some benefit to the 'saying'. E.g. It benefits more than 50% or half the people that use it.
Back to our 'Apple' example. Because I believe it is based on a historical truth, let us assume that there is some ingredient in the apple that has a benefit to us, and if taken daily it will help keep us well.
At the time it was said it would have been tested many times and it would have increased the survival of the people that took it. This does not mean that it cures all ills, as nothing cures all ills, (no modern medicine does, nor ancient).
Now if it supposedly did some benefit, why is it still or why has it become an old wife's tale?
Obviously something has changed (the 3 concepts).
Now before I give you my interpretation of the truth, let us assume that no new information is going to come from any future developments. The saying would become useless, as mentioned earlier and would die out. If on the other hand just a bit more misinformation. E.g. Some dentist who is ignorant of the original truth says apples are acidic and are bad for your teeth (which is based on a different truth). Over time the old wives tale is written off as rubbish and is actually now believed to be harmful. The opposite of the original truth. Further development of the 3 concepts.
What was the original truth that this old wives tale came from?
This is the question that must be answered.
Back to history 'an apple a day keeps the doctor away'. At that time the apples where all natural were eaten whole, pips and skin and at the time they were ripe from the tree. Now over time apples are de-cored sometimes peeled, picked unripe from the tree to take to market, or just processed (herbicides and pesticides included).
Therefore the real benefit is now gone.
The saying should now be rewritten to say 'A fresh organic ripened on the tree apple should be eaten whole, pips and skin, once a day will help keep the doctor away'.
Now for a bit more of the missing information, at the time they did not know the actual reasons why the apple was helping them to keep the doctor away. It did not matter, and does not really matter, all that matters is that it worked.
Now because we like to know the reasons, I will list just 2.
The pips contain vitamin B17 (amygdalin) that helps your body to kill cancer cells (I.e. It helps your immune system to kill cancer cells). Don't eat the pips don't get that benefit.
The ripe skin produces a chemical in the last two weeks of the ripened apple to ward off fungi, and is also used by your body to help kill cancer cells. Pick the apple off the tree too early you don't get that benefit.
Obvious other benefits like vitC etc. but the net affect is that is does more good than bad.
In other words it helps, not cures, therefore is based on a truth.
9th January 2017
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
The real reason was probably not because of the 2 reasons I listed. I only liked these 2 because they are ones that are not normally thought of, and are of benefit. It may have been the anthocyanins in red apples that have antioxidant properties with vitaminC, so should the saying have been 'red apples'?
If red, then does a redder apple contain more anthocyanins, yes. Should the saying be 'a red apple a day', or would 5 apples a week been enough?
It depends on the size of the apples, maybe the odd green apple has different beneficial properties, so the saying would eventually get more complicated, '5 red apples during the week and 2 green apples on weekends'?
At the end of the day it is wiser just to keep it simple and it doesn't matter if you only need 5 apples a week, the extra 2 won't harm you, in any event even if they had all the additional information at that time, they probably did not have weekdays and weekends. The essence of the saying is what counts, and the benefits out ways any detrimental effects.
As I said earlier no one thing is a cure on its own. It may have just been a balancing food, e.g. If it is slightly acidic you would eat it with something that is slightly basic. It is no coincidence that cheese and tomatoes go well together, they balance each other. Cheese on its own is not balanced, add pineapple, balanced. You can even try apple to balance cheese. Balanced foods even taste better, so you can eat more of them.
Don't be fooled by eating less 'less balanced' food you can lose weight. Eating 2 bags of crisps only each day, you will put on more weight than someone eating 2 bags of crisps plus a lot more balanced foods as well. This may sound wrong at first that someone eating everything you eat and eating a lot more food as well is putting on less weight than you! You need to use Simplified Complex Logic to work it out, but that is another subject (I may do another Tea Break Book on that subject if people are interested).
8th January 2017
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
'A ring of garlic keeps snakes away' if interpreted correctly is also true! I won't bother explaining that one unless someone wants me to.
A note to remember. The conqueror, concept 2 will always be able to disprove everything according to their rules (even ideas can be disproved according to their biased logic). This does not make it truth.
Truth is only found when it does not contradict itself, I.e. Mis-truths are eliminated or put in their rightful place. ('The meaning or words' comes into play again).
Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
Is there any truth to old wives tales?
You know me by now, yes and no. (For those who don't, you have to understand the conditions or variables that created the tale or myth or truth, at the time it was created.
Which in this case means you have to know some history).
To answer the question properly or correctly you have to understand the question and the context in which it was created.
A simple answer of "no", because of your ignorance, is only sufficient if the person asking the question is also ignorant.
This answer may sound a little harsh, but needs further clarification for you to understand it fully.
Let us delve into a little bit of history. As always, first you have to understand the concepts.
Concept 1. History appears to change according to the person, people that interpret what has happened in the past. This is just their interpretation, it is not intended to mislead.
Concept 2. History is changed by the conqueror. I.e. History is rewritten by those who conquer or overtake a previous people or nation or idea. This is not interpretation, it is intended to mislead.
Concept 3. Concept 1 is also used on Concept 2 after that event.
Once you understand the above concepts you can put the following into perspective.
I am using my logic ('Simplified Complex Logic', explained in another Tea Break Book) to see how 'Old Wives Tales' were created.
I go back to before the written language was formed. Any information and knowledge would have been by word of mouth. Passed down through the ages, as were stories which were probably based on some truths with embellishments added to make them more interesting or easier to remember.
An old wives tale would have been some form of useful information at that time and would have been truthful as far as it could be interpreted to be true.
For you to understand the above a little clearer I will take the old wives tale of "An apple a day keeps the doctor away". Now it is obvious that this saying was not in its current form if it existed before the written language, but it can still be used as our example.
Before I use the example above let us look at a few general principles first, relating to all information passed down.
Let us first assume that at the time it was said it was based on a lie (untruth). E.g. It had some form of poison that was intended to kill someone, and had no long lasting benefit to it. This saying would not be passed on to the next generation and would eventually die out. (It may be reworded to say something like "Don't eat that black fruit" which would survive to the next generation).
If on the other hand it had some truth in it, e.g. It healed the person or people it was administered to, then this information would be valuable to the next generation and would be passed down.
The last option is that it is totally useless, in this case there is no benefit, this option would eventually also disappear. (I will come back to this option later).
Now back to our 'apple', if at the time the saying was based on a truth it would survive as a truth, but if somewhere along the course of history the meaning was misinterpreted as in concept 1, then it would become an old wife's tale, or in the case of a story based on a truth, it becomes a myth. The old wife's tale in time would also become a myth. Eventually if all original true information is lost or the use of concept 2 is used then the sayings or myths disappear altogether.
In short I am saying that the original information is based on truth.
Some people will debate the truth because they believe the truth is open to interpretation, (I could and may write a Tea Beak Book just on this). The truth is only open to debate because the people that debate it do not have a common mental framework, in other words they use the same words to mean different things (you have to read my Tea Break Book 'The meaning of words').
For those that do not accept the above statement let us assume the 'truth' means that there is some benefit to the 'saying'. E.g. It benefits more than 50% or half the people that use it.
Back to our 'Apple' example. Because I believe it is based on a historical truth, let us assume that there is some ingredient in the apple that has a benefit to us, and if taken daily it will help keep us well.
At the time it was said it would have been tested many times and it would have increased the survival of the people that took it. This does not mean that it cures all ills, as nothing cures all ills, (no modern medicine does, nor ancient).
Now if it supposedly did some benefit, why is it still or why has it become an old wife's tale?
Obviously something has changed (the 3 concepts).
Now before I give you my interpretation of the truth, let us assume that no new information is going to come from any future developments. The saying would become useless, as mentioned earlier and would die out. If on the other hand just a bit more misinformation. E.g. Some dentist who is ignorant of the original truth says apples are acidic and are bad for your teeth (which is based on a different truth). Over time the old wives tale is written off as rubbish and is actually now believed to be harmful. The opposite of the original truth. Further development of the 3 concepts.
What was the original truth that this old wives tale came from?
This is the question that must be answered.
Back to history 'an apple a day keeps the doctor away'. At that time the apples where all natural were eaten whole, pips and skin and at the time they were ripe from the tree. Now over time apples are de-cored sometimes peeled, picked unripe from the tree to take to market, or just processed (herbicides and pesticides included).
Therefore the real benefit is now gone.
The saying should now be rewritten to say 'A fresh organic ripened on the tree apple should be eaten whole, pips and skin, once a day will help keep the doctor away'.
Now for a bit more of the missing information, at the time they did not know the actual reasons why the apple was helping them to keep the doctor away. It did not matter, and does not really matter, all that matters is that it worked.
Now because we like to know the reasons, I will list just 2.
The pips contain vitamin B17 (amygdalin) that helps your body to kill cancer cells (I.e. It helps your immune system to kill cancer cells). Don't eat the pips don't get that benefit.
The ripe skin produces a chemical in the last two weeks of the ripened apple to ward off fungi, and is also used by your body to help kill cancer cells. Pick the apple off the tree too early you don't get that benefit.
Obvious other benefits like vitC etc. but the net affect is that is does more good than bad.
In other words it helps, not cures, therefore is based on a truth.
9th January 2017
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
The real reason was probably not because of the 2 reasons I listed. I only liked these 2 because they are ones that are not normally thought of, and are of benefit. It may have been the anthocyanins in red apples that have antioxidant properties with vitaminC, so should the saying have been 'red apples'?
If red, then does a redder apple contain more anthocyanins, yes. Should the saying be 'a red apple a day', or would 5 apples a week been enough?
It depends on the size of the apples, maybe the odd green apple has different beneficial properties, so the saying would eventually get more complicated, '5 red apples during the week and 2 green apples on weekends'?
At the end of the day it is wiser just to keep it simple and it doesn't matter if you only need 5 apples a week, the extra 2 won't harm you, in any event even if they had all the additional information at that time, they probably did not have weekdays and weekends. The essence of the saying is what counts, and the benefits out ways any detrimental effects.
As I said earlier no one thing is a cure on its own. It may have just been a balancing food, e.g. If it is slightly acidic you would eat it with something that is slightly basic. It is no coincidence that cheese and tomatoes go well together, they balance each other. Cheese on its own is not balanced, add pineapple, balanced. You can even try apple to balance cheese. Balanced foods even taste better, so you can eat more of them.
Don't be fooled by eating less 'less balanced' food you can lose weight. Eating 2 bags of crisps only each day, you will put on more weight than someone eating 2 bags of crisps plus a lot more balanced foods as well. This may sound wrong at first that someone eating everything you eat and eating a lot more food as well is putting on less weight than you! You need to use Simplified Complex Logic to work it out, but that is another subject (I may do another Tea Break Book on that subject if people are interested).
8th January 2017
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
'A ring of garlic keeps snakes away' if interpreted correctly is also true! I won't bother explaining that one unless someone wants me to.
A note to remember. The conqueror, concept 2 will always be able to disprove everything according to their rules (even ideas can be disproved according to their biased logic). This does not make it truth.
Truth is only found when it does not contradict itself, I.e. Mis-truths are eliminated or put in their rightful place. ('The meaning or words' comes into play again).
Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com
