Also the king of cherry-picking parts of studies that agree with his view and ignoring everything else, no matter how prevalent.
I agree with the cherry-picking, though. A glaring omission in his writing is adaptation (or hormesis), which is surprising for someone who draws such inspiration from Selye.
>The key idea was that energy and structure are interdependent, at every level.
> It seems that all of the problems of development and degeneration can be alleviated by the appropriate use of the energy-protective materials. When we realize that our human nature is problematic, we can begin to explore our best potentials.
This doesn't strike me as so far out there. The concepts of entropy and enthalpy are often used at the molecular and cellular levels, along with statistical mechanics, which definitely interconnect the concepts of energy and structure.
> It seems that all of the problems of development and degeneration can be alleviated by the appropriate use of the energy-protective materials. When we realize that our human nature is problematic, we can begin to explore our best potentials.
This is a strong claim, for sure. But it becomes less quacky if interpreted more plainly: our nature is to degrade under the force of entropy, which can be countered (to a limited extent) by energy.
But that's the point. He doesn't claim that, he makes a vague claim with ambiguous terms that could be interpreted in any way, even if he's qualified enough to know the precise terms.
That's the health equivalent of post-modern literature.