In the 60s, the pioneers of instinctive-nutrition noticed some change in their own sexual behaviour. I can't know exactly how they felt it, but it seems it was more or less like the change I experienced overnight myself when I switched to this nutrition, in January 87. Before, I always needed to have an orgasm before I could sleep, whether I was lonely or not. It was quite an obsession.
Then, this compulsory need stopped suddenly : I fell quickly asleep without even thinking about it - unless my wife wanted me. But since our love relation was worn out, it didn't happen very often anymore. The disappearance of such an obsession was a great relief for me and I didn't wonder much about it, probably more or less unconsciously thinking I had finally found a normal and satisfactory sexual equilibrium related to my new nutrition system. Amongst other occupations, finding a sufficient food supply probably occupied my mind enough and I wasn't free to think much about fundamental questions. 

But I ignored that the other instinctos, after experiencing the same change, had found ample time to think about it. And that Burger had long ago constructed an elaborate theory starting from it...

The way of his reasoning had been straightforward: If instinctive-nutrition is the food of our origins and our normal food, the sexual behaviour we experience with this food must be normal. If cooked food provides us a somewhat different behaviour, it must be an abnormal behaviour.
It's as simple as Colombo egg.
But if the whole framework of our human and social sciences is based upon an abnormal human behaviour mistaken for normal, the entire construction collapses... So Burger had to create a new edifice from scratch. Apparently it was no problem for him: every expert willing to thoroughly examine the new building he put up says it is wonderfully sound. No one found any defect, even if many people criticize the architect himself and despite the fact that the French Justice put him in jail.

So, let's go in without him.

When starting a project from scratch, a conscientious designer shall undertake a meticulous research and thinking, to avoid the incorporation of worn out, obsolete and unsatisfactory designs or materials. So did Burger. 
From the ground floor, we realize this construction is intended as a substitute to the old walls we used to be cramped in without even knowing it. Here, there's no walls and no doors, it's open on all sides. We can come in from anywhere and we are free to get out the same way. It's just made of concrete pillars and stacked floors. In other words, the whole thing is just a theoretical model, a conceptual structure to explain the nature, but not the nature itself. As a scientist, the architect knew the limitations of our knowledge and left the boundaries open. He didn't want the tenants to be confined in dogmatic narrow walls, he only wished them to see from outside the ruins of their former prison - inside which many of them were  frustrated enough to sometimes kill each other. 

Stepping up, the visitor can now contemplate a great wonder: a division in the animals world! On one side almost all the animals are. On the other side there's only few species: perhaps whales and dolphins, but unquestionably bonobos and humans. All the former ones have only sporadic sexual activity, an activity intended for the sole purpose of reproduction. The few other side species are the all year round in sexual/genital activity and they are even active when reproduction is impossible or when the female is already pregnant. As any activity uses some energy, we understand  it must be somehow useful for survival, since an animal wasting its energy purposelessly would have been eliminated by natural selection. In the old walls, we were told by psychoanalysis and sexology this purpose is pleasure. But we couldn't notice pleasure itself isn't a valid purpose. Pleasure is an indicator of what's valuable for us: eating good food is pleasant because it properly feeds our body. Good is good in the new structure, while in the former confinement, "good" (tasty processed) food might be bad for the health. We had an unsound situation 'cause "good" could be "bad", and this simple fact seems to have confused our way of thinking, leading us to some fundamental false conclusions on others fields than nutrition. 

From the next floor we see that humans (at least, not to speak of bonobos, whales and dolphins) have more of a spiritual life than other animals. This function probably needs some kind of appropriate feeding also, and the architect let us consider whether it's connected with perennial sexuality. In bonobos, the latter is known to ease the social tensions and prevent conflicts (which could be a big step towards wisdom).  In humans, it looks like it fails to provide such a protection... and from here on we realise something must have gone wrong (did we miss the first step to wisdom?). What went wrong can be deduced from the deficient explanation provided by psychoanalysis and sexology. The new clarification is:  if the pleasure associated with sexual-loving relations does not show usefulness for our physical body, it might well illustrate that we are feeding our psyche when we are in love. Some of us may have experienced a kind of metaphysical energy provided by a love relation. I had a very striking one when I was 28: a very clear premonitory dream which made me wonder of the nature of time till a found, 20 years later, a kind of theoretical explanation. To realise the universe isn't limited to the material things our senses perceive, there's nothing better as such an experience Unfortunately it's rare and most of us hardly ever have any. 

After some more steps up, we understand this might be due to a partial dysfunction of our sexual instinct, of which we can now see two distinctive functions: reproduction and also development of our psyche. The architect calls them IRP, standing for "Instinctive Reproduction Program" and IMP, for "Instinctive Metapsychical Program". By the way, an organ has quite often two separate functions, such as our mouth, used for speaking and eating. So there's nothing unusual here. Nevertheless, IMP was not only totally ignored in the old confinement, but also repressed, since no one saw any purpose in it except a useless wastage of energy for pleasure. This repression eased somewhat recently, as pleasure appeared beneficial to our psychical equilibrium. But the fact it could have a much more important function then pleasure had never been recognized, and so it is still forbidden to give an appropriate loving answer to Oedipal pulses every kid has. Psychoanalysts are aware kids are traumatised, but the general opinion seems to be that an even greater trauma would result of observing an intercourse between their parents.
In the old walls, there's certainly the possibility of a trauma when this intercourse is loveless, in other words belongs to IRP. Under raw instinctive-nutrition the IRP is incorporated in the IMP. IRP would reappear in dissociated form only as a back-up program to save locally the specie, in case very few survivors were left and couldn't find any loving partner... The sight of a IMP intercourse wouldn't traumatise a child, ever since it is normal and natural to love someone and do together whatever we like. Kids are very sensitive to the presence or absence of love. As in the usual confinement IMP most of the time doesn't work anymore and only the dissociated IRP is left, it may be wise in this case to send the kids to sleep alone in their room. No way out, they'll get a trauma anyway. I remember being rebuffed and sent away for a reason I couldn't understand.
Loveless IRP relations don't bring us the kind of metaphysical consciousness we need to develop a proper spiritual life and bump into some extra-sensory perceptions (ESP). Being totally deprived of ESP may cause materialism and render us possessive. 

Well, I guess it's enough for today. The next part will soon follow.
Thanks Kirt for the break, I appreciate it. But feel free to write your comments, now or latter.

Francois