Francois,
> K : Ditto reverse. Experiments with raw foods have proven dangerous for
> some.
>
> F : I f raw food is so dangerous, we d'better avoid any. / Because of
> pollution due to cooking and civilisation, I supose.
This reasoning suffers from black/white rigid thinking. My point is that raw
foods have proven dangerous for some. Cooked neolithic foods have proved
dangerous for some (a great many actually since most people on the planet
eat them). Cooked paleo foods have proven dangerous for some. And so on.
Instinctos are not immune from health dangers. Some of them may have to due
with the diet directly.
> F : I guess we don't need a new "option group of mutations" for things we
> and our animal predecessors had to face ever since the darkness of time.
That would be ideal, but it may not be the case if our genetics have been
altered from so many generations cooking, and less generations cooking
neolithic foods. It may be comforting to suppose that our DNA is still
pre-fire pristine, but it may not be true. Who knows?
> F : The theories and inventions interest me more then the personnality of
> their author, but if your interests are just the opposite, than of course
> you can search in this field.
My interests are hardly "just the opposite" I think you would admit. They
simply include how the "human element" may affect the "theory". Many raw
folks decry mainstream research as baised because of the "cooked food
orientation" of the researchers. Asking how Burger's unmet needs may have
influenced (not only meta, but) instincto theory is a fair question
methinks. And a reletively wide open one since you (and many others) try to
divorce the theory from the proponent completely. Though you end up
proponents yourselves. ;)
> On the other hand, can't you consider
> seriously examining the theory of "metasexuality" independently of the
> personality of its creator?
You can. But it may not be wise to do so. Issac Newton reportedly had a
life-long belief in fairies, yet still "discovered" much that "proved true"
for many decades. What a belief in fairies (the rest of his personality) may
have to do with his physics is unclear, but is still an interesting question
in the human realm. And, don't forget that others (especially Einstein) came
up with a more comprehensive, a more consistent, "truth" that went beyond
Newton. There is a chance (perhaps we only disagree on how big of a chance)
that, as important as instincto theory is, it may be part of a bigger
picture that includes many generations of cooking.
Again, we may be perfectly adapted to neither a raw paleo, nor a raw/cooked
paleo diet. Which is the best bet? I don't know. But it seems there are pros
and cons to each (as would be true if there is not perfect adaptation to
either).
> The arguments about special and general relativity, for instance, were never
> concerned with the personality of Einstein (he mistreated and abandonned his
> wife to go and live with his cousin, I read). It'seems to me an irrationnal,
> subjective and non scientific aproach to link the two questions.
But he was a vegetarian. ;) Seriously, I think the relationship between
Einstein's (or anyone's) personality and their ideation is very interesting.
I am no scientist. Are you? And scientists talk about these kind of things,
especially outside of academic journals--which this list is definately not.
In any case, Burger is no Einstein. ;)
> F : No, I do not want to excuse Burger nor anyone. He's been judged guilty
> according to the French laws. He's interjected an appeal and has to be
> judged again. That's an affair beetween the French justice and him.
Come on, Francois, it has something to do with you as well since you are
pals with his early pals, and have devoted much time, money, and energy to
his theory of nutrition. What purpose does it serve to pretend that he has
only a problem with French laws? Have you no problem with his behavior? You
won't excuse him, but you won't criticise him? "Wishy-washy" is the english
phrase. ;)
> This judgment doesn't concern the theory itself. Burger his judged, not the
> validity of his theories.
If by his "theories" you mean meta _and_ instincto, I think you are wrong.
(Of course, for meta, and I think so for instincto.)
Truth told, I am bothered (no surprise, I know;)) that you and so many
others hide behind the "judgement is not my job" new-age artsy-fartsy
mumbo-jumbo. It is the job of every caring human to define what the social
boundries are and cry foul when they are crossed. We can and should (as
folks have throughout history and prehistory) argue about where that line
is, but I find it more than a bit cowardly to dismiss judgement as the job
of a government. Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand if I used
the word "discrimination" (as in, to be able to tell things apart) instead
of "judgement". Having an open mind is fine, but if we are no longer
capable of critical thought, an open mind becomes an open sieve, and we end
up ignorant--ignorant, even of the utility (and limits) of instincto theory.
>> K : And if Rudy ( Diesel ) was a pedophile (howeverthefuckitsspelled)
> asshole, would
>>> you (...)
>
> F : Yes, I would nevertheless drive Diesel cars and trucks.
But would you say that it is a matter for the French justice system? That
you pass no judgement on him?
> By the way, most of the ancient Greek philosophers we learned so much good
> of at school were pederasts (homosexuals) and/or pedophiles.
Male gorillas kill babies not sired by themselves. ;) But they are wild so I
will not judge them or their behavior because they are instincto. ;)
Seriously. I am not beholden to Greek philosophers for all that much, but I
would say it is wrong, regardless of one's ideations, to anally penetrate
young boys for their own good, if that is what you are saying they did.
> F : > For me, we all are humans; there's no instinctos ( I use this word for
>>> practical purposes only, writing every time "person experimenting the
>>> instinctive-nutrition" being to much work), no Americans, no Germans, no
>>> French, no Jews, no christians, no capitalists, no communists, no
> witches,
>>> no pedophils, no good and no bad ones. A person is a dynamic thing (...)
Nice ideal. But there _are_ pedophils (to use your spelling) and that _does_
matter. They can completely fuck up the minds of their innocent victims and
that matters too. Force abusing vulnerability/ ingnorance--that's a bad
thing, not some nameless, "we are all humans who are dynamic" line of
cowardliness. The above cop-out is a prime example of the open mind/sieve
thing I was talking about above.
> K : And pedophilia?
>
> F : I searched in several dictionaries but couldn't find this word. These
> dicos must be too old.
I just spent 45 seconds trying to look it up too. ;) I couln't find it. But
with the proper spelling it means older people who uncontrollably prey on
younger people sexually. The younger people are often pre-pubescent (also
probably misspelled, meaing before they gain secondary sexual
characteristics). In the USA a big distinction is made between "sex
offenders" which may be reformed of their behavior and pedophiles, who are
not unable to refrain from it over time--in other words, they are not really
all that dynamic. But you know full well what I mean: in your words:
pedophil.
> Anyway it has nothing to do with the "instincto" and "meta" theories, nor
> with me, and probably not even with Burger.
Pretty broad statement for a word whose meaning you don't know. ;) And
methinks you are very close to lying by saying it has nothing to do with
Burger or meta.
> K : The question is why wild animals don't have the trouble certain
> instinctos
>> do with trich.
>
> F : Reaserch should be done, I don't know. But are you sure wild animals
> never have troubles w. trich?
Nope. Are you sure instinctos don't? ;)
> K : Are we winding down?
>
> F : ? I'm pretty bored of nutrition talks. But if you'd like to go on with
> "meta"(not with Burger himself), I'm OK. Up to you.
Bring it on. My ignorance level is stunning since I didn't fork over the
money to take the "meta sessions". Besides being told that I could never be
an instincto without meta, I heard all manners of versions of what meta was
from folks that had taken one session, as well as folks who had taken them
all. So concentrate all you want on the non-sexual stuff, but do be honest
about it sooner or later, eh?
And before it is over, I would love to hear a summary of what Burger's early
pals find objectionable about it!
Cheers,
Kirt
|
