Hi Kirt,
Thanks a lot you for your answer. I'm glad we finaly come to some very
interesting points.

K : 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 : There's allways some unyielding residual danger in whatever you do. If
we don't acept it, we can't live anymore. But since some raw food is
necessary anyway, the supposed danger of it remains even if you it only
partially raw. It cannot be avoided. In fact, it seems the folks eating
mostly cooked and sterilized food are the ones taking the most risks with
raw foodstuffs.



K : 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 : Maybe. That's why we are experimenting. Nutritionnists said we've lost
our food instinct. We proved it false, tough our sense of smell is probably
weekened ,even if it improves (a lot in my case) with instinctive-nutrition.
Furthermore, we've shown it is possible to eat entirely raw for decades
whitout problems, that kids grow well and become well built and happy
adults, that many healt problems and sicknesses (I don't say all) disapear
or diminishes, that viruses and bacterias aren't dangerous for us with this
nutrition, that sexual obsession lessen. What else could we reasonably hope
for? A bullet proof armor against all dieaseses? Immortality?


K : 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. ;)

F : Hmmm... Yes, research is most of the time biased and Burger's ones are
probably biaised too, at least in some parts. To find out exactly what is
biased requires more research and experiments. Personals attacks against the
proponent won't show which points are wrong or overstated in the theory. The
theory must be analysed and checked, not its proponent.
Say a car (the theory) is in a workshop for mechanical diagnosis and repair
after a break down. The mechanic will check the car and he might blame the
car design, not the private behaviour of the engineers (the proponent) who
designed the car.

F :> On the other hand, can't you consider
> > seriously examining the theory of "metasexuality" independently of the
> > personality of its creator?
>
K : 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.

F : Newton laws are sufficiently true for and still widely used in
engineering, since you don't need special relativity to built a bridge or a
ship. A theory is only valid in a limited field. At the scale of the planet,
Newton laws are generaly accepted as valid and sufficiently precise. They
give noticeably divergent results with Einstein relativity  at the
astronomical scale of space-time only. So they can be considered as a
particular case of special and general relativity and be included in it.
They are not wrong, but limited to a particular case, the one of our common
world's scale on Earth.

Burger totally agrees with you on the fact that his theories will probably
be included one day in a bigger and more comprehensive picture. But for now,
we have nothing of the kind. How many generations have cooked their food is
not exactly know and may vary acording to the location of our particular
ancestors, but anyway it is a very small number compared to the number of
generations since our branch splitted from the one of the chimps, around
6,000,000 years ago, and an even a much smaller number compared to the
generation af mammals and other living species preceding the apes.

K : 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).

F : Let's try! I 'm quite satisfied with 15 years of raw one. I feel the
mixed one wouldn't be sustainable for long with me, since I never
appreciated the taste of boiled vegetables.Green peas, tomatoes,
cauliflower, brocolis, capsicum, sweet patatoes, fenel and carrots taste so
great raw  without seasoning! I made the mistake to drink some wine again
once. Now it's very difficult for me to avoid dinking any wine, even that I
don't appreciate it in most cases and get a headhache soon after. A slippery
slope...



K : But he was a vegetarian. ;) Seriously, I think the relationship between
> Einstein's (or anyone's) personality and their ideation is very
interesting.

F : OK. But that's not a way to show where their theories fail to take
account of the known facts.

K : I am no scientist. Are you?

F : No, I'm truck driver.

K : 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 : How do you know it?


K : 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. ;)

F : Since he never tried to rape me nor anybody I know, I've no problems. If
he raped and violented someone, I won't excuse him, but since I've no prove
of that I can't criticise him neither. According to the informations I
received he's judged for having had genital relations with a girl whom was a
minor at the time. If I understand well, he says that's not true though he
admits they were in love and that his theory doesn't draw any arbitrary line
between minors and adults.

Since there's a gradual and continuous change from childhood to adult state,
I don't see how and where to put a precise borderline between kids and
adults. It would be categorising, just like between invertebrate and
vertebrates. Nature seems to be a continuous thing (a continuum) which  we,
humans, want to to divide along arbitrary categories. So, it appears to me
that Burger's stand is logical while our society's laws are not.

F : > This judgment doesn't concern the theory itself. Burger his judged,
not the
> > validity of his theories.

K : If by his "theories" you mean meta _and_ instincto, I think you are
wrong.
> (Of course, for meta, and I think so for instincto.)

F : I was there the first day of the trial. The president of the court made
it clear that Burger's behavior, not his theories, will be judged according
to the law.


K : 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.
>
F : Great, again I'm glad we came to this point. Since my childhood I was
struck by the fact that humans are entitled to judge other humans. That's a
fundamental problem of logic, specialy since the laws of a society are made
to serve the interests of the same society and that these interests might
well be in conflict with the general interests of the humanity, of the life
on Earth and of the Universe.
Reading and listening to Burger, I understood the origin of this problem was
civilisation. It seems, according to the most recent anthropology findings,
that human's behaviour until the neolithic was OK: no arrows in bone (except
some very few cases which could have been hunting accidents), no mass graves
resulting of battles. So crimes and wars would have begun with the rise of
agriculture and cities. If these"civilised" things were subsequent to the
practice of food cooking , we would have finally found the cause of the
causes of our troubles, not only health troubles, but also human behavior
and society troubles...
That's sounds to good to be true, but I can shake the theory in my mind in
all the possible ways, I do not find any argument against it. Paleolithic
humans and hominides wouldn't have needed laws, police, judges and courts:
they didn't know any kind of crimes.

In Papouasia, the Arapesh tribe (according to anthropologist Margaret Mead,
if my memory is correct) had (has still?) for rule to take care of a fellow
who behaved in a way prejudicial to the others. They would inquire him what
his problem is and find appropriate way to solve it, maybe in providing him
more attention and love.
Kinda: "eh, my friend, what can we do for you?"


> >> K : And if Rudy ( Diesel ) was a pedophile (howeverthefuckitsspelled)
> > asshole, would
> >>> you (...)
> >
> > F :  Yes, I would nevertheless drive Diesel cars and trucks.
>
K : But would you say that it is a matter for the French justice system?
That
> you pass no judgement on him?

F : It would be more interesting to know the reason why he became a
pedophil. I doubt pedophils are born pedophils, and even if they were, we
should search why.


K 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 : I don't know exactly what were the ways in ancient Greece, and I
couldn't find any exact definition of pedophilia. But I agree with Burger
when he says that genital relations without love are abnormal. If pedophilia
means love/sexual relations between kids and adults I ask where is the exact
borderline betweeen childhood and adult state, and I can get only an
arbitrary answer, as well as for what is exactly a sexual relation. If
pedophilia means rape of a kid by an adult, I see no fundamental difference
with other categories of rapes. A rape must be related to sexual obsession
and if sexual obsession is due to neolitic food and way of live, then... we
closed the circle it seems.

> > 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
(...)
>
K : 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.

F : Yes, there are pedophils, they must be sexually obsessed and their
obsession must be due to the neolithic organisation of the society and
neolithic food.

K : I just spent 45 seconds trying to look it up too. ;) I couln't find
it.(the word pedophilia) 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, meaning 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.

F : Your definition will be mine. So, I finally have one. It would be a good
subject of research to find out if pedophilia could self heal within a
lifetime among a paleolithic tribe eating raw... And if the younger one
preys on the older ones, is it pedophilia also or just a a "sex offense"?

F : > Anyway it has nothing to do with the "instincto" and "meta" theories,
nor
> > with me, and probably not even with Burger.

K : 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.

F : I was lying in the fact that "instincto and meta" theories would allow
eradiction of pedophilia, now that I allmost know what is pedophilia.


K : Bring it on.("Meta") 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?

F : We are allready on.
I also had heard a lot of  amazingly different opinions about it and I
prefered to inquire at the source.
I'm doing my best to be honest.
>
K : And before it is over, I would love to hear a summary of what Burger's
early
> pals find objectionable about it!

F : What I could understand is that most are oposed to it because it appears
impossible to put into practice in our society. They also seem to have in
mind the first blunderings of the theory, which has been much improved
later, unknowingly to them. I agree with them on these practical
difficulties, but the theoretical model explains so well many facts non
understandable before that I have honestly to admit that the current
accepted theories on this subject are rendered totaly obsolete. It's a very
powerfull tool to understand what's going on.
I was born, as I told you in 1946. Just a year before most of Europe was
destroyed and milions of people were killed. I was then raised in beeing
thaught to respect the others and I could never understand how such horrible
happenings may result if what I was thaught were put into practice.
Thank you to allow me to talk about a subject that I consider of great
importance. I hope it is of some interest to other list members, so that
we'll be able to go on a little more... It is related to raw-food anyway.

Kind regards,
Francois
>