Hi Kirt,

> >> "Or do I have this all wrong? Is meta something never before seen?
> >> A new step
> >> in evolution that goes beyond whatever pre-fire H/Gs were up too?
> >
> > F : I don't think so.
>
> OK. Then wouldn't we like to know that the meta practices were part of HG
> culture then? (Of course, now I'm paranoid that if I question these things
I
> will alienate you further--what else can I do, though? if I am to
> understand?)

F : Don't worry about alienating me! I won't be as long as no personnal
attacks are fired.
I understand that most of what we call "culture"was born with the neolithic,
though pre-fire HGs might have had some form of it (?). I see culture as a
confinment of our instincts. Different cultures arouse on different places
and, as beliefs and nationalisms, they oppose groups to other groups. We can
suppose that when our instincts operate properly, they don't need any form
of cultural confinment to allow a society to work harmoniously.
"Meta"is just a theory, I don't see it recommends any kind of practice. It
says it should be possible to drop all cultural acquisitions and rely on our
instincts once they are back to normal. Former theories are cultural
acquisitions and "meta" also, just like the "instincto" theory. But the two
last ones are somewhat different in the sense they are intended to free us
of any cultural and theoretical enprisonment. So, meta and instincto
theories shouldn't be taken for practical recommendations, but just as new
revolutionary models to show the incongruity of taking any practical
recommendations of cultural theories and laws as a way of life.
It seems social harmony, as well as appropriate food intake, would result of
relying entirely on our instincts, if  nearer to initial environment and
conditions could be obtained.


> I agree that many modern conflicts are very neurotic in nature and
probably
> unnecassary, but there were likely always some conflict (competition for
> food and sex for starters) in humanity, as there seems to be in wild
> animals. Why would the goal be to eliminate all conflict? I tend to feel
> that what is wonderful about human existence is the _contrasts_. Contrasts
> between conflict and cooperation, ugliness and beauty, theme and
variation,
> familiarity and novelty, vagina and phallus, etc.

F : Yes. Just after my mail was sent, I realized I forgot one word:
"deadly".
So, I meant only *deadly* conflicts or harmfull and injurious conflicts such
as rapes.
Bonobos have conflicts, but they are prevented to grow too prejudicial.

> > But food isn't everything, environmental and social conditions
> > have also changed quite a lot and seem to be no more suitable to our
> > instincts.
>
> I agree. But humans are adaptable to conditions if they are anything. I
> doubt we need to live as pre-fire HG's to be fully human.

F : Yes, adaptation may be possible in the long run, at least in some cases.
But while adaptation is underway there's discomfort or pain. Looks like
we're in great discomfort and we have not the singlest idea as if an
adaptation is possible in this case and how long it would take. Meanwhile we
see ourselves running away to the planetary catastroph. Will adaptation
occur befor it's too late? It seeems the chances are extremely remote.
I don't think we should revert, supposing we could, to all pre-fire HGs
conditions. I think the control of the fire was a necessary step to
scientific and technological  progress. I don't say this progress is good or
bad. "Meta" and me just avoid any ethical judgment. But now that we know
better, we can consider some mistake we've done and avoid them in the futur.


> > Since instincts are genetically "programed", it appears easier to
> > abandon the whole structure of the neolithic social dogmas and
organisation
> > than change our instincts.
>
> How would we do that?

F : That's gonna be very difficult indeed. But is there another way around?

> (or should I switch to "Regards" as well?) ;) ;)

Kind regards (or cheers will be fine!)
Francois