Francois,

> 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?

You say that you are expermenting, but I don't hear about the experiment
between instincto and raw/cooked paleo, which is the experiment that matters
in my opinion. If instinctos' tendency to overeat turns out to be a result
of who is intrigued by instincto, then the "research study" you allude to is
not quite right.

> 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.

Maybe, maybe not. A study of the proponent may well indicate which points
should be analysed and checked for starters.

> 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.

Yes, of course. But Burger's theories may apply to a particular case--that
of pre-fire homonids. What about the rest of us?

> 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.

Because you ignore the results of the raw/cooked paleo crowd perhaps?

> 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.

Then we should eat an old-world-monkey's diet? Do you?

> 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...

Surely you will slide into neolithic (or, gasp, industrial) damnation. ;)

>> In any case, Burger is no Einstein. ;)
>
> F : How do you know it?

Because Einstein was a close personal friend of mine. ;)

> 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.

And what would constitute "proof"?

> 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.

Yeah, Burger and Randall Patrick McMurphy (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).
So sorry to hear Burger is a victim. ;)

> 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.

I mentioned pre-pubescence for starters. That the only victim who would
follow through in court was a "minor girl" doesn't mean much. Was she
seventeen and eleven months?

> 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.

Logic is a funny thing. One can make any perversion logical by inventing a
monstrous theory such as meta, for instance.

> 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.

So you are no doubt privvy to the details, which you will surely share with
us?

> 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.

Black and white, mon, black and white. Who died and left instinctos to
decide what the "general interests of the humanity, of the life on Earth and
of the Universe" are?

> 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...

Read some anthro  stuff not paraphrased by Burger, and you will likely see
what a load of crap this is.  Instinctos idealise hunter-gatherers. Give
h-g's some competition for territory (yes, with other h-g's) and you would
be appalled at the ruthlessness found. Or maybe not, since Burger is a
victim of society and the neolithic age...  ;)

> 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.

I'm trying. ;)

> Paleolithic
> humans and hominides wouldn't have needed laws, police, judges and courts:
> they didn't know any kind of crimes.

That's just plain crap. Many hunter-gatherers have mores more specific and
idiotic than the male juvinile gangs operating in large urban areas around
the glode today. Superstition. Does that mean anything to you?
Pre-neolithic, that is?

Even so, by definition paleos cooked some (many?) foods, so what does it
have to do with instincto?

> In Papouasia, the Arapesh tribe (according to anthropologist Margaret Mead,
> if my memory is correct)

Yeah, Ms Mead, pretty much the laughing stock of anthropologists if you have
followed the field lately. A fraud, and/or an ignorant, on the level of
Burger, methinks.

> 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.

And today we coddle the handicapped and other damaged folks (at least in the
USA) with massively costly legislation designed to do the same. Who is more
ignorant? Who is more instincto?

Even so, if you stop cherry-picking your anthropology, you will find every
sort of human behavior in paleo folks. Even and especially, the dreaded
cooking. ;)

> 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.

That isn't much of a question is it? He would be a pedophil because of the
neolithic revolution, right? ;)

> 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.

And Burger is not a pedophil? Because he never tried to rape you (not a
child) or anyone you know? Except for the lone young woman who had the
integrity to pursue the issue in court (as opposed to blowing his brains
out)?

> 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...

Burger is the living instincto proof of that one, isn't he? I know, I know,
the folks at Montrame, and especially Burger's wife of several children,
weren't tribe enough to evaluate such a situation... ;)

> And if the younger one
> preys on the older ones, is it pedophilia also or just a a "sex offense"?

My recently turned four year old daughter sometimes shows interest in my
genetialia. Perhaps she is preying on me and I should anally penetrate her
since meta says it is proper and human to do so? ;)

> 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.

If we were chatting about this over a beach campfire, this is the point that
I would say, Aw fuck off Francois. You know exactly what I mean, and now you
backtrack so that Burger can be excused of his neurotic tendencies (and,
more unfortunately, actouts) because " 'instincto and meta' theories would
[not] allow eradiction of pedophilia". That really sucks. But since we are
on a public mailing list discussing really deep stuff, I will say: Huh??????

> 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.

Neverminding the idealized nature of it, what do they say "appears
impossible"? And what do _you_ think?

> They also seem to have in
> mind the first blunderings of the theory, which has been much improved
> later, unknowingly to them.

Perhaps you can explain the great improvements and how the folks you speak
of could remain ignorant of them for so long?

> 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.

As in, the entire fault in the world is the result of farming? Is there any
room for childrearing practices? Cooking of paleo-foods? The internet? ;)

> It's a very
> powerfull tool to understand what's going on.

Yes. Please elaborate.

> 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.

And does your history have anything to do with your attraction to instincto
and meta?

> 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.

Maybe, maybe not. It might be related to raw and cooked paleo-foods. ;)

Cheers,
Kirt