Francois,

> K : 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.
> 
> F : We allready agreed  this comparative experiment cannot be done by lone
> (overfed !) individuals in a few days

You've given over a decade to instincto. Who said anything about a few days?

> :  F : "I'd like to have a direct
> pratical comparing (...)" K : "We agree".

Forget some longitudinal research study. What do you know that proves that
including some cooked paleo-foods would not be beneficial for you? If it is
only that there would be a slippery slope (of over-eating, backsliding to
neolithic foods, etc.) then that tells more about you than it does about
instincto or a mixed paleo diet.

> And BTW, ever since this discusion started, I don't overeat anymore... I
> guess it's because I've got some thing interesting to do, some thing we
> generaly miss! I also got less free time to eat...

LOL. Ah, the dreaded neo-cortex. It has its nutriment requirements as well.
;)

> case--that
>> of pre-fire homonids. What about the rest of us?
> 
> F : ? Would you now put a borderline between pre-fire and post-fire
> hominids?

Yes. Instinctos certainly do, no?

> It looks like we've controled and used the fire in a gradual
> manner over the said duration of  about 450,000  years.

Yes. That's a lot of years.

> K : Because you ignore the results of the raw/cooked paleo crowd perhaps?
> 
> F : I don't ignore them. If the diet proposed by Jean Seignalet can be
> called so, I did read his book with great interest. He's obtained very
> impressive results, but he admits that even better results might be obtained
> with a totaly raw instinctive-nutrition.

Might be? Who is going to know for themselves if they ignore the experiment?

> One the other hand and according to
> his mail of yesterday, Jean-Louis Tu has no feed-back infos, except his own
> personnal ones. All these results can be understood and explained with
> Burger's theories.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

> K : Then we should eat an old-world-monkey's diet? Do you?
> 
> F : Maybe we should. Who is volunteer to try?

The raw vegan crowd comes close, with pretty gloomy results.

>>> F : (...)I won't excuse [Burger], but since I've no prove
>>> of that I can't criticise him neither.
>> 
> K : And what would constitute "proof"?
> 
> F : The kind of prove that was searched (and found ?) against Bill Clinton,
> I suppose... tough it wouldn't prove rape. The words of a person against the
> words of another one only prove they disagree...

I didn't follow the Clinton bit all that closely, but wasn't that a matter
of one person's word against another?

> F : >(...)  he admits they were in love and that his theory doesn't draw any
> arbitrary line
>>> between minors and adults.

I'd guess that she is no longer in love with him (his words, I guess) if he
would have him sent to jail for such love, eh?

> K : Yeah, Burger and Randall Patrick McMurphy (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's
> Nest).
>> So sorry to hear Burger is a victim. ;)
> 
> F : A fine and very impressive movie.

An even better book.

"Sometimes a Great Notion" is even a tad better.

> F  : > >(....) I don't see how and where to put a precise borderline between
> kids and
>>> adults.
> 
> K : 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?
> 
> F : The supposed victim was 10 years old, I heard.

Sounds pre-pubescent to me, even given the "march of the menarche".  I am an
elementary school teacher (4th and 5th grade) and interact with 10 year old
girls quite a bit. The idea of having sex with them seems pretty far afield,
to say the least. How does meta justify such acts exactly. Perhaps I don't
love my students properly?

> F : What is perversion? If love-relations are a perversion, where do we go?

A perverion is fucking a ten year old girl for a man in his fifties. (Do I
have that right?)

> Are wild and free bonobos perverted while prostitutes customers are not?

I have no problem with prostitution.

> Isn't pornography a perversion?

No problem with pornography.

> For Burger, genital relations without love are perverted (in normal
> conditions, I mean as long  as a sufficient number of humains remain
> available to find loving partners and so perpetuate the specie)  while love
> is not a perversion, whatever is the age and sex of the loving ones.

You may have it backwards: Love without genital relations is not perverted
in many many cases. 10 year old girl? Man, meta must be really deep and
radical.

> He also see a big difference between "sexual" and "genital" words. A look in
> the eyes may have a sexual aspect, as well as a simple touch or caress
> anywhere on the body. "Genital" is a more specific word.

Yeah, babies "flirt", but does that mean old men should have sex with them?
I don't really follow what you're trying to say here. There is a difference
between love and sex.

> If I understood and
> remember the trial Lewinsky-Clinton which ridiculed the USA, it seems to me
> that the judges would have beneficed of  a better understanding of those two
> words...

Comic relief, I guess, but what does Clinton have to do with this
discussion?
 
> K : 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?
> 
> F : Instinctos don't have to decide and most of them don't..

You are (or meta is?) deciding what is the "proper" and "improper" human
nature.

> F : I did read Gabriel Camps" La Préhistoire" and other recent stuff. Older
> litterature seeing the pre-fire hominides as brutes, preys of wild animals
> and dying at young age of dieaseses is the real load of crap.

Perhaps you should study the arena more. It is not clear that we know much
at all about the culture(s!) of pre-fire homonids. The closest we have is
recent-hunter-gatherers, which you will likely dismiss since they cook some
foods.

> K : 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...  ;)
> 
> F : H-g are actually all cooking, so how can they be an example of raw
> instinctive-nutrition?

This is what makes the whole instinct (and meta) thing patently
unfalsifiable. Since there is not much data on pre-fire homonids, Burger can
pretty much make up an idealized naturalism philosophy based on it. Yet he
will use hunter-gatherer (cooked) info to refute farming (and
"civilization").

> F : > Paleolithic
>>> humans and hominides wouldn't have needed laws, police, judges and
> courts:
>>> they didn't know any kind of crimes.
> 
> K : That's just plain crap. Many hunter-gatherers have more specific and
>> idiotic (rules?F) 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?
> 
> F : Yeah, but post fire and cooked food, just your kind of paleo-mixed.

Still they are paleolithic and your statement stands false. And if you apply
it to pre-fire homonids (I am about to make up some new acronyms ;)), there
is no way to know. I would guess, however, that it would still be false
based on chimp studies. "Rose-colored glasses" is an english phrase meaning
that everything one views is seen through a filter that makes it look ideal.
Instincto (and what I understand of meta) has this disease.

> But
> let me doubt that even those idiotic rules are worse than the ones of our
> civilised world.

I am getting tired of bringing the discussion back to instincto vs paleo. We
have no argument that instincto is better than the average now. OK? OK? ;)

If you are still excusing Burger, then I'll say too bad for Burger. He knows
the rules of modern France and if he can't abide by them then he will get
into trouble if caught, just like all social animals on the planet.

> I'm sure your paleo-mixed diet is better than SAD. In
> consequence, a paleo-cooking tribe shouldn't have so stupid rules as ours.

Perhaps they _shouldn't_. But _do_ they? ;)

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

Having it both ways again, eh?

> K : 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.
> 
> F : Here's something I found on the first website I visited about her :

No, it's nothing about evolution. It's about anthropologists going back and
talking to her original interviewees and finding that they just made stuff
up on a lark to pull her leg. Then that stuff (the inside jokes of
"primitives") became text book fare in anthropology.
 
> K : And today we coddle the handicapped and other damaged folks (at least
> inthe
>> USA) with massively costly legislation designed to do the same. Who is
> more
>> ignorant? Who is more instincto?
> 
> F : Why don't you do the same for pedophils, supposing they are damaged
> folks?

Because they harm innocents and continue the cycle of sexual violence. If
not simply put to death, they need to be removed from the general population
by life imprisonment.

>>> F : It would be more interesting to know the reason why he (Rudolf)
> became a
>>> pedophil. I doubt pedophils are born pedophils, and even if they were,
> we
>>> should search why.
>> 
> K :  That isn't much of a question is it? He would be a pedophil because of
> the
>> neolithic revolution, right? ;)
> 
> F : Burger would probably answer he supposes so. But since you seem
> unsatisfied with this answer (and I understand you), some reaserch should be
> done to disprove or prove it, no?

OK, lets compare the instincto community with the society at large.
Pedophilia occurs in both. Hmmm. I guess today's instinctos are the result
of neolithic upbringing so that doesn't count. OK let's compare pre-fire
homonids with paleo with neolithic with modern? Oooppps, we can't do that
since pre-fire homonids didn't leave any sexual practices fossils. Safe
again, no? ;)

> K : 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'm glad to know you have a daughter. But I'm sorry to understand that
> you are completely out of the window, to say the least, about "meta".

Toss me back in, please. Since I love my daughter, probably more than my
wife (and my wife says the same), should I have sex with my daughter--given
the misunderstanding civilized people have with genetalia and 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 : 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??????
> 
> F : I wrote it would allow eradication of pedophilia. I didn't forget the
> *not*. But I didn't write the eradication would happen immediately. It may
> take some time. Anyway this only a conjuncture very unlikely to happen,
> specialy when I see the time and lenght of talks around and away of the
> subject which are necessary before even beeing able to explain the first
> basics elements of the theory.

You'll have to explain more. I am scratching my head on this response.

>>> F : What I could understand is that most are oposed to it because it
> appears
>>> impossible to put into practice in our society.
>> 
> K :> Neverminding the idealized nature of it, what do they say "appears
>> impossible"? And what do _you_ think?
> 
> F : Well... It is imposible to explain it to everybody quickly, as you see
> just now.

We have all the time in the world. A summary or outline or something would
be helpful, but I know that would be hard to deliver to us non-instincto
mortals in a way that our narrow minds could understand. ;) Still, if you
are just going to pull a variation on "it so complicated" everytime we get
down to the core, this will be pretty frustrating--for both of us.

And, dammit, what do _you_ think? ;)

> It takes a lot of time to explain and show that objections are invalid. It
> takes a listener willing to understand, willing to question curent dogmas,
> beliefs and stereotypes. And then confrontation with other people happens
> and all the explanations are to be given again, they meet opposition and
> objections and so on.
> Most people have strong beliefs and they won't even listen to reasonable
> arguments. They'll never change their ways and ideas.

I don't seem to do anything _but_ change my ways. Humor me. ;)

> F : My understanding is that Burger was more dogmatic and affirmative when
> he was young, just like most of us. He found something revolutionnary and of
> great importance and he must have thought his ideas will be accepted, maybe
> slowly, but at least by an ever increasing number of folks. He was totaly
> mistaken and he has constantly worked  to improve both theories. He lately
> realised some practical difficulties he had not forseen. But the early
> instinctos still have in mind the practical failures of "meta" and were
> never interested in knowing anymore about it, presuming that's all and only
> a way for Burger to justify himself. (Just what you seem to think)

His modifications of meta still land him in jail it seems. Perhaps his early
pals are still correct?

> Now GCB explain the theoretical model starting by a full day session of
> warnings against dogmatism, presumptions of detaining the ultimate truth and
> practical difficulties, explaining the ever changing nature of truth in
> science and the way science works by questionning, by not accepting received
> ideas whithout reexamining them.

He is conducting sessions in jail? ;)

It seems the only truth that isn't ever-changing for him is the desire for
young sex partners, while his wife is mistreated. I know you will say I am
harping, but how can the ideations of such a fellow be considered outside of
his nuerosis (and that is the polite word)?

> F : Childrearing? Very sorry I can't be sure of what it means.

How children are raised from birth on.

> And I can't
> see what cooking paleo-foods and Internet come here for.

Paleo-foods may be useful to us in avoiding deficiencies which might result
in abnormal sexual behavior. ;)

Internet was a joke. ;) :)

> F : > It's a very
>>> powerfull tool to understand what's going on.
>> 
> K : Yes. Please elaborate.
> 
> F : Thank you. I'll do it soon in a next separate mail, to be able to send
> this one right now.

I look forward to it!

> K : And does your history have anything to do with your attraction to
> instincto
>> and meta?
> 
> F : I would rather say it springs from my inquisitive nature and my need for
> understanding the world.

I can relate to that. "Understanding the world" was (probably is) my thing
too. As a junior in high school I spent the better part of a semester in the
local public library (cutting school) researching what went wrong with the
world. I only got back to Christianity then. Later in life I got back to
post-fire hominids. But reality reared its ugly head. ;)

Seriously, I found that trying to "understand the world" was just another
name for me living in my head and trying to symbolically (and ignorantly)
understand early injustices which were then un-understandable--in other
words, a way to avoid the real feelings. What happened to the "pristine" me?
The answer doesn't have much to do with instincto really.

How about you? You pristine, yet? Has meta helped?

Cheers,
Kirt