----- Original Message -----
From: "Secola/Nieft" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: An instincto's comments


Hi Kirt,

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


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

F : It might be a way if you know the proponent, but it shouldn't prevent us
to dig around these starting points.


.
K : Yes, of course. But Burger's theories may apply to a particular
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? It looks like we've controled and used the fire in a gradual
manner over the said duration of  about 450,000  years.


F : > (...) we have nothing of the kind.
>
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. 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.


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

F : Maybe we should. Who is volunteer to try?


F : > I made the mistake to drink some wine again (...)

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

F : Ha! Poor pityfull me...


> > F : (...)I won't excuse him, 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...


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

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.


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.



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

F : What is perversion? If love-relations are a perversion, where do we go?
Are wild and free bonobos perverted while prostitutes customers are not?
Isn't pornography a perversion?
 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.
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. 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...


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

F : I would if I knew them, but I was one of the 158 witnesses driven back
for a vice of procedure and I drove home after the first hours of the trial.
So, the only infos I have come from newspaper articles, found mostly on the
web.


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..


F: > Reading and listening to Burger, I understood the origin of this
problem was
> > civilisation. It seems, according to the most recent anthropology
findings,(...)

K : Read some anthro  stuff not paraphrased by Burger, and you will likely
see
> what a load of crap this is.

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.

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?


K : I'm trying. ;) (to find arguments against Burger's theories)

F : Thanks. We are doing a good job together, I hope.


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

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

F : Just what we talked about above...
It's not by definition. It's only after they controled the fire.


F : > In Papouasia, the Arapesh tribe (according to anthropologist Margaret
Mead,
> > if my memory is correct)
>
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 :
www.mead2001.org/Biography.htm

"Mead taught at a number of institutions, but her long term professional
base was at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. She
authored some twenty books and coauthored an equal number. She was much
honored in her lifetime, serving as president of major scientific
associations, including the American Anthropological Association and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and she received 28
honorary doctorates. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom
following her death in 1978. Her voluminous archives are now housed in the
Library of Congress".

And I found this, probably what you're speaking of, at :
www.findarticles.com/cf

"Derek Freeman argues that the central issue in the Mead-Freeman controversy
is evolution and that Margaret Mead was anti-evolutionary. A review of
Mead's writing on evolution demonstrates that she favored an evolutionary
approach throughout her career. Freeman simply omits Mead's views on
evolution in his attempt to discredit her work.
After reading a recent article by Derek Freeman, I had a curious sense of
deja vu. The article was entitled "Paradigms in Collision: Margaret Mead's
Mistake and What It Has Done to Anthropology" (1997), and it reminded me
that Freeman had published an article with almost the same title and similar
content five years earlier (1992). But then Freeman has been relentlessly
criticizing the work of Margaret Mead for the past fifteen years. And he
shows no signs of tiring".(...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

F : >( the Arapesh tribe) had (has still?) for rule to take care of a fellow
> > who behaved in a way prejudicial to the others. They would inquire
himwhat
> > his problem is and find appropriate way to solve it, maybe in providing
him
> > more attention and love.
>
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?


> > 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?
>
> > 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 : 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)?

F : According to the definition we've finaly agreed on :
 > "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",
and the little facts we know, it is difficult to tell.

F : > 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...

K :> 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... ;)

F : Yes. Montrame is not an insulated island populated by a paleolithic
tribe of paleolitic born folks grown up away and cut of the civilisation.
But we stick on the subject of the person of GCB, born and grown up in the
20th century, which is not realy a paleolithic era.

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


> > 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.
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.

F : > They also seem to have in
> > mind the first blunderings of the theory, which has been much improved
> > later, unknowingly to them.
>
K :> Perhaps you can explain the great improvements and how the folks you
speak
> of could remain ignorant of them for so long?

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)

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.

F : > 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.
>
K : 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? ;)

F : Childrearing? Very sorry I can't be sure of what it means. And I can't
see what cooking paleo-foods and Internet come here for.

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.


F : > 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.
>
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.

K : (...) It might be related to raw and cooked paleo-foods. ;)

F : Yes, to both.
>
Cheers,
Francois
>