Stefan:
>yesterday I immediately bought the issue of L'Express Peter mentioned.
>My french is too bad to understand it completely but what I got is
>enough to see, that it is completely negative. The writers didn't un-
>derstand anything of instinctive nutrition, let alone meta psychology
>and instinctive needs.
What are the writers supposed to understand of instinctive nutrition? The
story apparently wasn't about IN, but about a bizarre cult/sect. I really
wonder which came first: instincto of meta? As for meta, is it for
vulnerable people, as people tend to be when embarking on the drastic
change of diet which instincto involves. (Whether they are unstable in the
first place or in free-fall from the effects of the transition is beyong
the point: many are vulnerable.) If there is something good about meta I
have never heard it. :(
>This sort of journalism I call "revealing journalism". It is the worst
>journalism that can be found in todays press.
>A good journalist reports about the facts he found immediately. He
>doesn't hold them back.
And what are the _facts_ in your opinion?
>Despite all this I think Burger and the residents of Montrame have
>exceeded the limits of what society tolerates considerably. Not very
>wise to do so.
Have they not exceeded the limits of what _you_ tolerate as well? I find
the situation at the Chateau reprehensible--to put it mildly.
>I hope, that psychologists, experienced in children psychology, will
>prove, that the children were n o t abused. Abused children show
>behavioral differences that are clearly to recognize. What I heard from
>people having worked at Montrame is, that even the worst cooked
>children were becoming lucky and loving beings after some months.
Especially the "worst children" joining any cult may find it satisfying. By
what standards do you see that children were becoming loving beings?
Psychologists of nearly any persuasion probably consider the whole cult as
abusive--as they should. What possible "instinctive" standard can Burger
have for considering children as sex objects? I'm am personally a bit tired
of the bonobo (pygmie) chimp arguments. All they do for me is illustrate
that the familial/sexual patterns among the various primates are so diverse
that we should be very skeptical of basing human familial/sexual patterns
on them. No human culture on record mimics the social/sexual conduct of
bonobos as their standard. Since human harems do exist, should we say that
we should mimic gorilla culture (including the male's inclination to kill
the youngest bunch of his "step children")? Since frat house boys will
sometime "pull a train" on a drunken women, should we conclude that we
should model our conduct after chimps? Since some adult are extreme
"loners" should we model ourselves after gibbons? Humans can certainly orgy
bisexually, but it seems clear that the behavior doesn't function for the
purposes purported in bonobo chimp cultures?
Certainly there is little support from studies in cultural anthropology.
Though I have never researched pedophilia specifically, I have researched
child-rearing approaches and birthing techniques of pre-industrial and
pre-ag cultures. There is scant mention (but it does exist) of what we call
pedophilia. The tolerance (or not) of sexual conduct of children varies
quite a bit but the partners are usually peers--not gurus.
The _absence_ of "serious" sexual experimentation before puberty is likely
the human instinct. How anyone (_especially_ an instincto!) can pardon
Burger's, shall we say, wayward ways is incomprehensible to me. It is the
instincto community (more so than the general press or public) which should
be rising up against Burger's neurosis. Sometimes it seems to me that our
need for a hero--or it it lack of a parent we can truly respect--is far
larger than our rationality--or our instincts, whatever _they_ are.
(Perhaps I am not reading you clearly on this matter...)
As I see it, one serious change in child sexuality is the "march of the
menarche" where females reach puberty at an earlier and earlier age. In
recent hunter-gatherers (and one presumes paleolithic cultures probably)
the onset of menstruation is around sixteen/seventeen. Documentation exists
that the age of onset has become earlier and earlier until today, for
"western" cultures it is around thirteen/twelve. This leaves a span of
three important years where modern females are able to conceive but
probably unprepared emotionally/socially to do a proper job of it. If the
retention of infant/child characteristics beyong infancy and childhood
(neotany) is part of our evolutionary heritage, it seems we may be
backstepping some from our more "instinctive" past in yet another way. Or
perhaps it is some sort of progress :/
This is further complicated (or is it a reaction to?) the cultural
invention of adolescence which is absent for the most part in pre-ag
cultures: one goes directly from childhood to adulthood, often with the
help of a "coming of age" ritual of some sort. Whatever the pros and cons
of adolescence may be, it is not surprising that there is some sexual
turmoil between the adolescent and the prevailing culture, and importantly,
within and between themselves. None of which, however, means that Burger is
to bugger children IMNSHO.
>The article in L'Express also mentioned the excessive prices of Orkos
>Diffusion and suspects that they are making gigantic profits.
>So this is again bad news for all instinctos in Europe because the only
>reliable food supply is in danger now.
Lots of companies charge high prices, especially when there is little
competition. In such an esoteric arena as instincto-quality foods, it is
not surprising that early efforts (which is hopefully how history will see
ORKOS--an early effort of a growing movement) will be both expensive and/or
profitless. But I am very curious: how is ORKOS in danger? Is it because
they may get a (undeservedly or not) bad reputation, or because the French
government is so restrictive of free-market policies that there are laws
which can actually close them down? Or simply make them raise their prices?
ORKOS can pass these increased labor costs on to the buyer, no?
>I know, that the prices of Orkos are realistic and that there are no
>profits at all. Anything else is plain slanderous.
How do you know this? From talking to ORKOS folks? I have nothing against
ORKOS whatsoever--if there are enough people willing to pay their prices
for their products then more power to them--but, as JL said a while back,
ORKOS may be one more dependency. As long as it is an in-culture instincto
thing to consider that every other instincto health problem from a pimple
to to the early onset degenerative disease, is the result of
less-than-Perfect ORKOS food, ORKOS will need to "advertise" very little ;)
And at the risk of being slanderous, I am dubious about any organization
which relies on the taste-change reports of a certain Guy-Claude Burger as
the bottom line in its quality control.
My hope is that this latest scandal will be the end of Guy-Claude and
Montrame as given (not ORKOS, though given the brother/sister relationship
between ORKOS and Montrame perhaps a fresh start is needed there as well).
If enough instinctos can turn their backs on this man perhaps the instincto
"movement" could get on with the business of growing up, of getting past
its stumbling toddlerhood. When will folks get beyond the idea that there
are "giants" or "gurus" or "geniuses" on which they can rely to solve their
own problems for them, whether nutritional or emotional. Information is
information. Perhaps when people start relying on their own experience, on
their own interpretations of it, and on their own human nature, cults such
as Burger's will never get off the ground, much less throttle-neck the
importance of raw foods in the public eye. Do we really need anyone to tell
us our human nature? Think of the damage this man has done to his wife, his
children, countless vulnerable people who stumble on to raw foods, and
probably the next centuries of the "raw movement".
I feel sorry (barely, truth told) that Burger is so tormented internally,
but I have NO SYMPATHY for the damage he inflicts on others in order to
(ineffectively, of course) ease his own pain--none. If now is the time for
him to get his cumuppins, I'm only sad it didn't happen long ago: the world
will be a better place with him in jail.
But what better place for him to play martyr, eh? If every instincto gave
him up like a bad habit, he will play martyr all by himself--until he can
get a cult going in prison I suppose...probably based on cooked food if no
one will bring him any durian ;)
Cheers,
Kirt
|
