Hi François
Thanks for your clarifications!
> K : Outside of referring
>> to all sexual behavior by cooked food eaters as abnormal, ....
>
> F : I don't. Did I say so?
Pretty much so..."The way of his reasoning had been straightforward: If =
instinctive-nutrition is the food of our origins and our normal food, =
the sexual behaviour we experience with this food must be normal. If =
cooked food provides us a somewhat different behaviour, it must be an =
abnormal behaviour."
> Of course, there are still some materialists who would deny the
> existance of anything spiritual. Are you one of them, even that this idea is
> almost totally abandonned and obsolete nowadays ?
There are several labels, but, yeah, I see "spritual" as a convenient
abstraction and not as reality.
> K : I am quite happy to be a spiritual flunky, yet I am sexually active
> beyond
>> procreation. Poor me, spilling my seed for no metaphysical purpose at
> all...
>
> F : How do you know it's for no metaphysical purpose ?
So my metaphysics (or lack of) aren't even my own--they have been ascribed
to me beforehand? ;) Ouch. ;)
> K : Because we haven't the sexuality of bonobos? (Some do I am told. ;)) Who
>> died and left bonobos the model for humans?
>
> F : Would the bonobos be better of taking us as a model ?
The point is that primates have widely divergant sexual practices. Why would
humans be expected to match a particular species. It is relatively easy to
find all the various primate sexual patterns in humans.
If love is always involved in "normal" human sex, then we would need some
support from anthropology, no?
> F : > The new clarification is: if the pleasure associated with
> sexual-loving =
>>> relations does not show usefulness for our physical body, it might well
> =
>>> illustrate that we are feeding our psyche when we are in love.
>>
> K : "Psyche"? That hardly seems scientific to my ears.
>
> F : My Britanica World Language Dictionnary definition of "psyche" is :
> 1.) The human soul; the mind; the intelligence.
> 2.) Psychoanal. : The aggregate of all psychic components (...).
> 3.) A knot of hair coiled at the back (...).
> Lets take number 1.), tough number 2.) would suit as well.
Fine definition. I just don't understand how the emotional glow of sex would
evolve to "feed the psyche".
I also feel you are making much too much of "love". Love is great and
probably quite chemical. I don't see why it is "spiritual".
> F : > Some of =
>>> us may have experienced a kind of metaphysical energy provided by a love
> =
>>> relation. I had a very striking one when I was 28: a very clear =
>>> premonitory dream which made me wonder of the nature of time till a =
>>> found, 20 years later, a kind of theoretical explanation.
One experience in 20 years? Well, perhaps if I had had a metaphysical
experience in my life I would be more interested in a theoretical
explanation.
> To realise the
> =
>>> universe isn't limited to the material things our senses perceive, =
>>> there's nothing better as such an experience Unfortunately it's rare and
> =
>>> most of us hardly ever have any.
Of course, the universe isn't limited to the material things our senses
percieve. What we percieve is only a small sample of reality. There are
plenty of material things we don't percieve. No need to bring metaphysics
into it, is there?
> K : Huh? Given your experience, has it led to more reproductive success for
> you?
>
> F : Yeah, to better chances of survival and reproduction.
How so?
> F : > After some more steps up, we understand this might be due to a partial
> =
>>> dysfunction of our sexual instinct, of which we can now see two =
>>> distinctive functions: reproduction and also development of our psyche.
>
> K : Well, that was quite a jump. But for the sake of argument...ok. How does
> the
>> "development of our psyche" make anything better in evolutionary terms?
>
> F : Intelligence and intuition (we already spoke of premonition) increases
> your chances of survival.
> Psychic development might well be an the aim of evolution.
Evolution has no "aim". It is simply whatever works at making copies of a
species. It need not be perfect either.
> Deacreasing
> entropy ( increase of information) is observed all along the evolution of
> life and it's not much else than a growing intelligence.
If you look at it from the human point-of-view one might see the aim of
evolution as intelligence, but that is very intelligence-centric
thinking--something humans have a hard time getting around. Indeed, the
development of intelligence provides a species (humans, for example) to
think all sorts of things that simply aren't so. For example, meta. ;)
> F : Plesasure when eating shows us we're properly feeding our body. So it
> has a teleologic purpose, one usefull to the specie's survival. Pleasure
> itself isn't the purpose, it's only an indicator of what's good for us. This
> has been clarified by instinctive nutrition. The same may be inferred for
> the joy of loving, so that pleasure in sexual activities is no more seen as
> a useless wastage
Sex is the way a sexual species procreates. Especially given the human
tendancy to concieve year round, and the efficacy of the bond between the
hunter and the gatherer in raising succesful offspring, I don't really see
the need for bringing the conceptual baggage of a "Instinctive Metapsychical
Program" into play.
> K :Why isn't "bonding" a sufficient purpose without bringing
>> metaphysics into it?
>
> F : It might be, but it wouldn't make much sense.
> "Bonding" obviously produce a communication, a transfert of information.
It produces two mature humans with specialized roles who bring specific
resources to the offspring. Non-procreative sex would foster such a
situation (bonding, keeping the male around) and lead to reproductive
success (especially for the female), no? Much of the evo-psych stuff centers
on the differing agaendas of the male, female, and offspring and the
interaction thereof.
> F : > This repression eased somewhat recently, as =
>>> pleasure appeared beneficial to our psychical equilibrium. But the fact
> =
>>> it could have a much more important function then pleasure had never =
>>> been recognized, and so it is still forbidden to give an appropriate =
>>> loving answer to Oedipal pulses every kid has.
Oedipal? Who says there even is such a thing. My daughter is interested in
just about everything, including genitals at times, mine, hers, her mother's
her friends, images on tv--these are the things around her. So far she has
shown no interest in having sex with me, poking her mother's eyes out with a
brooch pin, and living the rest of her life in torment. Or is that the other
way around? ;)
It seems like a logical piece is missing from the equation. Hypothesize this
IMP, and then jump to having sex with children for their own good.
> Psychoanalysts are aware
> =
>>> kids are traumatised, but the general opinion seems to be that an even =
>>> greater trauma would result of observing an intercourse between their =
>>> parents.
This reminds me of comparing instincto to SAD, instead of a true paleo diet.
Who cares what psychoanalysts think?
> K : I am frustrated that you compare meta with current (and relatively
> ancient)
>> psychobabble instead of with evolutionary psychology's theories of
> sexuality.
>
> F : I'm not a specialist in this field. Perhaps these modern theories are
> close to meta, but I don't know them.
I suspect you would find them highly interesting. And from my limited
understanding they have very little to do with meta. Try "Anatomy of Love"
by Helen Fisher, or even "The Stone-Age Present" by William Allman. Or do a
web search on Evolutionary Psychology and then focus on sex. I doubt you'll
find much interest in ESP, but you can search separately on that count. ;)
> F : > In the old walls, there's certainly the possibility of a trauma when =
>>> this intercourse is loveless, in other words belongs to IRP. Under raw =
>>> instinctive-nutrition the IRP is incorporated in the IMP.
So if one eats raw foods, one can fuck little kids because they love them.
How strange. I can love little kids without fucking them. Is there an
acronym for that? ;)
> K : So only instinctos are possibly having sex "properly"? When I was
> instincto
>> I experienced plenty "pleasure of the flesh" (as I continue to do). Too
> bad
>> I was (and am) such a spiritual flunky and must stand as a counter-example
>> of instinctos' superior, and more natural, sex.
>
> F : Instinctive-nutrition seem to help. I was talking about ideal cases,
> but they are rare. IMO,"pleasure of the flesh"must be a part of IMP, but in
> these case it is associated with pleasure of the mind and we get happiness
> from a sense of fullfilment.
This separation of mind from body seems antithetical to instincto as I
understand it.
> That may happen also sometimes, of course,
> when we eat cooked food. Instinctos are not necessarily better of on this
> matter than cooked food eaters, they only have slightly better chances !
A much kinder way of putting it.
> K : As they are very sensitive to adults acting out their stunted versions
> of
>> unmet love (sex) on them. Surely there must be more to this than the idea
>> that children will suffer little harm (and possibly benefit) from a
>> non-closed-door policy regarding their parents sex life. Research on
> recent
>> hunter gatherer shows a wide variety of sexual practice/taboo. And the
> issue
>> of public sex doesn't show to be very important at all, one way or
> another.
>
> F : Yes, children should be free to act as they like on these matters.
> Nowadays H/Gs all eat cooked food and that might be the reason for some of
> their taboos.
Then the whole thing is unfalsifiable. You will never find solid evidence on
the "psyche" of pre-fire homos, nor their sexual practices/patterns in the
fossil record, so you (or Burger or me) can make up anything we like and
throw some acronyms on it. The only evidence needed is the experience of a
few instinctos. It just doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, regardless of how
many experts find it "sound".
The idea that we live inside a sphere instead of on the outside of one is
mathematically sound, but so what?
>>> As in the usual confinement IMP most of the time =
>>> doesn't work anymore and only the dissociated IRP is left, it may be =
>>> wise in this case to send the kids to sleep alone in their room. No way
> =
>>> out, they'll get a trauma anyway. I remember being rebuffed and sent =
>>> away for a reason I couldn't understand.
The degree of privacy in sexual practices vary among recent hunter-gatherers
and the trauma may not be so great. Anal penetration of a ten year old girl
no matter how much IMP is floating around is likely one helluva lot more
traumatic than being told to get lost while mum and dad mingle IMP and IRP.
>>> Loveless IRP relations don't bring us the kind of metaphysical =
>>> consciousness we need to develop a proper spiritual life and bump into =
>>> some extra-sensory perceptions (ESP). Being totally deprived of ESP may
> =
>>> cause materialism and render us possessive.=20
<scratching my head> Yeah, maybe. But maybe not, you know?
> K : Ah, ESP. And how is this useful for the reproductive success of the
> species?
>
> F : Perceptions of what's gonna happen are obviously very usefull to
> survive. Feeling like moving away before an volcanic eruption, tornado,
> tsunami, or a predator attack may be very usefull for survival and
> reproductive success, as well as feeling where to go to find food.
If we had access to the individual firings of our neurons we could tell if
one is confusing intution (knowing something but not knowing how you know
it) and ESP (knowledge beyong physics). Instinctos playing at ESP reminds me
that many folks get into alternative diets to feel special, to feel better
than the rest. ESP sure supplies that feeling as well. Not only do I eat
better and more natural than all those other shmucks out there, the quality
of my spiritualism and even ESP is better and more natural--or at least I
have a slightly better chance at it. ;)
> Kind regards.
Ditto!
> The spring's coming here I guess.
All our lambs have been females--what more can a fellow ask for. I'm gonna
watch carefully and see if our ram fucks the lambs, but their brains are
tiny so it won't really count anyway I guess. ;)
Cheers,
Kirt
|
