Francois,

> F : BTW "material" is also an abstraction, since subatomic particles =
> aren't "material" things as our common sense see it.

All language is an abstraction, of course. My point was that I see
"spiritual" as an abstraction that has no reality underneath it. Nor any
"usefulness".

> In other words, matter isn't real.

Matter is real. Our perception of it is real, but it is not, and cannot be,
accurate.

> We perceive things and we agree to =
> call them so or so, but we ignore what they really are. What is reality?

It's all that is not described by "spiritual". ;)

> This question was already raised by ancient Greek philosophers and has =
> never been satisfactorily answered. You know Plato's cave metaphor. =
> Kant, as well as many modern philosophers, says we haven't access to the =
> reality; our perceptions show us some picture on which we agree, but it =
> is subject to our sensory and mental structure. Special relativity and =
> quantum physics (with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) seem to state =
> the same. Furthermore experiments about the EPR paradox have shown that =
> our common notions of space and time are wrong. Not only we ignore what =
> is matter, but we also ignore what is time and space and whether these =
> concepts really exist.

None of the above supports "spiritual". It just says that our understanding
of reality is limited by our abstractions, which is something we both agree
about I think.

> F : Bonobos are now seen as our nearest relatives.

This doesn't mean we have evolved the same sexual practices/patterns.

> F : Sorry I came to briefly to that point before, in part 2 :=20
> "Atoms and subatomic particles contain information and communicate (see =
> the striking EPR paradox and experiments). Without communication all =
> life forms would die and babies wouldn't grow. Skin to skin contact with =
> their parents is know to be essential. This must be because information =
> is exchanged by physical contact and caressing: electrons and atoms and =
> are swapped over. It feed the psyche as food feeds the body."

Perhaps it is feeding the mammalian need for touch (which can be considered
physical). The brain is physical. No need to bring in the psyche or the
spirit.

> We needn't dissociate spirit and matter.

Or maybe we don't need spirit at all. Of what usefulness is the concept?

>  Quantum physics teaches us =
> to review our concepts of the world.=20
> When we are in love, we feel this intense communication just by physical =
> contact. But I also said that in part 2. If you're interested in this =
> subject of physics, there is plenty of literature.
> Unfortunately my references are all in French. Otherwise Plato explains =
> quite well his feelings.

I'm reasonably well-read in pop physics. Nothing I have seen supports the
notion of "spirit". We simply learn again and again that reality is more
complex than our abstractions about it.

> K : 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 : You're here in a kind of dualism, or dichotomy.

I guess we just see it differently. To me, as soon as one mentions spirit,
there is already dualism. If there is only the physical then there is no
dichotomy.

> K : Evolution has no "aim". It is simply whatever works at making copies =
> of a
>> species. It need not be perfect either.
>
> F : You could be right, or wrong as well. Seriously, I know this idea of =
> an aim of evolution was widely criticized. But who knows ? Maybe the =
> universe would like to know itself! That's nothing to do with meta, I =
> guess, it's only a suggestion of mine.

Just invite the universe over and explain meta to it. Evolution may make a
quantum leap! ;)

> F : Please understand that "meta" is a theoretical model, not a real =
> thing.

Yes, I understand that. What we need from a theoretical model is at least
utility and at most successful predictions of reality as observed.

> Without meta, we are enclosed in other theoretical models without =
> even realizing it.

There are other theoretical models that seek to limit the "enclosure" you
are refering to. Korzybski's general semantics is my favorite.  But I am
unconvinced that by "believing meta" one is immune from it's "enclosures"
which seem very tight indeed.

> That said, I agree the word "intelligence" might not =
> be the proper one. Growing information matches better "decreasing =
> entropy". But information seems useless without intelligence.=20
> Of course, we are only able to see the whole picture from a human point =
> of view. The alternative is to shut our eyes, close our ears and be =
> totally ignorant. In that case, it'd be useless to write anything on =
> this list, and even to feed ourselves and try to survive.

I was just questioning the premise of intelligence as the aim of evolution.
Further, it is not clear that there would be more "decreased entropy"
without the evolution of human intelligence. As a species we appear to be
increasing entropy, no? Screwing things up right and left. Dresden, etc.?

In any case there are plenty of alternatives to shutting our eyes and not
trying to survive. ;)

> K : 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 successful offspring, I don't =
> really see
>> the need for bringing the conceptual baggage of a "Instinctive =
> Metapsychical
>> Program" into play.
> =20
> F :  Good answer. But other animals bond together without being in =
> genital activity all year round even when the female is pregnant.

And flight has evolved independenly in four different ways. That a butterfly
can fly doesn't negate that a bat can fly in a different way.

> We can =
> admit humans would sufficiently bound together in tribes even without =
> sexual attraction. =20

Interesting idea. Not true for many (any?) other primates (chimps,
gorrillas, orangs, gibbons, etc.). And bonobos? If I understand it
correctly, bonobos rely heavily on sex for both intra- and extra-group
bonding.

I wonder how human tribal bonding would work without sexual attraction
and/or without job specialization? I never thought about it before, but I
guess there is no way to separate these bondings, eh?

> (F : Sorry. Here I apparently mistook your word "bonding" for =
> "copulating".)

You are a great sport for putting up with me. ;) Thanks again for your
English.

> F : Freud seems to have properly shown the distinction between sexual =
> and genital, and he says there's such a thing as what he called "Oedipus =
> complex". It can be observed all around us if we open our eyes. But of =
> course, we are unlikely to see thinks we preconceive they cannot exist.  =

And the opposite: we can't help but see things that we have preconceptions
about.  "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" so to
speak. Meta's hammer appears to be sense-selected raw foods. If you have raw
foods, then you can have normal everything else, especially sex and ESP.

Freud is pretty much passe in many US academic circles it seems to me. But
lets say what he says is true.  Why wouldn't this be simply abnormal
behavior of cooked food neurotics (and repressed Victorian women to boot!)?
Why would meta bother with it at all, except to dismiss it as unnatural.
Embracing Freud is a strange feature of meta to my eyes. And all the talk
about Greek philosophy? Aren't these guys pretty cooked as well?

> K : 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.
>
> F : No, the equation is complete. But  I couldn't expose the whole =
> picture in a few short mails, it was just the brief outline you asked me =
> for.

I very much appreciate it. I'm sure others do too, even though the silence
is deafening. I guess I'll remain ignorant of this important equation as I
am of so many things.

> Again you confuse sexual and genital.=20

And I'm always confusing the physical with the meta-physical, and the spirit
and the flesh too. ;) Seriously, it's not clear to me that meta, or at least
it's architect, isn't confusing the sexual and the genital (and the rest).

> K : Who cares what psychoanalysts think?
>
> F : You may well not care, specially if you have better theories.

My understanding is that nearly every theory is better than what
psychoanalysts think. ;) Really, I wonder if there is a growing difference
in USA and Europe (or is it just you and I? ;) regarding the regard in which
things like Freud and classical philosophy are held? I certainly don't have
my finger on the pulse of the USA academia but it seems that nobody much
takes psychoanalysts to heart any more, they have pretty much moved on,
especially regarding Freud. Yet I sense that you are sincerely surprised
when I dismiss them.

I've always thought that the most interesting movements regarding instincto
are "Darwinian medicine", "evolutionary psychology", and "nutritional
paleoanthropology" --all of which may one day pretty much converge with the
brunt of instincto. Freud seems like a dead end.

> F : I had already read much about ESP before the instincto and meta =
> theories were known.

Then you are the boss on that one. I am relatively ignorant.

> F : KOMIM, for Kirt's Own Mad Interpretation of Metasexuality

I'm trying. ;) Trouble is those damn missing equations. I tend to fill in
the blanks incorrectly I guess.

> F : As far as I can see, mind and body are not separated here but =
> reunited.

It's so strange that we see this so oppositely.

Try my way for a second: There is no mind, only body. Now let all the cards
meta tries to build into a castle come tumbling down. Isn't that a lot
simpler? ;)

> K : A much kinder way of putting it.
>
> F :  Thanks. Sometimes it's nice to talk with you.

It happens every once in a while. ;) You are given to overstatement at times
and my illness is never letting that slide, so I hope I don't come off as
hostile too much. But of course, I am. ;)

> F : Yeah ! Why don't you make anything up and throw acronyms on it ?

I do. I think I was the inventor of RAF (raw animal foods). So I am always
assured of being in the history books. ;) Unless Peter Brandt made up RAF. I
really can't remember... ;)

> Note that the whole thing doesn't rely on H/Gs sexual practice/patterns =
> but on known and widely accepted facts.

Whoa, hold on now. If the whole thing doesn't predict pre-fire H/G's sexual
practices/patterns then what is its claim to fame? Meta's basic argument is
that instincto leads to a breakthrough in mind about a more natural
sexuality and ideational process--do I understand that correctly? The basis
for this "naturalism" is similar to instincto as it harks back to the
"golden age of humanity": pre-fire humanity.

Or do I have this all wrong? Is meta something never before seen? A new step
in evolution that goes beyond whatever pre-fire H/Gs were up too? The true
sexuality (cross-age, cross-gender, threesomes as unit) Burger has
discovered? Or rediscovered? I really need to understand this point. If you
answer "discovered" I find much of my confusion falls away. Of course, it is
replaced but a different set of confusion, but I'm just a confused sort of
fellow. ;)

And Freud's musings are among the accepted facts?

>That said, I admit that some =
> parts of meta are only sound hypothesis which need experimental prove or =
> disprove. They are falsifiable by suitable experiments, just like the =
> instincto theory.

What parts do you see as needing experiment?

> One prove of the validity of whole thing  is the psychosomatic state of =
> Nathalie and Jean-Marie Burger, as well as the one of a guy I know =
> (called Daniel).

I am so glad to hear you have high regard for these people. It is comforting
to know that there are people getting such good results.

I am sure, however, that you realize that we can find very-well adjusted
humans who have not been instincto-from-birth, or humans who were
instincto-from-birth-but not raised meta.  Humans from a wide variety of
cultures, child-rearing systems, and diets can have very great psychosomatic
states. Or are you saying these examples above are something extraordinary
in that sense?

BTW, does Christian Burger serve as disproof then. ;) Oh, that's right, he
wasn't instincto-from-birth. And we certainly couldn't use Guy-Claude or
Nicole even though they had been at it so long because they weren't
instincto or meta-ed by their parents. Do I understand this correctly?

> K :> The idea that we live inside a sphere instead of on the outside of =
> one is
>> mathematically sound, but so what?
>
> F : Is it ? I don't know maths and I still have to learn about this =
> strange idea.

It's not worth your time I think. How about Godel on this part. It is very
easy to make a consistent system, harder to make a comprehensive system,
impossible to make a comprehensive and consistent system.

> F : Who spoke about anal penetration of a ten years old girl ? What is =
> this discussion about??

You mentioned the potential trauma of parental sexual secrecy. I was trying
to put potential traumas in perspective. Since meta includes anal and
adult-prepubescent sex as natural, I thought it made an interesting contrast
in trauma.

> K : If we had access to the individual firings of our neurons we could =
> tell if
>> one is confusing intuition (knowing something but not knowing how you =
> know
>> it) and ESP (knowledge beyond physics).
>
> F : ESP is not at all beyond physics.

My mistake. I thought ESP was in the metaphysical realm. You consider it not
yet fully explained but physically explainable someday?

> F : ESP is not an instincto's private property.

Neither is raw food or health. ;)

Cheers,
Kirt