----- Original Message -----
From: "Secola/Nieft" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: Metapsychoanalysis
Hi Kirt !
How are you ? Glad to read you after all these days.
K : My problem in responding (albeit, later) is what is actually "meta" and
what
is your own commenting on the side...
F : I must first adress to this very relevant problem first.
What I wrote is only what I understand of "meta", along with some comments
of mine.
I don't pretend that this "meta" theory is the supreme truth. On the
contrary, I emphazise that it may be wrong, at least partially. I don't
know. I Just tried to provide you the brief outline I was asked. I think
it's an interesting new theory, one that could well open our minds to a
different way of understanding human behavior, maybe a more realistic and
fruitfull one.
F: > On one side almost all the animals are. On the =
> > other side there's only few species: perhaps whales and dolphins, but =
> > unquestionably bonobos and humans. All the former ones have only =
> > sporadic sexual activity, an activity intended for the sole purpose of =
> > reproduction. The few other side species are the all year round in =
> > sexual/genital activity and they are even active when reproduction is =
> > impossible or when the female is already pregnant. As any activity uses
=
> > some energy, we understand it must be somehow useful for survival, =
> > since an animal wasting its energy purposelessly would have been =
> > eliminated by natural selection.
>
K : Are you referring to pre-fire homonids or all humanity?
F : By "humans", I refer to all humanity.
K : Outside of referring
> to all sexual behavior by cooked food eaters as abnormal, ....
F : I don't. Did I say so?
K : ...wouldn't we find
> "recreational" sex in cooked fooders to be quite normal?
F : We suggest instead to consider genital activity associated with love as
normal and genital activity dissociated of love as abnormal - in humans.
Just to start and see where we get to.
F :> From the next floor we see that humans (at least, not to speak of =
> > bonobos, whales and dolphins) have more of a spiritual life than other =
> > animals.
K : You lose me here. I haven't a spiritual bone in my body and I doubt the
> Pope, a bonobo, a whale, or a dolphin does either. Of course, I'll never
> know, but how do the advocates of meta know otherwise? ;)
F : Some other animals may have some form of spiritual life, but I don't see
in what "the advocates of meta" go away here of the otherwise generaly
accepted ideas. Animals aren't known to built complex theories about
philosophy, cosmology, life after death and so on. Note that I wrote "more
of"; that leaves the door open to a gradual transition from animals to
humans. 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 ?
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 ?
F : > This function probably needs some kind of appropriate feeding =
> > also, and the architect let us consider whether it's connected with =
> > perennial sexuality. In bonobos, the latter is known to ease the social
=
> > tensions and prevent conflicts (which could be a big step towards =
> > wisdom). In humans, it looks like it fails to provide such a =
> > protection... and from here on we realise something must have gone wrong
=
> > (did we miss the first step to wisdom?)
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 ?
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.
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. 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.
>
K : Huh? Given your experience, has it led to more reproductive success for
you?
F : Yeah, to better chances of survival and reproduction.
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. Deacreasing
entropy ( increase of information) is observed all along the evolution of
life and it's not much else than a growing intelligence.
F : > The architect calls them IRP, standing for "Instinctive Reproduction =
> > Program" and IMP, for "Instinctive Metapsychical Program". By the way, =
> > an organ has quite often two separate functions, such as our mouth, used
=
> > for speaking and eating. So there's nothing unusual here. Nevertheless,
=
> > IMP was not only totally ignored in the old confinement, but also =
> > repressed, since no one saw any purpose in it except a useless wastage =
> > of energy for pleasure.
>
K : OK, now we have an acronym, so it must be true. ;) Why would pleasure be
a
> useless wastage?
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
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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. 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 !
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.
> > 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.
> > 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
>
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.
K : I remember well, watching the Chateau folk make a (what they probably
> thought was an invisible) production about their supposed ESP powers. Did
> these special powers help them function as a successful group? Did it help
> the procreate successfully? What is the point?
F : I also found some crazy and sick folks at Montramé, like everywhere. The
theory is one thing, the practical experiments of it are another thing,
specialy with somewhat psychotic guys... I told you , Montramé was never an
island populated by a pre-fire paleolitic tribe of H/Gs landed there
straight from the primeval jungles of Africa.
Kind regards.
The spring's coming here I guess.
Francois
|
