----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Secola/Nieft" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: Metapsychoanalysis

 Hi Kirt,
> 
> > K : Outside of referring
> >> to all sexual behavior by cooked food eaters as abnormal, ....

> > F : I don't. Did I say so?
> 
K : 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."
 
F : The difference is in the "ALL", which is yours. Some sexual behaviour of some cooked-fooders can still be normal without making my words wrong, no?
But since we're on a raw-food list, I didn't take extraordinary language precautions to avoid vexation of cooked-food-eaters. 
 
 
K :> There are several labels, but, yeah, I see "spritual" as a convenient
> abstraction and not as reality.
 
F : BTW "material" is also an abstraction, since subatomic particles aren't "material" things as our common sense see it.
In other words, matter isn't real. We perceive things and we agree to call them so or so, but we ignore what they really are. What is reality? 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. 
http://perso.club-internet.fr/molaire1/e_quantic4.html 

 
> > F : Would the bonobos be better of  taking us as a model ?
 
K : 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.

F : Bonobos are now seen as our nearest relatives.
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html  
 
 
K : If love is always involved in "normal" human sex, then we would need some
> support from anthropology, no?

F : It's a starting hypothesis. Such a support would confirm it, of course. Maybe from Malinowski ? I tend to think love/sexual/social relation is a very finely tuned system. Small unbalance in external conditions such as cooked food may disturb it, at least in some individuals, and from this little problem, social organisation would change bringing the general collapse of the finely tuned system.  
 

> > 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.
> 
K : Fine definition. I just don't understand how the emotional glow of sex would
>  evolve to "feed the psyche".

F : Sorry I came to briefly to that point before, in part 2 : 
"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."
We needn't dissociate spirit and matter. Dualism leads to the question of how one pilots the other and there's no satisfactory answer. So it's better seen as the two sides of the same coin. 
By exchanging particles we would then exchange info. We can explain it with modern physics, taking a theory or another, per example Jean Charon's "complex relativity", as GCB
points out. Charon's theory isn't generally accepted, but no matter, there are other ones.
http://www.webstationone.com/fecha/charon_book.html 
http://www.franks.org/fr01236.htm 
Just to say that physic allows room for that transfer of "energy-info" by particle exchanges. Moreover, the communication between correlated photons has now been proved by the result of experiments about John Bell's theorem by Alain Aspect (ref. Above). Quantum physics teaches us to review our concepts of the world. 
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.     
 
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.


K : 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.

F : Sure you would. I had a few, but most were just trivial.
 
 
K : 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?

F : As you like ! Depends if you consider barely waves lengths outside our perceiving range and such things we can only become aware of with equipments, or go further... into metaphysics !  


> > K : Huh? Given your experience, has it led to more reproductive success for you?

> > F : Yeah, to better chances of survival and reproduction.
> 
K : How so?

F : Actually this particular experience didn't save my life, but in other circumstances it could have.   
 

> > F : Intelligence and intuition (we already spoke of premonition) increases
> > your chances of survival.
> > Psychic development might well be an aim of evolution.
> 
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.
 
F : > Decreasing
> > entropy ( increase of information) is observed all along the evolution of
> > life and it's not much else than a growing intelligence.
 
K : 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 : Please understand that "meta" is a theoretical model, not a real thing. Without meta, we are enclosed in other theoretical models without even realizing it. 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. 
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.

 
> > F : Pleasure when eating shows us we're properly feeding our body. So it
> > has a teleologic purpose, one useful 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 : 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.
 
F :  Good answer. But other animals bond together without being in genital activity all year round even when the female is pregnant. We can admit humans would sufficiently bound together in tribes even without sexual attraction.  

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

 K : 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.
> 
K : 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? ;)

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.  
 
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. And, as no other list member had shown any interest in it, I didn't even finish the work.
Again you confuse sexual and genital. 
And no one has to jump in having sex with children. 
 
 
K : Who cares what psychoanalysts think?

F : You may well not care, specially if you have better theories.
 
> > 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.
> 
K : 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 : I had already read much about ESP before the instincto and meta theories were known.
I still have to read the above books and I hope to find them at Lausanne City Library. Thanks.

 
> 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 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? 

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

> 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  fulfilment.
> 
K : This separation of mind from body seems antithetical to instincto as I
> understand it.

F : As far as I can see, mind and body are not separated here but reunited.
 
 
F :  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 : A much kinder way of putting it.

F :  Thanks. Sometimes it's nice to talk with you.

 
> > 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.
 
K :  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".

F : Yeah ! Why don't you make anything up and throw acronyms on it ?
Note that the whole thing doesn't rely on H/Gs sexual practice/patterns but on known and widely 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.
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).   
 
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.
 

K : 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.

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

 
>  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 useful to
>  survive. Feeling like moving away before an volcanic eruption, tornado,
>  tsunami, or a predator attack may be very useful for survival and
> > reproductive success, as well as feeling where to go to find food.

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.
 

K : 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. 

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

Cheers.
Francois