Hi Kirt,

> > F : We allready agreed  this comparative experiment cannot be done by
lone
> > (overfed !) individuals in a few days
>
K : You've given over a decade to instincto. Who said anything about a few
days ?

F : My mail of January 1st gave you my view about this and you answered "We
agree" the next day.
I returned there to bring here what was said :

F : "I'd like to have a direct pratical comparing. But it's not as easy as
confronting the performances of two types of cars. Even when done with cars,
the results aren't totaly accurate. If we wanna know about reliabilty and
durability, very long and extensive testing has to be done with several
vehicles. Of course, one can shift easily from a nutrition type to the
another and compare how one feels. This is a kind of  perf. test. It doesn't
provide any data concerning durability. Drugs, cocaine, alcohol, coffee are
great for feeling fine on the moment, but are likely to decrease reliability
and durability. So, how to compare?
  The best would be that several persons go on for their whole lifetime with
these different nutrition types, under strict supervision. You and me may
swap our nutrition systems, but even if we do so, we won't
demonstrate anything, except personnal temporary feelings.
 Your experiments with a  mixed cooked/raw paleodiet will be beneficial to
our knowledge if enough persons do it for long enough durations.
  In the meantime, we instinctos shall have provided more other experimental
datas."(...)
K : "We agree".


K : Forget some longitudinal research study. What do you know that proves
that
> including some cooked paleo-foods would not be beneficial for you? If it
is
> only that there would be a slippery slope (of over-eating, backsliding to
> neolithic foods, etc.) then that tells more about you than it does about
> instincto or a mixed paleo diet.

F : I don't have any prove and you haven't neither. Aren't we turning in
circles?


> > F : ? Would you now put a borderline between pre-fire and post-fire
> > hominids?
>
K : Yes. Instinctos certainly do, no?

F : A gradual change leaves no chance to draw an exact borderline.

F : > It looks like we've controled and used the fire in a gradual
> > manner over the said duration of  about 450,000  years.
>
K : Yes. That's a lot of years.

F : 7.5% of the generaly admited duration since our branch splitted from
the one of chimps and 0.125% of the number of years since life appeared on
Earth.


> > K : Because you ignore the results of the raw/cooked paleo crowd
perhaps?

> > F : I don't ignore them. If the diet proposed by Jean Seignalet can be
> > called so, I did read his book with great interest. He's obtained very
> > impressive results, but he admits that even better results might be
obtained
> > with a totaly raw instinctive-nutrition.
>
K :  Might be? Who is going to know for themselves if they ignore the
experiment?

F : I told you, you can know for yourself temporary improvements with
mixed-paleo, and even more  temporary improvments with SAD or SWD after
stopping instinctive-nutrition. Drugs, coffee, alcohol, may provide more
feelings of improvements over a SAD excluding them. This is a well known
fact : sportsmen even improve their performance with forbidden specific
drugs.

You decry what we suppose to be "detox". I agree that many instinctos
overuse
this word and I also get bored of hearing it as an ultimate explanation for
every kind of problem. But if we consider "detox" as a pure hypothetical
concept, it is usefull to understand what happens when we stop 100%
raw-nutrition. One may feel bad for one day or two, but thereafter most
people feel great and better than ever. The only explanation we found is
that detoxination has been stopped. I know, you'll argue that's bullshit.
But, please, let me come to my point.

It looks to me there's been a basic misunderstanding of this concept through
the Atlantic Ocean due to language problems. Given the fact that many French
speaking instinctos do not understand it neither, it's no surprise.

Burger explains that fires happen naturaly sometimes and that overheated or
grilled foodstuffs may be found in nature. We know that animals are very
found of them, as must have been our ancestors. So, he says that cooked food
have allways been eaten by animals and hominids, even long before we
controled the fire. But fires were a somewhat rare event and cooked food was
not usualy and widely available. Biochemistry teach us that heat (over 42°C)
may affect the stereospatial shape of hyper-complex organic molecules, to
which very specific enzymes are precisely and exactly shaped. That can lead
to metabolic problems since some damaged molecules may enter tissues and
cells. I emphasise we have only clues and no prove of that, but because this
possibility can not be discarded, it is to our contradictors to prove it
doesn't happen. (Prove the kid can swim)

It is thereafter logical to think animals organisms must have some means to
get rid of
abnormal molecules such as Maillard ones and others. This processeses are
likely to be able to handle occasional amounts of heat damaged molecules, as
happen in nature. That's what illneses such as cold, flu, cutaneous
eruptions and so on must be intended for, because it is clear that some
things are then expelled out of the body. Our experiment shows that these
illneses remain very begnin as long as you don't, meanwhile, eat cooked
food. But if you add 3 or 4 times a day new amounts of the kind of molecules
the body is getting rid of, the process races out bounds and even perhaps
out of control. The concept of tolerance further explains why our organisms,
when continuously fed with cooked food, often give up the elimination of
abnormal molecules, which thereafter accumulate in the cells and tissues
where they may eventually cause cancer or auto-immune dieaseses much latter.
In the meantime, since "detox" is stopped, one is likely to feel better.

The "elimination dieaseses" are unlikely to be able handle substances such
as heavy metals, asbestos, pesticides and radioactive atoms, which
accumulate in animal organisms, concentrate in the food chain and may cause
cancers too.

But all this is better an further explained in Burger's book,
http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~downfall/  and if we want to talk about "meta"
I hope you'll agree we'd better stop talking about basic nutrition and
health questions.


F : > One the other hand and according to
> > his mail of yesterday, Jean-Louis Tu has no feed-back infos, except his
own
> > personnal ones. All these results can be understood and explained with
> > Burger's theories.

K : I'm not sure I understand your point here.

F : Just what I said above.


K : I didn't follow the Clinton bit all that closely, but wasn't that a
matter
> of one person's word against another?

F : They searched for some physical traces and they found traces of
Clinton's sperm, if my memory is right. Wow! What a good subject of
reasearch!



K : I'd guess that she is no longer in love with him (his words, I guess) if
he
> would have him sent to jail for such love, eh?

F : It seems so! She must be of the dynamic kind...

 > > F : The supposed victim was 10 years old, I heard.

K : Sounds pre-pubescent to me, even given the "march of the menarche".  I
am an
> elementary school teacher (4th and 5th grade) and interact with 10 year
old
> girls quite a bit. The idea of having sex with them seems pretty far
afield,
> to say the least. How does meta justify such acts exactly. Perhaps I don't
> love my students properly?

F : Till now I never fell in love with a girl of 10 neither, but everybody
is different. Some are heterosexuals, some are homosexuals, some love the
old ones, some love the young ones. If we could accept those differences it
would be a great leap forward. Having sex has somewhat a broad range of
significations, and what it means is not properly defined, if defined at
all. But I know what you mean, I agree with you, nevertheless the exact
meaning of words, and "meta" doesn't justify what you mean.

> > F : What is perversion? If love-relations are a perversion, where do we
go?

K : A perversion is fucking a ten year old girl for a man in his fifties.
(Do I have that right?)

F : Is "fucking" similar to loving? Does loving means "fucking"?

F : > Are wild and free bonobos perverted while prostitutes customers are
not?

K : I have no problem with prostitution.

F : Do you mean because the girl, whatever her age is (prostitute are
sometimes very young), receive money instead of love it's OK ? Do you mean
prostitution isn't damaging for a girl or a woman?

F : > Isn't pornography a perversion?

K : No problem with pornography.

F : I have no personnal problems with it neither, but my question was: isn't
sex focalised on genital organs and disconnected of love a perversion?


F : > For Burger, genital relations without love are perverted (in normal
> > conditions, I mean as long  as a sufficient number of humains remain
> > available to find loving partners and so perpetuate the specie)  while
love
> > is not a perversion, whatever is the age and sex of the loving ones.

K : You may have it backwards: Love without genital relations is not
perverted
> in many many cases. 10 year old girl? Man, meta must be really deep and
> radical.

F : I'm not Burger's lawyer and "meta" is not Burger himself.
But you wrote: "My recently turned four year old daughter sometimes shows
interest in my genetialia".
So, strictly sticking to the meaning of words, it means you have a love
relation not limited to areas of the body outside of genital organs. Kids,
just like bonobos, don't draw arbitrary borderlines. Do I have to understand
that your statement "love without genital relations is not perverted in many
many cases" means it  becomes perverted in many cases only if there are
genital relations?  But  I won't believe your relation with your daughter is
perverted, even when you say she's intersted in your genital organs. I
understand you don't see anything bad with genital organs and you do not
think they were made by Satan himself. That's something we agree...

F : > He also see a big difference between "sexual" and "genital" words. A
look  in
> > the eyes may have a sexual aspect, as well as a simple touch or caress
> > anywhere on the body. "Genital" is a more specific word.
>
K : Yeah, babies "flirt", but does that mean old men should have sex with
them?
> I don't really follow what you're trying to say here. There is a
difference
> between love and sex.

F : To have sex is an unspecific language. To have genital relations is more
specific.
Yeah, there a difference. You are a man and I am a man, we have a relation
through the web. As we have the same sex, it is an homosexual relation.
Sexual doesn't mean much. Love might mean more and we do not realy love each
other yet, though this could be argued...
Well, what I'm trying to say is that we generaly confuse sexual and genital
and also that the whole matter is a continuum which, as usual, our analytic
way of thinking wants to categorise with words. And when one search for the
precise meaning of these words, one realise there ain't none.


K : Comic relief, I guess, but what does Clinton have to do with this
discussion?

F : Clinton's trial shows well the stupid way of thinking which is an
integral part of our civilised world.
Many Europeans were also scandalised by the imprisonment somewhere in the US
of a woman teacher who had a love relation with one of her students.


K : You are (or meta is?) deciding what is the "proper" and "improper" human
> nature.

F : Not at all. The laws and rules of our society decides that and wants to
confine love into arbitrary delimited boundaries. We just try to show that,
that this boundaries are totally artificial and prejudicial to all of us.


> > F : H-g are actually all cooking, so how can they be an example of raw
> > instinctive-nutrition?
>
K :> This is what makes the whole instinct (and meta) thing patently
> unfalsifiable. Since there is not much data on pre-fire homonids, Burger
can
> pretty much make up an idealized naturalism philosophy based on it. Yet he
> will use hunter-gatherer (cooked) info to refute farming (and
"civilization").

F : There is some data available, and more is gathered every year. The new
ones do corroborate some  hypothesis Burger suggested long ago. That's a
pretty good confirmation. Jean-claude and I allready provided some links to
those new findings reports.


K : Still they are paleolithic and your statement stands false. And if you
apply
> it to pre-fire homonids (I am about to make up some new acronyms ;)),
there
> is no way to know. I would guess, however, that it would still be false
> based on chimp studies. "Rose-colored glasses" is an english phrase
meaning
> that everything one views is seen through a filter that makes it look
ideal
> Instincto (and what I understand of meta) has this disease.

F : Maybe. We don't pretend to a perfect objectivity, we just think our
direction of research is not ways of.

K : I am getting tired of bringing the discussion back to instincto vs
paleo. W e
> have no argument that instincto is better than the average now. OK? OK? ;)

F : OK, OK, no others arguments than  the ones allready given. I'm getting
tired of it too and I'd like to go on further.

K : If you are still excusing Burger, then I'll say too bad for Burger. He
knows
> the rules of modern France and if he can't abide by them then he will get
> into trouble if caught, just like all social animals on the planet.

F : Right. I'm not his layer. Let's go on.


K : No, it's nothing about evolution. It's about anthropologists going back
and
> talking to her (Margaret Mead)original interviewees and finding that they
just made stuff
> up on a lark to pull her leg. Then that stuff (the inside jokes of
> "primitives") became text book fare in anthropology.

F : I made the effort to search on the web what you refered to and provided
links.
So, would you please do the same, as you say the link I found isn't what you
talk about?


 > F : Why don't you do the same for pedophils, supposing they are damaged
folks?

K : Because they harm innocents and continue the cycle of sexual violence.
>If not simply put to death, they need to be removed from the general
>population by life imprisonment.

F : I won't excuse crimes and rapes, but I wonder how a human can behave
in such a way. There must be somthing wrong somewhere, and by killing them
too or imprisning them for life, I doubt we will succeed in finding out the
cause of such behaviors.

>K : He would be a pedophil because of the neolithic revolution, right? ;)

> > F : Burger would probably answer he supposes so. But since you seem
> > unsatisfied with this answer (and I understand you), some reaserch
should be
> > done to disprove or prove it, no?
>
K . OK, lets compare the instincto community with the society at large.
> Pedophilia occurs in both.

F : Wrong. You suppose Burger is a pedophil. I suppose he's not. Not enough
data to infer anything anyway.

K : Hmmm. I guess today's instinctos are the result
> of neolithic upbringing so that doesn't count. OK let's compare pre-fire
> homonids with paleo with neolithic with modern? Oooppps, we can't do that
> since pre-fire homonids didn't leave any sexual practices fossils. Safe
> again, no? ;)

F : "Sexual practices" mean much and nothing. Most of the paleolithic era
was pre-fire and we do not find traces of killing each other during the
paleolithic. There is plenty of such traces from the neolithic until
nowadays. Still you can argue that widespread crimes and wars appeared with
the neolithic, not with grilling food. I could answer that few cases of
killings may have appeared along with grilling food. But I don't know,
except that today's h-g fight and kill sometimes, though seldom.


K : Toss me back in, please. Since I love my daughter, probably more than my
> wife (and my wife says the same), should I have sex with my
daughter--given
> the misunderstanding civilized people have with genetalia and meta?

F : You said she has some kind of interest in... Seriously, what Burger says
is that children have no taboos about sex, genital organs and arbitrary
borderlines and categorisations. They are unable to understand our taboos.
They need our love and they do not disconect love and sex as we do. He says
adults should never go ahead, but if the kid does do not rebuff and repel
him/her. Looks like you understood that. There's nothing more with kids.
But to make it clear I'll explain what I understood of "meta" in the
separate mail I
promised. So I'll be able to proceed from the basics whitout having to
answer questions outside the subject.

> > F : I wrote it would allow eradication of pedophilia. I didn't forget
the
> > *not*. But I didn't write the eradication would happen immediately. It
may
> > take some time. Anyway this only a conjuncture very unlikely to happen,
> > specialy when I see the time and lenght of talks around and away of the
> > subject which are necessary before even beeing able to explain the first
> > basics elements of the theory.
>
K : You'll have to explain more. I am scratching my head on this response.

F : You can change your nutrition system without giving any explanation to
anyone.
But when you're in love, you are in relation not only with one person, but
trough this person also to the other persons she/he is in relation with.
Those folks are confined in the rules and ways of our
society about relations, love and sex, 'cause they believe these neolithic
and modern rules form an integral part of the human nature. If you wish to
take your chance for a
love relation to be satisfactory and sustainable instead of beeing the prey
of  routine, wear and tear, lies, cheating, adultery, and finally break down
in anger like so many couples experience, you may want to explain to your
partner the new light provided on this matter by
the "meta" model, explain that the confinment wall of presumptions might be
jumped over to try to escape the sad fate of love you see all around you.
You can see it's a hard work... And even if you succeed, there are still the
other
people around waiting to get an explanation...

K : We have all the time in the world. A summary or outline or something
would
> be helpful, but I know that would be hard to deliver to us non-instincto
> mortals in a way that our narrow minds could understand. ;) Still, if you
> are just going to pull a variation on "it so complicated" everytime we get
> down to the core, this will be pretty frustrating--for both of us.

F : No, no, it is very simple. What makes it difficult and complicated is
the intricated framework of beliefs, presumptions, dogmas and stereotypes
we've received and adopted since our chidhood whitout even realizing it.


K : His modifications of meta still land him in jail it seems. Perhaps his
early
> pals are still correct?

F : It's neither his modifications of nor "meta" itself which landed him in
jail.
Perhaps they are correct. I do not pretend the"meta" theory is right, I just
see in it a very interesting way of explanation of facts unexpained before.
And I don't want to close my ears and my eyes about this theory, as most of
them  do.

F .> > Now GCB explain the theoretical model starting by a full day session
of
> > warnings against dogmatism, presumptions of detaining the ultimate truth
(...)

> He is conducting sessions in jail? ;)

F : "Now" belong to the past, and , maybe, to the futur... It's a borderline
again, one without duration, squized between a past we perceive gone and a
futur we perceive not existant yet. But that's another subject...

K : It seems the only truth that isn't ever-changing for him is the desire
for
> young sex partners, while his wife is mistreated. I know you will say I am
> harping, but how can the ideations of such a fellow be considered outside
of
> his nuerosis (and that is the polite word)?

F : If it cannot be considered outside what you known to be at least a
neurotic desire for young sex partners, stick to your views and don't ask me
to elaborate anymore on this subject.

K : How about you? You pristine, yet? Has meta helped?

F : It has helped me a lot in understanding what has happenned in my life
and all around me.
Pristine? I don't know!
May I suggest we stop talking about Burger himself and his personnal
problems, and also wait to let me the time to write the summary or outline
you look forward to? It may take a few day... less if it rains and longer if
the sun shines.

Best regards,
Francois