Francois,

> 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.

Are you referring to pre-fire homonids or all humanity? Outside of referring
to all sexual behavior by cooked food eaters as abnormal, wouldn't we find
"recreational" sex in cooked fooders to be quite normal?

>> 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.

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? ;)

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...
:( ;)

> 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?).

Because we haven't the sexuality of bonobos? (Some do I am told. ;)) Who
died and left bonobos the model for humans?

> 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.

"Psyche"? That hardly seems scientific to my ears.

> 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.=20

Huh? Given your expereince, has it led to more reproductive success for you?
Of course, there are always some women who will groove on the
spiritual-appearing guys, but it seems there are plenty of things women will
groove on, instincto or otherwise.

> 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.

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?

> 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.

OK, now we have an acronym, so it must be true. ;) Why would pleasure be a
useless wastage? Why isn't "bonding" a sufficient purpose without bringing
metaphysics into it?

> 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.

I am frustrated that you compare meta with current (and relatively ancient)
psychobabble intead of with evolutionary psychology's theories of sexuality.

> 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 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.

> IRP would =
> reappear in dissociated form only as a back-up program to save locally =
> the specie, in case very few survivors were left and couldn't find any =
> loving partner... The sight of a IMP intercourse wouldn't traumatise a =
> child, ever since it is normal and natural to love someone and do =
> together whatever we like. Kids are very sensitive to the presence or =
> absence of love.

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.

> 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

Ah, ESP. And how is this useful for the reproductive success of the species?
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?

I'll wait for comments before responding to the rest of your posts.

Cheers,
Kirt