Francois,

Thanks for the response!

> F : I guess it can be said that way, tough I don't know whether there's ever
> been a "golden age".

Me neither. Pros and cons, mon, pros and cons.

>> "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?
>
> F : I don't think so.

OK. Then wouldn't we like to know that the meta practices were part of HG
culture then? (Of course, now I'm paranoid that if I question these things I
will alienate you further--what else can I do, though? if I am to
understand?)

> F : It looks like that with "instinco" we tend to (re)discover a somewhat
> quiter psychical and sexual state wich we can  suppose nearer to the one of
> our pre-fire ancestors. Such a state might be enough to eliminate conflicts
> between us.

I agree that many modern conflicts are very neurotic in nature and probably
unnecassary, but there were likely always some conflict (competition for
food and sex for starters) in humanity, as there seems to be in wild
animals. Why would the goal be to eliminate all conflict? I tend to feel
that what is wonderful about human existence is the _contrasts_. Contrasts
between conflict and cooperation, ugliness and beauty, theme and variation,
familiarity and novelty, vagina and phallus, etc.

> But food isn't everything, environmental and social conditions
> have also changed quite a lot and seem to be no more suitable to our
> instincts.

I agree. But humans are adaptable to conditions if they are anything. I
doubt we need to live as pre-fire HG's to be fully human.

> Since instincts are genetically "programed", it appears easier to
> abandon the whole structure of the neolithic social dogmas and organisation
> than change our instincts.

How would we do that?

Cheers,
Kirt

(or should I switch to "Regards" as well?) ;) ;)