> You might be persynally sure of something about this kundalini

> hocus-pocus, but you have no way of connecting it to any argument

> talking about a deviation from alleged animality. To deviate from

> something original you have to have the history of that something

> original. We don't, so this subject is pre-scientific and an excellent

> excuse for private science.

Hr. Vad says: As one piece of evidence I used the reference to Dahmer, and acknowledged psychopath about whom it seems to be accepted by the medical profession that he was _not_ able to get release. It was even something acknowledes by Dahmer himself: he tried all sorts of weird stunts to get release and soothe his perverted psyche, e.g. by sleeping with a mannequin he stole from a mall. I produce Dahmer as a case that demonstrates my point. While Dahmer is surely an extraordinary deviant I think we can point to many cases where echoes of Dahmer can be found among that which you call "normal people". Hence the hypothesis that most people are (sexually) frustrated or "neurotic".

Another thing which is pretty much fact is that if a child has experienced both of the following, he will much more likely turn out a violent criminal: 1) Mother drank heavily during pregnancy (causing braindamage), 2) infant was separed from mother at birth (some irresponsible mothers have fled the hospital). The case of separation has even been observed in monkeys, who've lost their mother at an early age: they turn out to be pretty bad parents themselves perpetuating the problem; separation causes loss of empathy and ability to form social bonds. And it just isn't "modes of production" that creates these problems in monkeys -- although of course you could point to some _likely_ interactions of this kind among humans.

Most of this evidence is not based on hard, neurological evidence, but I'm not sure it _has_ to be that. You know, MIM, you can -- like everyone else -- put up _so_severe_ requirements for scientific studies of this problem that it makes it impossible to honor those demands.

> In contrast, we can study the mode of production. Why? Because

> we know about the technologies peoples of yore had by digging up

> their stuff. We ain't never gonna find their kundalanis or chakras.

If I had to follow your own argument against me by turning it on you, I would certainly require you to produce proof of the _exact_ neurological mechanism that causes the "modes of production" to interact with the human mind and how _specifically_ this works. And from there _prove_ how this expresses itself in the population and what the _dynamics_ of both individual and society are. And should you succeed at that I'll just pile some more demands on you (don't worry, I'll keep you working till the day you die). (Get my point?)

Hr. Vad