Here is a challenge for you!

Peter Fellin fellin at
Sat Oct 26 11:55:20 EST 1996

A sample of what Stephan Anagnostaras wrote in respect of Kenneth Paul
Collins's postings:
> No, that's not why.  You present yourself as the messiah of neuroscience;
> you have ideas that are not based on other people's work, and seem to
> be invented out of thin air. This is the hallmark of a bad scientist. There
> is no such thing as a visionary in science, only innovators. The worst thing
> is that you actually do sound manic with talk as "I will bring the
> truth to neuroscience," " the great fight," etc. I have been around a lot
> of psychiatric patients, and I'm not kidding that I hear the same kind of
> stuff all the time.

Hi Stephan,

I whole-heartedly respect and appreciate sceptical people with a
rigourously rational and realistic attitude --- *unless* such an
attitude coexists (in the same individual's brain) with other
"AEVASIVE"# mind-set/coping strategies. 

	(I presume you and other sin this newsgroup have a very good 	feel for
where science are at in respect of trying to 		understand the 	human
brain, because:)  
	# Below, inbetween the the lines of +s, can you read a very 		condensed
outline of my humble (but cheeky) and very much merely 	*complementary*
(nota bene) - but I believe excEPTionally so - 		"Explanatory Platform
of Terms"; The term are based on 			and/or aligned with scientifically
Estblished (and/or 			used) Principles and Theories. 
	Apart from plenty of mostly indirect and unintended 	(of 	course)
support from accumulating (and steadying trends of 	results from)
scientific research, I have not	at any time 	(throughout my extensive
and lengthy studies and scanning 	relevant mainstream scientific books
and journals) come across 	any contra-indications of my this my now
arrived at and rather 	comfortably settled (I'm afraid) and *unusually
powerful* ;-) 	position of understanding things of human relvance and
common 	preoccupation/concern; nor of Arthur Janov's "Primal Theory" 
with which "EPT and I" - are most of all aligned.
In the last instance am referring to those that are clearly 'negative'
by which I mean conditioned-in inclinations that promote and
"socially/culturally translates" into would-be easily preventable (and
unneccessary) states of suffering or "distress".

I have contrived a conceptual/terminological scheme to explain things in
a way that is complementary to the conventional median scientific
position on what 'constitutes' the "Human Condition".
Here I start introducing it: 

The states of distress mentioned above are states that are, most
obviously, correlated with (caused by) occassions/environmental
circumstances/conditions during which individuals are "living"
"Adversity-type Situations" [or "A" for short]. 

"A", this most general category of significant "Situations" [ie.
situations lived by indiviuals individually] - is here meant to be
considered significant against a background of both
neuropsychophysiology, psychology, psychotherapy and "Natural
Selectivness" (ie. Evolutionary significance). A is here also meant to
be seen as juxtaposed to and belonging to the same high-level kind of
categorising as "Opportunity type Situations ["O" for short]. 

A very important subtype of A - important as far as achieving a new kind
of powerful complementary understanding of ourselves - is "HITS" [short
for "'HibernationT' Inducing Type Situation". 
	{The 'T tag', derived from/justified by Bronkowski's "Tolerance 
Principle", indicates that a conventional concept-meaning - here 
hibernation - has been slightly redefined for optimum 		
understanding/use; a capitalised first letter sometimes 		indicates the
same change}

Closely/synonymously linked with "HITS" is a complementary and 'further
defining' (even more thoroughly defining of HITS concept) is the term -
"ICTS/s" or "ICTS type Situation/s".]

The conventional but much less well defined (or at least *less
efficiently* defined) alternative to HITS/ICTS is "traumatic

HITS type Situations *lived* by newborns and infants happens to be most
common and most ignorantly and repetitiously *promoted* of all our
avoidable and unnecessary life-situations. [A "lived" Situation is used
to distinguish from, and to contrast with, a fully felt and reacted-to
(approximately i.o.w. fully "ConsciouslyT" experience)]. 

Both A and its subcategory HITS (though *especially HITS*) can also be
given a complementary classification along two other characterising
'dimensions'. That is, 
1. For "artificial highlighting" (instructive) purposes, Situations can
be dissected into (either) "*absence* type" *as well as* presence type
	["Distressor" is a minor extrapolation inspired by the father of 
stress-research, Hans Selye, who coined the words 		stress/stressor and
who distinquished between distress and 		eustress]. 
2. Of all possible HITS/ICTSs I am most interested in compensating
for/counteracting the widespread ignorance of the fact that dynamic
"preconscious recollections" of "imprints" of (ie. the conditioning-in
effects of) *slow traumas* are *at least* as significant and insidiously
co-motivating a factor behind how we Behave and our various cultures as
are any "quickly and dramatically traumatic Situations".
(The latter kind of trauma is what typically is implied by the otherwise
succinct and by me very welcome diagnosis/label "PTSD" (Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder.)

Both slow and fast tramatic Situations can become Conditioned-in long
before our "cognitively conscious" mind [ref. to Janov's
interpretation/meaning of the 3 levels of brain functioning/development
and *of consciousness*] has matured to give us a chance to understand
what is going on with and around us. This stage of our development is
the also the time when we are the most dependent and vulnerable; ie.
this is the time when we are most easily made to suffer without any
possibility of reaching a "cognitively conscious" awarness of
distressful Situations we are living, and when we are unable to
self-regulate based on a brain-processes that represents and responds to
the what, why and by whom of how we are made to suffer wether by
gradually overwhelmingly chronic "absences" of needfulfilment or by
'quickly dramatic' traumatic episodes of abuse.

"AEVASIVE"= the rather obviously high-enough freqency - in our phylogeny
- of overlap in time and space between "HITS type A type" Situations and
O type Situations, translating into an statistically inevitable
selection/pruning-in of geno-phenotypes that managed/met such combined
selective challenges with correspondingly double-edge adaptations and
hence by lineages with corresponding systems/trends of adaptations. 
"AEVASIVE(/ly/ness) or sometimes "EVASIVE", is meant to be used freely
and creatively in referring to Behaviours, a system-aspect of our
neurophysiology (or 'brainbody system') an/or a corresponing trend or
"Strange attractorT" in Evolution as a whole.
	It is flexibly spelt AEVASIVE, AEVASSIVE (or pragmatically EVASIVE -
which also makes it fit into the even more freely spelt acronym
	{from Conditioned-in Chronically (Hibernated) Unconsciously 	Ringing
Registers of Stressful Situations/Stressors Effecting 	EVASIVE Symptoms
and Stress --- to, "Conditioned-in 	Unconsciously Reverberating
Stressors Extending/Entangling the 	Suffering into/with Struggle"... or
whatever  word-combination 	that can be made reasonable made make up
this acronym}.

Lastly, AEVASSIVE stands for Ambi-advantageously Evolved Vital
"Actention" Selecting 
	[the central "selection principle of which is 
	currently and conditioned and phylogenetically 	Situation-weighted
lateral mutual inhibitory competition for 	dominance within the
brain-matrix of potentially dominant 	actention-modules] 
	[a "modular", complex/distributed and sequentially linked 		system; 
	also, focuses of Activity/Activation + 	Attention = Actetions; 
Actentions refers to, or covers, any arbitrarily choosen 		actual 
behaviour or preoccupation - from basic/vital primitive 	functions to
any sophisticated and complex Behaviour]
Incorporating the Various Endorphins
	(amongst other transmitters and modulators)     

At least when somebody is openly advertising who they are and how they
think then we have little excuse to be taken for a ride by them.

The former type is much harder for me to put up with.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list