What is the mind?

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Tue Dec 15 20:13:39 EST 1998


RETRACTION & CORRECTION: [Please Forgive me, I want to maintain the
context to the prior somewhat-lengthy post. kpc]

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> 
> Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
 
> If that were the "rule" then there could be very-little news published.
> In my case, the materials I addressed in my prior post =are= the Record
> of my Research.
> 
> But I do understand that it's a "sticky wicket"... which is why I've
> seen, for years that, barring the opportunity to work devotedly to write
> a well-integrated "compilation", the best way of communicating the
> essentials of my research would be an in-person presentation.
> 
> I've understood, for much longer, that folks are "afraid" of what they
> "think" I'd say if given such a presentation opportunity. I've no
> control over what folks think, nor do I want such (if anyone looks,
> they'll see that I've expended great efforts to Guard Free Will. It's
> not for me to decide what folks'll do with the understanding. It's for
> me to get the understanding Communicated to those on whose behalves the
> work was done.
> 
> And if anyone looks, they'll see that, with very few exceptions (all
> Failures on my part), I've worked to maintain any "difficult"
> interaction between just me and whoever it is who's "buzzin'" me.
> 
> I understand that it's probable that, if I'm granted an in-person
> presentation opportunity, there'll be folks, there, who'll not be
> inclined toward Forgiveness, and that these folks'll want to
> "sensationalize" the whole matter... I can only say that, as I've always
> strived to (failing only in instances that I can count on the fingers of
> one hand (no thumb needed)), I'll address such matters one-on-one with
> folks who want to make other than the Science the focus. 

----------------- RETRACTION & CORRECTION
--------------------------------

I'm Sorry, but I see I've got to do more. This'll require me to go back
a couple of decades. I'd not intended to do this, but an article in
today's _New York Times_, "Nobel Winner Accused of Stretching Truth", by
L. Rother, p1. reminded me that, although I'm no Nobel Laureat(sp), nor
will I ever be such, or anything else that's analogous, I must. My
knowledge that, despite my many Failures, I never "gave up" will have to
do-it for me.

During the first 10-12 years of my research, I routinely worked to
exhaustion. I was Angry and Naive, and viewing Journalists as folks who
fight against just the sort of thing with which I was dealing, I went to
Journalists with examples from my experience. The 4 instances of my
Failure, with "respect" (I didn't bring "Respect" into the matter) to
others are, because of what transpired during this period of "time",
=many= more.

It's Unfortunate that it's so. When I posted the prior version of this
msg, it was in my sense of having fought-through the "malaise" I'd
encountered early-on, and had gotten beyond such. But with my reading of
the _New York Times_ article, today, I Realized that such is not the
case.

So I RETRACT my prior comments (the "4"), and replace it with "Many".

I Accept the Consequences Inherent, without Reservation. All I ever did
was try to get folks to "Wake-Up"... but the way to which I resorted was
to =Push= folks, =Hard=... I Understood, at the "time", the Costs
Inherent in such, which is Why I've Given my Word of Honor that I'll "go
away" after the understanding's been Communicated. I've always been this
way... the "Trouble" I have Forgiving myself stems from the fact that my
memory's a bit-Strong, and my Understanding of my Failures =only=
Augments as the energy flows in my brain ("as 'time' goes by").]

> (There's one
> Exception to this. I long ago charged Journalists with respect to their
> Responsibilities to Report everything "Negative" with respect to myself.
> This, of course was =Hard= (another "part" of my "Death"), but I Saw,
> Clearly, that such would be Necessary be-cause there've been folks
> who've been spreading Lies about me. Such "stuff" tends to take on a
> "Life" of its own, and I Saw that it's "Existence" might Interfere with
> folks' finding their ways with respect to the theory's understanding. So
> I long-ago charged Journalists with their Responsibilities to Report
> everything "Negative" with respect to myself. I Failed, early on, in
> =one= instance, in the face of "incorrect information" that one
> Journalist had gotten from other sources, and in =one= other instance,
> in an effort to be able to keep on discussing my work in another online
> "place", and I've commented on Political (Public) matters, because, as a
> Citizen, the Constitution Requres me to do so, but other than these
> things, I've not given 3rd-party stuff to anyone, except my Stalwart
> Archivists, known only to me. 

[CLARIFICATION: That one Failure was Huge. Last night, I attended to
only it. There're Many other analogous Failures... which I don't view as
amounting to anything as they were left, but which might amount to
Something Hurt-Filled in others' hands. And it Will Be Me who was the
Progenitor of that (possible) Hurt.

I was Fighting to Maintain-Life within myself... there's no way I
could've been anything else, except if I'd've "given-up" on those who
were Preyed-Upon in the Absence of the Understanding. Without
hesitation, I'd again Do what's necessary. If I'd've Thought about it
(which, in my Naivete, I could not), I'd've "caved-in" to the "Beast".
I've always Understood that I was, in fact, "Getting Into folks Faces".
But now, after the dust's settled, those Hurtful things which flowed
from me, despite anything I'll can do, Obviously, have "Lives" of their
own.

I Guard Free WIll.

I Accept the Consequences of such...

FURTHER CLARIFICATION: I've counted some at the _New York Times_ as
being among my Stalwart Archivists... when I've referred to "Fair
Witnesses", I've referred to these folks at the _New York Times_. I sent
one, Reporter, Selected With Care, after much "Testing", copies of major
portions of the Archives.

No one at the _New York Times_ has ever discussed anything with me in
any substantive way. Most of my verbal "communication" with folks at the
_New York Times_, including the one to whom I sent the portion of the
Archives, was via one-way voice-mail. During all but a couple of
instances, if the Reporter picked up the phone, I asked him not to
respond. I did such because I wanted to Guard the Reporter's Free Will.

(I expect that my phone was "tapped" during all of this. I expect it
still is.)

In my msg last night, I grouped the folks at the _New York Times_ with
my other Stalwart Archivists, but Realized, today, that since I'd never
gotten any Agreement from anyone at the _New York Times_ with respect to
such, I was "Choosing" for them, and thereby, =not= Guarding their Free
Wills (the same goes for the stuff of this CLARIFICATION... =All=
Consequences of =All= of this =Must= fall to =me=, alone.]

> All of such efforts were made in the Hope of keeping the "door" open to
> Forgiveness =with respect to folks other than myself=... because I had
> to charge Journalists with their Responsibilities to Report everything
> "Negative" with respect to myself, and because, I expect, the only way
> I'll be able to Speak in my own defense is if I'm Required to t[]ake an
> Oath in Court of Law, and because I expect no one will ever allow such
> to happen, my own Forgiveness will have to be something that's left
> between me and God.
> 
> If folks "wonder" Why, unless I'm Attacked, I "tread so Gently" in my
> online discussions [Trust me, I =Do= even when it Appears "otherwise".], > it's be-cause I'm Aware of how "afraid" =some= folks
> are with respect to what I'm Doing. It's Why I always meet "Attacks"
> Head-On... in an effort to get them through their courses as quickly as
> possible, so that Innocents'll not be subjected to the stuff of the
> "Attacks".
> 
> I've long Understood, with Blazing-Clarity, that there're some who've
> Misinterpreted all of this as "indicating" that I'm "defending"
> =myself=. There has been =Nothing= that I could do with respect to such
> because I Saw the =Neessity= of Guarding Free Will.
> 
> It's Hurt some. That's all... when I Saw that all of this Would Happen,
> I Accepted my Obligation to the Life of the Understanding, and Disclosed
> myself Fully... 

[This Disclosing was done =Decades= ago, to folks other than folks at
the _New York Times_. In my one-way voice-mail "conversations" with
folks at the _New York Times_, I've repeatedly Disclosed that there're
things that I =Must= Disclose to =them= before (if) they were ever to
consider Communication NDT's stuff. I did it this way with the folks at
the _New York Times_ be-cause I was no longer Naive with respect to what
can follow the sharing of information.]

> so long before anyone could "Misinterpret" my
> intentions, I'd Disclosed everything "Negative" with respect to myself,
> and the possibility of "defending myself" was, after that, Impossible.

[My Analysis is that the long-former Disclosures were, in fact,
Thoroughly-Ab-Used.]

> One Must Choose what it is that one Will-Love, and =Love= it. K. P.
> Collins

Kenneth Paul Collins



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list