C.R.E.B

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Tue Dec 29 21:39:44 EST 1998


John wrote:
> 
> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote in message
>[...]

> >I'm Sorry, but, due to circumstances beyond my control, it seems I'll
> >have to stay on, here, a while longer. ken collins
> 
> Please define: "a while longer". 

> Until I can find another place in which to work.

> Are these circumstances you refer too related to your personality? 

The place where I thought I'd be able to work was closed to everyone.
Then, last night, it was open again. I posted a msg there, but I don't
think I should invest a lot there until I can see that it's not going to
be a waste. That's all.

> I mean to say, such is your earnestness to
> spread the word then I recommend you jump on a moderated mailing list and so
> spread it further. 

I prefer to work in a free-speech place.

> It is quite obvious that you are now wasting your time here. 

It's not "obvious" as far as I'm concerned. Yes, there've been
"disagreeable" posts, but I'm accustomed to such. But there've been
very-agreeable posts, too, for which I'm grateful.

> Certainly not saving anyone. 

I Guard Free Will. I discuss the usefulness of the understanding in an
effort to give folks reason to do the work the understanding entails. My
Obligation is with respect to simple Communication.

> This is the second time you have stated you will be going away. 
> What's the story?

I take it one day at a time.

> You have made a common blunder: saying so much as to reveal your own
> contradictions. 

For instance?

> It is now very tiresome. 

I expect, much moreso on my end of things.

> You post volumes of empty words 

Such as?

> yet if there is still much to be done you are achieving nothing in that regard
> here. At present all you are proving is the value of killfiles.

I suggest you address such comments to the folks who've been hammering
the discussion with tons of red herring.

> You stated in one post you refuse to accept any awards, 

I do.

> but then berate so called thieves of your ideas. 

Kindly, if you paraphrase what I say, make some small attempt to get it
right. I =do= stand against those who take the understanding while
withholding the understanding's worth from those on whose behalves the
work was done. Those who've done so have a day of reckoning coming.

As for the theft of the monetary worth of the work I've done, from me,
while such is contrary to everything Science and "just" plain ol' Ethics
stands for, I can endure such. And the more of such I do endure, the
stronger becomes my voice on behalf of those who suffer greatly, isn't
it so?

Yes.

> This is the equivalent of Jesus accusing St.
> Paul of plagiarism. 

No it isn't. Paul Taught Christ, not Paul. Big difference. (Have trouble
with analogies?)

> Surely if you're concern is for all the children you
> would welcome others taking and using your ideas because as you have also
> stated there is still much work to be done in AoK.

My concern is with the Children, but I cannot forsake Ethics. There're
rules in Science. I can only demand that I be allowed to Communicate my
work. I can't tell folks that they must hear.

The stand I take with respect to the worth of the understanding in the
Lives of folks who suffer greatly is "just" simple Ethics. It's similar
to my seeing, for instance, a person in danger, and dialing "911" to
call the authorities to the person's aid. It's "just" something that, in
my view, everyone should do.

And if folks don't, that doesn't change my Obligation. The "catch" is
that, as I fight on behalf of the understanding's usefulness in the
Lives of those who suffer greatly, what I have to do, simultaneously,
exposes the treachery of those who've taken the understanding, so as to
profit, but who've made no "911" call on behalf of those who suffer
greatly.

Folks think I'm "out to get them". Truth is, folks are "getting"
themselves. I'm just doing what, having seen what I have seen, I =must=
do.

> I find this claim of
> theft very paradoxical because if you have archived everything accurately
> then you should have no problem proving such theft. 

Yep.

> And that business about someone hijacking your hard drive ... Give me a break. 

It happens. All connections to the Internet are, by definition, two way.
(Course, a dumb terminal doesn't have the necessary "guts" to get much
out of from the other "side" of things.

> No, don't worry about that. I'll be on-line for 2 more days but I bet that 
> upon my return you still be kicking around, still throwing posts at 
> everything, which, incidentally, demonstrates your dire need to have a say 
> and reveals your duplicity. 

Look, John, I'm invulnerable to your say-nothing psycho-babble. And I
intend to continue on until anyone else who wants the same receives it.
Then folks who've relied on forceful applications of B. S. will be
recognized by anyone who simply wants to. B. S. will no longer thwart
folks' going-forward-ness.

> There are plenty of other forums around, nothing is stopping you
> except yourself.

I'm looking. Part of why I'm staying on here in bionet.neuroscience is
in the Hope of sparing folks in Neuroscience the shame of having "moved
away from" the Neuroscience.

> I am still amazed at those who use the ng forum as a way of promoting
> revolutionary ideas. 

NDT's reification of decussation is Revolutionary, for sure, and
"Amazing", too :-)

> Please explain the logic of this to me. This is a play
> place, some good discussions etc but nothing revolutionary happens on the
> ngs. 

Online "places" are the only venue that's open to me.

> And I mean nothing, I come here to kill time, learn a little, acquire
> references, reciprocate in kind, not to think nor to expect that I shall be
> enlightened by some unrecognized genius. 

Are you a Neuroscientist? If so, what's your area of specialization?
Cite an experimental result that's meaningful to you. I'll work up a
discussion that, I'll guarantee before-hand, will push the stuff of your
citation forward beyond its established limits.

> You stated in one post how even at
> school you were so far ahead of your teachers that they found you annoying
> because they couldn't understand where you were coming from. 

That was mainly just one year... 8th grade... my teacher hated me.
Before that, I just didn't notice my teachers' "chagrin", after that, I
did it "in-secret" until the 11th grade, when I rebelled because I found
out that I wouldn't be able to go to college. Once I made it to college,
I took it a day at a time. If a Prof got upset, I just accepted the
consequences and shrugged it off.

> This sounds suspiciously like the claim of Einstein with respect to his 
> school years. Is this where you got that line from?

No, I got it from stuff like my Science projects, which I worked on from
Sept to Feb each year, but which were never understood by the judges,
and stuff like pointing out alternative conceptualizations in the
classroom and getting mocked by my teachers... to the point of being the
"class joke". I learned to endure such. I learned to value all the
myriad stuff that was just sitting there, unconsidered, simply because
it was not what was in the books. What the heck? I wasn't going to be
allowed to go to college, anyway. Why not look-elsewhere?

> Now a truly creative person would recognise the pointlessness of continuing
> within any given communication medium and so direct their energies
> elsewhere. 

I'm a long-haul kind of person, John.

> Or in the very least find another way to present their ideas, 

Or wait for the Jackasses to wear themselves out :-)

> but you persist with this rigid narrative that most find incomprehensible. 

It has been less than I'd Hoped. But it's all that can be expected when
there've been several mean-spirited folks continually breaking the flow
of the discussion.

New stuff is =always= hard to grasp at first. It's a trivial endeavor
for a Jackass to throw a monkey-wrench into the midst of new stuff's
just-becomming-ness, and thereby, twist it all to hell. Good grief, how
and why such happens is explained right in AoK :-)

All I can do is endure. Meanwhile, mean-spirited folks declare
themselves to posterity.

> So how then can we steal your ideas? I have long since refrained from reading
> your posts in their entirety, if at all. You have hijacked this ng,
> plastered yourself all over it so that it looks like Kkollins playplace. I
> wanna play here too!

I'm not stopping you. But this is a Neuroscience place. I'm here to do
Neuroscience. If you, or anyone else isn't interested in such, the thing
to do is to just ignore it, not interfere with it. Who the hell is
anybody to do stuff that interferes with a working Scientist at work in
this place?

> If you wish to prove your point it is this easy: Go, in person, to various
> professionals or professional bodies, submit your arguments in a means
> easily understood.

I did that, at considerable expense, for more than a decade. No one
would even listen.

Then I wrote AoK, and please forgive me for saying so, John, but if
there's anyone who purports to be "Neuroscientist", who cannot see
immediately what's in AoK, they should find a new field. AoK is
=Simple=.

> If you are so right then someone or some organisation
> shall provide you with the necessary support. Think of it this way: St. Paul
> appealed to the Gentiles because he understood their worldly ways, he spoke
> in their tongue, used their symbols (eg. "To an unknown god"!), and proved
> his worth. If no-one listens to you it's your fault, you have failed to
> saved the children because you haven't bothered to make your message clear
> enough to your audience. 

What you say is total B. S. AoK is =Simple=. What's happened is that
everyone's just "frightened" of having to admit that they'd so-badly
Wasted the Trust placed in them by Society.

> Most believed Einstein because despite the sheer
> novelty of what he was saying they could tell he was onto something. 

I'll say it again. Anyone who cannot see what's in NDT's reification of
the phenomenon of decussation has no business doing Neuroscience. AoK is
=Simple=.

> He
> certainly didn't go through a sustained period of non-acceptance, even
> though as Eddington was claimed, "There are two people in the world who
> understand relativity and I'm one of them." 

Einstein was allowed to publish his work in the normal way.

> In point of fact he was so
> convinced he even massaged the evidence from the eclipse to provide the
> final validation for Einstein's theory, which by that time most were
> accepting anyway. What's your excuse?

My work redefines what it is to be Human. As is explained in AoK, this
creates a bit of atypical "difficulty".

It's all explained in AoK. All I can do is try to keep my foot in the
door of Science, on behalf of the understanding, until Science decides
that it will do Science with me.

Do you think, John, thet I "enjoy" waking each day to this unforgiving
Obligation? Do you think that I'm "happy" that I'll never have a family
of my own? Do you think I "enjoy" dodging "monkey-wrenches" thrown into
the stuff that's cost me Life itself?

Heck, I'd rather be in a garage building a hotrod, or working on an
n-scale pike, or walking in the woods, or Loving a woman who'd Love me
right back.

But I "can't", be-cause, if I were to "move away from" what needs to be
done, I'd be Choosing to let folks Perish. So I give my Life rather than
give up on these folks.

If you'd have it otherwise, you're Free to Choose to have it otherwise.

But why interfere with one who wants to present the gift of
understanding to these folks?

Why?

See AoK. K. P. Collins



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list