kenpc at banet.net wrote:
> The "Beast",
A few people excluded I know no beasts.
Which beast exactly?
> Abstract Ignorance (absence of understanding of how nervous systems process information in nervous systems which,
>nevertheless, "process information" automatically), must be addressed in language that
>chips away at its invisibility.
I do not get the must. For thousands of years such was an area of
magic, and I do not get why the rapid telepathic transfers between
brains of magicians also to do with a lot of internal processes should
be replaced by slow, limiting clumsy words, and for so much there are
no words I know.
Not that I mind, when you are finished making up words for all that
stuff, maybe then I can convey with long-wound strings of impressive
sounding, complicated irxstlwrrkses stuff to neuros that they might
find proper. Like here I could just say "linking magic energies into
the transformer banks in the bulge in the back of the head of a
sleeper" and most into magic I know would get the concept, but I had
the suspicion that with people like Dag and a load of neuros pages or
truckloads of "Cheng" volumes of neuro-irkstlwrxsing might be needed
and I guess they'd still get less about it in years than the next
interested punkie might grasp within days and some MBD folks on LSD
>> >In the present circumstance such is unthinkably offensive.
>> What why?
I basically indicated that what you said about the amydala and
aggression in that form to me seems wrong.
In my systems I never noticed any sign of aggression from the
basolateral part of the amygdala which for me is the first emotion
generator, but loads of aggression programs from the third emotion
Some alterations in the first (via second) can see to aggression
reactions in the third, but the third is still source emotion
generator for most aggressions I know.
And concerning aggressions
ways more effective than alterations in first
to me seems a good load of testosterone.
I have the impression that at times you arae avoiding to face your own
But with that you won't be that impressive to others.
Back then after you went on in vague ways about children for a long
time, at some point when I got fed up I sort of "said into your face"
that I do not believe that you care for some of them, though there are
many who badly need parents.
You are talking and talking, but when it comes to actions,
or effective concepts that others can understand and agree to,
I do not perceive much from you.
If the tensions or wars in other places are bothering you,
to just indicate the dangers is not helping much,
as there are loads of people hopping around who are claiming
that Nostradamus predicted a war to be due soon
and that the USA attacking Iran though Iran did not attack them
and as occupiers of Red Indian lands for centuries going on about some
short occupation of land shorter than they time they harass Iran by
now, might annoy them or others so much and raise tensions so much,
that in this instable age with more and more powerful weapons more and
more available to people not educated for inner and outer balancing,
this might lead to it.
If you are wishing to change stuff,
why are you not learning the languages of the people(s) involved
and are trying to understand enough about the situations
to work out serious concepts
trying to leave the according parties content?
And if just babbling about stuff like I often do,
if someone else babbles his opinion about that,
to point why an error he says one makes is not an error might be more
effective than to way that the own vagueness should not be interrupted
in bionet.neuroscience, as else in Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Iran,
Yugoslawia or elseplace "someone might fall over the cliff".
(At some point I recommend to you to understand what akasha is better,
then you might also get better why forms of akasha are influencing
each other and that you are not the only one who notices such
and patterns in it.)