Is it 'Soup' yet? ...The Point
KPaulC at email.msn.com
Tue Sep 7 05:17:22 EST 1999
i do it best with my colored chaulk, at a chaulk board.
i'm beginning to gain a feal for 'aevasiveness'. if i'm correct, it stems
from the way TD E/I(min) can be achieved by =either= 'moving toward' TD
E/I(down) generators, or 'moving away from' TD E/I(up) generators.
in terms of abstract TD E/I, it seems, superficially, that both ways 'work
the problem is that, if the result of either way is misaligned with Truth,
that misalignment assures that the selected TD E/I-minimization 'strategy'
it's common that, during interaction, folks have some 'intuitive'
'awareness' of all of this, yet, in accord with the 'volitional
diminishing-returns decision' (AoK, Ap7), folks 'feign' 'appropriateness',
rather than do the work that aligning with Truth entails.
it's a nevr-ending, 'slow-burn, TD E/I(up), that's 'accepted' on the
condition that all folks, within this or that interactive group, 'accept'
the same 'rules' (er... 'cop-out :-).
(folks tend to have 'difficulty' with me because my "heart's" set on Truth,
so i've got all sorts of 'rough-edges' with respect to 'the rules of the
game'... i just =See= the Wastefulness inherent in 'moving away from'
Truth... would rather be 'hanging-out all over the place' than 'move away
anyway, i'm still learning (by just allowing it to bounce around in my head
:-), but i'm beginning to see your concept of 'aevasiveness' as above.
"Sir Knowitall" <removeallbut.fellin.onthisside at one.net.au> wrote in message
news:37d38e1c.0 at pink.one.net.au...
> Ken Collins <KPaulC at email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:eG1boEm9#GA.346 at cpmsnbbsa05...
> > there'll just be one man standing-firm on behalf of Truth, it's worth,
> > ramifications for all of us.
> People do not want to see certain aspects of Truth (or "how things are").
> And we ALL have evolved in accordance with the AEVASIVE sub-principle of
> natural selection to become just that. However it is possible to *be*
> AEVASIVE in many different ways. ;-)
> The way you sub-understand your own terminology (short-hand) is not that
> easy for ordinary folks to emulate. Perhaps you could find some way of
> explaining things in yet another illuminating way but from a slightly
> different angle or by using a somewhat differently coloured light.?
> You know -- it is possible to rephrase much of the key point you have made
> in the posts available on my screen. No doubt though, that your
> of what is going on are intellectually complementary to much scientific
> social-emotional knowledge and insight.
> Peter F
More information about the Neur-sci