Backward propagation

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Tue Nov 5 01:50:10 EST 2002


I understand that what I'm doing in this thread seems 'ugly'.

Can 'you' understand that, when what I'm doing in this thread is
juxtaposed with the 'blindly'-automated Savagery that devastates all
of Humanity, the former is like a walk in a park on a beautiful day?

The stuff of the big picture, inherent, is just common sense having
remained 'hidden' and, so, not generally-comprehended.

And the other thing is that, I was right-there, my Life full of
promise, and the Same-Stuff thrust itself between me and my Honest
hope.

And when I endeavor, and succeed - virtually laying-down my Life in
the processes - the prevailing circumstance has it that I'm some sort
of 'ogre', when all I've done is disclose the stuff that ravaged my
own [and everyone else's] Being[s]?

"That's the way things are supposed to be"?

A man cannot even do what needs to be done to create a path out of
the circumstances which ravage him?

He's this or that that's 'unworthy' just because he refuses to 'stay
down in the gutter'?

He's worthy only of collective disdain?

Yeah, sure.

Try to see it through my eyes, a bit.

My experience, while working to bring NDT's understanding forward,
has been that of a drowning man being thrust back under water's
surface by folks who've joined together, albeit, not consciously,
'thinking' that it's 'great fun' to see the drowning man thrash
about.

It's just a 'modern' version of the Roman Colliseum, albeit, all
'dressed-up' in the 'high-minded' stuff of 'modernity' which is
nothing more than a complex "false finitization" that derives solely
in 'consensus' arising 'blindly' and automatically during the courses
of 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization during groupwise
coerced-experience.

No one can see that it's themselves who are, and all their hopes and
dreams for their Children that are, 'drowining' in that
'blindly'-automated stuff - and that my 'crime' is that I refuse to
'move away from' the Rescue?

So, I "don't care" that my 'side' of the dynamics is 'perceived' as
'being ugly'.

I've seen the True-Ugliness, and have been locked in the struggle
against it - for decades - even on 'your' behalves - even as 'you'
have 'your' fun acting-out the 'blindly'-automated Dictates of 'the
beast', Abstract Ignorance with respect to what I'm doing.

I intend to see-it-through.

I intend to Fix what's Broken within Human interactive dynamics.

I intend to remove the 'blinders'.

I intend that all people, everywhere, shall See.

K. P. Collins

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>Kenneth Collins wrote in message
><_p4x9.22885$VJ5.1332777 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>>[...]
>>As I've explained in the past, I don't like citing the work of
>others
>>because the ramifications of my doing so are 'heart'-breaking.
>>
>>I don't 'normally' use PubMed, etc., because I did all that, in a
>>long-and-steadily-devoted way decades ago. I continued until I was
>>able to completely-verify that the simple principles that're
>>discussed in AoK are all-encompassing with respect to
nervous-system
>>function.
>
>Truth is that all the information necessary to resolve the nervous
>system as an information-processing system, to a 'level' that's
>commensurate to Isaac Newton's work in the old Natural Philosophy,
>was sitting in Neuroscience Stacks, collecting dust, 50-35 years
ago.
>
>It's the synthesis of that information that's discussed in AoK - and
>the refs cited in AoK.
>
>If it's the case that the 'idea' of this thread was as a 'test' - to
>see if I'd claim stuff that's not in AoK - then I consider that
>totally-unacceptable. As I've discussed in the past, other than a
few
>trips to the Neuroscience stacks, to collect articles for discussion
>because folks were routinely 'buzzing' me because I 'refrained' from
>such, I haven't read in Neuroscience since AoK was written.
>
>Other than responses to refs posted by others [like the so-called
>"Oscillations" stuff during the summer], I've only been discussing
>stuff that's been in AoK all along. And the resolutions that I've
>discussed have all been in AoK all along [the so-called
>"Oscillations" stuff is a case in-point - it's all in AoK, Ap5.
>
>The 'problem' has been that folks couldn't comprehend what's been
>right-there in AoK all along because folks didn't study widely
enough
>in the Neuroscience stacks - folks left what was in the Neuroscience
>stacks 50-35 years ago 'collecting-dust'.
>
>I will Forthrightly [if Sorrowfully] Demonstrate this actuality to
>anyone who 'accuses' me of 'constructing-NDT-backwards-in-'time'.
>
>You know, in my trips to the Library, to collect refs, I saw with my
>own eyes where the "Backward propagation" is. I didn't seek any
>specifics. I just pulled Journals at random.
>
>I've still got all the refs hanging-around somewhere, along with a
>good number of instances of the same stuff that were sent to me by
>others over the years when I've been online.
>
>With only one exception that immediately comes to mind, I've
>refrained from discussing it, in all but generalized ways, but, if
>folks're 'accusing' me, then it seems to me that there's a need to
be
>Forthright with respect to any "Backward propagation" that has
>occurred. [In my 'refraining', but 'pleading' way, I've referred to
>it in the past as 'borrowing'.]
>
>Is this what's 'necessary'?
>
>Will NDT's stuff be 'ignored' until this approach is taken?
>
>Everyone, please speak-up, Forthrightly.
>
>I will do it.
>
>The Burden of it's being done is 'yours'.
>
>I don't need it for myself.
>
>What I need is for folks to stop acquiesing in the face of Savagery
>that's Slaughtering Innocents all over the place.
>
>But if it comes down to 'accusations', and their being
set-straight -
>if that's what folks deem 'neuroscience' to 'be' - then lead-on.
>
>Of course I'll have to make use of refs that've been published after
>NDT was written [to Demonstrate the 'borrowing'], but I'll
>Demonstrate that their stuff has been in AoK, and the refs cited in
>AoK [which, if no one has yet noted, were, then,
>sufficiently-'comprehensive'], all along - the gist of it being that
>there's somehting 'amiss' if stuff that's been in AoK all along is
>published long after AoK was written, submitted for publication,
>and, that failing, diseminated, if AoK was not allowed to be
>published.
>
>Publication-al "Backward propagation", eh?
>
>Yup. Execpt the backward-links've been 'dropped'.
>
>I'll do it in-person, before the most-'angry' group that can be
>mustered. [The group has to pick up my expenses for as long as it
>takes, and I determine how long it takes [probably about six months
>to a year for this 'mud-slinging' way].]
>
>Word of Honor, "I'll take no prisoners."
>
>The matter will be settled.
>
>As things stand, the 'dangling-inuendo' is, itself, a Dispicable,
>Cowardly thing - folks might as well load their guns and go on
>shooting rampages, because, if such nothingness is allowed to turn
>NDT's understanding aside, then the result is the same.
>
>You know, it's similar with respect to a lot of the work I've done
in
>other fields. There's one Big-Difference, though. My other work
>doesn't directly-address the Savagery.
>
>I just shrug-off the 'borrowing' with respect to my other work.
>
>But how does one 'shrug-off' =anything= that functions to sustain
the
>Savagery?
>
>So NDT's stuff is something with respect to which I've unavoidable
>Obligation, so if this's what it takes, then set the date.
>
>I'll be-there.
>
>K. P. Collins
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list