brain sizes: Einstein's and women's and miscegenation

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at
Wed Sep 4 13:20:00 EST 2002

That I don't "take 'time'" has to do with the fact that I've got
very-little energy left to Waste in 'stylistic' concerns.

Dealing with Sorrowful stuff once is enough. Going back over it, on
behalf of folks who put 'style' above substance, is agony.

It'd be different, of course, if it were the case that I were trying
to 'tell folks what to do'.

Then, as in all 'election' campaigns, it's best to grovel at the
'level' of the 'lowest common denomonator'.

But I'm not 'campaigning'.

All I'm doing is working to allow folks the opportunity to understand
how and why 'blindly'-automated prejudice arises within their nervous
systems, and how such induces folks to comit Savage acts against
folks who's prejudice is 'only' just as 'blindly'-automated as
their's [the first folks'] is.

It's a Gift of understanding.

A Gift that requires a bit of work if it is to be received.

My 'care-less' 'style' is a thing that, at least at this 'point', is
OK-with-me because it gives those who don't want to do the work,
inherent, an 'excuse' for not doing the work inherent.

Hopefully, there will be opportunity, at a later date, to state
things 'elegantly'.

But I've been running a race against the collective
'blindly-automated prejudice toward that which is merely-familiar,
which has been augmenting because modern communications capabilities
have thrust folks, all around the world, 'up against' each other's
merely-familiar stuff, confronting each other with each other's
merely-unfamiliar stuff.

And, given the 'blindly'-automated way in which nervous systems
process-information, it's flat-out obvious, to one who understands
how nervous systems process-information, that such is, 'blindly' and
automatically, thrusting the world's various population groups toward
explosive conflagration.

Anyway, beyond this, I've been running this race for 31 years. I'm
'tired', mostly because, some folks who were, long ago, able to see
what was in my work, 'decided' to use what's in my work to 'seek

These folks're 'powerful', and they've Ravaged my Being.

Yet, I can only work, even on their behalves, because it's Truth that
I 'move toward', not 'personal gain'... although it's always been
clear to me that, in making it possible for folks to understand how
and why 'blindly'-automated prejudice arises within nervous systems,
while working to lift-up everyone, I, simultaneously, lift-up myself.

It's what happens when Truth is moved-toward.

k. p. collins

John Knight wrote in message ...
>"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at> wrote in message
>news:oogd9.9500$jG2.714355 at
>> John Knight wrote in message
>> >kp, it's generally a waste of time to respond to people who don't
>> have
>> >enough respect for their own thoughts that they don't even check
>> their
>> >spelling and grammar before they post to a public forum.
>> Only if one elevates 'spilling' above readily-discernable
>> information-content, eh?
>> The rest of my 'style' is, mostly, correlated to that one 'test'.
>> Basically, since "language" is 'just' a nervous-system interface,
>> 'thought' occurs in a much-larger way, I work to use 'language'
>> more-'friendly' to 'thought'.
>> When I use single-quotes, it indicates "tthink the larger thing".
>> 'course, I've been discussing the larger-stuff' in
>> bionet.neuroscience for years, and you've cross-posted into the
>> of that larger discussion.
>> There's an 'easy' solution.
>> Stop cross-posting into bionet.neuroscience where I do my work in
>> Neuroscience.
>> The 'difficult' solution is to receive the Neuroscience and do the
>> work inherent in understanding it.
>> It's up to you, but if you don't want the understanding, the easy
>> thing is to stop cross-posting into bionet.neuroscience, no.
>> Yup.
>> k. p. collins
>There's no understanding if you can't make yourself clear, k. p.
And if you
>keep missing words, putting quotation marks where they don't belong,
>misspelling words, and making other grammatical errors, nobody can
>certain of what you're writing.
>This isn't an attempt to make you look stupid (though that may be a
>possibility)--it's only an attempt to communicate with you clearly.
>For example, you wrote:
>> Basically, since "language" is 'just' a nervous-system interface,
>> 'thought' occurs in a much-larger way, I work to use 'language'
>> more-'friendly' to 'thought'.
>How's anyone to know what you meant by:  'language' that
more-'friendly' to
>Did you mean to say:  'language' that [is] more-'friendly' to
'thought'?  Or
>was there some other cryptic meaning here?  Did you leave out "is"
>purpose, or by accident? Do the quote marks around these words mean
>something?  Is the key to the omission of "is" these quote marks?
>It takes a long time to decipher such writing, and when you think
you have
>it right, the writer still may have meant something entirely
>If we need to keep guessing at these things, how can we communicate
>you?  If they're just mistakes, why don't you take more time to
review your
>writing before you post these mistakes?  It doesn't help your
position, at
>John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list