Hi Peter. All I know about "Hegel's lament" is what John H. wrote in
his recent post: "Otherwise you run the risk of Hegel's deathbed
lament, "Only one man understood me, and he got it wrong." Hegel,
however, was for the most part a gibberish merchant, he didn't
deserve to be understood because he expected everyone to adjust to
his style of communication."
Such doesn't apply in my case.
I =understand= that NDT's stuff is 'difficult', both to communicate
and to understand.
I've not been 'whining' about folks' not comprehending.
I've been 'whining' about, even though NDT's stuff is 'difficult',
both to communicate and to understand, folks expect me to comunicate
it wo that they can understand it, while my circumstances have been,
all along, a 'state' of teetering on the edge of survival - I've been
literally dying, Peter, while trying to win the opportunity to
rewrite AoK to an 'eloquent' standard.
It's 'hilarious' - I've got days left before I'll literally be out on
the street, yet you interpret my staying here, begging for help
that'll allow me to do as you say must be done, and you don't see, in
such, where my Will is?
In the whole ~10 years that I've been posting here in
bionet.neuroscience, I've been asking for only one thing - the
opportunity to work more.
The other way in which "Hegel's lament" does not apply in my case it
that, although it's long been obvious that =all= of NDT is
'difficult', there's stuff in NDT, like its reification of the
phenomenon of "decussation" that's flat-out easy to comprehend, and
which constitutes "sufficiency" with respect to my hope of winning an
opportunity to work more.
NDT's reification of how and why "decussation" must occur is the
single most-significant thing that's ever been reified in Science [I
understand that folks do not, yet, understand this in its fullness],
and it's flat-out easy to understand its basics.
Yet everyone "ho hums" it [and all the other easy-to-comprehend stuff
that's given in AoK, along with teaching examples from folks'
commonplace ['familiar'] experience.
When folks do not respond to such in a way that meets my very-small
asking that I be granted an opportunity to do more, my jaw just hangs
down and the dichotomy between folks reaction to the work I've done
and their reactions to work that's done 'within the system'.
There's just no Justice, inherent, is there?
Perhaps I've been too 'aloof'. It's my way. I learned early, to 'take
stuff on the chin' and just do what needs to be done - perhaps I
should've said, plainly,, ten years ago, that I was even then
struggling to 'hold on' until I could win an opportunity to work
All along, there have been ways in which I could've 'forced' the
matter, but if I'd acquiesced to those 'ways', AoK's Epilogue stuff
would've been abandoned.
Measure my Free Will in accord with the Choice inherent.
If folks Choose to let me die, then I'll die.
Free Will Honors Free Will. To do otherwise Slays Free Will.
I'll not be the Slayer [except with respect to 'the beast', "Abstract
Ignorance" - which, with respect to which Humans have control, is
=all= of that which Slays Free Will, BTW.]
Cheers, Peter, ken
"Peter F" <fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:E0uja.97$XI6.5801 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
| "John H." <johnh at faraway.xxx> wrote in message
| news:EqKia.34$Ju4.1397 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...| > I suggest you start rehearsing Hegel's lament.
|| You have responded to KPC in a helpful fashion, so, between the 3
of us [
| ;-) ], can we agree that KPC's preoccupation is a proof that "free
| does not exist (in this case of course mainly KPC's "free will").
|| Regards to both of you,