"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:Ogfma.27021$cO3.1969004 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Hi Peter.
>> "Peter F" <fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:EPema.225$cW.11035 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> | "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
> | >
> | > It's all explained in AoK, Peter. 'Zero TD E/I cannot be
> | > so 'death' isn't TD E/I-minimization. Life is a prerequisite of
> | > E/I-minimization.
> | You did not catch my teasy thematic subsequently timed humor. The
> | back-referred to your mixing-up your brain-stuff TD E/I (up or
> down) stuff
> | with how somethings get naturally selected _in_ rather than _out_.
> | P
>> Sorry, I'm not following you. Please explain succinctly [if it's not
> too much 'trouble'.] I'm curious about your 'point', but unaware of
> what it might be. I've presumed you been good-heartedly 'goofin' on
> me :-]
You proclaim the universal relevance of your scheme of dynamics (TD). That
is a symptom of your problem.
(Here in Australia some recently murdered his mother and step-father because
he his brain (or IOW his within reality emerged and embedded "Actention
Selection System") chose to "pay AEVASIVE actention" to his Pain in just
that way - rather than to do something _less_ destructively AEVASIVE about
the chronic endogenous pressure from his CURSES ("put" in his brain partly
by his mother's likewise CURSEd and largely blind TD E/I automation).
That is to say, if you remain similarly selectively unconscious of your
specific CURSES, you will continue to preach, in disassociative directions -
like a benevolent automaton ayatollah :-) - about and basically driven by
your own problem whilst remaining a piraya to professionals.
[My situation is different in that I have a _largely_ lucky life - though
there are still plenty of CURSES on my brain, or, as some might say, "bees
in my bonnet" ;->.]
I suggest you try (if need be repeatedly and in small doses) to take
time-out (pause for a moment) to consider in what dynamic scenarios (or
situations) your TD scheme is MOST relevant, or where and when, as a rule of
thumb, it can be _most HELPFUL_ - given that most people are inclined to be
Do so, and be really rational and scientific-minded, if only because your TD
synthesis simply cannot be =EVENLY= omni-relevant.
That it _cannot_ be, is something which 'should' become logically obvious to
you if and when you allow yourself to juxtapose your current philosophical
position with the slightly pussy-footed philosophical position that we are
as if 'naturally presented with' by way of the Uncertainty Principle (a
fundamental truth in physics) and by its extrapolation into the "Principle
Use the last-mentioned principle [the one aptly "extrapolated (from the
first-mentioned principle, into a) philosophy tempering" thinking tactics]
to temper your state of emotionally motivated intellectual addiction (to
your own TD-scheme), to the point where you can restrict it to areas of
I'll let you know where I think your TD I/E thinking resonates most strongly
with really, as far as restorative, rescuing, and prophylactic
(people-damage preventing) philanthropy goes:
In clinical and potential socio-political application of Primal
Theory/Therapy and closely aligned (or similarly lucidly optimized) though
otherwise named ("ALQHolism" promoting - another EPTly formulated old idea)
Check out http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns23901.