Brain clues to attention disorder

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]
Fri Dec 19 00:52:41 EST 2003

Hi Peter.

Forgive me, please, but I've never been able to discern
whether or not, in your posts to me, you are 'satyrizing'
the stuff I discuss. So yor posts persent an ambiguous
stimulus set to me [which, I understand, BTW, is a
criticism that can be applied to my own posts by folks
who've not received either AoK or the decade+-long

So, in case you are goofing on me, I'll explain, a bit,
what has been my approach - and why I've used a non-
standard 'nomenclature'.

The nervous system is 'complex'. There's no "snapping
one's fingers" and comprehending it.

Also, early on in the work I've done, it became clear
that folks were pretty much oblivious to whole sets of
necessary things. These necessary things were so far
out of folks' awarenesses that there weren't even any
terms with which they could be addressed within any
standardized nomenclature.

Still, they needed to be not only addressed but func-
tionally integrated =within the nervous systems= of
those who were oblivious to them.

Pay attention to the "within the nervous systems" stuff.
It entails establishing "biological mass" - building and
accumulating "microscopic trophic modifications" with-
in nervous systems =other= than my own.

If it seems that I've proceeded to 'gingerly', it's been
as a consequence of the degree to which I Revere the
stuff that happens within nervous systems. So, even
though I've Known all along that I had to work to
communicate the essence of NDT's stuff to folks, I was
also aware, all along, that I'd no 'right' to 'impose' the
production of particular biological mass within, or other-
wise manipulate other's nervous system function.

It's a =really= hard problem.

I Know that, if I fail, Tragedy will ensue.

But I also Know that elevating TD E/I beyond the
relatively-small TD E/I(up) that falls within the limits of
the mechanism of curiosity [AoK, Ap5] assures Failure.

So I just resolved to procede little-by-little, gradually
building-up the whole 'picture' of NDT's position.

If the "unusual 'technical' terms" I've invoked have been
a problem, there's nothing that I could do about that.
Because of the multi-disciplinary integration that occurs
within NDT, there were just no words that were of any
use in communicating NDT's stuff.

That, and, remember, I also had to maintain things within
the range of acceptable TD E/I. [When I started out, I was
less careful with respect to this, and it quickly became
apparent to me that it would be very easy for folks to 'fly
off the handle' with respect to NDT's stuff - to take this
or that snippet of it and ab-use it. I actually had to shoo
away folks who approached me as some sort of 'guru'.]

So I've proceeded with caution, in particular, out of re-
spect for the dynamics of the "zone of randomness" [AoK,
Ap4], working to lift folks up in the understanding, and
then working to make sure folks'd not 'over-react' to the
incompletely-comprehended understanding. If folks look
back, they'll see that, in my periodic comings and goings,
etc., I was just implimenting a form of "ratchet-pawling"
[AoK, Ap5; hippocampus], all the while working to
assure that TD E/I remained within the Safe range.

It's been Arduous, but some folks have grasped the
general picture, and, through them, the survival of NDT's
understanding is assured.

With respect to the non-standard 'nomenclature' I've used,
it relies in the Neuroanatomy [the neural Topology], and
AoK is a "key" with respect to such. Anyone who has AoK
can use it to 'address' any standard neuroanatomical reference,
and any of the Literature of Neuroscience for that matter.

When I use my non-standard 'nomenclature', what I'm always
actually doing is using AoK as a 'template' through which to
address the standard nomenclature [the standard Literature].
A method such as this was just flat-out necessary because,
as I pointed out above, NDT's stuff simultaneously 'addresses'
standard stuff in a way that had no precedent.

For instance, the discussion with respect to the etiology of
'adhd' to which you've replied is 'incomprehensible' to any
who've not studied AoK and the refs cited in AoK, and
who've not received the discussions of NDT's stuff here in
b.n, and I posted it, as I post everything these days, for those
who've done this work. My awareness of the 'difference'
inherent is what allows me to see my way through the "bio-
logical mass" considerations that I discussed above. Seeing
that folks understand allows me to give them higher-'level'
opportunity to construct further microscopic trophic mod-
ifications ["biological mass"] within their nervous systems.

The other thing has been that, probably because of my
early personal experience, I'm 'predisposed' to caution with
respect to distinguishing between my own work and the work
of others. I discuss my own work, and trust that folks who
want to can find the work of others in the published literature.

Some of this last stuff derives in the demands of self-
preservation - in the face of all the 'rejection' with which my
efforts to get AoK published have encountered. I had to self-
sustain, despite the decades-of-stampede to 'move away
from' NDT's stuff. I cannot convey how exhausting this
particular circumstance has been. It's fairly sucked the Life
out of me, =not= because it's personally 'insulting' [even
though it has been], but be-cause, daily, I've had to
Witness Savagery unfolding all over the place as the sole
result of my not yet having brought NDT's stuff to fruition.
Don't even try to imagine it. You can't. No one else can.
It's a piercing-aloneness that flails and rips at one's Spirit.

So, in the midst of doing the work and communication, I've
had to self-sustain - just to be able to continue.

So, all of this is what I've been doing.

I can see that there's a small group of folks who've gotten
the essence of it, and I write for them - to increase their
understanding - because, if NDT's stuff is to come forward,
it will be because of what these folks have to say with respect
to it.

You know?

It's all been an extremely-serious matter.

I've Honored that.

[And, BTW, I came back online to do some more
'Difficult' stuff that needs doing. I'll be getting into it as I
sense folks'  'comfort levels' are within the necessary

This said, my 'heart' leaped upon the experiencing of the
tender mercies you expressed toward Infants who've
sufferred "touch deprivation".

Cheers, Peter,

ken [k. p. collins]

"Peter F." <fell_spamtrap_in-hopefullyeffectiveagainstspam at>
wrote in message news:%WtEb.70$g21.2525 at
> "kenneth p Collins" <kpaulc at> wrote in message
> news:3IWDb.1560$wL6.817 at
> > The "hyperactivity element" is an =artifact= of the
> > elevated TD E/I that is imposed externally, and
> > which prevents the development of long-term
> > active-phase experience, which weakens, or
> > flat-out prevents, the 'normal' passiv[e]->active
> > dominance behavioral transition, the absence of
> > which is all that 'adhd' is.
> >
> > The "hyperactivity element" is 'just' what happens
> > in the absence of robust active-phase [motor-
> > dominant] experience and correlated development -
> > in the absence of inwardly-generated directionality,
> > behavior 'floats' upon the 'sea' of sensory experience.
> > [Modern electronic-gadget stuff, including TV, that
> > imposes behavioral passivity [sensory-dominance]
> > augments these dynamics.
> It is deeply and awfully ironic that the minds of normal
> neuroscientist are part of this naturally evolved 'conspiracy'
> (i.e., our *almost flawlessly* AEVASIVEly evolved and
> operating brains;) NOT to deeply understand [or at
> least NOT sufficiently clearly and completely ENOUGH
> to inspire wide-spread implementation of in principle
> cheap and simple social and self-regulatory remedies)
> what is going on.
> You are always pointing this irony out, but in a usually
> *non*-ironic way, using unusual 'technical' terms.
> Other people, who understanding the same scenario but
> in somewhat different ways to you, say something along
> these lines:
> Certain chronically and/or traumatically deprived needs,
> here especially "touch deprivation" and being held and
> naturally rocked (while carried around) in early infancy,
> also deprives the deprived individual's brain of local
> brain-growth-promoting stimulation; and thereby also
> causing a hypotrophic condition that is naturally sought
> to be compensated for in some NOT necessarily
> successful way -- e.g., by a 'socially disturbing' ADHD
> type brain functural compromise [just to stay on-topic
> in this thread].
> Some of the simplifying concEPTual and explanatory
> tricks that I use to understanding mainly myself and
> people in general, include talking and thinking about
> ourselves in terms of:
> The somewhat tenuously tailored acronym-term
> "AEVASIVE". It approximatley stands for: "Ambi-
> advantageously Evolved Vital (or Vested, or any other
> desperately invoked V-word) Actention (Selection)
> System, Incorporating (amongst many other key brain-
> functural elements) Various Endoopiates (use
> "endoopiates" both because of the acronym-building
> alphabetic character it provides, and because endogenous
> opiate-like neuromodulators exist in a central
> 'psychophysiological position' and play a known role that
> is quite instructive in a certain respect - one that this
> acronym is partly meant to refer to);
> CURSES [short, and appropriately nasty, for: "conditioned-
> in unconscious remembrances/reverberations of (SHITS-
> type) stressors, effecting symptoms] -- refers to a type of
> conditioned in states (most centrally a type of memories);
> And, for what CURSES are being caused by, I use
> "selective Hibernation" imploring type (life-)situation(s)" --
> or "SHITS" for something sneeringly short and
> appropriately unpleasant sounding.
> Regards,
> Peter

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list