Or is it inherent in the work I've done that that which is reified in
it 'cannot' be acknolwedged?
'Course, the answer to that Q is in NDT, too :-]
Sorry abot the typos in my prior post. I wanted it to be 'formal' but
my usual typos made it my usual 'clown act'. Sorry.
[I'll fis them below.]
"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in
news:0o9aa.6170$1v.419646 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| So, will anyone comment with respect to the absence of theorization
| in Neuroscience?
|| Why doesn't Neuroscience train its Students to see stuff like the
| least potential energy dynamic that underpins an adopted Infant's
| acquiring its adoptive culture, through experience?
|| So familiar that it's been 'invisible', eh?
|| Then, now that Neuroscience knows that it must See such
| 'invisibly'-familiar stuff, and since NDT shows how to do such,
| folks in Neuroscience remain 'silent' with respect to NTD?
|| I'm not out to 'embarass' folks.
|| I'm not seeking some 'personal triumph'.
|| It's =just= that this Science has been done, what's reified in it
| make a huge difference, for the better, within Human interactive
| dynamics, yet it's not been adequately communicated.
|| I'm just trying not to Fail my Obligation to Science.
|| Is there no way, through means available to folks who meet in
| bionet.neuroscience, to bring NDT's understanding forward?
Given my personal circumstances. this online Science 'place' is my
only hope. I'm sorry, but that means that I must look to folks in
Neuroscience who meet in this NG.
| Is there no way to expand Neuroscience's Theorization capabilities
| NDT shows is possible and necessary?
| "P. S. ..."