Very interesting discussion Peter. I enjoyed it very much. I am actually
going to purchase the book you referenced by Jane F. Mackworth.
The comment about Jesus as a drug addict. Hmm it's possible. Actually
there is an old book (don't remember the author's name though) about the
controversy of what may or may not have been on the sponge when placed to
Christ's lips (the report is that it was a bitter substance). Considering
that Jesus (if he really existed) most likely was aware and probably even
spent time with the Essenes (Yahad) ( which were a group that had intimate
ties with India and familiarity with a variety of psychotropic compounds
(such as Rauwolfia serpentine; also called reserpine....which is a bitter
substance) that were routinely employed in ceremonial practice) it may be
"Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:0LMYb.605$m14.9780 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> Hi Ken,
>> This will be my last tussle with you about you religiousness!
>> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:E4fYb.7550$W74.957 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...> > > > When I addressed the "looseness", I was
> > > > referring, explicitly, to the way that "hab-
> > > > ituation" has been virtually-always used
> > > > without, simulteneously, mapping that which
> > > > is "habituated" within the neural Topology.
>> > >
> > > Please, tell me as briefly as you can (even with one or two words, if
> > > can) what is the most significant "thing" that you can think of, that
> > > being "habituated"? I just like to know how synced we are being each
> > > sem_antics? %-)
> > It's easy [of course] - 'blindly'-automated
> > TD E/I-minimization =and= the way folks
> > 'blindly'-and-automatically 'move away from'
> > comprehending the way it =unnecessarily=
> > 'Dictates' behavior.
>> That was a very diluted didactic effort, I'm afraid. You'll remain an
> toothless tiger if you keep up not seeing what opportunity to explain the
> blindspot blocking "plank in our own eyes" [or however 'that' biblical
> metaphor goes].
>> Our primary instinctive reaction to environmentally and sensorially
> localized causes of pain and/or fear is to do just that - to "move away
> from" them.
>> But in order to also cover cases where the environmental causes of pain
> and/or fear are not physically inescapable and in some cases not even
> sensorially and perceptually localisable whilst relatively continuously
> impacting (example given below), "move away from" would have to be meant
> both literally AND figuratively. I.e., "moving" as in distancing or
> separating oneself by "gating/filtering away" neural signals that would,
> would they not be blocked or filtered, be an endogenous cause and key
> motivational fuel for a definitely maladaptive futile and self-defeating,
> distressful, mental/emotional/locomotor state of reactivity.
>>> My point can also be made to start with official definitions of
>> One of the best I have seen is "being abnormally tolerant to and dependent
> on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming
> alcohol or narcotic drugs)", but unfortunately the the even hera slightly
> head-in-the-sand or "unnecessecarily septal" style of thinking about it
> in with the "(especially alcohol or narcotiic drugs)" part.
>> Some of the worst and most didactically damaging I have seen has been in
> books written by neurologists.
> The most sophisticated and deceptively insightful of these can be found in
> the book Vigilance and Habituation by Jane F. Mackworth. [Paperback
> published 1969 by "Penguin Education" 14 080095 6. ]
>> She starts-off the book (after the introduction) as follows:
>> "One of the guiding factors in the evolution of animals has
> been the principle that change is dangerous. The organism
> is bombarded with a continuous stream of stimuli, and by
> neglecting those which are predictable and readily recognizable
> as unimportant, all the mechanisms of detection and response
> are left free to react at maximum efficiency to the new and
> potentially dangerous event. As we become used to them,
> stimuli disappear from our consciousness. The ticking clock
> is no longer noticed, even the roaring subway train outside the
> window becomes a shadowy background in life....."
>> What I am pushing for is a more seamless (workably unified) fuzzy logical
> (not necessarily also silly as in "fuzzsilly" %-| ) and Tolerance
> (not tepid but poignant) view and understanding of (the brain mechanisms
> behind/functions of) "Habituation/Repression".
>> I have thought about Repression and Habituation as being a (even already
> onomatopoetically reflected) "big-brother/little brother relationship"
> (metaphorically put of course - I know little else).
>> Repression takes care of the rough and heavy stuff and "little brother"
> (Habituation) of the mild and light stuff.
>> It is equally easy to consider the two words to represent a sliding scale
> from a prevention of the least significant potentially self-defeating
> of actention being actually wastefully paid actention to, to the most
> significant and potentially most painful/distressing focuse of drastically
> self-defeating actention being actually paid actention to.
>> The "stuff" being the instinctive (and soon enough also learnt) sensory
> detection and weighting of "life-situational significances" (on the
> adversity-side of significance, so to speak).
>> Or, still more EPTly expressed:
>> Without a capacity for highly specific "synaptic [or selective]
> of "synaptic Hibernation imploring type stressors" [still SHITS for short]
> to moderate more primary instinctive self-regulatory reflexes (than
> Hibernation 'itself'), a "fast and dramatic SHITS" (the most typically
> conventionally envisioned meaning of the word trauma) could lead to an
> and lethal stress-overload, and a "slow SHITS" (or slowly or only very
> gradually traumatizing
> circumstances) would lead to that a fiendishly futile (throughout
> also most likely to end up being lethal) actention modules within the
> modular "actention selection system" becoming energized by limited
> of vital energy.
>>> With sources of mild irritation we are less compelled (by the lesser
> phylogenetically given to such mild forms of adversity) to immediately try
> to physically move
> away from them; but if they keep on coming and no physical flight or
> off is
> possible, then even a for a short period very mildly irritating (or
> initially just novel and responded to by an orienting reflex) stimulation
> will summate into SHITS type (slowly traumatizing - preconsciously
> filter-out/prevented from being fully or at all felt, or from being "paid
> futile and self-defeating actention to").
>> Such life-situations [that as if "contain" (in difference to the very
> cases of SHITS which can be said to "consist" - almost exclusively - of)
> physically inescapable causes of adverse 'conditioning' being
> instinctively self-regulated to by Habituation/Repression] can be what an
> individual has to live in for years on end.
> E.G., a parent's or parents' more or less consistently and severly twisted
> and frozen facial
> emotional tone - e.g. of blandness, anger, disgust, or a placating smile
> expression of fear or subserviant meakness; not unusually combined and a
> chronic falling short of physically and comfortingly touching its - for
> such nourishing stimulation
> needy - offspring-audience.
>> Such chronic and inescapable "absence type" adversity can be very toxic;
> and so, in order that toxic shock be prevented, selective freezing of
> acutely allergic reaction are necessary for survivial. (Again
>> IOW, "synaptic Hibernation imploring type situations" does not just by
> definition lead to "synaptic Hibernation" but to the formation of all
> relevant kinds of memories. However, the both most relevant AND insidious
> type of
> SHITS-specific memory, to form, is that which can be called CURSES.
> "Conditioned-in, Unconsciously Reverberating stressors - SHITS-type such -
> Effecting Symptoms.]
>> There is even a tissue-irritaion analog to this:
> In many cases where individuals are culturally or by familial habits
> exposed, from early
> childhood, to foods they are not able to properly digest, then a long
> of self-regulatory symptom-masqueing adaptation can prevent acute allergic
> symptoms for years or decades -- until, as often happens, the
> (somatic and neurological) components of this system of defense (of this
> kind of "selective Hibernation") brakes down.
>> One result of such chronic but masqued (or life-situationally adapted-to)
> irritation - not just in the case
> of the very vast and obvious example of tobacco smoking (or snuffing) - is
> cancer. (In this case cancer in the lungs, or gums/nose/stomach,
> respectively - depending also on genetic predisposition for the disease.)
>> [BTW, cancers can in most cases be thought of as a legacy of a
> naturally selected propensity of single-cell individuals to take the
> last-ditch option to reproduce when pressed by an easy to imagine
> "Irritating Cloud Type Situation" (if extrapolated to much later in animal
> evolution, ICTS type situations can - as an alternative to "selective
> Hibernation imploring type situations" (SHITS for short) - also be thought
> to stand for "Inducing CURSES Type Situation. This reasoning is more EPT
> than so but for here that has to be all I say about it.]
> > > Pity you don't you see that what you are doing is religious
> > Explain how it's so, Peter.
>> Jesus is your idol and a neuro-topologically rerouted substitute for
> parents - whether you know it, or can admit it to yourself, or not.
> > > Women has been known to throw themselves at the feet of drug-loaded
> > > pop-artists as well.
> > Are you saying that Jesus was a 'drug addict'?
>> He sure was AEVASIVEly addicted to his deluded belief that he was "the son
> of God". (But there are of course many more crazy or irrational aspects
> religion than that.)
>> Nobody knows what exogenous drugs of addiction he was, possibly in
> hooked on?
> > Are you saying that I Acknowledge Jesus'
> > Priority for 'reasons' other than the Reasons
> > I've clearly-stated all along?
> > What are you saying, Peter?
> > Please be Explicit.
> > > If you believe that Jesus was the "Son of God" (etc.) -
> > I do.
> > And I've explained why I do.
> > My Faith came in a 'secondary' way.
> > After working long and hard, with the
> > best experimental data that Science
> > has produced, my jaw hung down
> > be-cause, when I looked, I saw that
> > Jesus Knew! how Human nervous
> > systems process information.
> > How could it be, Peter?
> > ~2000 'years' ago, long before
> > the Scientific Method was con-
> > ceived?
> > How could Jesus Know?
> > I can't 'explain' it.
> > All I can see is that Jesus Knew!
> > Truth, inherent, must be Honored.
> > Period.
>> Above, before the stroppily stopping "Period", you asked me to be explicit
> explaining to you how you can be as religiously irrational as you are.
> Remember? I don't please have look back!
>> BELOW, you are dropping your pants by telling me (people) that you will
> clear implications ONLY] listen with interest to anyone's attempt to
> NOT how you can be as religious (or one may equally well say "delusionally
> believing") as I see you being but "...to explain how it could
> be that Jesus Knew!" And, you even arrogantly announce your non-budgeable
> (rigidly set) position (or prejudicial stand) on this matter with an
> unmistakable pair of single quotation marks around the word
> > I'll listen, with interest, to anyone's
> > attempts to 'explain' how it could
> > be that Jesus Knew!
> > Meanwhile, I Believe, as you assert,
> > above.
>> Fully believing, or even thinking that it might be possible, that Jesus
> the son of God (and on top of that, that he knew how brains work) is a
> of mind that is totally mutually exclusive of an EPT position on
> omniscientifcally oriented philosophical matters.