ken's work

John H. johnh at
Wed Mar 17 00:01:33 EST 2004

If you believe Ken is psychotic then allow me to relate some advice I
received from a psychiatrist sometime ago regarding such pathologies. I
asked him why so many patients stop taking their medication. He replied that
when giving scripts to his patients he was often left with the impression
that his patients were patronising him, that they would take the script but
in their hearts did not believe the drugs would do them any good because
they did not believe that they were ill.

That persistent denial is one of the most striking features of psychosis.
I'll leave it you to draw the conclusions regarding the current debate re

John H.

"David Longley" <David at> wrote in message
news:c+GouSFLmvVAFwij at
> I don't think what you and Matthew are doing here is going to help Ken
> at all. It's highly improbable that he'll read what you say carefully or
> critically. It will just be read as an endorsement of his *currently*
> bizarre, and very probably psychotic (basically self-destructive)
> behaviour.
> Ken uses all sorts of media as vehicles of expression. I don't think
> this is going to be changed through rational discussion of what he
> writes, as I don't think what he's doing is rational.
> But I'll watch your efforts with interest nonetheless.
> In article <m0u5c.1918$Q16.115715 at>, NMF
> <nm_fournier at> writes
> >Matt,
> >
> >I think Ken's ideas have unique insight and I totally agree with your
> >comments regarding the difficulty with his approach in generalization to
> >different discourses. As I have stated earlier, to bring such vague
> >non-measurable constructs that possess great distance between the
> >being described can lead to erroneous conclusions.  Some phenomena do not
> >lend themselves well to being discussed from the prespectives of other
> >models.  For example, assessing biological function of the cell at the
> >subatomic level brings interesting insight into aspects of the
> >of the cell, however, the methods, models, measurements, and conceptual
> >frameworks employed in these situations are so different between these
> >types of phenomena that the translation and interconnection between the
> >discourses ultimately take the form of descriptive tactics rather than
> >quantitative comparisons.  This has been the trend I have seen in Ken's
> >posts.  They are insightful, creative, interesting, and compelling - yet
> >they remain as analogies.  And as I stated before, "The entire theory
> >heavily upon metaphor and qualitative comparisons, a procedure that
> >just about all sets of general phenomena to be associated in a
> >manner."
> >
> >I'm not saying that anolgies between known phenomena and new or
> >unestablished processes are negative, quite the contrary.  But what I am
> >saying is that as long the probationary nature of the comparisons are
> >maintained such approaches are valid.  Let me give you an example,
> >comparisons of human memory to the domains of ferromagnetic materials and
> >hysteresis loops can be beneficial to determine not only the limitations
> >a model but also to evaluate extrapolations derived from quantifiable and
> >validated data (magnetism) to more vague processes (memory).  However,
> >relationship between these two processes must be considered
> >otherwise the ultimate conclusion is that human memory is ferromagnetic
> >crystal domains.  From this logic, we could conclude that an apple is an
> >orange simply because they similar characteristics, i.e. seeds, a core,
> >a skin.
> >
> >I find Ken's work quite refreshing and interesting.  And my comments are
> >to be taken as a direct attack against him or his work.  In any case,
> >you please send me a copy of this 'infamous' text.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> David Longley

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list