ken's work

David Longley David at
Wed Mar 17 06:14:06 EST 2004

In article <4057db19 at>, John H. 
<johnh at faraway.?.invalid> writes
>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.

Perhaps you should look into some of the work that I've done in the 

>"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

David Longley

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list