The Necessary Cognitive Adjustment

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jan 31 11:59:25 EST 2005


"Peter F - for EIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty." <fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message 
news:yNrLd.178$CR2.8010 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
|
| "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message 
news:2Z7Ld.42776$8u5.261 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > "Peter F - for EIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty." <fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:2K6Ld.691$t57.24088 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
| > | [...]
| > | I think you would find - if you looked - that not only
| > | are the central tenets of Janov's view is - like yours -
| > | based on scientific facts, but that it also is satisfyingly
| > | complementary to your insights.
| > |
| > | But of course, you may never care to look.
| > | At least to that extent we live in a free world! :-)
| > |
| > | Cheers,
| > |
| > | Peter
| >
| > You posted a "Janov" web site a while back.
| >
| > I took a serious look at it and found it to be
| > a "commercial" site that wanted to "sell"
| > stuff. So I left without pursuing it any further.
|
| That response of yours examplifies *your own
| insight* into how each our - of us conditioning - environment
| can groove/incline us towards different blindly automated
| predjudices.
|
| <snip>
|
| > With respect to your oft-reiterated invocation
| > of "Janov", I was hoping that you'd just dis-
| > cuss what it is that you want me to consider.
|
| For example:
|
| Janov's therapeutic and theoretical emphasis of
| the importance of allowing/facilitating new neural connections
| that very much in depth dispell the defensively misconnected gating reflexes
| that preserve/perpetuate CURSES.
|
| A certain Primal Pain (CURSES) is not just a
| kind of memory (or engram) of a lifetime situation that
| caused signals being sent by one (or more) - for "pain detection"
| specialized - neuron.
|
| It also is -- in agreement with your view of your "TD E/I-up/down"
| brain functional and behaviour-organizing principle --
| an increase in different glutamatergic firing frequencies
| (e.g. caused by a lack of instinctively required
| type of sensory input - e.g., from an absence of physical touch in
| an person's first months and years of life) that
| at certain frequency-thresholds trigger not just
| the realease of pain correlated signal substances
| such as substance P, and that at long enough durations of such
| stimulation/firing (and/or given a sufficient inhibitory competition
| from other actention modules within the Actention Selection System)
| get to be counteracted by opioids and/or GABA-ergic lateral
|inhibition (from the "competing" modules).
|
| > You know -- rather than pointing me to it as
| > a sort of "Rorshach test" :-]
|
| I can see where you are coming from.
| Shame on me. :->
|
| P

None such is "necessary" on my account.

It's not-Possible to "say everything", ex-
plicitly, in any instande "language"-interface
activation, regardless of the form it takes.

I often can only "laugh" when, upon going
back to read this or that that I've posted,
realize what I left "implicit" in-it, that should
have been stated explicitly.

So, Thank You for Clarifying, Peter. My
own recollection of "Janov" is analogous,
but I'd no awareness that Janov, himself,
had actually put any Neuroscience found-
ation under the general principles he
espoused.

I'm still of the opinion that such Neuro-
science "foundations" are "retrofitted", and
I'm "sensitive" to such "retrofitting" be-cause,
my own work has been routinely "borrowed"
to do such 'retrofitting'.

Forgive me [ALL] if I'm overly-sensitive.

What's transpired with respect to the work
I've done just Hurts, and it's not "inappropr-
iate" for one to pursue an understanding of
how and why it "Hurts", when it just =Hurts=.

I've no disagreement with the stuff you've
discussed, above, Peter.

It's just that it's =Necessary= to reify how
and why all of such occurs within nervous
systems -- in terms of the actualization of
the "tuning" of the individual 'states' which
embody it in all of its verious cognitive,
behavioral and conscious aspects.

For this, one needs the "supersystem con-
figuration" mechanisms that are discussed
in AoK, Ap3, Ap5 and Ap7, and "Inform-
ation Calculous" as it is discussed in Ap6.

It's insufficient to describe stuff that's in-
there, without reifying how and why it is
actually "tuned" to be what it is that it is
pointed-to as "being".

I'm not "picking nits". Nervous system
function cannot be comprehended without
comprehending, and invoking, "supersys-
tem configuration" via TD E/I-minimization.

Why I'm "sensitive" to this is as I've explain-
ed in a prior post in this thread, and in long-
former posts -- anything that is partially-cor-
rect can be "retrofitted" into NDT's position,
=after= the Veracity of NDT's position is
discerned.

I'm "sensitive" be-cause I've experienced so
much of exactly that -- mostly at the hands
of folks who work in Neuroscience to whom
I'd reached-out, bringing to them stuff that
I Knew was not yet, then, extant in the Lit-
erature, and, wanting not to "embarass" them,
presenting it to them without explaining to them
that it was not, in fact, in the Literature, and
experiencing them behaving as if they knew,
"all along", whatever it was that I'd brought
to them. What'd happened was that, in my
interaction with them, I'd Taught them the
stuff that I'd brought to them, and did so so
simply and so clearly that it immediately "made
Sense" to them and they experienced the
=illusion= of their having "known it all along".

This sort of thing has happened routinely, as
a result of my efforts to win a hearing for
NDT's stuff, be-cause, since I've no Lab
of my own, all I could do to contribute to
the overall effort was to work with the Pub-
lished Experimental results. All the "nuts and
bolts" that are synthesized within NDT ex-
ist be-cause they were, first, Experimental
results. All I did was "knit them together" in-
to a unified whole. So, I could not "make
stuff up" -- everything that was in what I'd
bring to folks to whom I'd reach-out =was=
already in the Literature =except= the unify-
ing-synthesis, which was the stuff I was act-
ually bringing to folks.

Get it?

It's why it always "Hurt" so much, and why it
was always so 'Difficult".

In order to convey the unifying-synthesis, I
had to stand before this or that Neuroscience
Professional, showing them what they'd missed
that's right in the Published Neuroscience Ex-
perimental results.

And, trying to be =Gentle=, I routinely endeav-
ored not to "embarass" folks, thinking that,
since I knew the magnitude of what I was
bringing to them, and that it was not yet in the
Literature, that they would also know that it
was not yet in the Literature.

It's Funny, now that I think about it -- kind of
shows how well-done my little presentations
to these folks actually were.

I Taught so well that they "thought they knew
it" =before= I Taught them :-]

But that has always been Verifiably-False.

I only brought unifying-syntheses that were
not yet, then, in the Literature.

I only brought, to them, the work that I'd done.

It's been the same here in b.n.

Here in b.n, I've =only= discussed stuff that
was first done in my own work [of course,
having to refer to long-known experimental
results as necessary, =never= claiming any
such experimental results as "my" work,
wanting, with respect to such experimental
results, to =Celebrate= the Brilliant-Accomp-
lishments that they are].

Part of the way things've gone is "my fault".

My Parents raised me to be Vigilant with re-
spect to =not= "embarassing" others.

So it's just in-me to work to do what needs
to be done without "pointing-out" to folks
that they were absent-understanding with
respect to how and why the "nuts and bolts"
with which they are 'familiar' are actually
much-more than that with which they are
'familiar'.

It's only been relatively "late in the game"
that I've "bit the bullet", and pointed-out
to folks all that's been entailed.

I consider it to be to my credit that I =tried=
so Hard, for so long, =not= to "embarass"
folks.

And it's only been as I've been confronted
with Starving to Death that I've called-folks-
to-task with respect to the "retrofitting", and
their "pretending" that they "knew" the stuff
that I'd brought to them -- the stuff of NDT -- 
"all along".

It =Hurts=, Big-'time', to have to do so.

But it's just another "stone" that I cannot
leave "unturned" -- be-cause the Survival
of Humanity [and my own Survival] de-
pends upon my doing so.

Cheers, Peter,

ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list