"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:neeMd.7444$xR1.6399 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
<snip>
> Infants deprived of touch literally
> "fail to thrive", and Die if it continues
> interminably.
>> There's a dramatic set of monkey exper-
> iments that explored all of this. [I'm "tuned"
> elsewhere just now, so I can't give the Ref.,
> but I'll look it up if you're interested.]
No need to - since I am very familiar with who did what and how
the experiments turned out (as could and 'should' have been safely predicted
without any nasty experimentation).
By intercEPTing people I am fishing only for
similarly informed types - i.e., people who, like me, might
be ready for, and even enjoy, some fresh philosophical
stimulation from a philantropically oriented perspective
of overviewing ourselves. %-]
<snip>
> | > Perhaps you were "suggesting" that
> | > I'm 'neurotic'? :-]
> |
> | I have been at pains trying to communicate
> | my insightful appreciation and terminology
> | for how *I* and most other people function and behave,
> | and now you thank me by suggesting I am suggesting
> | you are *merely* neurotic! %-)
>> I've long been aware that folks tend
> to "dismiss" 'me' in that way.
>> It happens be-cause folks tend to
> 'see me' in a "Swiss-cheesy" 'way',
> which is why I want to meet with folks
> in-person.
>> | No, no, Ken! You are only 'intercEPTed' by, and in discussion
> | with, me because of what you have written in this newsgroup;
> |
> | And because you - like me - have developed a, on
> | 'neurobiology frequently focused' interest, or a ditto AEVASIVEly
> | preoccupied style of coping with and living of your life - a style
> | that in this respect is somewhat similar to mine.
>> Perhaps I misinterpret "AEVASIVE" as
> connoting "evasive", which is 'just'-the-
> opposite of how I see what I do.
Of course it connotes (as in co-notes) evasion!
However, it seems you have not (yet) taken-in enough of what I mean
by AEVASIVE.
AEVASIVE refers to a fairly general "ambi-advantageousness" of brain
functions.
This (_thus formulated/represented_) *aspect* of what brains do has evolved
as a matter of *an explanatory principle*.
This principle corresponds to the (obvious? - it seems not ;) fact that,
throughout phylogeny of fauna, *ambi-advantageous* (thusly evolutionarily
successful) mutations/mutants/adaptations can be seen to have *tended* (or
even 'trended') to evolve (and to be naturally selected) due to frequently
simultaneously arising and impacting (~= simultaneously naturally selecting
and "actention selecting"):
1. SHITS type (come CURSES type) adverse (~negatively naturally selective)
lifetime "pressures".
(The two acronyms are eclectically-pragmatically thought-up terms for types
of throughout phylogeny realized (and, by benefit of logic and hindsight,
recognizable as forming useful concepts) _primarily destructive_
patterning-potentials/probabilities.)
AND
2. Environmental "opportunity type" evolutionary (~ positively selective)
pressures.
(In case of the 'opportunity-side' of this didactic dichotomy of - what may
be described as - the all-encompassingly universal "evolutionary pressure
totality", what I refer to are: in phylogeny realized _primarily
constructive_
patterning potentials/probabilities.)
So, according to what I just most likely in vain again tried to
explain :), you could be "at least doubly mistaken". %-|
That is, you might have failed (and/or I might have failed to allow you)
to perceive my *deliberately aimed for* by means of the "AE" constellation
of acronymic capitals
combined with an in depth definition of the key concEPT "ambi-advantagous"
(as used in "Ambi-advantageously Evolved") permanently defer peoples
tendency to a profoundly prejudiced
(prejudiced because of all that AEVASIVE imply) interpretation of my clear
and obvious but
POSITIVELY NOT INTENDED TO UNSUBTLE AND DEROGATORY
(at best only tragi-comic - to those gifted with seriously sEPTic humor)
allusion to "evasion".
>> Yes, there is a =lot= of stuff that I don't
> discuss, but my overall "way" is a "run-
> ning toward the fire", not "away from" it.
>> I'm Determined to do such on behalf of
> the Children.
>> Are you emphasizing what's Obvious in
> that? That I Obviously developed Empathy
> for the Children be-cause of my own Child-
> hood experience?
>> That's True, but my Empathy derives in
> my Knowledge of how my Parents were
> Brutalized in their Childhoods. It was
> when I Realized what had befallen them
> that the "Fire" to =End= all that's entalied
> ignited within my Being.
All of what you say is very plain to see
in light of "primal-theoretical/therapeutic"
understanding of relevant developmental
dynamics.
You just have not had or taken
(and perhaps never will have or will take)
the opportunity to understand yourself and others
from this angle.
>> So I don't see that "AEVASIVE" applies
> to me.
Can you suggest a better (as in 'more neurologically
aware and appropriate') word than "subconscious" or "preconscious"
or "pre-actention selection processing"?
<read before snipped>
> | Janov has, because of his writings,
> | far greater number of detractors
> | than you have.
>> I wasn't aware of that.
>> | (I don't like every facet of what he has written either, BTW.)
>> I didn't intent to "reject" his work. I
> just checked to see if he "connected"
> it with the Neuroscience, and 'found'
> that he didn't [funny quotes around
> "'found'" because I just skimmed his
> book and wrote what I wrote on the
> basis of that].
>> | You are not the only odd-ball
> | being sneered at by inEPTly AEVASIVE academics
> | and ditto 'all and sundry'. :-\
>> I've Known, with Certainty, for 'decades'
> that, if only I don't 'give-up', I'll have the
> proverbial "last laugh", and that I don't
> actually want the "last laugh", but want to
> participate in the Initial-Joy of Humanity's
> Becoming-Fully-Human.
>> | Also, before I finish:
> | Don't forget that the possible pitfalls of prejudice
> | applies to you and me as well as to
> | everyone else.
> | Or does it not? ;-)
>> Yeah, it does.
>> It's 'just' that NDT's understanding
> explains how and why it does, which
> Eliminates the "negativity" inherent, al-
> lowing everyone to transcend Prejudice".
>> It's all 'just' 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-
> minimization that's "satisfied" at "voli-
> tional diminishing-returns decision"
> thresholds [AoK, Ap7] that're set too
> low -- be-cause folks hadn't under-
> stood how and why nervous systems
> process information via 'blindly'-auto-
> mated TD E/I-minimization.
>> Can you see it?
I can see that far and farther (perhaps unfortunately for me).
Best wishes,
P
