This one is 'Difficult'
"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:dzGQd.44576$Th1.24420 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
| You know -- like the way =any= dog can
| be made vicious by a malicious owner,
| and like the way that Human Children,
| abandoned to the streets, become "tough".
|| And conversely, with respect to sheltered
| existences.
| [...]
I Erred in the section of my prior post,
that's quoted above, by giving 'short-shrift'
to the "converse" case. As I left it, what I
wrote can be interpreted as if I was 'saying'
that, the "converse" case 'is devoid of tough-
ness'.
That's not True, and in this msg, I'll Correct
my having given 'short-shrift' to this "con-
verse" case by discussing it with respect to
groupwise interactive dynamics.
I'll be dipping-deep into what has been my
own experience while working to bring NDT's
understanding forward, so my discussion will
be, largely, 'annecdotal'. All that I'll discuss
does, however, map rigorously back to the
basics of how "prejudice toward the familiar"
[PTOFA] arises within nervous systems,
which I'll also reiterate, a bit.
This discussion was stimmed by an =EX-
CELLENT= PBS TV show on "Race" that
I viewed, in-part, earlier this 'night'. [I missed
the first half of it because I was just exiting
my then-current sleep cycle, and will try to "
catch-up" during the overnight-reruns]].
For me, the PBS show was an eye-opener
with respect to what has been a "creeping-
deficit" within my discussion of NDT's stuff.
The main thing that I'll be doing in this post
will be working to Correct this Failure of
mine.
Observation:
Folks routinely converge upon groupwise
interactive dynamics that devolve, in a Sin-
ister way, upon that which has merely be-
come relatively-'familiar' within groupwise
interactive dynamics, which, of course, is
'just' groupwise TD E/I-minimization as it's
been discussed in AoK all along.
The central 'point' upon which devolution
converges is, itself, "determined" by the
groupwise coercion that is instantiated
within groupwise TD E/I-minimization,
in which the way nervous systems proc-
ess information has gone uncomprehend-
ed, and which is, itself, delimited by, and
delimits, the scope of experience that is
'shared' by the members of any interact-
ive group.
This "Coercion" arises as a 'blindly'-auto-
mated by-product of 'blindly'-automated
TD E/I-minimization, and the fundamental
nervous system dynamics through which
this Coercion arises have been discussed
in AoK all along.
As has been discussed in AoK all along,
nervous systems "know", innately, is that
TD E/I(down) is "good" and TD E/I(up)
is "bad", and be-cause of this, as one ex-
periences within one's external environment,
no matter what one experiences, one's nerv-
ous system achieves relative-TD E/I-min-
imization with respect to it, by Directing the
effector activations of its host organism so
that the host organism will manifest behavi-
ors that either 'move toward' or 'move away
from' the external-environmental stuff that's
being "experienced", and such 'moving to-
ward' and 'moving away from' will tend,
strongly, to be 'blindly' and automatically
'replicated' within the individual's subsequent
TD E/I-minimization dynamics.
There's no "mystery" in any of this. As is
explained in AoK, it's 'just' what nervous
systems do.
But there has been a Tragic absence-of-
understanding, across Humanity, with re-
spect to all that's actually entailed within
these dynamics -- and this absence-of-
understanding has been what has Coerc-
ed =ALL= of "man's inhumanity to man"
within Human interactive dynamics.
It's 'time' for this "Tragic Flaw" [AoK, Ap4]
to be Removed from the Unworthy 'place'
from which it's 'Dictated' Human experience.
In order to do so, some 'Difficult' stuff has
to be discussed [reiterated -- I've discussed
it in long-former posts, and, here, am build-
ing upon the TD E/I-minimization that occur-
red within folks' nervous systems as a result
of their having read those former posts [if
anyone did :-]
Again, what I want to discuss, here, is the
"converse"-case "toughness" that permeates
'normal' groupwise interactive dynamics, and
which Coerces the TD E/I-minimization dyn-
amics that occur within group-'members'
nervous systems' information-processing
dynamics.
This "toughness" comes in two forms each
of which derives, in the main, in one of the
two information-processing "phases" ["act-
ive", "motor-dominant", and "passive", "sens-
ory-dominant" phases] that are discussed in
AoK [especially in Ap5 and 7].
[This's a bit "confusing" because the two
cases that I too-briefly discussed in my
prior post [quoted above] are also instanc-
es of analogous information-processing-
"phase"-dominance, the primary difference
being degree of group-membership. Being
a member of an interactive group coerces
members' behaviors toward passive-phase-
dominance. In this post, I want to focus up-
on the group-bound "class" of the "converse"
case in my previous post. Are 'you' follow-
ing? :-]
When folks become "members" of a group,
there's always, most-often tacit, "acquiesc-
ence" to behavioral 'norms' that've become
'established' during the course of 'blindly'-
automated TD E/I-minimization within the
group's prior experience.
It cannot be overemphasized, here, that
the 'norms' that become so-established
can be =anything=, depending upon the
degree to which groupwise experience
is mutually-exclusive with respect to out-
group experience. [I've discussed this
crucial point with respect to "cognitive-
inbreeding" in long-former posts in which
I was addressing 'governmental' group-
dynamics such as those that converged
upon launching the Iraq War.]
What happens is that, to the degree that
a group's previously-established 'norms'
Dictate to the group's members that they
remain 'isolated' from non-group-sanction-
ed interactive dynamics, TD E/I-minimiza-
tion will occur within the group members'
nervous systems in ways that converge up-
on coherence with respect to the group's
'norms', =no matter what those 'norms'
are=.
This's is why it's =Important= to "range
widely" within the realm of all possible
experience. Why this =Important= stuff
is so routinely 'moved away from' is that
"ranging widely" imposes relatively-elev-
ated TD E/I upon a nervous system's in-
formation-processing dynamics, and, to
'avoid' such, nervous systems, typically,
direct their host organisms to "range nar-
rowly" within the realm of all possible ex-
periences. The resulting experiential Def-
icit is of 'no Consequence' =as long as=
folks do not encounter anything that de-
rives outside of the "narrow range" of
experience to which a nervous system's
TD E/I-minimization dynamics have been
delimited. It's a "Deficit" condition be-
cause, when something that happens de-
rives from outside the "narrow range"
that's been acquiesced-to, a nervous sys-
tem has no way of achieving TD E/I-
minimization with respect to it except
through the action of the low-'level'
amygdalar "supersystem configuration"
mechanism [AoK, Ap5], which leaves
everything resting upon a "gamble" that
has "odds" that're correlated with phys-
ical strength, and which routinely con-
stitute "aggression".
See why it's a =Deficit=? It's entirely
unnecessary to "gamble" upon "aggres-
sion" if one 'just' does the information-
processing work inherent in "ranging
widely". So why "gamble"?
"But, as I said, above, groupwise in-
teractive dynamics can converge to be
=anything=. So, because the problem is
infinitely-large in scope [AoK, Ap1],
there's the appearance that it's 'impos-
sible' to "range widely" sufficiently to
achieve higher-'level' TD E/I-minimiz-
ation and "supersystem configuration"
with respect to all of the TD E/I-mini-
imizations that can be converged upon
within other nervous systems.
So how can it be anything but a "gamble"?
That's what NDT is all about.
Get it? If one understands the way
groupwise TD E/I-minimization dynamics
can converge to be anything, and that
=that= is what instantiates the 'neces-
sity' of the "gamble", if one gives Hu-
manity understanding of how any why
nervous systems process information
via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimi-
zation, the 'necessity' of the "gamble"
'goes away' -- because doing so gives
everyone high-'level' stuff that's univers-
ally-applicable regardless of what inter-
active dynamics are encountered.
There is =one= real Difficulty inherent.
It is that, once a Child is allowed to
come to 'maturity' without having re-
ceived the benefit of NDT's under-
standing -- once a Child is allowed to
come to 'maturity' having been left
vulnerable to the absence-of-under-
standing with respect to how any why
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization
governs nervous system function -- TD
E/I-minimization within that person's
nervous system can be =anything=
and that person is out-there, a literal
embodiment of the 'need' for the "gamble".
The 'need' for the "gamble" cannot just
be 'wished'-away.
As I said in my previous post, Human
Children, abandoned [to the streets], be-
come "tough. And, having been so ab-
andoned, they exert their "toughness"
within their interactive dynamics, coerc-
ing everyone else to be "on guard" with
respect to them -- coercing the estab-
lishment of Criminal Justice Systems,
at enormous expense that's extracted
from 'everyone's Beings, and Coercing
the establishment of National Defense
systems which flat-out send everything
to Waste, even when there's no War
going on.
So the thing to do is to give folks un-
derstanding with respect to how and
why nervous systems process informa-
tion via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-min-
imization =before= their nervous system's
TD E/I-minimization dynamics converge
to be =anything=.
You know? It's called Responsible
Parenting :-]
Which leads me back to the main thing
I want to discuss in this post -- what
has been folks' collective 'moving away
from' allowing NDT's understanding to
be generally-Communicated.
The main thing that's 'blocked' the com-
ing forward of NDT's understanding was
that, before they 'saw' what's in NDT,
folks to whom I reached out in my efforts
to bring NDT's understanding forward
saw stuff like the "nonlinearity of per-
spective" [AoK, Ap6] and how it's re-
solved in NDT, and how that stuff has
"technological value", and they were 'blind'
to the rest of what's in NDT because, in
their prior groupwise experience, their
TD E/I-minimization dynamics had con-
verged with respect to "technological
value" and it's "usefulness".
So they never got around to under-
standing the rest of what's in AoK, and,
when I persisted in seeking to communi-
cate NDT's stuff, they took actions to
'counter' my doing so 'because' they saw
my doing so as a 'threat' to what their
groupwise interactive dynamics resulted
their 'cherishig'.
It's 'funny'. They're in 'national defense',
and this action on their parts has done
more than anything else to 'blindly' and
automatically perpetuate the "gamble"
that continually confronts, and thwarts,
Humanity's lifting itself up out of the
Savagery that's held it down.
'now', they're 'blocked' from doing any-
thing that'd allow NDT's understanding
to come forward, in fullness, 'because'
they cannot make it past the 'blindly'-
automated 'Dictates' that their member-
ship in their groupwise interactive dyn-
amics Coerce upon their Beings.
And their remaining 'loyal' to such group-
wise Coercion is "toughness" in the "con-
verse" case to which I gave short-shrift
in my prededing post.
In the case of NDT's understanding, these
dynamics are completely "inverted" [AoK,
Ap4] because they induce 'national defense'
groups to act in Devastating ways that per-
petuate the "gamble" rather than Eliminate it.
They literally meet in their 'Clubs', and
scheme to 'profit' from NDT's stuff,
Coercing 'secrecy' upon their Members.
Such Coercion of 'secrecy' is the Essence
of groupwise Cowardice.
Which is their way of 'being tough' in the
"converse" case of my preceding post.
Which is 'Hilarious', because anyone who
looks can See that all their 'toughness'
does is Foresake their Personal-Freedom.
But what's not 'funny' is what their group-
wise Cowardice is doing the Same-Stuff
to the rest of Humanity.
Groupwise-Cowardice 'moves away from'
Humanity's Survival.
[I Apologize. What's here should be much-
better-stated. It breaks my 'heart' to have
to discuss stuff like this. And that shows in
my writing. It's just that that PBS show
let me See that I must discuss this stuff.
If you've read this, I hope you'll work on
it in your own Good noggin' labs.]
k. p. collins
