wanting to spare you the "heat" that befalls folks who're kind to
me, i responded to your last not privately... i, again, thanked
you for your courage, and for listening to your heart.
>> I love insightful, motivational pieces. You should try to have it
it'd be a "tough row to hoe"... seems i'm the most-censored
person on the face of the planet.
>> ken collins wrote in message <37263A46.C9042279 at banet.net>...
> >wildearth wrote:
> >> ken collins wrote in message <3724EFD0.D1C7B843 at banet.net>...
> >> >i Thank you for the Courage that's in your post. K. P. Collins
> >> >(ken)
> >> Thank you Ken. BTW, I read your piece, The Difficult Thing (I am
> >> you wrote this), and it was wonderful.
> >> WildE
> >the "Difficult Thing" msg now reports only "Error! [...]".
...so i'll post it again.
The "Difficult" Thing
When the "difficult" thing must be said, where does one begin?
When the "difficult" thing must be said, does it do any good to
"beat around the bush"?
Does it do any good to "point fingers" or assign "blame"?
Remember... it's the "difficult" thing that must be said.
"Difficult" things have, inherent within them, "pointing of
fingers", and "blame", enough. That's why they're "difficult",
isn't it so?
Yes, it is.
It's not that the "difficult" thing cannot be easily said.
Anything can be said as easily as anything else. It's all just
energy flow within the vocal apparatus.
Then how is it "difficult" to say the "difficult" thing?
It's not in the saying.
It's in the way that the "difficult" thing evokes, within those
who "hear" it, the inability to hear it.
Take "Yugoslavia", for instance... why is it "difficult" to say
to Milosevic, "Look here, these folks whose homes you're burning,
whose lives you're taking, and who you're exiling from the land
of their birth, are human beings who've scratched out the meager
existences you've taken from them through the toil of their
hands. How can you take everything from them?"
It's not difficult to say such.
What's "difficult" is "in the ears", not "the tongue".
Is there anyone who does not know, by virtue of their own
possession and experiencing of it, that life is precious stuff?
No, everyone knows such, so that particular knowledge cannot be
what's "difficult"... everyone knows that life is precious.
Turn it upside-down and inside-out and backward, though, and the
"difficulty" shows itself.
One knows one's own life is precious, but one cannot quite grasp
that every other life is just as precious.
The "difficulty" arises in this interpersonal incommensruability
that, awkwardly, denies that each life is as precious as any
It's difficult because there's no reality in the denial.
What's that you say, you'll take Jonas Salk and Louis Pasteur,
and leave Milosevic, "thank you very much".
I get the gist of your point, but the "difficult" thing is that
And the "difficult" thing is that the "difficult" thing is what
prevents you seeing that you're wrong.
All of the "difficult" thing's "difficulty" arises in the simple
fact that Jonas Salk and Louis Pasteur and Milosevic and you each
became, through more-similar than different neural information
processing dynamics, what they, or you, experienced.
Yet, the results are so different... Salk and Pasteur, and,
hopefully, you, saved lives... Milosevic destroys lives... how
can Salk, Pasteur and you have arrived at your saving of lives
via the same neural dynamics through which Milosevic arrived at
his destroying of lives?
It's "easy"... folks become what they've experienced. Pasteur,
Salk and you experienced the one thing, and Milosevic experienced
the other thing (during the iron-fist days of Soviet occupation.
(The neural dynamics are discussed in AoK. See, in particular
Appendices 4 and 8.))
Do you see the difficulty?
Milosevic experiences his life just as Pasteur, Salk and you have
experienced yours... you've experienced what you've experienced,
Pasteur experienced what he experienced, Salk experienced what he
experienced, and Milosevic experienced what he experienced.
And each looks at what's been born in his life, through what's
been experienced, and sees it as being "good".
You only experience what Milosevic does as being "bad" because
you've experienced differently from what Milosevic's experienced.
This's "difficult" to see because Milosevic has left such a long
and bloody trail of death and destruction in his wake, while you
and Pasteur and Salk have saved so many lives.
It's the experiential incommensurability that makes it all so
"difficult". Because Milsoevic has experienced differently from
you and Salk and Pasteur, he cannot see the difference between
his slaughering of lives as precious as his own and you and
Salk's and Pasteur's saving of lives as precious as their, and
The Difficult Thing
But look more closely. The wellspring of the "difficulty", in the
neural dynamics, has been known for decades.
The "difficulty" is that you've "moved away from" it... denied it
applies to you... just as Milosevic denies the evil in his
slaughtering of lives as precious as his own.
It's "easy"... your experience dictates that you will not hear.
The "difficulty" is in the neural interconnectedness that's
derived in what you've experienced. The thought just doesn't fit
into the neural networks to which your experience has given
It's exactly the same with Milosevic.
So, look and see, the "difficulty" is not in anything that we
are. It's in what's been given birth in us through what we've
experienced. And the difficulty is that, through our own
volitions, we allow it its "Beastly" existence within our flesh,
which, because we do what we've experienced, perpetuates it.
Don't look at Milosevic and say, "Savage". Look within and see
the savage that has, for so long, acquiesced in the face
savagery... in the face of the "Beast".
... Now, why have I said these difficult things to you, instead
of to those who've actively worked to prevent the coming forward
of the Neuroscience which underpins this discussion?
It's simple. I've hope that you are ready to hear. Can you see
there's no "finger-pointing" and no "blame" here?
There is none.
All that's here is my longing for folks to be free of the
dictates of the "Beast". Ken
comments of former President Bush, today, called up the following
in my "heart"...
President Bush said (paraphrase) that he "has contempt for anyone
who exposes U. S. intelligence methods".
so do i. but what is a man to do when such is used to "prevent"
him from communicating Truth that he knows the future depends
the man remains obligated to Truth... so in just endeavoring not
to fail Truth, anything that stands between Truth and the man,
carrying such obligation to Truth, draws the man's attention to
itself, doesn't it?
and in order to Honor Truth, the man must endeavor with respect
to the obstacles that stand between Truth and the man.
and, in the behavior that such endeavor entails, the obstacles
that stand between Truth and the man inadvertantly become
it's a sorrow-time.
K. P. Collins
K. P. Collins