"Peter F - for EIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty." <fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:y6WKd.497$t57.18363 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
| Hi Ken,
|| I still think that you might come to be fascinated, and benefit from, comparing
| your expressed (in the form of AoK/NDT) understanding of brain-behavioral
| dynamics, with Janov's primal theoretical/therapeutical understanding of the same.
|| Best wishes,
Hi Peter, be-cause anyone who'd address Human
behavior, in any way, is addressing the one thing,
to the degree that their work is correct, there's no
doubt that it'll show "similarities".
I've held to one "rule" while pursuing NDT's dev-
elopment -- that I work solely from the proven
Neuroscience experimental results.
Even when I discuss high-level cognitive/behavioral
ramifications, I'm still reducing everything to the
proven Neuroscience experimental results.
This's the way I contribute to the overall effort that
includes all approaches that've ever been pursued
in addressing the problem of understanding Human
I've always felt "under the gun" in this way -- not
wanting to study other approaches out of concern
with respect to letting what's unique in my approach
"slip my grasp".
I just think it's important to fill what has been a void
of understanding with NDT's way of recognizing the
contribution of every cell within the neural Topology
from which cognition, creativity, curiosity, volition,
affect, consciousness, and behavior arise.
It's a bit funny how I converged upon this way of
As an undergraduate, I took some Excellent courses
that placed great emphasis upon surveying then-ex-
isting theory, including [I believe] Janov's, and I was
left feeling that no then-existing theory was adequate
because none of them addressed the "prejudice to-
ward the familiar" which I'd already Verified was a
fundamental occurrence within =all= nervous system
function. So, since no then-existing theory addressed
this fundamental stuff that permeates nervous system
function and behavior, I knew that none of them
could be Correct.
But, when I tried to point out this "void" within then-
existing theory, =no one= would hear of it -- every-
one just 'moved away from' even discussing it, which
was pretty "frustrating" because, although it was =in=
the "prejudice toward the familiar" stuff, I'd not yet,
by then, reified the way nervous systems 'blindly' and
automatically 'move away from' "rendering useless" of
formerly-acquired TD E/I-minimization "usefulness" --
which was what I was encountering whenever I tried
to discuss the way that nervous systems ubiquitously
function in a way that tends, strongly, to perpetuate
"prejudice toward the familiar" [PTOFA].
One plaint with which I was routinely confronted
[with which my requests that the work I'd done be
considered were 'moved away from'] was, ~"How
can you say that? We don't know anything about
how [this or that] enters into how the brain works."
Each 'time' such happened, I'd go into the Neuro-
science stacks and research the specifics of the [this
or that] that the "objector" had raised to 'justify'
his/her 'moving away from', and every 'time' I did
so, I found, and saw clearly, that the "objector"
just was not aware of what was, then, already in
the Neuroscience stacks.
This went on through literally thousands of iterations,
with me growing increasingly-"desperate" in the
face of it's always-the-same-ness, because I was
coming to understand how and why folks' 'moving
away from' was =in= the stuff that I was asking folks
to consider and understand -- and that, because of
this, I was literally up-against huge behavioral inert-
ia that was entirely "stacked-against" comprehending
nervous system function -- right-there, everywhere,
in the midst of what was "supposed to be" the form-
al effort to understand nervous system function.
After thousands of iterations, I finally, I understood
that I was "ALONE", and that everything depended
upon my doing what was Necessary to lift everyone
else up in understanding, with respect to "PTOFA",
but, by the correlated 'time' [1975-6 academis year],
with respect to the entirety of central nervous system
It was an exceedingly-frightening circumstance. I'd
witnessed, over and over again, how Savagely the
PTOFA that held 'neuroscience' in its grasp dealt
with folks who don't "align" their behavior to its
a priori 'expectations' -- and I knew that, in doing
what so obviously needed to be done, I'd literally
be putting my Life on the line.
What's Funny is that all of this literally taught me
what it was that I had to do -- my experiences
while trying to gain a hearing for the work I'd
done by this or that 'time' formed a negative-image
of the stuff I had to work to understand -- and I
did exactly that. It's pretty Funny when one thinks
about it. The way I've always seen it is that every-
one in Neuroscience was 'sub-consciously aware'
of the problem that needed addressing, but was
outwardly 'moving away from' addressing it [per-
haps folks recognized Truth in what I shared with
them, and, seeing my destitution, 'decided' that,
rather than acknowledging what I'd brought to
them, they'd just 'take it', and 'pretend' that it was
them who'd developed it? I understand that that's
Cynical, but I got real-good at stating everything
in blazingly-simple ways, so the information-con-
tent of the stuff I brought to folks just could not
be missed, so, rather than "cynicism", all it is is
a statement of Fact. The stuff I routinely brought
to folks was always so simply-stated that the
probability that it was not understood was =zero=.
These were Professionals, devoted to the study
of Neuroscience and Behavioral Science, etc.,
not folks chosen at random off the street.
Anyway, it was Funny.
And it was =Frightening= -- to see how "alone"
I was, and how great was the need that I not
Fail to do what needed to be done.
And, for better or worse, that's a simplified peek
into why it is that I work the way that I work --
"holding-on", Desperately, to Truth that I've Ver-
ified to be Incontrovertible.
I understand that I appear "comical" to casual
observers, Peter, but my work stands as a
Fortress-island within the "Sea of Ignorance".
And I stand and Defend that which is sheltered,
"there", Desperately, as if everything depends
upon my doing so -- because, as far as I've been
able to discern, it does.
This long-winded way of saying why it is that I
don't stray into other theoretical perspectives.
I know of none that address PTOFA, and, as
soon as a theoretical perspective aligns itself
in that way, it becomes an NDT-clone, so why
not just continue to develop the theoretical
perspective that's nailed PTOFA from its roots
in the neural Topology, up?
This said, if you, or others, wish to Champion,
Janov's work, or other theoretical perspectives,
I expect I'll find worth in reading, and comment-
ing upon, such.
It's just that I've no reason to do so on my own
because I knew, as an undergrad, that no such
theory was Correct, and, it's old-long-since that
I know, with Certainty, that NDT is Correct.
ken [k. p. collins]