"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JmwEb.4606$wL6.3695 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Hi Peter.
>> Forgive me, please, but I've never been able to discern
> whether or not, in your posts to me, you are 'satyrizing'
> the stuff I discuss. So yor posts persent an ambiguous
> stimulus set to me [which, I understand, BTW, is a
> criticism that can be applied to my own posts by folks
> who've not received either AoK or the decade+-long
> discussion].
I believe I am one of the few people that largely appreciate and approve of
your brains and behavior relevant pattern recognitions -- and who
understands the kind and amount of work that went into what you have
written.
I have given you plenty of honest and sincerely meant feedback about *all
sorts* of problems with your Interpretation (problems perceived by me).
I am sorry (also for myself) if I sometimes have "made too much of a meal"
(and appeared, or been, mean) doing so.
By now, I hope you have develped a healthy immunity to my somewhat ironic
style of writing (and thinking).
> Pay attention to the "within the nervous systems" stuff.
> It entails establishing "biological mass" - building and
> accumulating "microscopic trophic modifications" with-
> in nervous systems =other= than my own.
Very true. Always thought these was good and meaty conceptual means of
describing the weight (inertia), depth, and extent of our capacity to learn
and remember, and of the "conditioning" (most generally meant) that we have
already individually and collectively undergone and adapted to.
Not becoming English-speaking until in my mid-to-late twenties I can't say
that it is always easy to get hold of what you mean by expressions such as
"ratchet pawlings" though. There is always that kind of barrier to be
battled against.
But since the sound of "ratchet" sounds to a Swede almost like "RAT"
followed by "SHITS" I suppose I should not complain. %-}
> It's a =really= hard problem.
I know.
> I Know that, if I fail, Tragedy will ensue.
You clearly have come to rely (in part) on this desperately hopeful outlook.
It is energized by diffuse chronic projections from neurons that store your
personal past "tragedies" as CURSES *right inside your own brain*.
[The same 'thing' that I like to characterize and concEPTualize as CURSES,
can be alternatively labeled or decribed with words coined and put to use by
others; E.g.: "subconscious [dimensions of automatically memorized personal]
trauma", "primal pain", or "engrams".]
We can 'choose' to use CURSES as a motivational fuel for whatever the
(AEVASIVE) focuses of actention are that we use to remain *selectively
unconscious* about these stored aspects of our personal past; Or we can
'choose' (in cases of sufficient opportunity and capacity) to take a
deliberately anti-AEVASIVE "feeling self-regulatory" tack (an optimally
reconnecting, specific grieving, strategy).
And so, we (some people) may dramatically re-organize the way we (they) deal
with these insidious memories.
The odds for people choosing this "completely anti-AEVASIVE" method (the
only available _psychotherapeutic such method) of 'exorcising' CURSES is
generally very low given how heavily the human "AEVASIVE biological mass"
have been acquired both by phylogeny and by our social and personal
histories.
Most cultures even work as if they were nurseries and sources of nourishment
for this kind of biological mass" within minds!
Best wishes,
Peter
P.S. Have you made your formulated overview and understanding easily
accessible on the Internet, yet?