"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PL7Mb.3308$i4.1328 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> And, while I'm discussing the way that the
> =NEED= for Forgiveness is in-Truth,
I should not through stone in a glass-house but this cryptic statement,
"=NEED=for Forgiveness is in-Truth", begs being held up to scrutiny.
The words "need for forgiveness imply "feeling guilt" (= a fear specifically
of being caught-out and rejected by other people because of some hurt or
disappointed one has caused he/she or them)]" is not a true need"; and by
adding "is in-Truth" you furthermore imply that "the need to be forgiven"
WOULD be understood to be a real and important human need IF one knows
enough about human nature; something which is of course a blatant fallacy.
Moreover, by adding "is in Truth" you appear to legitimize *a denial* of the
common reality (and fact) that human needs are frequently denied to the
degree of threatening to cause overwhelming pain; including very gradually
and relatively gently so -- similar to "water-drop torture".
A persistent succession of water-drops (e.g. one drop falling on a the same
patch of a persons skin every 5 second or so) will slowly but surely
accumulate into what may be called "a slow trauma" caused by "_presence_
type" adversity, WHEREAS an *at least as commonly* occurring subcategory of
"slow trauma" is caused by a likewise on-the-way to become overwhelmingly
painful unless "selectively Hibernated" environmentally caused *absence
type* adversity: E.g., a young and developing individual's "human
environment" (with or without parents) may be chronically lacking in such a
way that it deprives him or her of validating and positively stimulating
emotional interactions and/or is characterized by a chronic lack of
'psychophysical stimulation and reassurance' in the form of loving
(=appropriate qualities and quantities of) touch.
[So be more cautious about writing your religiously inspired/interpreted
> back it up a bit by sharing that, when Jesus
> spoke of His Being "The Vine", and folks,
> "the branches", and of "pruning" stuff so that
> it'd "bear good fruit", He was using a metaphor
> 'familiar' to the folks to whom He was speaking,
> but, look and see, probably with a 'wink' in His
> eye,He was, simultaneously, addressing the
> massive neural pruning that occurs within nervous
> systems - structural TD E/I-minimization, through
> which nervous systems that act in "the Spirit of
> Truth" [Jesus] do, verifiably, "bear good fruit" :-]
>> My jaw hangs down at Seeing it!
Try to present your scientifically backed theoretical thinking without
mixing-in such GOD(=parent)-FORSAKEN gullability. %-|
N.B. Was not screaming nor joking, just emphasizing.:-)
Please keep on standing on your **firmly scientifically** backed theoretical
arguments! But stop - *for the sake of your own, hopefully in the future to
improve, social and scientific standing* - stomping on sanctimoniously
story-telling religious grounds.
> When Jesus said [paraphrase] "It's not what
> goes in you from without that declares your
> heart, but what comes out of you", He was
> addressing [Predicting] the transformation
> of Humanity that is right-there in the nervous
> system dynamics that I've been discussing -
> in the way that prefrontal cortex is capable of
> overriding the lower-'level' TD E/I-minimiz-
> ation mechanisms. [This one's on the "really"
> 'side' of 'Difficult'.]
Whenever *anyone* instinctively and/or insightfully states something that
accords with human nature and psychology (indeed that harmonizes with how
our brains work and how we evolved), I would expect that it also matches
your interpretation of "brain-energy dynamics".
That is, unless I am shamefully wrong about how LARGELY RIGHT you are! :-}
> Forgive me, Peter, for discussing this stuff
> in a reply to a post of yours - you've expressed
> 'discomfort' with such in the past. But I want
> you to see whence "kindness" comes.
All *I* am doing, in one way or another, is to point out that, and how, we
are creatures that evolved to have, and *to more often than not USE*, a
capacity for becoming and being selectively and persistently unconscious;
And that because we do, we tend to perpetuate lies, to ourselves, about
ourselves, and about the world we live in.
I call this capacity (and understand it as) AEVASIVE; and the symptoms of it
being used, I also call AEVASIVE. (Etcetera...).
Apropos which: One of the greatest scientific ironies of all is (IMO) the
'con_trast' between the AEVASIVE minds of most brain-scientists and what
they are supposed to explain.
(BTW, Antonio Damasio's mind is one of only a few, but to me most
It is as you, Ken, often write (to the effect of): "It is (sadly)
>> I'm not actually writing this "to you". I'm
> writing it for all who'll read this [same way
> I write everything I post].
I am writing this *most of all to you*.
And I do so in the hope that you take only healthy and helpful offence to my
offering you a hopeless but wholesome Holism -- however one without much of
an AEVASIVE loophole left to escape through. %-)