gareth19 (imported) wrote: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:41 am
The first definition of terrorist given in the OED is "in Revolutionary France, a member of the Jacobins during the Reign of Terror"; the second definition is "one who seeks to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation." Because the first definition is outdated, it is the second that is operant and it fits Arafat and Begin among others. The fact that Begin and Arafat killed to establish a then non-existent country does not sufficiently distinguish them from Abu Jihad, Osama bin Laden, or Timothy McVeigh who killed to disestablish a government that was unwilling to tolerate their peculiar brand of religious bigotry and hatred of others. All of these loathsome people killed because they recognized that without violence, their ideas were going nowhere.
I wonder whether life can ever be a subject worthy of scientific inquiry. The existential predicament of scientific inquiry of life is, or is not, that all which may be capable of scientific inquiry regarding life may be itself life and naught else.
How does any form of life engaged in scientific inquiry regarding life elude the circularity of self-reference?
I confess to doing silly things, like attending scientific-research/educational conferences at which real scientists and educators give formal presentations.
The most recent such conference at which I was among the attendees was one in which the central topic of interest was trauma as related to war.
At that conference, the suggestion was made that "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" (PTSD) may a far less biologically-accurately useful term than "Post-Traumatic Stress Injury" (PTSI), perhaps because what may appear to be disorder from a cultural bias stance may be a biologically optimal response to terribly real injury.
It was also suggested that, from the stance of morality, PTSD or PTSI may better be named, "moral injury."
I made a simple comment at that conference, "Palliation of clinical signs is not remediation of neurological injury; moral injury is neurological injury."
For those who have learned how to read and understand "brain scans," moral injury as neurological injury shows up vividly on "brain scans." War, and the terror of war, and the terror that drives war, all are of physical brain damage, so I observe and understand.
However, the effect of the infant-child transition, which has also been named the infant-child discontinuity, produces brain scan evidence of neurological injury not particularly different than the neurological injury of war, as I observe.
Because I find that it is impossible to actually understand anything that one has not yet done, I find that it is impossible to actually understand anything without having already actually done it. Hypothetical understanding is not actual understanding.
For those who need equations, let "Hypothetical Understanding" be represented by "A" and let actual understanding be represented by "non-A" so that the relevant equation is "0 = A + non-A" or, for those who cannot live without benefit of mathematical word problems, "nothing is what it isn't."
In the results of my bioengineering research, trauma is neurological injury,and the result of coercively intimidating a child into equivalencing a hypothetical understanding (you were told what to do, therefore, you knew what to do) with an actual understanding (you had done something before so similar to what you just did that you were reasonably able to understand what you were just doing), being of the nature and function of the coercively intimidating intimidation process of the internalization of a falsehood, which results in brain-scan-evident neurological injury, puts parents who tell their children things akin to, "You were told what to do and you did not do as you were told; you were disobedient and you will be punished until you learn to obey according to as you are told," automatically becomes a terrorist according to the second definition of terrorist in the OED.
Yeah, sorry. Parsed into small steps, the argument that parents who tell their children to do the impossible and terrorize their children into believing that the impossible is not the impossible surely do terrorize their children and therefore, no less surely are, in accord with that second OED definition, terrorists.
When I was much younger, the transition (neurological injury discontinuity) that divides infancy from childhood (in the commonplace western culture sense) was sometimes called "the terrible twos."
Someone, a retired teacher, inquired of me, in response to my sharing some thoughts about the findings of the bioengineering research I have done, in paraphrase for the sake of individual confidential privacy, "Whatever happened to the terrible twos? I just do not hear about the terrible twos any more."
The solution to the seeming vanishment of the terrible twos may itself be terrible. As best I can stupidly, wildly, absurdly guess, what happened to the terrible twos is television as a baby sitter for children of the terrible twos age range experience. Instead of parents coercively and intimidatingly bashing their born-innocent children into shamefully guilty trauma-delusional children through terrifying intimidation, little children's mirror neuron system witlessly replicates the terror-internalization process through the passive watching of television programs directed toward children which convey the neurological injury of the internalized deception of the equivalencing of hypothetical understanding with actual understanding in a way that may be even more personally and socially damaging than the prior method of beating (psychologically if not both psychologically and physically) into submission.
Alas, psychological bashing into submission is physical bashing into submission, as a human child's brain is physical and the coercive intimidation of psychological bashing is no less physical than is any other form of child-bashing.
What causes terrorism and terrorists? The actions of the previous generation of terrorisms and terrorists.
Terrorism and terrorists comprise a tautological transfer of intergenerational terrorizing.
I am delighted to stipulate that what I have here written may read like incoherent absurdity.
So be it.
