Sandra Blakeslee, "Researchers Train Minds to Move Matter," in The New York Times, July 21, 2009, at p. D6. (Scientific idealism, hermeneutics.)
Natalie Angier, "When 'What Animals Do' Doesn't Seem to Cover It," in The New York Times, July 21, 2009, at p. D1. (What is "behavior"?)
Dennis Overbye, "Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?," in The New York Times, January 15, 2008, at p. F1.
Jan Hoffman, "Coaching the Comeback," in The New York Times, January 15, 2008, at p. F1.
Sandra Blakeslee, "Monkey's Thoughts Propel Robot, A Step That May Help Humans," in The New York Times, January 15, 2008, at p. F3.
Peter Benson, "Beware of Truth!," Philosophy Now, March/April, 2009, at p. 26.
"... On Thursday, [a] 12 pound, 32 inch monkey [named Idoya] made a 200-pound, 5-foot humanoid robot walk on a treadmill using only her brain activity."
Idoya's brain remained in her body at all times.
"She, [the monkey,] was in North Carolina, and the robot was in Japan."
Notice all of the steps involved in this process:
"It was the first time that brain signals [emphasis added] had been used to make a robot walk, said Dr. Miguel A.L. Nicolelis, a neuroscientist at Duke University whose laboratory designed and carried out the experiment."
"In 2003, Dr. Nicolelis's team proved that monkeys could use their thoughts [emphasis added] alone to control a robotic arm for reaching and grasping."
"'These experiments,' Dr. Nicolelis said, 'are the first steps toward a brain-machine interface that might permit paralyzed people to walk by directing devices with their thoughts.' [emphasis added] Electrodes in the person's brain would send signals to a device worn on the hip, like a cell phone or a pager, that would relay those signals to a pair of braces, a kind of external skeleton, worn on the legs."
Thoughts communicated by means of signals captured in symbols -- kind of like what I'm doing now -- interpreted and translated by computers, allow for material and empirical "events" or transformations. Words are signals, so are gestures, facial expressions, paintings, music. Idealism is here to stay. These interpretive systems or languages, designed by elite scientists, who are worthy of inclusion among the ranks of hermeneuticists or radical interpreters and translators of rival forms of discourse, networking different systems, are allowing us to develop new insights on classic philosophical problem fields. Mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose explains:
"Recall my proposal that consciousness, in essence, is the 'seeing' of a necessary truth; and that it may represent some kind of actual contact with Plato's world of ideal mathematical concepts. Recall that Plato's world is itself timeless. The perception of Platonic truth carries no actual information" -- perhaps, these new findings go farther than Professor Penrose did in the early nineties -- "in the technical sense of the 'information' that can be transmitted by a message ... and there would be no actual contradiction involved if such a conscious perception were even to be propagated backwards in time!" (Penrose, p. 446.)
Now consider the work of physicists, like Bohm and Peat, as well as "controversial" work in the human sciences:
"In 1985 Dr. Stanislav Grof, Chief of Psychiatric Research at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the John Hopkins University School of Medicine, published a book in which he concluded that existing neurophysiological models of the brain are inadequate and only a holographic [multiple layers in laser-like concentrations] model can explain such things as archetypal experiences, encounters with the collective unconscious" -- something that you will experience any time that you go to a movie -- "and other unusual phenomena experienced during altered states of consciousness." (Talbot, p. 2.)
This is an area of scholarly endeavor where the failure to make necessary associations between developments in distant scholarly fields is hindering progress that might benefit humanity, especially in terms of communications and complexity theories. To my knowledge, no one has sought to relate Ilya Prigogine's daring speculations concerning dissipative structures and Hans Georg Gadamer's "hermeneutics of encounter."
A book I did not list above because it is a discovery that was made after my first draft of this essay is M. Mitchell Waldrop's Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), pp. 15-51 (the incorporation of dynamics and probability theories in economics). Compare these two quotes:
"Prigogine thinks that instead of arranging levels in a hierarchy (physics, chemistry, biology), we should begin a DIALECTIC, a kind of animated discussion between levels to create, in effect, a web of description where higher levels feed back strands of information to lower levels, back to new higher levels and so on -- mirroring the web of reality with our theories."
John P. Briggs & F. David Peat, "Founding a Science of Spontaneous Order," in Looking Glass Universe: The Emerging Science of Wholeness (London: Fontana, 1985), p. 183.
In addition to W.V. Quine's "web of belief," think of the German philosopher of "understanding," Hans Georg Gadamer. For Gadamer (less so Paul Ricoeur), the aesthetic encounter is a mutual process of alteration and construction in which artist, object, and recipient are involved in an elaborate dance, like a gavotte. If you imagine that a scientific or philosophical problem is an entity that is never really finished until you (whoever you are) arrive on the scene, then you will see that scientific or philosophical problematics are not subject to single solutions -- when they're really interesting -- but a kind of multiplicity, invitations to dance. ("Arthur Schopenhauer's Metaphysics of Art.")
What is the purpose of dancing? Surely, the purpose of dancing is to dance. Joseph Campbell asked a Zen master the "meaning" of dance. The answer he received is simple: "We just dance." Persons' identities are invitations to dance. Some people dance in the same way their entire lives; others vary the dance and the mood of their expression -- many people -- based on their partners.
Traditionally, our notions of rigor and intellectual excellence were based, subconsciously, on notoriously sexist assumptions concerning intelligence and successful argumentation. This "right" argument knocks out that "false" argument. However, a more feminine (in this traditional mind-set) notion of intellectual rigor may look to the connections that might be established at different levels, with arguments achieving variable levels of success. The idea of multidimensionality may be helpful to this understanding of puzzle-solving. This does not preclude concepts of truth and falsehood.
Suppose that you are at a movie where Ilsa is expected to meet Rick at a Cafe. Ilsa seems nervous, awkward, tense and hopeful at the same time. An observer of this scene may "see" only one of those emotions. Another observer may see two or three emotional reactions. A third observer may see a hundred emotions in the scene. Who is the better observer? Why? What is Ilsa's "behavior"? How is Ilsa's behavior different from her experience?
As the great French Salonniers "put together" residents of different social worlds, let us introduce arguments and thought-systems from vastly distant academic fields and parts of the world. We may be shocked to discover not only affinity, but an occasional romance between scientific and artistic ways of reasoning or seeing events and actions. Perhaps we will describe this way of doing epistemology and ontology as "A Tale of Un-Natural Love":
"As [Gadamer] depicts genuine conversation it is rather characteristic of it that all participants are led beyond their initial positions towards a consensus that is more differentiated and articulated than the separate views with which the conversation partners began. ... consensus refers simply to a 'fusion of horizons,' an integration of differing perspectives in a deeper understanding of matters in question."
Georgia Warnke, Gadamer: Hermeneutics, Tradition, and Reason (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), p. 169 and Ken Wilber, A Brief History of Everything (Boston: Shambhala, 2000), pp. xx-xi ("Certain patterns in language, cognition, and human physiology, for example, are quite similar wherever they appear.")
Are these the thoughts that you wish to censor because you claim to be "scientists"? Similarities in linguistic patterns recur even in computer languages, mathematics, also in the arrangements found in organisms. Look up the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction in chemicals that "reflect" life forms. See Looking Glass Universe, pp. 176-177. Ironically, given the results of these experiments with Idoya in 2008, we find Penrose bringing Kant and Einstein up to date in 2009. (Again, spacing has been affected by hackers and attacks against this text will be continuous):
"But even if we accept that consciousness itself has such a curious relation to time -- and that it represents, in some sense, contact between the external 'physical' world and something timeless [emphasis added -- like God, Roger?] ... how can this fit in with a physically determined and time-ordered action of the material brain?" (Penrose, p. 446 and the point is repeated in Penrose's more recent compilation of scientific knowledge as well as interviews revealing a continuing dialogue with Stephen Hawking.)
How indeed. These scientific researchers are wonderful philosophers, usually without knowing it. Notice this crucial language:
"... 'When that person thinks about walking,' Dr. Nicolelis said, 'walking happens.' ..." (emphasis added!)
Transcendence? Intentionality? "And God said, 'Let there be light' ..." This scientific research has not yet been associated by thinkers with developing theories in cosmology suggesting a brain-like quality to the "dark matter" underlying the universe with possible generative capacity. Bernard Haisch and other scientists, notably David Deutsch, are interested in expanding notions of the nature of consciousness and the ways our categories of consciousness and matter overlap -- must overlap -- given increasingly popular interpretations of both entities (mind and matter) as essentially kinds of energy.
In the quantum realm we are seeing a great epic movie, if you like, where each observer sees a different film that he or she helps to create. If you see Ilsa as sad, then she is sad. If you see Ilsa as joyful, then she is joyful. We become the directors of the movie in which we also act and are the audience. The material that makes all of this possible is a kind of freedom in which we share. An "expanded reality of consciousness as a creative force in the universe" leads to new appreciations of the "spiritual creative power in our own minds." (Haisch, next Hawking on Probability, Deutsch, then Randall and Penrose, all should be brought into relation with Gadamer and Habermas.) Narrative options. Care for some popcorn and twizzlers?
Analogies to universal creative energy as "consciousness-like" (by scientists and philosophers as well as theologians) has led to revolutionary interpretations of Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzman's thinking concerning time, also to "Boltzman's Paradox" and a so-called "Boltzman's Brain theory." Thus:
"... Don Page of the University of Alberta, who has been a prominent voice in the Boltzman debate, argued that what counted cosmologically was not sheer numbers, but consciousness, which we have in abundance over the insects."
The idea of consciousness (freedom) has expanded dramatically to encompass new phenomena resulting, often incidentally, from experimental efforts unrelated to cosmological inquiries that have important implications for astrophysics, which are sometimes not seen by biologists. "Seeing" is indeed crucial to these developments. Perhaps someone who was "seen" by New Jersey's self-described "experts" as "mentally retarded" may be helpful in discussing this topic. For comparisons, see Natalie Angier, "Curriculum Designed to Unite Art and Science," in The New York Times, May 27, 2008, at p. F1 ("Science Times") and Benedict Carey, "Lotus Therapy," in The New York Times, May 27, 2008, at p. F1 ("Science Times") and Amit Goswami, "Self-Reference: How the One Becomes Many," in The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World (New York: Penguin/Putnam, 1995), p. 199.
Let us examine the steps followed by researchers in accomplishing the astonishing results with Idoya. After about an hour, Idoya's treadmill was stopped. However, through concentrating on a VIDEO MONITOR, Idoya was able to continue thinking the walking by the robot in Japan. These thoughts were "communicated" (mathematically) and "transmitted" (electronically) by means of a computer.
"Computability is not the same thing as being mathematically precise," Penrose says. "There is as much mystery and beauty as one might wish in the Platonic mathematical world [in reason] and most of this beauty resides with concepts that lie outside the comparatively limited part of it where algorithms and computation reside." (Penrose, p. 447.)
The most important math and philosophy is discovered in those rational spaces containing forms and shapes best defined in terms of beauty. Much the same is true with regard to people, whose loveliness is often not primarily physical, not on the surface of the complex and multidimensional spaces that they are, psychologically, but is found within their psyches -- in enchanting, crystal-like cities to which they secretly invite those few others who really see them, who see us. "See us," we say, "so you can see yourselves." (Compare "Where are thoughts located?" with "Sinbad's Excellent New York Adventure.")
1. A 12-pound monkey named Idoya was trained to walk upright on a treadmill.
2. Electrodes in her brain monitored the activity of 250 to 300 neurons.
3. The brain signals were "processed" and used to predict the monkey's leg movements, with 90% accuracy. This is language being used to interpret future events and transform them (before they occur) into actions. These actions "belong" to scientists -- not to Idoya -- initiating the causal-interpretive series that alone explains phenomena produced by the total experimental process. Read the foregoing sentence again.
The language to describe the cerebral patterns -- NOT the patterns themselves -- allowed for an anticipation of a future cerebral state of the monkey before it existed, producing the likely thoughts, whose anticipated existence was then communicated to a computer in Japan, a computer decoding the mathematical messages and transmitting them to the electronic "nerves" that would, almost instantly, allow the robot to execute the movements "thought" for "him" by Idoya, before or as she thought them.
Idoya was sitting in the US observing a monitor at all times. You may begin to see that our understanding of language is becoming more complex and profound. I suggest that Chomsky's work will be more important to posterity than we realize at this point in history. Rationalistic epistemologies are clearly implicated in these developments. This paragraph has been defaced, again, since my previous reading of this essay. I will continue to struggle to make corrections of this work because I am sure that it may benefit students of these issues.
Gee, if Idoya can do all that, imagine what you or God might be able to "think." Classical materialism postulates that these events are impossible. These events have occurred. Hence, we may safely conclude that, apart from devastating philosophical criticisms against classical deterministic materialism, there seem to be numerous scientific "issues" for any lingering radical materialists or problems for seventeenth century empiricists -- like behaviorists in the human sciences. (See "David Stove's Critique of Idealism" and "John Searle and David Chalmers on Consciousness.")
4. Data was transmitted -- by means of symbols -- over a high speed Internet connection from North Carolina to a robot in Kyoto, Japan.
5. The monkey watched the robot over a video link, and was rewarded when she made the robot walk" -- no wires connected the monkey and robot, there was no exchange of brains -- "After an hour the monkey's treadmill was switched off, but her brain continued to control the robot, which continued walking."
Possible applications in the entertainment field are truly awesome to contemplate. A computer interface program with, say, Carmen Electra cannot be far away. "I'll take two Marilyn Monroe chips and one Carmen Electra, please. A Beyonce on the beach chip. Oh, and throw in a Drew Barrymore and two Cameron Diaz chips."
This foregoing statement is an example of humor which should not be taken literally. I am always sensitive to women's issues. Probability theory and complexity systems have not been discussed by researchers -- either in the sciences or among philosophers -- in connection with these developments. However, these developments are crucial to much research and writing in neighboring areas of scholarly concern. Compare Robert Auman, "Interactive Epistemology," in International Journal of Game Theory, 28 (1999), pp. 263-314 with Mark C. Taylor, The Moment of Complexity: Emerging Network Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2001), p. 6:
"Among the many lessons that I have learned from Hegel and Kierkegaard as well as the 1960s, two are noteworthy in this context. First, there is a religious dimension to ALL culture. In order to appreciate the far reaching implications of religion, it is necessary to move beyond its manifest forms to examine the more subtle and complex ways in which it influences personal, social, and cultural development. Religion is often most intriguing and influential where it is less obvious. If we are to understand network culture, the eye must be trained to glimpse religion where it remains truly invisible." ("Is it rational to believe in God?" and "Is this atheism's moment?")
Are you really SEEING what is before your eyes? Are you now SEEING or have you ever SEEN me? Do you see patterns that explain connections -- connections between, let us say, "he" and "she" -- which must exist to make totalities meaningful, connections which your conceptual maps do not permit? Will you, like Procrustes, reject our newest reality(ies) in order to hang on to your static so-called "scientific" or "behaviorist" map -- from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century -- which is really archaic, or throw away your map when it becomes clear that it is now inaccurate to the realities being created even as we inhabit them? Connections. Dialectics. (See my essay on "Donald Davidson and Anomalous Monism" and "The 'Galatea Scenario' and the Mind/Body Problem.")
"Second, religion is inseparable from philosophy, literature, literary criticism, art, and architecture, as well as science, technology, capitalism [or whatever form of economic organization is adopted] and consumerism. Multiple threads have been intricately interwoven to create the complex webs now entangling us. While these webs cannot be unraveled, their strands can be distinguished and analyzed in ways that illuminate contemporary experience."
The patterns within patterns that explain these developments involving Idoya have been theorized for us by scientists, like Lisa Randall and Brian Greene, also by philosophers of "interpretive connections" or "the Hermeneutics of Freedom," such as Paul Ricoeur and Hans Georg Gadamer. Their messages do not seem to penetrate popular consciousness because ideology and prejudice gets in the way. Stupidity in powerful people does not help. Ideology often results in attempts to destroy the messengers who may not fit predetermined notions of who is intelligent or informed with regard to such matters.
As a very young man, I remember seeing a documentary about a symposium held in Germany shortly after Hitler came to power. The respectable, powerful academic establishment in Germany -- perhaps the most scientifically advanced nation in the world at the time -- came together to denounce Einstein's physics (also Freud's theory) as mistaken or so-called "Jewish science." Einstein was present and laughed heartily at all of the insults and ridicule of his person and ideas. Einstein was utterly unperturbed. "The truth will emerge in time."
Not long after this occasion, Einstein was in New York to receive the recognition and honors of the academic community. There is a black-and-white film of this event. George Bernard Shaw used these words to introduce Einstein: "There are in the history of humanity some men who have made a universe: ... Newton made a universe which has lasted for centuries ... Einstein has made a universe -- and I cannot tell you for how long it will last."
Einstein laughed heartily at this statement and nodded his agreement. The truth emerges in time. Messengers of truth (great and small) are sometimes told, as I was told: "Your book is shit and you are shit." Until critics realize that stealing such a despised person's ideas may be more beneficial than ignoring them. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "What is it like to be tortured?") If I am able to make a tiny contribution to knowledge, even by being suggestive to my self-described social "superiors," should I not be permitted to do my intellectual work? Are there any more "errors" that you New Jersey persons wish to insert in my writings today?
Why are my books suppressed? Why are my writings subjected to vandalism and plagiarism with the blessings of the authorities in an American jurisdiction? Why are crimes committed against me not punished? The destruction of many lives by such stupidity -- often the lives of men and women who live "pothumously" -- can only be described as tragic. How many people died in Iraq today?
So much that is important to us is highly improbable. It is wise, therefore, to remain open to the astonishment that life promises and is -- this is a religious idea -- even when an immigrant in unfashionable attire (like Einstein?) presents us with these insights, they may well merit your attention. I have read that Einstein spoke English with a thick accent. I do not believe that this accent made him stupid. I do not speak English with a "foreign accent." However, I have met many intelligent persons who do have an accent. I believe that such persons also have free speech rights. Stephen Hawking has discussed the improbable nature of intelligent life emerging in the universe and many cosmologists "concur":
"... If the odds of us being real instead of Boltzman brains are one in a million, say, waking up every day would be like walking out on the street and finding everyone in the city standing on their heads. You would expect there to be some reason why you were the only one left right side up." (New York Times, Jan. 15, 2008, at p. F4.)
For some scientists, artists, mystics and philosophers it is a daily experience to discover everyone else standing on their heads. Why do you not wish to think? Are you frightened or envious of intelligence? In light of the astonishing communicative achievement not discussed either by journalists or the scientists performing these experiments, I will quote James Gleick, then (after so many struggles against computer attacks today!), I will leave you in the pleasant company of Lisa Randall:
"Self-similarity is an easily recognizable quality. Its images are everywhere in the culture: in the infinitely deep reflection of a person standing between two mirrors" -- Idoya and a robot in Japan? -- "or in the cartoon notion of a fish eating a smaller fish eating a smaller fish eating a smaller fish. Mandelbrot likes to quote Jonathan Swift: 'So naturalists observe, a Flea/Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey,/And these have smaller Fleas to bite 'em,/ And so proceed ad infinitum." (Gleick, p. 103.)
Finally, care to roll-up a dimension or two with Lisa?
"No one understands string theory well enough to say definitively what the sizes of extra dimensions will turn out to be. Sizes comparable to the Planck length are possible, but any dimension too small to observe is also in the running. The Planck length is so tiny that even considerably larger curled-up dimensions might well escape notice" -- don't we all contain dimensions that escape notice? -- "An important question for the study of extra dimensions is just how big these dimensions can be, given that we haven't even seen them yet." (Randall, p. 48.)
Maybe thanks to Idoya and a Japanese robot, we have seen them.
Sources:
Dennis Overbye, "Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?," in The New York Times, January 15, 2008, at p. F1.
Jan Hoffman, "Coaching the Comeback," in The New York Times, January 15, 2008, at p. F1.
Sandra Blakeslee, "Monkey's Thoughts Propel Robot, A Step That May Help Humans," in The New York Times, January 15, 2008, at p. F3.
Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics From the Bottom Down (New York: Perseus, 2005), pp. 157-177 ("The Principles of Life").
David Deutsch, "Criteria for Reality," in The Fabric of Reality (London: Penguin, 1997), pp. 73-97 ("Self-Similarity.")
Bernard Haisch, The God Theory: Universes, Zero-Point Fields, and What's Behind it All (San Francisco: Weiser Books, 2005), pp. 103-123 ("God and the Theory of Everything").
Hugo A. Meynell, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Bernard Lonergan (Toronto & Buffalo: University of Toronto, 1991), pp. 32-83 ("Emergent Probability" to "Metaphysics").
Roy Bashkar, Plato, Etc., The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution (London & New York: Verso, 1994), pp. 18-45 ("Explanation and the Laws of Nature").
Mark C. Taylor, The Moment of Complexity: Emerging Network Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2001), pp. 195-233 ("Screening Information").
Morris Berman, Coming to Our Senses: Body and Spirit in the Hidden History of the West (New York: Bantam, 1990), pp. 295-341 ("Breaking the Mirror").
E.J. Lowe, The Possibility of Metaphysics: Substance, Identity, and Time (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 9, pp. 84-109 ("Time and Persistence").
Oswald Hanfling, "The Ontology of Art," in Philosophical Aesthetics: An Introduction (London & Oxford: The Open University/Blackwell, 1995), pp. 75-111.
Unfortunately, spacing may be affected by hackers:
Terry Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), pp. 366-419 ("From the Polis to Postmodernism").
Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990 corrected ed.), pp. 405-449 ("Where lies the physics of mind?").
Most highly recommended:
Lisa Randall, Warped Passages: Unravelling the Universe's Hidden Dimensions (New York: Harper Collins, 2005), pp. 344-433 ("Proposals for Extra-Dimensional Universes").
James Gleick, Chaos: Making a New Science (New York: Viking, 1997), pp. 83-118 ("A Geometry of Nature").
Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe (New York: Harper & Collins, 1991), pp. 1-11, 59-197. ("[Princeton researchers] found that through brain concentration alone, human beings are able to affect the way certain kinds of machine [sic.] operate.")
Cyberharassment and Censorship (Spacing Has Been Affected, Again):
I was unable to run security scans last night. I will try again later today. June 5, 2009 at 10:13 A.M. Many obstacles to posting this essay today.
Frustration and harassment tactics directed against both my work and myself continue on a daily basis. May 28, 2008 at 7:49 A.M.
I am unable to post a revised essay dealing with Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin at my msn group. I will continue throughout the day and again tomorrow to try to do so. Otherwise, I will attempt to post that essay at this site. I will run scans throughout the day. April 12, 2008 at 11:01 A.M. and February 1, 2008 at 9:10 A.M. calls from 605-373-0100. I am blocking:
http://m1.2mdn.net/viewad/1139854/112-1x1... (criminal violation, tracking-spyware from 112 sources?)
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N3880.sd2527.3880/... (criminal violation) (SD? State Department?)
January 22, 2008 at 5:46 P.M. I am blocking a new wave of hackers and attacks against my computer:
http://m1.2mdn.net/viewad/1520016/1x1tracking... (criminal violation -- aren't crimes "unethical"?)
http://m1.2mdn.net/viewad/1384245/pixel.gif (NJ)
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N4492.msn/b253250... (NJ)
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N296.msn/B2425220... (NJ)
http://view.atdmt.com/iview/msnnkhac001728x90WBCBR00110msn/direct;wi.728;hi.90/01 (Senator Bob and the Jersey Boys?)
See "Jay Romano and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" as well as "Mafia and Street Gang Alliance Broken Up in New Jersey" and "Maurice J. Gallipoli and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey," also "Jaynee LaVecchia and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?"
Unfortunately, a long essay on idealism at my msn group was vandalized. A number of "errors" that I had previously corrected were restored to that essay. I will make those corrections again and repost the essay. No images can be posted at this blog or with my profile, alterations of these texts are routine. Frustrations and continuous defacements of these works are meant to cause mental exhaustion and collapse. The goal is to make any new work or thinking impossible. I doubt that these tactics will succeed. ("What is it like to be tortured?")
January 21, 2008 at 1:15 P.M. harassing calls from 480-543-1293; January 22, 2008 at 12:05 P.M. harassing calls from 480-543-1289.
January 21, 2008 at 10:47 A.M. A lot of interruptions today. I am blocking:
http://view.atdmt.com/IEC/view/msnnkhac001000... (IEC? Trenton's OAE?)http://view.atdmt.com/iview/msnnkhac001728x90xWBCBRB00110msn/direct;wi.728;hi.90/01 (Back again, fellas?)
It is a federal crime to conspire to violate civil rights, engage in cyberharassment or cybercrime, suppress speech, violate privacy, along with numerous other offenses detailed in these posts, including terroristic threats, assaults, theft, and other violations of civil rights. Do you speak to me of "ethics"?
