On 02 Mar 2009, at 02:21, russell standish wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 05:55:12PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Hi Kim,
>> I didn't expect you to send the translation of the Amoeba's Secret
>> (AS) on the list.  But it is OK, and you did a rather very good job.
>> For the other: "The Amoeba's Secret" is the book which has been
>> ordered to me when I won the LE MONDE prize of the best thesis in
>> 1998. For obscure reasons (which I don't want to talk about) it has
>> not been published, it is the only prize LE MONDE which has not been
>> published.
> Thanks for sharing these old wounds with us. FWIW, I have read so  
> far the
> story up to the end of your undergrad days, and I think it is very
> well written, and as I commented to Kim J - the chapter "Amoeba's
> secret" would make an excellent basis for a short film. So far, Le
> Monde's decision not to publish is completely inexplicable (I can
> understand that the thesis itself being too technical might be a
> reason for not publishing that).
> Was there any discussion of removing some of the personal elements
> from the sorry affair that happened when your thesis was submitted to
> ULB?

I send the manuscript electronically after each chapter, and said it  
was very nice, up to the end.
Until Grasset interrupts the contract with LE MONDE. I have been told  
the book, nor the thesis can enter in their collection.
I did not get any explanation. I have been interviewed by journalists  
on my work, only the journalist of switzerland succeed in publishing  
his paper.

> Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have
> hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable.

I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et  
Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not  
receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have  
*never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of  
their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and  
even more after the paradoxical price in Paris.

I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far  
beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if  
only because that story is not finished.
My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It  
took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then.

I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then  get  
myself a bit worried seeing them to protect themselves from Brussels  
to Paris!

It is not because I have done an "original work" (say) in Brussels,  
that I got problems there. It is because I got problems in Brussels  
that I have done an original work. In 1977, they give me no chance,  
not even getting out of Belgium.
In 1994, my work was criticize vaguely as "not original", "too much  
simple",  and then "delirious". And now already "not from him" in some  
place. Which again shows the problems is not related with my findings,  
except it belongs to the kind of things you can easily use to treat  
you as a fool (Gödel's theorem, Quantum mechanics, consciousness: few  
understand so it is easy to say "not serious").

The little scandal has grown up all the time and is too big, now. It  
is the kind of manipulation which makes everyone feel responsible,  
from corporatist reflex to corporatist reflex, when actually there is  
only one, very clever, but very bad,  guy.
Now that "little scandal" has become big enough to throw light on  
other really bigger scandals. There are "cadavres dans les placards",  
as we say in French (corpses hidden in boxes). Mean of pressures.

I still believe in academies, but like in School "serial killer" can  
exist. When you see the time made by religious institution to protect  
their member of their hierarchy from their much grave behavior, I  
estimate it could take a long time if ever to understand and recognize  
what happened.
And I have no problem with serious academicians and scientists which  
understand enough to understand it is "serious", even if probably  
wrong, which I have myself never ceased to believe plausible (which  
explains why I am eager to discuss the validity of the UDA steps, with  
people interested). I did defend the work as PhD thesis. I was asked  
many questions, I answered them and everyone got the idea. Some people  
takes time, but most get enough to trust the interest of the work.  
Still today, few get both UDA and AUDA.

UDA is almost easy, but not so easy. AUDA is very *simple*, once you  
understand enough standard logic (which I have discovered is  
excessively rare). The whole thing is strongly interdisciplinary, and  
between disciplines, rumors circulate more quickly than "scientific  
bridge",  which often makes people feeling being aggressed on their  
territories. Even more so when the work approaches question  
traditionally qualified as "philosophical".

My initial power comes from the fact that in 1977, I did abandoned,  
for bad reasons (but it will take many years to understand that), the  
idea of doing academic research, and so I did come back to the very  
fundamental questioning I have always been living. I didn't and don't  
complain (my weakness probably).
And it is the Academy, 20 years later, which will push me back again,  
and again. I have never submitted publications by myself. All have  
been asked by people, having heard I said something new, sometimes  
insisting gently. Nowadays, since those events, even ordered paper (or  
jobs) get jeopardized quickly. Last year I was asked to write a paper  
for a book in homage to the late logician Jean Ladrière, (who offered  
to me its formidable book on Gödel theorems: Les limitations internes  
des formalismes"), and then ... nothing again. I am used to it.

Thanks for your interest,



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to