I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast,
guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and
co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation called
"rejection 101". It sounds like you have been through exactly what I
have been through - except on a geological timescale that would tire a
god. Although I am starting to make progress... I regard that progress
to be achieved in spite of them, not because of their vision or
knowledge. The science I thought I was going to find was full of those
who frolic in ideas.... sadly I was mistaken. Now, when I think I have
made progress - I know that progress to be mediated by the less than
adequate - and promulgated by momentum rather than incisive scrutiny-
and it doesn't feel good.
see file *2008_Thu_23_Oct.pdf * in the googlegroups everythinglist file
So Amoebas speak english now, eh? Excellent. :-)
> * I've often wondered why neither Dr. Deutsch nor Alan
> Forrester has commented on your theory of UDA and AUDA. I certainly
> would be interested in their views. A theory that has execised some of
> the best minds on this list for months on end certainly deserves
> serious consideration. Best,*
> *martin a.*
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
> To: <everything-l...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
> > 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,
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
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