Hi Bruno, 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 store. So Amoebas speak english now, eh? Excellent. :-) cheers, Colin m.a. wrote: > *Bruno,* > * 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 > <mailto: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, > > Bruno > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---