Here's an interesting article about bullying (entirely unrelated to the present discussion for the main). The very interesting bit is at the end:

Dr Michael Eslea, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Central Lancashire said the research was interesting but needed to be repeated in a larger sample.
"A better understanding of the biological basis of these things is good to have but the danger is it causes people to leap to biological solutions - drugs - rather than other behavioural solutions.

My argument has been, consistently here at ET, that behaviour is moulded by drugs. Though internally applied drugs, rather than external.

You must ask emil what his diary was meant to mean and to activate. You must ask him to explain the jargon and the graphics. Just because I 'appreciate' his diary, does not mean that I agree with it or even fully understand it.  It means that there is a glimpse of a 'what-if' insight that seems to be original and, to me, relevant. That is - worth investing my time to try to understand.

I would indeed be prepared to spend several hours preparing an appraisal of this diary, and an explanation of what it means to me - if I thought that I could deliver that analysis to a receptive feedback what-if audience in the snug, without that loudmouth P.N. Other wandering in from the Lounge bar and breathing over my shoulder. Nudge nudge. After all, many of the conversations I have in the RW rotate around this subject. I just spent 3 hours this evening in a delightful dinner with an 84 year old former CEO of a major Finnish industrial company. You'd be surprised how spiritual it was ;-) Impending mortality was ever thus.

It is possible to kill an interesting conversation. I know, I've done it myself here. Emil Möller has posted some challenging diaries here in the past: I haven't always been involved in their commentary - but I have read them all. An inability to manage Jpegs, or write without jargon, is not a barrier to communication. This last occasion - this diary - I wanted to offer some encouragement, but also some scepticism. It would have been nice to continue the what-if discussion without the kids in the back shouting "When are we there?".

Sometimes you have to put in more than you get out. I've had my spats with all of you. I humbly apologize for being illiterate. I just feel that some conversations are best conducted with an open mind and an investment in trying to understand what might be a repudiation of what you believe. If you know everything already, then of course repudiation is the last thing you want. But as the video illuminated, should you have watched it, the Big Mind is about the happiness created by being a Seeker and the recovery of some of your own voices.

Of course, I would say that seeking to be a Seeker IS behavioural. ;-)

There is a much wider context to ET than energy, political power or Aglo disease. That context includes a 'spiritual' element - why are we here? Why are You here? The answers are partly in classical thought, and historical analogues, but also in today's technological zeitgeist that has some phase shifting implications - where some elements and tools of classical thought are no longer so very useful imo...

What I got out of Big Mind, was the idea of wholeness as liberation. Wholeness that puts You into the physical world that science describes. You with your perceptions. You with your behaviours. That is what interests me, and this diary added another couple of pieces to the 10 gazillion piece jigsaw that might be called Jehovah, yod-he-vau-he, or an octagonal equation. It is not a jigsaw that anyone ever completed as far as I know - the difficulty being that there is no picture on the box to work from.

You can't be me, I'm taken