To seize is not to seize- what is the difference?

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
J Krishnamurti


I find this quote interesting and the more I think about it, the more I am unsure how to define health.


If this society has become profoundly sick in a certain sense, if the above statement does have any validity whatsoever, then what does it say about me...I feel I have been grasping to find answers since my first "seizure", grasping to find a new purpose, all the while eating pills in an attempt to get back to "well adjusted"...

No wonder I feel confused about how to feel "genuinely me" all the time.

much love



I am extremely interested in how others may feel about any of this.  

What does "well adjusted" mean to you? What about purpose? Are you more purposeful now or less?

Has your definition of health changed?

pgd has posted a few times now about somehow finding common language and definitions on words like awareness, consciousness, perception... this would make a very interesting separate thread.



Re: An intriquing quote

Is the Spam Trap still tripping responses?

Re: An intriquing quote

peace R.C.

Hi  Been awhile! Not sure what I can say at the moment that would not either get me in trouble or end up in some mindless rambling.

Maybe my ramblings from the past few mornings will be better understood though ,I do understand where a persons head can be at with most types of the "What if" questions though.

Made a commitment to the positive, remember?
A.m. Confusion? BUT no contusion.
Ringing loud,intense,IMMENSE, need it to sing ,not ring maybe rhyme just this time.
No gain with pain,I can keep it away ,it becomes fun,in an odd state of mind,if it is hard to find!
So many times before ,so much time on the floor,always kept a smile,never ever been its whore.
Feelings are fast ,fleeting,like a race with no definite pace,so many, to try an explain seems almost a waste.
Am so thankful,grateful ? Would be so much easier with Hate! But its to late.Just could not wait.
Will walk today ,even tomorrow ,but the next who's to say ? will it stay?will it go away?

At any rate we only roll the dice with Fate!
Who is to say that they hold the keys to the golden Gate!
Feeling it! Rick
Need the positive AND the negative to complete the circuit!
should use poetic license to let feelings escape,But nerves and mind can not meet!
But it will return I have never been beat!
Have become quite adept at predicting my fate ,said just yesterday that IT would not wait.
Today is the day I do not walk,Well only half ,the other is solid, like a Rock!
Being Me is not Free ,there IS a large Fee,but even with a wage it is better than the restrictions of a chair or a cage!
My memories from past are always present now ,so many do not understand they can only say OH HOW?
so many want so much,Am I wrong to not want more ? Have so little, but provide all the stuff.
Walk a mile in their shoes they say! So many don't get it ,they look the other way!
I get "it" I do "It" whether just sitting or even at play!
I live "It" I feel "it" Just another Day!
Feeling it! Rick

Re: An intriquing quote

Hi Rick,

My partial seizures are still living it to the Limbic Limits. The after-effects usually respond to my left-side versus right-side respondent conditioning tricks, that otherwise don't make any sense. Epileptic Golden Retrievers seem to go through the same phases as I do. I guess I was lucky that no coyotes in my desert days heard about how great a taste myotonic meat has in savoring America's food traditions, and identified it with epilepsy:

In social contract matters, I'm weighing the interactions with what I'll group under the title "The Grand Inquisitor" (GI). It's as if I'm making an insurance claim under the social contract, and the GI argues everything but the social contract, either from not wishing to satisfy the contract with every disjointed excuse nearly beyond imagination, or from being in a physical position where the contract can't be satisfied, while such admission is precluded by denial of such truth. A doctor practicing such a philosophy would be most likely to tell all the patients that another patient is in worse condition, and consider the lecture as sufficient and voiding any need of actual medical services. Like Joseph Heller's "Catch-22", maybe Alan Bennett's "The Insurance Man" is overly optimistic as the Industrial Revolution is starting to sputter towards an ending (I've seen the movie years ago (and made a VHS copy, now somewhere amongst the tons), and probably will shortly read the play, along with "Kafka's Dick", and "A Question of Attribution").

From the, at times, Wonderful World of Epilepsy,


Re: An intriquing quote

Maybe we could turn that quote around and say;


"It is a great measure of health for a sick individual to be profoundly adjusted to a healthy society."

That's how I feel my life goes. That's my measure of health.



Why do we distinguish sickly from healthy?

Hey Allina,


Your comment raises the question that if we can easily distinguish between a sick individual and a healthy individual, then how do we distinguish a sick society from a healthy society?


Most importantly, in my opinion, is why we distinguish sick from healthy.

What is the purpose of distinguishing sick from healthy?

Why do I feel the need to distinguish sick from healthy? In fact, in order to even have an idea of "sickness" in the first place I need some contrasting idea of "health" that gives each a boundary defining each other. In this sense, sickness and health are the same pulse, one is on, one is off. You cannot "know" on without off. I cannot turn left without having turned right. I cannot breath in without breathing out.

But something happens when we start to distinguish things from each other. Distinguishing this thing from that thing, I have forgotten that all things are inherently the same "thing".

Sickness is health just as birth is death just as seizing is not seizing.

In order to "know" something, we must also "know" what something is not so that we know the difference.

This all begs the question- what types of events might occur when huge populations of people start to focus on one side of the equation? For example, what types of events might occur when tens of millions of people focus on being sick and therefore not healthy, forgetting that to be healthy is to be sickly.

What happens when we start to focus solely on inhaling and pay no attention to exhaling?

What happens when we forget that seizing is not seizing? 


Re: Why do we distinguish sickly from healthy?

I really think you are thinking wayyyy too much. I would define healthy as the body being free from pathogens, disease, and is in good physical form. Sick, to me, does not include disorders such as epilepsy because you can live a healthy life with E. Sick to me would be someone with a cold, or a disease, or cancer, even obesity. You can be mentally healthy and be physically sick, and you can be physically healthy but mentally ill.

The reason I changed that quote is because I feel that with E, I have a hard time adjusting and adapting to everyone else's life that is free of disorder, seizures, sickness, and can live a normal life at whatever pace they choose. I have the hardest time adapting when out with friends who can eat whatever they please and stay up however long they want, or at work, because individuals call in "sick" when they are just "tired" and I am still there having seizures on the hour and somnolent.

There is an individual where I work who has Lupus and is there every day. I never knew she was sick until she told me, because she wears it well, and wears life like it is something we should be thankful for instead of something we should have constant fear over. It's like the people who get diagnosed with cancer and take it in strides, they are the ones that survive, they are the ones that beat it. I don't call individuals like this sick,

I call them remarkable.


Re: Why do we distinguish sickly from healthy?

Hi AJ,


I think you have made incredible points. First off, I do think way too much. More importantly though, your point as to who is more likely to survive a diangosis of cancer is also a good one.

I feel sickness is not sickness. I feel that sickness, like feeling depressed because of being diagnosed with cancer,  and health, like feeling happy and healthy, actually is the same healing process. I feel the difference is how we define health versus sickness. To define one versus the other is to show how both definitions are necessary in order to know either. Therefore in a certain way, a very important way, sickness and health are the same thing just defined differently. This is not just word play. 

What this means to me is that sickness is not "bad" and health is not "good". Sickness is not abnormal and health is not normal. Sickness is not disease. Disease is not sickness. All the words and definitions and concepts we use in order to specify and distinguish sickness from health is misleading. 

Both states of sickness and health are the same state. 

They both are the same in that they both are "healing".

It is my nutty opinion that all physical, emotional, and mental pain is healing. Healing is not "good" or "bad", simply a returning to a balanced state.

I think the idea of good and bad and normal and abnormal comes into play when we feel our lives are more valuable than others. Especially when we feel our lives are much more valuable than the lives of the tiny organisms, the extraordinarily efficient cancers and diseases that live inside us that threaten to "kill" us.

When we do not understand we are not more valuable than any other organism,  we must feel negative and positive as separate states, but this does not make it so. All negative states as well as positive states, like joy and happiness and contentment and anger and frustration, all these states are ways in which our organism heals entropy each moment. Again, forget your definitions of good and bad and right and wrong for a moment, and all that is left is an organism, you, reacting to each moment in a way that survives entropy until you do not. What else is there to do?

It is a beautiful game of hide and seek in a sense.

much love,




Re: To seize is not to seize- what is the difference?

Hi Marty,

To seize is not to seize - what is the difference? The difference is in magnitude, location, and name. The cues with small micro-seizures are called learning, and the learned functioning with memory is called micro-kindling. Pavlov hypothesized this many decades ago, but he wasn't enough in strongly denouncing communism by Western canon, over practicing science.

Concepts of a sick society versus a healthy individual, or a sick individual versus a healthy society? "Baghdad Fever" or "Biduoterian fever"? Favism versus malaria. How can society be healthy if it turns a natural resistance to malaria into another disease? There are a large number of healthy benefits that societies turn into diseases. Is the Ketogenic Diet and Epilepsy just another example? Is Synesthesia an impairment or an enhancement? After the "too smart to be a cop" fiasco, even higher intelligence is often more of an impairment than a benefit within society. "Well Adjusted" in the USA means mediocre, as in "The Happy Mediocrity" (Elaine Kendall, 1971)? A railroad is the more purposeful, as: "RAILROAD,n. The chief of many mechanical devices enabling us to get away from where we are to where we are no better off. For this purpose the railroad is held in highest favor by the optimist, for it permits him to make the transit with great expedition" ("The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce). Health, as in a healthy life, from "LIFE, n. A spiritual pickle preserving the body from decay."


Re: To seize is not to seize- what is the difference?

To seize is not to seize -what is the difference?

The difference is in magnitude, location, and name. The cues with small micro-seizures are called learning, and the learned functioning with memory is called micro-kindling.

Again, words are failing miserably, fireworks emulsified with peanutbutter....


Did "learning" exist before you knew about it as a "concept"? How about micro-seizures? Did micro-seizures exist before the people who "discovered"  them, "discovered" them? Did the word "behavior" have the same meaning the moment our animal species first uttered the original sound?

I am going beyond the myriad distinctions of how I can tell the difference between seizing and not seizing. I am stating something much more obvious.

To "know" I am not seizing is to "know" I am seizing.

(To understand this is to understand there is only this moment right now.)

If I do not understand this, which I very often do not, it is because I am trying to understand it. I am trying to intellectualize how this paradoxical statement can make any sense. I am trying to find meaning and purpose in the statement and my discerning, distinctualizing self soon gets fed up.

To "know" I am not seizing is to know I am seizing" ---


The only way to see this is to feel it. No intellect.  It takes a complete dummy to understand how meaningless and purposeless each moment is, and therefore to see how unbounded and infinite this moment is.

I am only able to define something, like a seizure, and distinguish it from something else, because I have a fixed concept of there being a something else. It is in the very act of seeing ourselves as separate and everything as separate from ourselves which creates a "concept" of infiniteness.

Again, though, words will necessarily fail when attempting to pin down and define anything, especially a concept like "infinity".

Do you not agree?

much love






Re: To seize is not to seize- what is the difference?

Hi Marty,

If you believe words are failing, try a fairly simple sound, like a unique bell ("unique" so the mistake made with the fictional "Ludovico Technique" might not happen). I used a rather unique bell from a rather strange old Reminington Rand typewriter and a modified electric cattle prod for simple aversive conditioning. It didn't take very many repetitions for the bell to have a great visceral effect, and the bell's effect has still not extinguished after 35 years. The visceral effect is not a nice sensation, much like a very weak unpleasant visceral limbic seizure, but within the realm of the same criteria (a strong clue that conditioned responses have much in common with seizure genesis and kindling). What is the "meaning" of the sound of the bell??? By Occam's Razor, why ask the question? Such misdirected and heavily loaded philosophically/epistemologically presumptive questions presuppose "meanings" with a cost of misunderstandings in a tremendous amount of needless confusion arising when Limbic Seizures give the intense visceral sensation commonly described, or labeled, as "fear". For example, Psychodynamics used in the search for the "meaning" of this "fear" has resulted in bizarre theories that include the "trauma" of umbilical separation anxiety and indecision on which breast is better to suckle from, and such search for "meaning" puts more needless baggage onto epilepsy than blaming the craters on the Moon for epilepsy. Next we will be told the theory that the meaning of the face on the planet Mars is epilepsy's failing escape. Or is an aura giving the meaning of seeing saintly halos?

I like the concept of "infinity", mainly because it "violates" so many physical laws, which is a strong clue that it is as difficult to pin down as shadows, which don't exist. Will the next question be about what the meaning is of that that doesn't exist?


Re: To seize is not to seize- what is the difference?

Hey Tadzio,

Your responses make me smile. They want to be so meaningful it seems and yet I am thinking 8 out 10 people who read what you say do not know what you are meaning to say.

What does it mean to be meaningful? 

Are you wanting to be meaningful or meaningless?


Can you tell me the difference between the two ideas as if you were explaining the difference to a 7 year old?

Then explain the difference in a way that is pure 3hours...

I would like to see the difference.

much love,




Re: To seize is not to seize- what is the difference?

Hi Marty,

"As a radical behaviorist I would say that if the term 'meaning' has any meaning at all, it is the setting which gives rise to the response of the speaker or the subsequent action of the listener with respect to that setting" #1.

Keeping closely to the subject of Epilepsy, weighted with my own personnel experiences, and the more useful definitions of "meaning" and "purpose", with the focus on subject matter that most often is applied to children's behaviour, I'll look at the purpose and meaning of being potty trained. Besides just epileptic seizures and potty training being involved, baby bottles, microwave ovens, straight razors, light bulbs, drug testing, and ER procedures and equipment will also be involved.

With the greatest frequency, urinating and defecating are innate, and is quickly conditioned with typical positive and negative reinforcements (the action usually feels good and the product is usually quickly isolated and distanced) #2. As the ("speaker's") product is usually a negative reinforcement to both the individual and other individuals (the "listeners"), "modifications in the contingencies of reinforcement regularly induce Homo sapiens, a stubbornly messy arboreal primate, to become toilet trained" #3. "Use the pot!!!" "Make poo poo on the pot, sweety pie." "An utterance, gesture, or display, whether phylogenic or ontogenic, is said to have referent which is its meaning, the referent or meaning being inferred by a listener....Purpose, adaptation,...and communication -- concepts of this sort have, at first sight, an engaging generality. They appear to be useful in describing both ontogenic and phylogenic behavior and in identifying important common properties. Their very generality limits their usefulness, however" #4. Then, potty training traumas may weight military organisations #5.

Being potty trained increases the risk of injury involving seizures of epilepsy, as an aura urge to urinate with/or of conditioning from the frequent loss of bladder control during ictus works also as a stimulus to the non-verbal behaviour to make way to the toilet, as the more intense phases of seizures become more likely, with little chance of self verbal behaviour taking heed of situational dangers (sharp, hard objects and standing water, with possible totally incongruous automatisms) #6. With petechial haemorrhage (#7) from secondarily generalized tonic-clonics, with intense constriction resulting in indirect bowel movements (not really defecating, as haemorrhage at most orifices can occur during the intense epileptic seizing "pseudo-" Valsalva manoeuvre), ER personnel can become very confused (more confused than the patient). While epileptic seizures with priapism is not necessarily a Valsalva maneuver-induced priapism, confusion rules supreme with ER over the issues of the source #8. Most common ER assumptions are drug abuse and foreign objects, despite evidence and cited history of epilepsy and evidence of such seizures (drug use/abuse #9 with priapism, but not necessarily seizures).

Maybe ERs discount cited history as unreliable given presupposed conclusions (one neighbor, after a moderate ER stroke, kept calling a sugar ant invasion into his home "green onions" repeatedly (maybe he mislabeled the smell of the ants, as the smell was like bitter licorice to me)), but ERs making dangerous moves from presupposed irrational info to ignore (notice that epilepsy is involved is irrational?) is a needless risk and/or ER egotistical sado-masochistic power-trip. Forty years ago, though with greater bias against homosexuals, a patient's health was of top priority ("the result may be intestinal perforation, peritonitis, and death"), and while mental illness was often confounded with epilepsy, dildos weren't #10. Now, call all the issues mental disorders, "five and four this guy...I slip into my butch mode so I can fit in...I could well get my finger sliced" #11, but, what about the patient's health? The belief in strange statements is this much, but not that much.

The "meaning" in verbal exchanges between the speaker and the listener (which may be one and the same person, then often called verbal "thinking"), is sometimes used to judge the "constituent functions of consciousness" by which constituents are more impaired or "confused" #12. My speech and writing verbal behaviour can be totally disrupted to a halt during a partial seizure, but I am still often able to type overly academic sentences while I'm well less than in the Capital of the State of Consciousness during a partial seizure. Typing overly academic sentences is more of a complex task than writing and/or talking by many ranking systems, and sometimes to speak, I have write a partial phrase down and read it off aloud to initiate my speech (with previous frequent mispronunciations that I now avoid with synonyms, with unusual classifications being involved, sometimes simple, such as confusing words by intial letters in the words, and carrying over in verbal "thinking" with resultant "verbally directed" physical actions during partial seizure clusters). Now what is the purpose and meaning of: "You can't be confused about the baby and the bottle and not be confused about the microwave," said Marianne Schuelein, a neurologist at Georgetown University Medical Center. "You're confused across the board. You're not just confused in one thing" #13. I'm continually confused in my "gut" sense of location from brain damage, so I use a GPS unit to have a reliable sense of my longitude and latitude map location (tech limits gives numbers less confusion than street name intersections), which I'm seldom confused about. Dr. Schuelein sounds confused across the board about confussion involving constituents distinguishing ranged functional elements of neurological impairments.

In the book "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" by James Joyce, what is the meaning and purpose of the sentence:
"When you wet the bed, first it is warm then it gets cold" #14???


#04: pages 399-400,