Dear Richard,
As a dedicated hypochondriac, I ran a web search on 'membranous glomeurnephritis'. Nothing whatsoever came up. Considering all that I can find on other conditions, this is very interesting. I perfectly understand and am familiar with the terms and all that they refer to.

Anyway, find out about 'prednisone' in a PHYSICIAN'S DESK REFERENCE or the web. It is a very good drug, but it can have its drawbacks. You just need to be aware. No medication is without complications, but there are lots of people who only stay alive because of prednisone. You might find out if you have any alternatives you MIGHT need in the long haul.

You have a sound point to work from. The prednisone is working. You have learned the hard way surgery is not only not a 'cure all' as many doctors imply, but, AT BEST, it is a trade off you may - or may not - be able to live with. You have a nephrologist who sounds reasonable, AND CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT IS ALWAYS REASONABLE - within limits . . .

These statements are for everyone. You HAVE TO know enough to make your own decisions. This may sound like it is asking far too much, but 'too much' is precisely what is at stake. Your doctor does not have to live with the consequences of their actions, but you do. They speak a language of hesitancy, both good ones and bad ones, in informing you of treatments or no treatments at all. THEY DO NOT KNOW - EVER! - WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN 'FOR SURE'! They feel compelled, many times under certain circumstances, to 'recommend' possibilities they do not like.

The human body, my friends, is not a machine, and must be treated like a roommate one can never gets away from and sometimes cannot get along with. Sometimes what your body wants - or does not want - does not agree with what you want or even think is rational. And it is NOT necessarily right! KNOWLEDGE is your ONLY sure strength! And it is not that hard to find out as much as the physician knows, now. The only thing a physician has the advantage on you is - experience. HOWEVER, remember our often confused, ambiguous, and even contentious discussions of PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE. Only the physician knows what is going on in his head. What he says is, AT THE LEAST, heavily censored, many times for supposedly good reasons as "You might not understand the complications'. ALSO, a doctor, as Richard found out, can have very bad reasons for saying what they do.

Now, remember, a totally untrustworthy hypochondriac is saying all this!!!!!!!

Now, if all that sounds reasonable to you, I can become outrageous again.

First, I think more or less as Richard does about insects. If they don't bother me too much, I intensely dislike unnecessary killing because that is what it is. An atheist once brought me up very abruptly once, in a discussion of the laws of abortion where everything was moving in perfect concord, when he noted in an aside, "But, you know, technically it is murder . . ." Such subjects, if one gets involved with them in real life, are terrifyingly complicated. And seeing how insects behave, and putting myself in their place with their structures, asking myself, Would I behave exactly the same way? has both frightened and humiliated me. It is obvious to me they . . . 'think' . . . their lives are precious and worth preserving. However, there are rational limits to this kind of thinking.

The point is, THOUGH I HAVE NEVER EVER AVOCATED LIFE AS SUCH HAS ANY VALUE WHATSOEVER ESPECIALLY MINE, most entities do not feel this way. And, according to my own fascinating and utterly horrifying personal experience, this even applies to a foetus that cannot live outside the womb. So give bugs a moderate amount of mutual respect. The key word is 'moderate' as in 'moderating thinking', not 'minimal'. Is 'moderating thinking' a good Jud Evans' type term? Don't kill mice BECAUSE they are mice. And, for God's sake, please don't kill the squirrels. People here in Midland, Texas hate squirrels because they get in your attics. I find them the only enjoyable things I see in my walks. I stay more and more away from people as time goes on. I am a Robinson Crusoe in my own mind. Human beings are the problem, not the solution.

Now, that I have you completely distracted and upset, I STILL want to proceed with Baiget-Leigh-Lincoln's HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL!!!!!!!! I have got to chapter 7. I STILL think they proceed with great methodological rigor, though I also still think eventually they will betray me. I think it is totally unquestionable that Paul Smith - though what he said must be taken into account - is actually a kind of group reflex, 'it is expected of one to think the right way', type thinking. The authors constantly undermine and re-examine their thinking - and, so far, come to very reasonable conclusion, that is, they have PROVEN NOTHING WHATSOEVER overall, that all they really have is a number of coincidental points they and I can to a certain extent confirm individually.

SO, Jud asks, WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF ALL THIS? An excellent question! We are taught from childhood to develop a desire to be agreeable with others and that being obstinate and unreasonable in our opinions is the greatest sin. Now, Jud long ago decided in certain ways he was going to think for himself come hell or high water. Now my question is, If one is able to think independently in SOME important areas, philosophy, politics, so forth, does one REALLY think independently in ALL areas or does one get lazy, rely on other people to get it 'right' and lazily slide along in one's thinking? Richard has seen the disaster in that. If life is worth while . . . take note of that urgrund type statement . . . NOTHING should be taken at face value. You should doubt your mother is your mother. Actually, you probably did sometime when you were a child. SO WHY HAVE YOU STOPPED? Because raising all these questions causes a great deal of trouble with little or no reward and usually a great deal of pain. So . . . you need to pick your battles carefully.

Now, I am asking yall if you still want me to proceed in this endeavor? Or have you had enough? Paul Smith was a great embarrassment, and yet . . . there is great philosophical material there. Divert from what is probable thinking and analyze if 'probability' changes subtly into 'This is the way you SHOULD think. You mother tells you so!'

I go back to my - STILL - fundamental thesis, 'All thought is historical'. This is not deduced from facts analyzed by logic - though it can be - but one 'always already' knows this from everyday experience, AND that one's conclusions about the meaning and nature of everyday experience . . . CAN BE DEAD WRONG! 'One already knows . . . '

One does not 'already know' anything! One has experience. It just is. One places it within language, which has a long history, in a traditional manner - history - and logically deduces useful sense from it - which also is historically learned and derived. History is the fundamental ground of all and every knowledge. History is also wholly unreliable. One uses dark segments of history to stuff all of one's dirty laundry one does not want to see the light of day. History is an infinite multiform covering all and each case. History is the facts of the matter . . . and the fiction. So finding out what history is necessarily becomes finding out who you are. And secret societies, powers moving behind the scenes, definitely 'reflect' - well or very badly - the hidden things within your self that move behind the scenes of one's own decisions. This cannot be helped even if one is as logical and open as possible. There is always the problem of infinite historical regress. Why is one logical. Because it works. Work in what fashion? Who decided that purpose? Where did it really come from? Are you really sure you thought it up all by yourself, completely in the open, in broad daylight for everyone to see, without any shadows whatsoever? "I have determined those things are utterly trivial and not worth investigating.'

But there is nothing trivial. As John Locke explained in the experience of any one object, it becomes infinitely meaningful because its experience is the beginning and arbiter of all knowledge, yet in itself means absolutely nothing. It is amazing I have run across no one that examines this analysis existentially. Green & Grose do to a slight extent - but with them I think everything is going to dissolve into a kind of ultimate skepticism. YET WE KNOW THERE ARE POINTS OF KNOWLEDGE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN!

And having these 'random' points of knowledge . . . I, at least, am right back at determining, Do Baiget-Leigh-Lincoln have anything important to say? Or are they intellectual freaks and faddists?

So, what do you say?