# An study essay on PCT **URL:** \ **Category:** CSG2016\ **Created:** [November 11, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/an-study-essay-on-pct/1067 "2016-11-11T17:00:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![EetuP](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@EetuP](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/EetuP)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/an-study-essay-on-pct/1067/1 "2016-11-11T17:00:28Z")
Dear list I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT. Comments and corrections are welcome. I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version. (and the English is what it is) Eetu Pikkarainen [PCT\_EP.pdf](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/short-url/jF88dUKDt7YPv8N6YhnxF0ODdAF.pdf) (660 KB) ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bob_Hintz)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/an-study-essay-on-pct/1067/2 "2016-11-11T22:27:31Z")
bob hintz 11-11-16 I enjoyed reading your document. As this seems to be part of a larger and more philosophical effort. My comments are directed toward what I am imagining that larger work is directed toward. 1. I have been thinking about the difference between the energy value of an output and the information value of that same output. I am not clear about the distinction between action and doing, but I am guessing that if I pull a chair out from a table and sit down, that would be a doing. If you are already sitting at that same table and recognize me, then my doing might signal the action of joining you for a meal. On the other hand, if you don’t recognize me, my doing might signal an inappropriate intrusion in your physical space. The meaning of my doing for the other person will depend on their interpretation and their output will provide information about that interpretation which will be related to my doing but might be quite different from my intended action. 2. An external environment that includes other human beings or even just other life forms is different from an environment that includes only objects. Objects do not initiate doing and can only react on the basis of energy transfer and mechanical laws. Subjects can initiate doing utilizing internally available energy organized in terms of their own references. 3. An internal environment involves physiological, psychological and sociological levels of control that require interaction with subjects other than oneself. Some of these others, I eat. Some I avoid because they will try to eat me. Some I join with to reproduce. In the case of humans, some I join with to create the world that we live in. Social interaction always involves at least two subjects and is different from subject/object interaction. Teachers who treat students as objects are seldom competent even though some students might succeed in learning something from such teachers. 4. Some external perceptions elicit immediate physiological responses (fight/flight/freeze) without conscious interpretation even though they might be judged inaccurate a moment later, ie., the snake that turns out to be stick. Some internal perceptions enter consciousness but don’t result in any doing, ie., I really want a drink or a cigarette but am trying to quit. This is an action that only the actor might perceive. I have two papers published 20 years ago that I have permission to share, if anyone is interested. One deals with conflict and the other written with Dan Miller deals with joined action. I know I can send them to individuals. I tried to post one here, but it bounced. bob > **···** > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen [eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi](mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi) wrote: > > > Dear list > > > > I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT. > > > > Comments and corrections are welcome. > > > > I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version. > > > > (and the English is what it is) > > > > Eetu Pikkarainen ---
**Author:** ![EetuP](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@EetuP](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/EetuP)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 8:35am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/an-study-essay-on-pct/1067/3 "2016-11-14T08:35:20Z")
[eetu pikkarainen 2016-11-14] Thank you Bob for comments! 1. Really, the difference between energy and information values of both input and output is an important question. Principally the distinction between action and doing is that of whole and part, but there is more, just as you thought. 2. Yes, PCT offers this helpful new distinction between objects and subjects in the environment. (I would add that especially human beings can initiate doings with relatively low internal energy which may have huge external consequences…) \< 1. This question has been traditionally discussed in educational theories, especially those called dialogical. But this has happened from quite idealistic premises. 2. I have thought on the basis of Greimassian semiotics that grasping or recognizing the meaning of any external experience is always immediate and not-deliberated. This does not necessarily lead to external doings, but something happens inside, as you said. Only afterwards we can start to interpret and “make meaningsâ€? (as s saying goes). We can deliberate alternatives of doing as you well described - probably there is always an internal conflict when we resist temptations? All this I have called internal action in my model. I would love to read your papers you mentioned. Could you try to send them straight to my email: [eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi](mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi) ? Best wishes, Eetu Pikkarainen > **···** > > **From:** Bob Hintz [[mailto:bob.hintz@gmail.com](mailto:bob.hintz@gmail.com)] > **Sent:** 12. marraskuuta 2016 0:28 > **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu > **Subject:** Re: An study essay on PCT > > bob hintz 11-11-16 > > I enjoyed reading your document. As this seems to be part of a larger and more philosophical effort. My comments are directed toward what I am imagining that larger work is directed toward. > > 1. I have been thinking about the difference between the energy value of an output and the information value of that same output. I am not clear about the distinction between action and doing, but I am guessing that if I pull a chair > out from a table and sit down, that would be a doing. If you are already sitting at that same table and recognize me, then my doing might signal the action of joining you for a meal. On the other hand, if you don’t recognize me, my doing might signal an > inappropriate intrusion in your physical space. The meaning of my doing for the other person will depend on their interpretation and their output will provide information about that interpretation which will be related to my doing but might be quite different > from my intended action. > > 2. An external environment that includes other human beings or even just other life forms is different from an environment that includes only objects. Objects do not initiate doing and can only react on the basis of energy transfer and > mechanical laws. Subjects can initiate doing utilizing internally available energy organized in terms of their own references. > > 3. An internal environment involves physiological, psychological and sociological levels of control that require interaction with subjects other than oneself. Some of these others, I eat. Some I avoid because they will try to eat me. > Some I join with to reproduce. In the case of humans, some I join with to create the world that we live in. Social interaction always involves at least two subjects and is different from subject/object interaction. Teachers who treat students as objects > are seldom competent even though some students might succeed in learning something from such teachers. > > 4. Some external perceptions elicit immediate physiological responses (fight/flight/freeze) without conscious interpretation even though they might be judged inaccurate a moment later, ie., the snake that turns out to be stick. Some internal > perceptions enter consciousness but don’t result in any doing, ie., I really want a drink or a cigarette but am trying to quit. This is an action that only the actor might perceive. > > I have two papers published 20 years ago that I have permission to share, if anyone is interested. One deals with conflict and the other written with Dan Miller deals with joined action. I know I can send them to individuals. I tried > to post one here, but it bounced. > > bob > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen [eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi](mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi) wrote: > > Dear list > I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT. > Comments and corrections are welcome. > I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version. > (and the English is what it is) > > Eetu Pikkarainen ---
**Author:** ![wmansell](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/wmansell/32/36_2.png) [@wmansell](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/wmansell)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 8:52am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/an-study-essay-on-pct/1067/4 "2016-11-14T08:52:58Z")
Hi everyone, I am not sure if my responses are getting through when I write a new email, so I am trying via a reply. Here is a new video on PCT and Darwin, you might like: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ3lY1U60MM](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DvQ3lY1U60MM&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=9rR2jocSxB7xfBC3kla9bt6JRQtlPjUyBZIg7Q99um4&s=rRBpigeZaJ1Osrme22nlR3e_kP-182jO586IFJTNLgg&e=) > **···** > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen [eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi](mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi) wrote: > > > [eetu pikkarainen 2016-11-14] > > >  > > > Thank you Bob for comments! > > >  > > > 1. Really, the difference between energy and information values of both input and output is an important question. Principally the distinction > > between  action and doing is that of whole and part, but there is more, just as you thought. > > >  > > > 1. Yes, PCT offers this helpful new distinction between objects and subjects in the environment. (I would add that especially human beings can > > initiate doings with relatively low internal energy which may have huge external consequences…) > > >  > > > 1. This question has been traditionally discussed in educational theories, especially those called dialogical. But this has happened from quite > > idealistic premises. > > >  > > > 1. I have thought on the basis of Greimassian semiotics that grasping or recognizing the meaning of any external experience is always immediate > > and not-deliberated. This does not necessarily lead to external doings, but something happens inside, as you said. Only afterwards we can start to interpret and “make meaningsâ€? (as s saying goes). We can deliberate alternatives of doing as you well described > > > > - probably there is always an internal conflict when we resist temptations? All this I have called internal action in my model. > > >  > > > I would love to read your papers you mentioned. Could you try to send them straight to my email: > > [eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi](mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi) ? > > >  > > >  > > > Best wishes, > > > Eetu Pikkarainen > > >  > > > **From:** Bob Hintz [[mailto:bob.hintz@gmail.com](mailto:bob.hintz@gmail.com)] > > **Sent:** 12. marraskuuta 2016 0:28 > > **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu > > **Subject:** Re: An study essay on PCT > > >  > > > bob hintz 11-11-16 > > >  > > > I enjoyed reading your document. As this seems to be part of a larger and more philosophical effort. My comments are directed toward what I am imagining that larger work is directed toward. > > >  > > > 1. I have been thinking about the difference between the energy value of an output and the information value of that same output. I am not clear about the distinction between action and doing, but I am guessing that if I pull a chair > > out from a table and sit down, that would be a doing. If you are already sitting at that same table and recognize me, then my doing might signal the action of joining you for a meal. On the other hand, if you don’t recognize me, my doing might signal an > > inappropriate intrusion in your physical space. The meaning of my doing for the other person will depend on their interpretation and their output will provide information about that interpretation which will be related to my doing but might be quite different > > from my intended action. > > >  > > > 2. An external environment that includes other human beings or even just other life forms is different from an environment that includes only objects. Objects do not initiate doing and can only react on the basis of energy transfer and > > mechanical laws. Subjects can initiate doing utilizing internally available energy organized in terms of their own references. > > >  > > > 3. An internal environment involves physiological, psychological and sociological levels of control that require interaction with subjects other than oneself. Some of these others, I eat. Some I avoid because they will try to eat me. > > Some I join with to reproduce. In the case of humans, some I join with to create the world that we live in. Social interaction always involves at least two subjects and is different from subject/object interaction. Teachers who treat students as objects > > are seldom competent even though some students might succeed in learning something from such teachers. > > >  > > > 1. Some external perceptions elicit immediate physiological responses (fight/flight/freeze) without conscious interpretation even though they might be judged inaccurate a moment later, ie., the snake that turns out to be stick. Some internal > > perceptions enter consciousness but don’t result in any doing, ie., I really want a drink or a cigarette but am trying to quit. This is an action that only the actor might perceive.  > > >  > > > I have two papers published 20 years ago that I have permission to share, if anyone is interested. One deals with conflict and the other written with Dan Miller deals with joined action. I know I can send them to individuals. I tried > > to post one here, but it bounced. > > >  > > > bob > > >  > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen [eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi](mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi) wrote: > > > Dear list > > I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT. > > Comments and corrections are welcome. > > I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version. > > (and the English is what it is) > > > > Eetu Pikkarainen > > >  > > – > > Dr Warren Mansell > Reader in Clinical Psychology > > School of Health Sciences > 2nd Floor Zochonis Building > University of Manchester > Oxford Road > Manchester M13 9PL > Email: [warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk](mailto:warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk) >  > Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589 >  > Website: [http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psych-2Dsci.manchester.ac.uk_staff_131406&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=9rR2jocSxB7xfBC3kla9bt6JRQtlPjUyBZIg7Q99um4&s=jKRqiPgjsDaMy7p3Z8TvT2bOWkhPaniU8lqczZAsE0w&e=) >  > Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - [Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.routledge.com_books_details_9780415738781_&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=9rR2jocSxB7xfBC3kla9bt6JRQtlPjUyBZIg7Q99um4&s=5LR2GEsBmU_kJJ0IMNNWszerdxGSVRuyScK9U10p1pc&e=) > > Available Now > > Check [www.pctweb.org](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.pctweb.org&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=9rR2jocSxB7xfBC3kla9bt6JRQtlPjUyBZIg7Q99um4&s=4DYrLjDJFZ6svYg7ZWTJnd94dZzYifCWNm0RVNxa2WQ&e=) for further information on Perceptual Control Theory ---
**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 2:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/an-study-essay-on-pct/1067/5 "2016-11-22T14:46:40Z")
Dear Eetu, I think it's very good job done. Speccially when you talked about PCT I think that you got the point. EP : It is important to stress that the control system is strictly speaking not controlling its environment or any object in its environment, but only its own perceptual state. HB : I hope Rick will understand what you wrote. Incredible. You got it in couple months and Rick couldn't grasp it in 40 years. I needed about 3 years. So you don't need any opinion from Rick, because his interpretation of Powers' work is just quackery which has no PCT and physiological evidences. It's just Ricks' confusion and manipulation, because he knows that people can be handled if they don't understand well. But your way is perfectly right and I would advise you to go exactly after Powers steps ? You don't need anything else specially not Ricks' tricky advices and his manipulations. EP : Any living being is more complex and especially a human being consists of probably at least millions of this kind of small units. HB : How did you come to this conclussion ? EP : The whole human being is a control system which consists of control systems and which uses its uncountable small control systems to control some bigger lines and affairs. HB : This statement is a little diverging from previous. Whether is uncountable or milion ? EP : This idea can be continued and social organizations can be similarly seen as control systems consisting of either smaller organizations or human beings. HB : I would rethink this idea with Maturana. He doesn't see the "social organism" the same as "biological organism"... His arguments are strong. All in all your essay is very good. Specialy your very precise understanding of PCT. Rick could learn something from you but he didn't according to his latest writings. Good luck, Boris EP : As we saw in the Figure 2 there was drawn a reference signal as an arrow coming to the comparator from above. Where does it come from? It is an output of another control unit which is hierarchically above it. The lower system is a part of the environment of the higher and that higher uses the lower to control its own perception by defining the reference level of the lower. > **···** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eetu Pikkarainen [[mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi](mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi)] > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 6:00 PM > To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu > Subject: An study essay on PCT > > Dear list > I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT. > Comments and corrections are welcome. > I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version. > (and the English is what it is) > > Eetu Pikkarainen ---
**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2016, 7:18am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/an-study-essay-on-pct/1067/6 "2016-12-05T07:18:20Z")
Dear Eetu, In the text bellow > **···** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eetu Pikkarainen [[mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi](mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi)] > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 1:05 PM > To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu > Subject: VS: An study essay on PCT > > [eetu pikkarainen 2016-11-24] > > EP : Thank you Boris for kind feedback! > > HB : I didin't only want to give you just kind feed-back but to honour a > great thinker. Your essay is one of the best PCT representations I saw in > last years. > > EP : As for your comments, I was using "at least millions" and "uncountable" > synonymously meaning "much more than I can understand at the moment". That > use was based on my defective knowledge about anatomy and physiology - which > I have now started to study at the elementary level at least. > > HB : I think that you'll grasp the point of physiological logic as fast a > you did PCT. I'm beggining to understand why Finnish School system is the > best. If there are people like you working in School system then it has to > be the best. > > EP : And yes, one must be more cautious when comparing social and biological > systems. There are very remarkable differences - as there are also between > one control system inside a biological organism and the whole biological > organism as a living control system. > > HB : 🙂 > > Boris > > Eetu Pikkarainen > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > Lďż˝hettďż˝jďż˝: Boris Hartman \<[boris.hartman@masicom.net](mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net)\> > Lďż˝hetetty: 22. marraskuuta 2016 16:46 > Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu > Aihe: RE: An study essay on PCT > > Dear Eetu, > > I think it's very good job done. Speccially when you talked about PCT I > think that you got the point. > > EP : > It is important to stress that the control system is strictly speaking not > controlling its environment or any object in its environment, but only its > own perceptual state. > > HB : I hope Rick will understand what you wrote. Incredible. You got it in > couple months and Rick couldn't grasp it in 40 years. I needed about 3 > years. So you don't need any opinion from Rick, because his interpretation > of Powers' work is just quackery which has no PCT and physiological > evidences. It's just Ricks' confusion and manipulation, because he knows > that people can be handled if they don't understand well. But your way is > perfectly right and I would advise you to go exactly after Powers steps ? > You don't need anything else specially not Ricks' tricky advices and his > manipulations. > > EP : > Any living being is more complex and especially a human being consists of > probably at least millions of this kind of small units. > > HB : How did you come to this conclussion ? > > EP : > The whole human being is a control system which consists of control systems > and which uses its uncountable small control systems to control some bigger > lines and affairs. > > HB : This statement is a little diverging from previous. Whether is > uncountable or milion ? > > EP : > This idea can be continued and social organizations can be similarly seen as > control systems consisting of either smaller organizations or human beings. > > HB : I would rethink this idea with Maturana. He doesn't see the "social > organism" the same as "biological organism"... His arguments are strong. > > All in all your essay is very good. Specialy your very precise understanding > of PCT. Rick could learn something from you but he didn't according to his > latest writings. > > Good luck, > > Boris > > EP : As we saw in the Figure 2 there was drawn a reference signal as an > arrow coming to the comparator from above. Where does it come from? It is an > output of another control unit which is hierarchically above it. The lower > system is a part of the environment of the higher and that higher uses the > lower to control its own perception by defining the reference level of the > lower. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eetu Pikkarainen [[mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi](mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi)] > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 6:00 PM > To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu > Subject: An study essay on PCT > > Dear list > I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT. > Comments and corrections are welcome. > I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version. > (and the English is what it is) > > Eetu Pikkarainen