Another economic question

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
81

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.27.0935 MST)]

Rick Marken (2010.02.27.0825) –

Shannon Williams (2010.02.26
22:30 CST) –

Martin does not control against power in these organizations.
He
controls for environments such that: if he does not like the
environment he thinks he can just ‘walk away’ from it.
Government
scares him because he cannot ‘walk away’ from it. He controls
for
perceptions of indepence and autonomy. Government is an
overwhelming threat to these perceptions.

Amateur long-distance psychoanalysis is insulting and arrogant, as
well as likely to be quite wrong. If you want to know what Martin’s
motives are, ask him, and if he thinks they are any of your business,
he’ll tell you.

Martin rarely answers what I consider my most basic questions-- he has
never answered my question about what he means by “freedom”,
for example – so it’s hard to have a coherent discussion with him. I
don’t think Shannon was doing psychoanalysis (aren’t you doing long
distance psychoanalysis by guessing that she is).

She was telling us what Martin is controlling for, what he is scared of,
what threatens him. Those are all complete guesses based on no
information at all – just subjective interpretations and knee-jerk
reactions to what Martin says. She is telling us he is scared and
overwhelmingly threatened. Is he really? If he isn’t, that’s an insulting
thing to say. If he is, it’s a cruel thing to say.

Why should Martin answer your questions? Is he on a witness stand and
obliged to do what you want him to do? You can keep asking if you like.
He will answer if he wants to.

[As you can see, Martin, I have a degree of sympathy for the Libertarian
point of view]

I would like to hear what Martin
has to say about why his concern about power seems to be focused only on
the federal government?

I can answer your question easily. He seems to be focused only on the
federal government because your interpretation of his words makes it look
that way to you. If you had some other interpretation, he would seem to
be doing something else. What anyone seems to be doing is determined by
the perceptual interpretations you bring to the situation. To find out
what a person is actually doing you have to ask him (the best way, if he
wants to answer) or do the Test (second best and not as accurate).
Relying only on your subjective impressions is the least reliable way to
find out what is going on inside someone else.

Best,

Bill P.

82

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.27.0930)]

Bill Powers (2010.02.27.0935 MST)–

She was telling us what Martin is controlling for, what he is scared of,
what threatens him. Those are all complete guesses based on no
information at all – just subjective interpretations and knee-jerk
reactions to what Martin says. She is telling us he is scared and
overwhelmingly threatened. Is he really? If he isn’t, that’s an insulting
thing to say. If he is, it’s a cruel thing to say.

You are telling us what Shannon is controlling for; those are also complete guesses based on no information at all. You are telling us she is being insulting or cruel. That seems insulting and cruel to me.

Why should Martin answer your questions? Is he on a witness stand and
obliged to do what you want him to do? You can keep asking if you like.
He will answer if he wants to.

Of course Martin’s not obliged to answer my questions. I didn’t say he was. The fact is, however, that he is not answering my questions, which is fine with me.

I would like to hear what Martin
has to say about why his concern about power seems to be focused only on
the federal government?

I can answer your question easily. He seems to be focused only on the
federal government because your interpretation of his words makes it look
that way to you.

I know! That’s what I said in my question.

To find out
what a person is actually doing you have to ask him (the best way, if he
wants to answer) or do the Test (second best and not as accurate).

I asked him.

Relying only on your subjective impressions is the least reliable way to
find out what is going on inside someone else.

That’s why I asked him. Geez.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

83

[Shannon Williams (2010.02.26 20.30 CST)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.27.0844 MST)]
Amateur long-distance psychoanalysis is insulting and arrogant, as well as
likely to be quite wrong. If you want to know what Martin's motives are, ask
him, and if he thinks they are any of your business, he'll tell you.

It never occurred to me that guessing that someone controls for
perceptions of autonomy and independence is insulting or arrogant. I
would think that many people control for these, and that some people
quite consciously and proudly control for them.

However, I do believe that Bill perceives my comments as
'long-distance psychoanalysis', and he perceives something about my
comments (probably their brevity and long-distanceness) as insulting
and arrogant. I respect his feelings and agree that if I cannot enter
into a proper discussion, then I should not enter into the discussion.
Since I don't have time to read and reply properly, I will simply
read and grit my teeth.

Mea culpa. Carry on.

Shannon

84

[From Kenny Kitzke (29.03.12)]

Your own inquiry, asking what CSG people think about “control,” including within politics and economics, is the source of the conflict.

Part of human autonomy is to determine what they think is good or bad, right or wrong at least for them. When those opinions are transferred to attempt to control what others think, conflict is certain and too complex and individualistic to expect a consensual agreement even on goals, much less means.

There is a solution. It involves a humble recognition that what is right or wrong is not up to an individual much less to what perceptions other individuals want you to control. Few people seem to grasp the solution and see it as just another form of control. I have found it rather liberating, a source of freedom and contentment that surpasses simple human understanding. Can a human exist in peace within a sea of conflict dealing daily with people of different beliefs and systems of reference perceptions?

I perceive it is possible to control one’s own perceptions reasonably well regardless of one’s environment, including other peoples opinions, including those of PCTers. PCT has helped me live more abundantly. I praise your discoveries and theories. And, answering your question I suspect will lead to conflict with others. Big deal. Is there anything new under the sun? What has mankind learned about politics, economics or psychology that show you the solution lies within them?

In a message dated 2/20/2010 2:03:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.20.0925 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.02.20.1142 UT) –

I don’t think Martin is a conservative. He is a libertarian. He is
opposed to progressive goals in principle, not because he believes
that they can be better achieved in other ways. He is opposed to
government and he is opposed to taxes. Period. He is attracted to
PCT because autonomous hierarchical control is compatible with his beliefs.

I don’t think a person can be summed up so simply, but I, too, think
I detect a pattern of libertarian principles behind Martin’s
writings. Thinking about Mike Acree, who is certainly a generous and
thoughtful PCTer who wants and expects the best for people, it’s
clear that there is nothing evil or underhanded about libertarians we
know. Mike, too, came to PCT (as you point out) because of the
statements in B:CP about autonomy and the bad effects of people
trying to control other people. I have argued for years with Mike,
but not about his ideals, which generally I share. I expect that as
we get to know Martin better we will see the same humanitarian goals
in the background.

The present arguments, I think, are off the track because they’re
focused on means rather than ends. The end which liberatians seek is,
if I understand properly, simply human autonomy. None of us
non-libertarians here is against human autonomy; in fact, PCTers in
particular not only are in favor of human automony, but think that
all living organisms are already autonomous: it’s their nature to be
autonomous, to be in control of their own experiences. So what are we
arguing about?

Martin, like other libertarians and anarchists, is against
governments because of the coercive power governments have. But here
we run into a contradiction. Are we not free to cooperate with each
other to create conditions that favor our own lives, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness? Are we not free to join together to oppose
anything that (or anyone who) threatens to disrupt and destroy those
conditions? To forbid cooperation would not seem the sort of thing a
benevolent humanitarian would do even if he could. But that is
exactly what opposition to a democratically elected government
entails. When those who try to destroy our liberty are not deterred
by admonitions, stern warnings, or laws, what alternative is left but
coercion? It’s either that, or submission and loss of everything.

Many try to take advantage of the benefits of cooperative action
without paying their way. We need government to deal with that
problem. But that isn’t the main problem. The main problem is
conflict within government itself. There is no agreement on the ends
we are supposedly all seeking. We don’t agree on who is upholding our
highest goals, and who is trying to do away with them. Each party,
each faction, sees the others as threats to all we hold dear.

It doesn’t matter what the different parties and factions believe in.
What matters is that they are in conflict. Almost all the resources
and energy that those in government can get together go into
cancelling resources and energy that others are deploying. Almost any
legislation proposed by any member of Congress is opposed by other
members. Government already works in a state of severe paralysis.
It’s much smaller than it looks.

Behind the conflict in government is conflict between people. That’s
where we should focus. Unless those conflicts are identified and
resolved, changing government will be futile. When they are resolved,
government will change automatically. We can focus on identifying
conflicts without taking sides against or for anyone – without
infringing on anyone’s autonomy. We can avoid either questioning or
believing facts or predictions. All that matters is what The People
want to do, and simultaneously want not to do.

Of all the conflicts I can think of, the one with the worst
consequences is the conflict over who gets to be in control and who
belongs among those who are controlled. I’d like to hear what the
list members think about that issue, in connection with politics,
economics, and so on.

Best,

Bill P.

85

Hi, Kenny –

Looks like you found an old one from me! 2010!

[From Kenny Kitzke (29.03.12)]

KK: Your own inquiry, asking what CSG people think about
“control,” including within politics and economics, is the
source of the conflict.

Part of human autonomy is to determine what they think is good or bad,
right or wrong at least for them. When those opinions are
transferred to attempt to control what others think, conflict is certain
and too complex and individualistic to expect a consensual agreement even
on goals, much less means.

There is a solution. It involves a humble recognition that what is
right or wrong is not up to an individual much less to what perceptions
other individuals want you to control. Few people seem to grasp the
solution and see it as just another form of control. I have found
it rather liberating, a source of freedom and contentment that surpasses
simple human understanding. Can a human exist in peace within
a sea of conflict dealing daily with people of different beliefs and
systems of reference perceptions?

BP: I disagree with you that an ideal God would insist on telling us what
to consider right and wrong. That would make dependent children of us
instead of responsible adults. It would encourage us to relax and let God
take care of everything important. It would give us prescriptions for how
to behave right so we would never have to think anything through
ourselves. God would manipulate our bodies and brains as if we were just
marionettes. Being omnipotent, the ideal God could do that at any time,
of course, but why would an ideal God want to do that?

I don’t want freedom and contentment if that’s the price I would have to
pay for them. I couldn’t, in fact, feel either free or content under such
conditions. It would be like taking a drug to avoid feeling bad when
someone I love is suffering. How can you love anyone and not want to feel
bad when they hurt?

Best,

Bill

···

At 09:57 AM 3/29/2012 -0400, Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

86

[From Rick Marken (2012.03.29.1715)]

BP: I disagree with you that an ideal God would insist on telling us what to
consider right and wrong. That would make dependent children of us instead
of responsible adults...

I don't want freedom and contentment if that's the price I would have to pay
for them...

That's not what god is about. God is there to confirm what you
already concluded is right or wrong. It works like this. First,
declare that you do only the will of god. Then say that what you have
concluded is right or wrong is what god thinks is right or wrong,
since you only do the will of god. And if someone says you are wrong
about what's right and wrong then you say that they are going against
the will of god and should be burned at the stake. That's why it's so
comforting to believe in god; it's great stake burning insurance. And
as the US moves deeper and deeper into the middle ages I think that's
the kind of insurance the government should be providing. And I'm sure
the current Supreme Court would find it constitutional.

Best

Rick

···

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Bill Powers <powers_w@frontier.net> wrote:
-----
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

87

[From Kenny Kitzke (29.03.12 21:00 EDT)]

Bill, forgive me if I am not impressed with what you conceive to be an ideal God. I think that telling Him how He should be is a bad plan. How about looking in the mirror? You think it’s somehow not ideal to have a God tell you what is right or wrong for you and turn around and tell Him what He should do to be ideal and acceptable to you.

It is clear to me that the God I trust in allows me to be autonomous—and you too. I am not His puppet. It is called free will. I am exercising it just to show that you are right about PCT. Your ideas about control of perception, internal and relational conflict are all right on. Unfortunately, your views about politics and economics have solved nothing that I am aware of in the environment and the record of all human kind has been similarly quite futile.

You can reject freedom and contentment. That is your choice. I guess you prefer whining and complaining about the political and economic system and want to improve them based on your adult wisdom. Have at it. They don’t bother me none. That is my choice.

Anyway, check your conflict meter. I am just disturbing you and testing PCT. How will you behave?

I have no desire to control you, Good night and rest in peace. As far as Rickster, he is amazing knowing more about me and God believers and why we do what we do than I do. He is not even capable of being civil as PCTer after PCTer have tasted his venom and leaves the forum. I won’t react or leave. I love PCT too much.

In a message dated 3/29/2012 12:30:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

[From Kenny Kitzke (29.03.12)]

KK: Your own inquiry, asking what CSG people think about "control," including within politics and economics, is the source of the conflict.

Part of human autonomy is to determine what they think is good or bad, right or wrong at least for them.  When those opinions are transferred to attempt to control what others think, conflict is certain and too complex and individualistic to expect a consensual agreement even on goals, much less means.

There is a solution.  It involves a humble recognition that what is right or wrong is not up to an individual much less to what perceptions other individuals want you to control.  Few people seem to grasp the solution and see it as just another form of control.  I have found it rather liberating, a source of freedom and contentment that surpasses simple human understanding.   Can a human exist in peace within a sea of conflict dealing daily with people of different beliefs and systems of reference perceptions?

Hi, Kenny –

Looks like you found an old one from me! 2010!
At 09:57 AM 3/29/2012 -0400, Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

BP: I disagree with you that an ideal God would insist on telling us what to consider right and wrong. That would make dependent children of us instead of responsible adults. It would encourage us to relax and let God take care of everything important. It would give us prescriptions for how to behave right so we would never have to think anything through ourselves. God would manipulate our bodies and brains as if we were just marionettes. Being omnipotent, the ideal God could do that at any time, of course, but why would an ideal God want to do that?

I don’t want freedom and contentment if that’s the price I would have to pay for them. I couldn’t, in fact, feel either free or content under such conditions. It would be like taking a drug to avoid feeling bad when someone I love is suffering. How can you love anyone and not want to feel bad when they hurt?

Best,

Bill

88

Hi, k --

And if someone says you are wrong
about what's right and wrong then you say that they are going against
the will of god and should be burned at the stake. That's why it's so
comforting to believe in god; it's great stake burning insurance.

Is that really what you think is behind Kenny Kitzke's belief in God? That he would burn people at the stake if he could?

Bill

89

Hi, Kenny –

It is clear to me that the God I
trust in allows me to be autonomous—and you too. I am not His
puppet. It is called free will.

Good. Then you can make up your own mind about what is right and wrong,
like the rest of us. If I were to believe in a God, I’d like Him to
permit me to be autonomous, too. However, that idea of being permitted to
be autonomous is uncomfortable – that means the permit could be revoked
if I wasn’t careful about what I did with my autonomy, which doesn’t
sound like real autonomy to me.

I am exercising it just to
show that you are right about PCT. Your ideas about control of
perception, internal and relational conflict are all right on.
Unfortunately, your views about politics and economics have solved
nothing that I am aware of in the environment and the record of all human
kind has been similarly quite futile.

Then what is God waiting for? He knows what has to be done to solve the
problems, doesn’t He? Is He trying to teach us a lesson the hard way?
Sink or swim? Does He just enjoy watching Us struggle? Excuse me,
no capital on “us.”

You can reject freedom and
contentment. That is your choice. I guess you prefer whining
and complaining about the political and economic system and want to
improve them based on your adult wisdom.

It’s not freedom and contentment that I reject. It’s the price tag:
losing control over my life, which nullifies any freedom and contentment
I might be offered. Isn’t that called selling your soul for thirty pieces
of silver, or a mess of pottage, or whatever?

I don’t do much whining and complaining about politics and the economic
system – not lately, and not compared to what lots of others do. I’ve
been trying for a long time to figure out how the economic system we live
in works, to see if maybe it could be fixed. What are you doing about it,
waiting for God to fix it for you? He’s had a long time to do that, and
hasn’t done much more to improve either politics or economics than I
have. I’m not sure I can see any signs of error-correction from Above.
Well, I guess things are better than they used to be, but I don’t see any
signs of genius in the improvements. It looks more like typical debugging
of a complex experimental system, by ordinary people who have only a
vague idea of what they’re doing.

Have at it. They don’t
bother me none. That is my choice.

Anyway, check your conflict meter. I am just disturbing you and
testing PCT. How will you behave?
I have no desire to control
you, Good night and rest in peace. As far as Rickster, he is
amazing knowing more about me and God believers and why we do what we do
than I do. He is not even capable of being civil as PCTer after
PCTer have tasted his venom and leaves the forum. I won’t react or
leave. I love PCT too much.

No conflict about that particular subject. I got over that when I was
about 12 or 13, when I finally dared God to strike me dead if he really
existed. The answer to that settled the issue for me. Afterward I was
pretty mad about letting myself be duped into that pointless act of
defiance, though the feelings that arose helped me understand why a lot
of people would really be troubled at the idea of doing it. I understand
a lot of things about religion – for example I truly understand why
people want to believe in an afterlife. There were times in late 2004
when that became poignantly obvious to me.

Good, I like having you around. You don’t have to be like me. You can
react any way you like, and I’ll just MOL back at you. You know how that
works.

Best,

Bill P.

90

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Mar 29 1956 MDT]

[From Rick Marken (2012.03.29.1715)]

BP: I disagree with you that an ideal God would insist on telling us
what to
consider right and wrong. That would make dependent children of us
instead
of responsible adults...

I don't want freedom and contentment if that's the price I would have
to pay
for them...

That's not what god is about. God is there to confirm what you
already concluded is right or wrong. It works like this. First,
declare that you do only the will of god. Then say that what you have
concluded is right or wrong is what god thinks is right or wrong,
since you only do the will of god. And if someone says you are wrong
about what's right and wrong then you say that they are going against
the will of god and should be burned at the stake. That's why it's so
comforting to believe in god; it's great stake burning insurance. And
as the US moves deeper and deeper into the middle ages I think that's
the kind of insurance the government should be providing. And I'm sure
the current Supreme Court would find it constitutional.

It is comforting to believe in god because it makes sense to a social
intelligence. We are social animals living by our intelligence, but it
was a social intelligence, discerning motives and personalities, and we
did the same when it became important to understand the natural world.
These imputed personalities and motives could actually have predictive
value, for what animals are thinking, winds from certain directions are
likely to mean, where minerals like to hide, how certain rocks react to
being struck, etc. Our intelligence sought meaning and intent in the
world. The values of the various formal religions, at least the ones
that survived, reinforced within group cohesion, cooperation, sacrifice,
sharing, discipline, conformity, fanaticism and fervor. These helped
their believers to survive in the natural world, and in group competition.
Humans also have a tendency to mistrust, demonize and dehumanize the
other or outgroup. These too are human values that have probably been
important in group competition.

I think someplace along the way, the within group cohesion became so
important to survival, that people who found them especially pleasant and
preferable, had an advantage and are our ancestors. In last few thousand
years, this has left us vulnerable to universalizing these ingroup
"virtues" to ever larger collective identities, all humanity, all animals,
all life, the environment, gaia, etc. We obviously still can have mass
societies where hate and dehumanization are socially acceptable, as the
recent US past when fighting krauts, japs or gooks, or in Nazi germany
about jews, slavs, communists and gypsies, Ireland's catholics and
protestants, the Islamic world's social acceptance of hatred of the jews,
etc. These are "human" values too.

Religious belief probably should be considered normal for humans, and
evidence based reason, a slightly unnatural learned discipline.

When are the secular humanists going to get together and finally admit,
that the mocking, vitriol and dehumanization that is part of many of their
social communities is "human" too. And that perhaps humans are not fit to
rule other humans except under a discipline that limits, checks and holds
government to standards, and incorporates supermajority protections for
minorities and individuals. As Sarah Palin said, she is a conservative
because of the fallen nature of man. The humans that lived these
religions were every bit as intelligent as us. They knew something about
human nature, so perhaps when religious wisdom and scientific
understanding converge, it is not just a coincidence. After centuries and
millennia of coevolution with humans, it should be no surprise that
religions make so much sense to so many people.

Martin L

···

On 3/29/12 5:16 PM, "Richard Marken" <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Bill Powers <powers_w@frontier.net> >wrote:

Best

Rick
-----
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com