Apex of Hierarchy

[Erling Jorgensen (950930.2240CDT)]

[Martin Taylor 950928 12:00]

The PCT hierarchy is built on the assumption that the controlled
perceptions are scalar variables. In other words, the ONLY
thing that is controlled, anywhere in the hierarchy, is "how
much of X there is in the world I perceive" where the answer
is a simple number.

I agree completely, but it sure muddles my mind what "control of
a system concept" refers to, under this arrangement. I guess I
mean the collating of principle-perceptions (or whatever) into
unique (scalar) perceptions higher up the hierarchy. But it's the
nature of that next layer up that's so confusing. The language
of Self or selves seems to be an "order reduction" type of
phenomenon, that gives us a metaphorical handle for speaking
of "whatever it is up/in there."

What makes the most sense to me at present is to think of system
concepts as "storied enterprises." Especially from a clinical
standpoint, it is useful to consider "what story is a person
controlling for?" Even the more abstract systems such as physics
or economics seem to be embedded in (socially constructed)
stories. If story is a different type of systemic thinking (from
some of the other things we've been calling system concepts), I
could even envision it as a 12th level, but who's to say at this
stage?

Getting back to the main thrust of your posting, on a single vs.
multiple apices at the very top of the hierarchy...

My personal preference is to see the biochemical intrinsic
variables as the primary controlled variables, which makes
error be the only criterion variable for the reorganization
control system. Bill prefers the top level to be a set of
ECUs with reference values of zero.

Another possibility is what I think I've heard Dick Robertson
refer to: A slow-grade, continual change of reference from the
reorganization system. Such a changing signal would simply
say, "We're not there yet."

Doesn't Zen Buddhism suggest such a role for "change"? Whole
spiritualities - of both East and West - have been built on a
similar longing.

Now, if there is such a hierarchy (meaning "if HPCT is a
correct approximation to reality"), then for there to be one
apex, there must be a single number that describes EVERYTHING
that really matters to the individual.

A single number, or a single direction -> "Better."
Self-actualization, anyone?

All the best,
        Erling