[From Rick Marken (940830.1330)]
Bill Powers (940830.0600 MDT) to Martin Taylor (940825 18:30) --
The CEV is identically p.
Of course.
This is a strange conversation.
You're telling me.
CEV is just another word for "perceptual signal."
Bingo.
Bill Powers (940830.0600 MDT) to Bruce Buchanan --
It would be informative for all if the participants [in the political
discussion] were to try to characterize their own arguments from the
standpoint of PCT: where the perceptions come from, what level of
perception might be involved, how higher perceptions depend on lower ones
and contribute to the states of still higher ones. If, for example, I
believe that people should not be controlled, I can identify this as a
principle-level reference signal. The means I propose to free them of
control would be a program-level control process, and the reason I think
they should be free of control would be at the system-concept level.
I believe that all people should be able to be in control of what matters to
themselves while interfering or conflicting with each other as little as
possible. I believe that, in many cases, in order to achieve this result,
people will have to be _willing_ (not be forced; be willing) to give up a
little of their own control. So my "program" of how to make my vision of
a perfect society come to light is simply to hope that people, on their own,
come to understand the benefits of cooperation; I am not only against using
coercion to achieve my vision; I know that coercion is just non-cooperation
in the extreme -- conflict. I see my vision of society as the essence of
what I think of as "liberalism"; it is based on the assumption that each
individual has the ability to see that voluntarily giving up some control _in
some circumstances_ can actually lead to better control for oneself and
others; it is based on the assumption that individuals can see that
cooperation (which involves loss of some personal control on some dimensions)
actually nets out to greater personal (and communal) control than would have
resulted otherwise.
I do not associate "liberalism" with "helping" others; this latter sort
of "well-intentioned" liberalism leads to giveaway, contingency based welfare
and unsolicited help programs that eliminate or interfere with individual
control. If, for example, people are able to control (without conflicting
with other people's controlling) by taking drugs, smoking, drinking,
marrying people of the same sex, not going to college, eating red meat or not
fastening their seat belts or whatever then my version of liberalism says "go
for it". The only "helping" programs I favor are those that help people (who
want it) learn to control whatever it is they want to control. These kinds
of helping programs are called "education"; the lack of willingness of this
society to make all kinds of high quality education - - basic, vocational,
technical, artistic, etc -- readily and easily available (including provision
of room and boad and recreational faciliaites for people living in situations
that are not "education-friendly") to all of its citizens is probably the
main reason why the public (in the US) is unable to understand the individual
pay-off of _voluntary_ cooperative controlling (as in health-care and
education itself).
In looking this over, I can see that my political beliefs could be considered
a potpouri including socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and
libertarianism. Could it be that each one of these political philosophies
actually has part of the story of control right; are we looking at another
story of the blind men and the elephant, or the donkey?
Best
Rick
