clinical or spiritual issues: stress and PCT

[Jason_Gosnell]

[From Jason Gosnell (01.24.2006 1650CDT)]

I feel I may be going backwards as I write this...I think I know the
answer, but I want to get some feedback. Recently, I have been reading
an interesting book on "stress" coming from the psych-spiritual area. I
want to ask a question of the more seasoned PCTers...

First issue: This author--Peter Fenner--basically recapitulates
Buddhisms 4 noble truths...in it he states the 2nd truth as: stress is
essentially caused by conflicting beliefs and not outer events in
themselves. The secret to overcoming stress is to resolve these
conflicting beliefs. Simple, right? So, does this mean the same thing as
in PCT when we say conflicting perceptions result in a subjective sense
of distress for the organism or the system? If we take perception very
broadly as PCT does (and most others don't--they seem to see perception
as limited to "sensation-perception") and include "belief" as a kind of
perceptual experience...this is the same basis for
MOL-awareness-reorganization...right?

Second issue: Can we also say that growth requires these conflicts occur
as matter of living and developing? Therefore "stress" is indispensable
to the overall process of individual development (as distasteful as it
might be to the person)? Maybe one view anyway...

Third issue: But, belief is just representative of one level right? Or
does belief extend into other levels of control below the self-system
level? I suspect that belief intermingles with other levels of
experience--or it just interprets them, for example, as a person tries
to account for or deal with an "irregular" heartbeat (already a kind of
interpretation) there is a lower level perception or the raw experience
of the heart skipping or accelerating (again--perhaps already
interpretations)--then at the level of thinking and perhaps the "self",
there are various hypotheses or stories that intermingle with this raw
experience...and out of that, of course, mental prescriptions about what
to do: "I better go to the doctor--this is a problem." What do you know
about this? Forgive me if I forget my basics.

By the way, if you stated Buddhism's 4 noble truths in PCT terms I think
it might look like this...

1. Life is filled with stress or suffering
2. Stress is caused by conflicting perceptions
3. There is a way to resolve these conflicts and therefore to resolve
stresses
4. The way is awareness-MOL-reorganization...or one could say growth
even? Or development? (Perhaps growth is much more of an interpretation
of an ongoing process and is a useful term for the psychology field that
concerns itself with "growth" or maturation.)

What do you think? Set me straight if you see the need to please.

Regards, Jason Gosnell

[B_Thalhammer]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.24.1725 CST)]

Jason, you do a lot of things here, but let's get stuff pared down a bit? You write after introducing Fenner's gloss of Buddhism's 4 noble truths. You write about the overcoming of stress being the outcome of resolving conflicting beliefs. Ok. The basic thing there is conflict, in this case internal conflict due to inability to control 2 or more perceptions at close to zero error. Conflict happens because the reduction of error in one or more of those control systems actually increases error in the others. And the reverse happens as well. So you can't reduce error for long and the whole system experiences chronic error as an outcome of this situation. This is how I understand your first issue:

So, having a belief is the maintenance of a perceptions at the program/principle/system image level. It could be a system image level perception, so that the belief is a strong part of who you are. It could be a principle, also a part of who you are, but less complex than a system image. I think it could even be a program, or a way of acting that supports a principle or system image perception. When the maintenance of two beliefs does not reduce chronic error, then three things may have to happen: 1) The gain on both has to be reduced, so that a flip-flop occurs (hehe), and the lowering of error in one does not quickly increase the error in the other. 2) One is abandoned or no longer maintained, so that the other predominates resulting in lower chronic error. 3) A new control system for the two is reorganized (learning occurs) that manages the two in a better way than the previously unsuccessful balancing act.

Second issue: Growth is learning, or growing up, or handling things better. We see this in kids in somebody's scale (I forget) where kids can manipulate and navigate in one concept, but not along with another. Later, they build a way of dealing with both successfully. But before that happens, they can experience stress or error by not performing or interacting well. Reorganization, or the development of new control systems for controlling the others that are bouncing into one another, is learning, which from the point of the observer is growth. How is that?

Third issue: I think I addressed this above, but it is my opinion only, but I think that belief (which we ordinarily associate with super-duper high level perceptions [thanks Sam]) could be as limited or basic as a program. You know, a belief that is more like OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder) is a program that MUST be done or the world will fall apart? There is no justification, there is no explanation, except that the routine must be done--sounds like a belief. Much like unreasonable beliefs about "things" and "people." So, perhaps what we commonly call a belief can range in complexity from programs to system images? Could that be?

OK, Could you also list the 4 noble truths in an english trans of the original? Then list the 4 PCT glosses of them and we can better see how to interpret the rewrite? As you have them, I don't see PCT there, and I am not sure of what is being re-written, so I can't critique yet.

Does all this make sense?

Thanks!

--Bryan

···

[Jason Gosnell (01.24.2006 1650CDT)]

I feel I may be going backwards as I write this...I think I know the
answer, but I want to get some feedback. Recently, I have been reading
an interesting book on "stress" coming from the psych-spiritual area. I
want to ask a question of the more seasoned PCTers...

First issue: This author--Peter Fenner--basically recapitulates
Buddhisms 4 noble truths...in it he states the 2nd truth as: stress is
essentially caused by conflicting beliefs and not outer events in
themselves. The secret to overcoming stress is to resolve these
conflicting beliefs. Simple, right? So, does this mean the same thing as
in PCT when we say conflicting perceptions result in a subjective sense
of distress for the organism or the system? If we take perception very
broadly as PCT does (and most others don't--they seem to see perception
as limited to "sensation-perception") and include "belief" as a kind of
perceptual experience...this is the same basis for
MOL-awareness-reorganization...right?

Second issue: Can we also say that growth requires these conflicts occur
as matter of living and developing? Therefore "stress" is indispensable
to the overall process of individual development (as distasteful as it
might be to the person)? Maybe one view anyway...

Third issue: But, belief is just representative of one level right? Or
does belief extend into other levels of control below the self-system
level? I suspect that belief intermingles with other levels of
experience--or it just interprets them, for example, as a person tries
to account for or deal with an "irregular" heartbeat (already a kind of
interpretation) there is a lower level perception or the raw experience
of the heart skipping or accelerating (again--perhaps already
interpretations)--then at the level of thinking and perhaps the "self",
there are various hypotheses or stories that intermingle with this raw
experience...and out of that, of course, mental prescriptions about what
to do: "I better go to the doctor--this is a problem." What do you know
about this? Forgive me if I forget my basics.

By the way, if you stated Buddhism's 4 noble truths in PCT terms I think
it might look like this...

1. Life is filled with stress or suffering
2. Stress is caused by conflicting perceptions
3. There is a way to resolve these conflicts and therefore to resolve
stresses
4. The way is awareness-MOL-reorganization...or one could say growth
even? Or development? (Perhaps growth is much more of an interpretation
of an ongoing process and is a useful term for the psychology field that
concerns itself with "growth" or maturation.)

What do you think? Set me straight if you see the need to please.

Regards, Jason Gosnell

[Jason_Gosnell]

[Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.24.1725 CST)]

OK, Could you also list the 4 noble truths in an english trans of the
original? Then list the 4 PCT glosses of them and we can better see how

to interpret the rewrite? As you have them, I don't see PCT there, and

I

am not sure of what is being re-written, so I can't critique yet.

[from Jason Gosnell (1.24.2006 1955 CDT)]

Thanks Bryan--I agree with most every point below. Sorry I could not
package this up very well before sending it--it felt scattered. It still
is. There are some points of yours I need to process a bit more. For
now...the classic or traditional way--although some Buddhists
disagree--of writing the four noble truths is:

1. The first noble truth, is the truth of suffering. The Buddha explains
that life in samsara (the ego's world of maya, or illusion) contains the
seeds of suffering.

2. The second noble truth, is the truth of the origin of suffering. The
origin of suffering is craving. craving for sensual desires, craving for
being, craving for non-being, craving for more, better, etc.

3. The third noble truth, is the truth of the cessation of suffering. It
says quite simply that suffering caused by craving can be understood,
penetrated, and overcome.

4. The fourth noble truth, is the truth of the path which leads to the
cessation of suffering. Namely, the Eightfold Path. This is the path
which, if followed and practiced, can lead us to salvation in this very
lifetime.

(note, the main feature of the 8 fold path is meditation or awareness)

PCT glosses...looks nothing like the above as I ran it mentally through
the Fenner version(which now I see I need to review and clarify...I
don't have it with me now, so I'll check it out later):

1. Life is filled with stress or suffering
2. Stress is caused by conflicting perceptions
3. There is a way to resolve these conflicts and therefore to resolve
stresses
4. The way is awareness-MOL-reorganization...or one could say growth
even? Or development?

Please give me your PCT version if it seems do-able...

Now, I am going to complete my mess in a flourish of activity which ends
in death I think...Here goes, my summary-modification of the above
anyway--life and suffering go together to some degree--and suffering or
stress is largely maintained by craving which is bound up in our
thinking and beliefs to a large extent...essentially maintaining an
attachment to beliefs (rigidity you could say) that no longer work or
meet the needs of the moment or of the person. Although a Buddhist would
probably say any attachment to beliefs or thinking doesn't work or
favors suffering, because when one holds views too tightly, there is an
inability to accommodate the shifting reality of living--that's one
version of it. So, the two points would be: 1. attaching to views that
aren't useful somehow, and 2. attaching to views period. In other words,
one cause of suffering or stress is simply inflexibility. The third and
the fourth truths can be basically reduced to meditation or mindfulness
as the primary tool for studying the self, and then other factors like
ethics/morality, and so on as practices. In Buddhism, the study of the
self is important for this whole process--how the self is organized and
how suffering comes out of our views and actions...basically. There is a
difference in Buddhism between pain and suffering--suffering (and
stress) is usually seen as a resistance to unchangeable facts, or
fighting "reality", whereas pain is understood to be an unavoidable
occurrence. So, acceptance of pain is usually emphasized and may include
a response to it as well--like taking aspirin for example. There are
endless caveats to this of course.

It appears to me that Fenner's version of number four is a method for
developing a general non-attachment to thinking and views or beliefs--so
they still arise, but one's attitude towards them is impersonal or
accepting without clinging to them. I'll have to review the method and
see if it equates to PCT at all. In most modern versions of Buddhism, it
is attachment to thinking or beliefs in the 2nd truth that is seen as
the issue behind craving or that co-arises with craving...i.e., craving
for things to be other than what they are--or you could say favoring
"what should be" OVER "what is actually going on." They don't speak much
to the organizing or developing system in general. It's more of a
general approach of non-attachment to views. To summarize this, some old
Zen master said simply, "the wise reject what they think, not what they
see...the foolish reject what they see, not what they think." Reject may
be too strong, but that's the general idea.

This is still fragmented I can see. My apologies...I'm going to go off
here and go for broke. Anyway, the PCT version might agree with regard
to the issue of attaching to thought as Bill P. has said before that
being too identified with thinking is itself problematic. To go back to
Buddhism, a more basic way to say how this is problematic is that the
original mind they claim we all have is awareness itself--when
attachment to thinking becomes predominant--awareness and in effect
contact with the present moment gets crowded out and one actually
experiences this as stress--like an alienation from self type stress.
Not an alienation from self as a kind of object of the mind, but
alienation from presence or awareness which is Self. That is, to be too
identified/attached with thinking is felt as stress because one loses
contact with the deepest aspects of one's self--which is awareness or
the here and now self. I don't know, this is an idea I am investigating
though. And, this is based on some of my reading. Now, there are two
types of thinking in seems to me (sorry to add more, but this is
important I think) 1. which is habitual or our programming, and 2.
creative thought which is coming out of being present--it is fresh
thought and therefore free of attachment of any kind--that is, it is not
there to maintain a sense of self at all when it comes forth, or it is
fresh thinking about the self. The second type of thinking is actually a
big part of Zen expression, so that type of thinking is valued in
Zen--it's free flowing thinking, as opposed to stifled, repetitive and
self-protective thinking. In other forms of Buddhism, this creative
distinction is not usually made...so Buddhism often appears to be
anti-thinking or anti-belief...and anti-self. Hence, the nihilistic
labels it often gets. Maybe deservedly so in some cases.

I don't know that I answered anything. I created a lot of questions for
myself though. If you can bring any order to this...? Please do.

Regards, Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of B. Thalhammer
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:28 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: clinical or spiritual issues: stress and PCT

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.24.1725 CST)]

Jason, you do a lot of things here, but let's get stuff pared down a
bit? You write after introducing Fenner's gloss of Buddhism's 4 noble
truths. You write about the overcoming of stress being the outcome of
resolving conflicting beliefs. Ok. The basic thing there is conflict, in

this case internal conflict due to inability to control 2 or more
perceptions at close to zero error. Conflict happens because the
reduction of error in one or more of those control systems actually
increases error in the others. And the reverse happens as well. So you
can't reduce error for long and the whole system experiences chronic
error as an outcome of this situation. This is how I understand your
first issue:

So, having a belief is the maintenance of a perceptions at the
program/principle/system image level. It could be a system image level
perception, so that the belief is a strong part of who you are. It could

be a principle, also a part of who you are, but less complex than a
system image. I think it could even be a program, or a way of acting
that supports a principle or system image perception. When the
maintenance of two beliefs does not reduce chronic error, then three
things may have to happen: 1) The gain on both has to be reduced, so
that a flip-flop occurs (hehe), and the lowering of error in one does
not quickly increase the error in the other. 2) One is abandoned or no
longer maintained, so that the other predominates resulting in lower
chronic error. 3) A new control system for the two is reorganized
(learning occurs) that manages the two in a better way than the
previously unsuccessful balancing act.

Second issue: Growth is learning, or growing up, or handling things
better. We see this in kids in somebody's scale (I forget) where kids
can manipulate and navigate in one concept, but not along with another.
Later, they build a way of dealing with both successfully. But before
that happens, they can experience stress or error by not performing or
interacting well. Reorganization, or the development of new control
systems for controlling the others that are bouncing into one another,
is learning, which from the point of the observer is growth. How is
that?

Third issue: I think I addressed this above, but it is my opinion only,
but I think that belief (which we ordinarily associate with super-duper
high level perceptions [thanks Sam]) could be as limited or basic as a
program. You know, a belief that is more like OCD (obsessive-compulsive
disorder) is a program that MUST be done or the world will fall apart?
There is no justification, there is no explanation, except that the
routine must be done--sounds like a belief. Much like unreasonable
beliefs about "things" and "people." So, perhaps what we commonly call a

belief can range in complexity from programs to system images? Could
that be?

OK, Could you also list the 4 noble truths in an english trans of the
original? Then list the 4 PCT glosses of them and we can better see how
to interpret the rewrite? As you have them, I don't see PCT there, and I

am not sure of what is being re-written, so I can't critique yet.

Does all this make sense?

Thanks!

--Bryan

[Jason Gosnell (01.24.2006 1650CDT)]

I feel I may be going backwards as I write this...I think I know the
answer, but I want to get some feedback. Recently, I have been reading
an interesting book on "stress" coming from the psych-spiritual area.

I

want to ask a question of the more seasoned PCTers...

First issue: This author--Peter Fenner--basically recapitulates
Buddhisms 4 noble truths...in it he states the 2nd truth as: stress is
essentially caused by conflicting beliefs and not outer events in
themselves. The secret to overcoming stress is to resolve these
conflicting beliefs. Simple, right? So, does this mean the same thing

as

in PCT when we say conflicting perceptions result in a subjective

sense

of distress for the organism or the system? If we take perception very
broadly as PCT does (and most others don't--they seem to see

perception

as limited to "sensation-perception") and include "belief" as a kind

of

perceptual experience...this is the same basis for
MOL-awareness-reorganization...right?

Second issue: Can we also say that growth requires these conflicts

occur

as matter of living and developing? Therefore "stress" is

indispensable

to the overall process of individual development (as distasteful as it
might be to the person)? Maybe one view anyway...

Third issue: But, belief is just representative of one level right? Or
does belief extend into other levels of control below the self-system
level? I suspect that belief intermingles with other levels of
experience--or it just interprets them, for example, as a person tries
to account for or deal with an "irregular" heartbeat (already a kind

of

interpretation) there is a lower level perception or the raw

experience

of the heart skipping or accelerating (again--perhaps already
interpretations)--then at the level of thinking and perhaps the

"self",

there are various hypotheses or stories that intermingle with this raw
experience...and out of that, of course, mental prescriptions about

what

to do: "I better go to the doctor--this is a problem." What do you

know

about this? Forgive me if I forget my basics.

By the way, if you stated Buddhism's 4 noble truths in PCT terms I

think

it might look like this...

1. Life is filled with stress or suffering
2. Stress is caused by conflicting perceptions
3. There is a way to resolve these conflicts and therefore to resolve
stresses
4. The way is awareness-MOL-reorganization...or one could say growth
even? Or development? (Perhaps growth is much more of an

interpretation

of an ongoing process and is a useful term for the psychology field

that

concerns itself with "growth" or maturation.)

What do you think? Set me straight if you see the need to please.

Regards, Jason Gosnell

[B_Thalhammer]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.24.2125 CST)]

Whew, I looked at the Eightfold Path on Wiki, and I think that from the mystic point of view, probably PCT and what you write could not be put in parallel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path&gt;\.

But I think that both Bill and the Buddhist writer of the noble truths seem to acknowledge the existence of conflict that is part of being a living control system. But beyond that, each writer has a different purpose. Bill's, as I understand, is a scientific one, that of proposing an explanation of behavior (and therefore the internal conflict that is part of being alive), whereas the Buddhist writer is instead proposing an application or a treatment for that conflict, how to deal with it, much like Ed Ford and the Responsible Thinking Process (RTP). Both the Buddhist writer and Ed, as I understand, while they understand the basic problem that conflict presents, would care less of the theory conflict and more of solving the problem of conflict.

(Point of order here, I think that over coffee, we would have a lot more opportunity to negotiate and collaborate in finding mutual understanding of where each of us is, and how we both control the perceptions of these words. So my unilateral writing here always implies my seeking to come closer, or at least, to identify differences. I may take pokes at ideas, but not at you. Were this a real convo, we would have more mutual empathy than these words.)

1. The first noble truth, is the truth of suffering. The Buddha explains
that life in samsara (the ego's world of maya, or illusion) contains the
seeds of suffering.

Suffering. Seems to me that this is a philosophical description of the discomfort experienced when internal conflict is high, due to the chronic error suffered in two or more control systems because their perceptual signals are not matching with their respective reference signals, and moreover, outputs that try to reduce error in one or more control systems drives up error in one or more other control systems: Like: "Two steps forward, and three steps backwards. I never get ahead. The more I want the less I get." There is no higher level control system for pulling back, for stepping away, for stopping one's acting in the face of increasing chronic error.

2. The second noble truth, is the truth of the origin of suffering. The
origin of suffering is craving. craving for sensual desires, craving for
being, craving for non-being, craving for more, better, etc.

Craving. Another philosophical description of something that PCT also describes (as well as other behavioral and psychological paradigms). Seems to me that craving is like the biological basis of control. Remember that since PCT is an explanation that works for unicelluar organisms as well as humans, control (and maybe craving) has to be able to explain life. At the lowest levels of life, control has to do with maintaining life in spite of environmental disturbances. Craving, if we can use that for a metaphor for control, is the living control system's propensity (or that of its DNA) to not become ballistic, staying intact in spite of external energies. I would guess that as control becomes more complex, and as perceptions are reorganized at the level of self-awareness, craving/control can be for all kinds of things, some which further the existence of the individual, some which are benign, and perhaps others, like having the exhilerating sensations of experiencing risk, those that may end the control potential for this individual. The problem of craving, perhaps, from the point of view of PCT, is that it is agnostic as it sends outputs through its environment of lower level control systems. Craving can suck away energies from beneficial outputs to both benign and self-destructive outputs. Unabatted craving, or multi-system control with high gain that tears up a system clearly needs to be focused by reorganizing some control system that coordinates the natural control process that better reduce error at the system image level.

3. The third noble truth, is the truth of the cessation of suffering. It
says quite simply that suffering caused by craving can be understood,
penetrated, and overcome.

Reorganization of higher level control systems (probably at the levels of programs, principles, and system image can reduce suffering or the experience of high chronic error. While this may not be important so long as the organism continues to survive to pass on its genes and in some cases memes, the experience of lowered chronic error may be desirable.

4. The fourth noble truth, is the truth of the path which leads to the
cessation of suffering. Namely, the Eightfold Path. This is the path
which, if followed and practiced, can lead us to salvation in this very
lifetime.

Here (and probably even above) PCT and Buddhist noble truths may diverge, just as PCT and RTP might diverge. In the first case, PCT is a matter of explanation and prediction in the light of certain conditions, but in the two second cases, that explanation is used as a vehicle for a presumed beneficial treatment of interpersonal and social problems. Nothing wrong in those differences, in my opinion, of course, but I think each paradigm (?) achieves different things. With regard to the 8fold path, I read the word "right" too many times, and I had to think that PCT and the 8fold path were not necessarily consistent: "knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of sadness" seems to be observer-based, or perhaps just not clear enough to compare with PCT. Perhaps knowledge is not a program, principle or system image perception, but rather a way of describing the process of reorganization, different in each person. Nothing usable in a PCT experiment, but if a student or client of monk or RTP practitioner can focus on reducing gain, abandoning maintaining a perception in favor of another or in favor of just letting it go, or finding a way to balance control outputs, then that reorganization process might be similar to the first element, as it might be also similar to the other "right" elements. Some of these elements seem to be related to a reduction in gain that might otherwise send disruptive outputs into the social environment. The 8fold path seeks to reduce disruptive behaviors which ultimately bring on control attempts that increase chronic error. That last statement is a big part of what we have been squabbling about on this forum when we talk about "I see you have chosen," "trolling," and other things.

To be sure that we do not mix spiritual or metaphysical things here, it is presumed that the 8fold path would be directed at controlling perceptions of personal and interpersonal events, so Right thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, concentration, etc. are perceptions at the program, principle or system image level that coordinate control while maintaining the lowest possible chronic error. At least, that is a way of trying to speak of the noble truths and the 8fold path in terms of PCT in a one-off passage.

The hard thing for me is to stay with measurable and testable descriptions, that could be observed or at least reported in an experiment similar to that of Testing the Self as a Control System.

Folks, I am just chatting with Jason here, so I am not putting out an anchor or drawing a line. The notion that PCT and the 8fold path both talk about error reduction is interesting enough to explore the similarities, but I think that fundamentally there are a lot of differences, particularly in terms of the goals of each paradigm (?).

···

===================================================================
After writing the stuff above, I found this link:
<http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/index.html&gt;
I am taking a macro-level of looking at this, not classic or traditional necessarily, k?

The Four Noble Truths
1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

Seems that if living is controlling, and controlling, particularly at higher levels of perception, is always going to result in an experience of chronic error, life means suffering. Not bad, that seems to be closer to fact than a philosophical observation. Likewise, attachment seems nothing more at a basic level, than having objects of control, or perceptions. Suffering ends at death, which I think is as close to a biological description of this that I can come up with. However, reduction of suffering is therefore also attainable, so I would offer that vocabulary change to buddhism, that cessation is so much what is wanted as is a reduction. Now, as to what level suffering can be reduced, that is a personal matter, and for many people, error reduction is a goal of control. One could also argue for a mathematical reduction so close to 0 that it may as well be. OK. Reorganization is the path, which takes one to the fourth truth.

Jason, thanks, now it's your turn.

--Bryan

> Thanks Bryan--I agree with most every point below. Sorry I could not
> package this up very well before sending it--it felt scattered. It still
> is. There are some points of yours I need to process a bit more. For
> now...the classic or traditional way--although some Buddhists
> disagree--of writing the four noble truths is: [see above]
>

[Jason_Gosnell]

[from Jason Gosnell (01.25.2006 16.10 CDT)]

Bryan: Great feedback for me. Thanks for taking the time to think those points out--I got swamped today in clinical work--so I will chew this over a bit later. At the very least, my PCT views are being broadened...and I am very interested in any lmitations or practical problems with Buddhism or Zen as I study those and try to be opened-minded about it.

Regards, Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU]On Behalf Of B. Thalhammer
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:40 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: clinical or spiritual issues: stress and PCT

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.24.2125 CST)]

Whew, I looked at the Eightfold Path on Wiki, and I think that from the
mystic point of view, probably PCT and what you write could not be put
in parallel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path&gt;\.

But I think that both Bill and the Buddhist writer of the noble truths
seem to acknowledge the existence of conflict that is part of being a
living control system. But beyond that, each writer has a different
purpose. Bill's, as I understand, is a scientific one, that of proposing
an explanation of behavior (and therefore the internal conflict that is
part of being alive), whereas the Buddhist writer is instead proposing
an application or a treatment for that conflict, how to deal with it,
much like Ed Ford and the Responsible Thinking Process (RTP). Both the
Buddhist writer and Ed, as I understand, while they understand the basic
problem that conflict presents, would care less of the theory conflict
and more of solving the problem of conflict.

(Point of order here, I think that over coffee, we would have a lot more
opportunity to negotiate and collaborate in finding mutual understanding
of where each of us is, and how we both control the perceptions of these
words. So my unilateral writing here always implies my seeking to come
closer, or at least, to identify differences. I may take pokes at ideas,
but not at you. Were this a real convo, we would have more mutual
empathy than these words.)

1. The first noble truth, is the truth of suffering. The Buddha explains
that life in samsara (the ego's world of maya, or illusion) contains the
seeds of suffering.

Suffering. Seems to me that this is a philosophical description of the
discomfort experienced when internal conflict is high, due to the
chronic error suffered in two or more control systems because their
perceptual signals are not matching with their respective reference
signals, and moreover, outputs that try to reduce error in one or more
control systems drives up error in one or more other control systems:
Like: "Two steps forward, and three steps backwards. I never get ahead.
The more I want the less I get." There is no higher level control system
for pulling back, for stepping away, for stopping one's acting in the
face of increasing chronic error.

2. The second noble truth, is the truth of the origin of suffering. The
origin of suffering is craving. craving for sensual desires, craving for
being, craving for non-being, craving for more, better, etc.

Craving. Another philosophical description of something that PCT also
describes (as well as other behavioral and psychological paradigms).
Seems to me that craving is like the biological basis of control.
Remember that since PCT is an explanation that works for unicelluar
organisms as well as humans, control (and maybe craving) has to be able
to explain life. At the lowest levels of life, control has to do with
maintaining life in spite of environmental disturbances. Craving, if we
can use that for a metaphor for control, is the living control system's
propensity (or that of its DNA) to not become ballistic, staying intact
in spite of external energies. I would guess that as control becomes
more complex, and as perceptions are reorganized at the level of
self-awareness, craving/control can be for all kinds of things, some
which further the existence of the individual, some which are benign,
and perhaps others, like having the exhilerating sensations of
experiencing risk, those that may end the control potential for this
individual. The problem of craving, perhaps, from the point of view of
PCT, is that it is agnostic as it sends outputs through its environment
of lower level control systems. Craving can suck away energies from
beneficial outputs to both benign and self-destructive outputs.
Unabatted craving, or multi-system control with high gain that tears up
a system clearly needs to be focused by reorganizing some control system
that coordinates the natural control process that better reduce error at
the system image level.

3. The third noble truth, is the truth of the cessation of suffering. It
says quite simply that suffering caused by craving can be understood,
penetrated, and overcome.

Reorganization of higher level control systems (probably at the levels
of programs, principles, and system image can reduce suffering or the
experience of high chronic error. While this may not be important so
long as the organism continues to survive to pass on its genes and in
some cases memes, the experience of lowered chronic error may be desirable.

4. The fourth noble truth, is the truth of the path which leads to the
cessation of suffering. Namely, the Eightfold Path. This is the path
which, if followed and practiced, can lead us to salvation in this very
lifetime.

Here (and probably even above) PCT and Buddhist noble truths may
diverge, just as PCT and RTP might diverge. In the first case, PCT is a
matter of explanation and prediction in the light of certain conditions,
  but in the two second cases, that explanation is used as a vehicle for
a presumed beneficial treatment of interpersonal and social problems.
Nothing wrong in those differences, in my opinion, of course, but I
think each paradigm (?) achieves different things. With regard to the
8fold path, I read the word "right" too many times, and I had to think
that PCT and the 8fold path were not necessarily consistent: "knowledge
with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of sadness"
seems to be observer-based, or perhaps just not clear enough to compare
with PCT. Perhaps knowledge is not a program, principle or system image
perception, but rather a way of describing the process of
reorganization, different in each person. Nothing usable in a PCT
experiment, but if a student or client of monk or RTP practitioner can
focus on reducing gain, abandoning maintaining a perception in favor of
another or in favor of just letting it go, or finding a way to balance
control outputs, then that reorganization process might be similar to
the first element, as it might be also similar to the other "right"
elements. Some of these elements seem to be related to a reduction in
gain that might otherwise send disruptive outputs into the social
environment. The 8fold path seeks to reduce disruptive behaviors which
ultimately bring on control attempts that increase chronic error. That
last statement is a big part of what we have been squabbling about on
this forum when we talk about "I see you have chosen," "trolling," and
other things.

To be sure that we do not mix spiritual or metaphysical things here, it
is presumed that the 8fold path would be directed at controlling
perceptions of personal and interpersonal events, so Right thought,
speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, concentration, etc. are
perceptions at the program, principle or system image level that
coordinate control while maintaining the lowest possible chronic error.
At least, that is a way of trying to speak of the noble truths and the
8fold path in terms of PCT in a one-off passage.

The hard thing for me is to stay with measurable and testable
descriptions, that could be observed or at least reported in an
experiment similar to that of Testing the Self as a Control System.

Folks, I am just chatting with Jason here, so I am not putting out an
anchor or drawing a line. The notion that PCT and the 8fold path both
talk about error reduction is interesting enough to explore the
similarities, but I think that fundamentally there are a lot of
differences, particularly in terms of the goals of each paradigm (?).

===================================================================
After writing the stuff above, I found this link:
<http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/index.html&gt;
I am taking a macro-level of looking at this, not classic or traditional
necessarily, k?

The Four Noble Truths
1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

Seems that if living is controlling, and controlling, particularly at
higher levels of perception, is always going to result in an experience
of chronic error, life means suffering. Not bad, that seems to be closer
to fact than a philosophical observation. Likewise, attachment seems
nothing more at a basic level, than having objects of control, or
perceptions. Suffering ends at death, which I think is as close to a
biological description of this that I can come up with. However,
reduction of suffering is therefore also attainable, so I would offer
that vocabulary change to buddhism, that cessation is so much what is
wanted as is a reduction. Now, as to what level suffering can be
reduced, that is a personal matter, and for many people, error reduction
is a goal of control. One could also argue for a mathematical reduction
so close to 0 that it may as well be. OK. Reorganization is the path,
which takes one to the fourth truth.

Jason, thanks, now it's your turn.

--Bryan

> Thanks Bryan--I agree with most every point below. Sorry I could not
> package this up very well before sending it--it felt scattered. It still
> is. There are some points of yours I need to process a bit more. For
> now...the classic or traditional way--although some Buddhists
> disagree--of writing the four noble truths is: [see above]
>

[B_Thalhammer]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.25.1625 CST)]

Jason, you are welcome, I await your notes. I am not the authority on PCT, but I thought I would give it a try with what little I do know. Thing is, again, that overlap on conflict (internal) is what was interesting and what got me to act. I could explain that from PCT persp. but I am up to my ears too.

Postscript: I hope that we agree that the methods and goals of the two paradigms are different and that we can talk about them without those differences getting conflated. I am sure you know what I am talking about.

Personal note: When you get a chance, let me know if the sites I sent are at all consonant with your understanding and if not, send me some better ones.

--Bry

Jason Gosnell wrote:

···

[Jason Gosnell (01.25.2006 16.10 CDT)]

Bryan: Great feedback for me. Thanks for taking the time to think those points out--I got swamped today in clinical work--so I will chew this over a bit later. At the very least, my PCT views are being broadened...and I am very interested in any lmitations or practical problems with Buddhism or Zen as I study those and try to be opened-minded about it.

Regards, Jason

[Jason_Gosnell]

[from Jason Gosnell (01.25.2006 22.25 CDT)]

Your points are good and smooth-flowing so I cannot respond based on any discrepancies on my part--so I will comment on only a few points for now. I am afraid I may have degenerated into a Zen add, but it may be of some interest to you.

Here (and probably even above) PCT and Buddhist noble truths may
diverge, just as PCT and RTP might diverge. In the first case, PCT is a
matter of explanation and prediction in the light of certain conditions,
but in the two second cases, that explanation is used as a vehicle for
a presumed beneficial treatment of interpersonal and social problems.
Nothing wrong in those differences, in my opinion, of course, but I
think each paradigm (?) achieves different things.

I think that this is correct. I have for the past 3 years tried to see the overlap between PCT and Buddhism, but I am not sure there is one. There may be...I can't find a word for the way in which they may not mix well. I am beginning to think they may be better studied separately. And I have tried to integrate--just no success. I value PCT's contribution as much as Buddhism's now. Different paradigms seems correct--different things seems correct. I think of PCT as one of the clubs in my golf bag for problem solving along with Zen and other approaches from psychology.

With regard to the
8fold path, I read the word "right" too many times, and I had to think
that PCT and the 8fold path were not necessarily consistent: "knowledge
with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of sadness"
seems to be observer-based, or perhaps just not clear enough to compare
with PCT.

I have always been appalled at classical Buddhism in this sense. I study Zen primarily and this ticking off of 4 of this and 8 of that, as useful as it might be, is not relevant there...I thought it might be fun to try it initially, the 4 noble truths, I don't know now--as far as PCT relating to it directly. (PCT seems to have a finer point on the issue of conflicting perceptions or beliefs and their resolution.)

Zen can basically be reduced to meditation or "awake-awareness" they say. Morality and "teachings" are there but behind one's direct experience of life. "Right" this or that is tiring to me. Also, Zen doesn't concern itself with eliminating difficult emotions or thinking. It's more in the area of accepting what you experience (including feelings/sensations or error signals) and then responding to the needs of the moment. Emotions are just one source of information--so is thinking--so are beliefs...this could even include questioning thinking as a response, holding it in awareness so to speak, or other moves that might lead to "re-organization." I say re-organization myself here--what a Zen master might say, I don't really know. Right Thinking in Zen is much more like--don't get too attached to your story of reality, be open, and allow your thinking to follow your observations or awareness...especially an awareness of what ends any kind of suffering. So, it's simple. Classic!
al Buddhism probably has more details on this subject. Zen teachings are a kind of food for the brain--not THE WAY. So, the teachers traditionally don't carry them around much. Sorry for the Zen caveats, but my expertise is not in the classical version of Buddhism--so I wanted to say so and part of why that is.

Craving. Another philosophical description of something that PCT also
describes (as well as other behavioral and psychological paradigms).
Seems to me that craving is like the biological basis of control.
Remember that since PCT is an explanation that works for unicelluar
organisms as well as humans, control (and maybe craving) has to be able
to explain life. At the lowest levels of life, control has to do with
maintaining life in spite of environmental disturbances. Craving, if we
can use that for a metaphor for control, is the living control system's
propensity (or that of its DNA) to not become ballistic, staying intact
in spite of external energies. I would guess that as control becomes
more complex, and as perceptions are reorganized at the level of
self-awareness, craving/control can be for all kinds of things, some
which further the existence of the individual, some which are benign,
and perhaps others, like having the exhilerating sensations of
experiencing risk, those that may end the control potential for this
individual. The problem of craving, perhaps, from the point of view of
PCT, is that it is agnostic as it sends outputs through its environment
of lower level control systems. Craving can suck away energies from
beneficial outputs to both benign and self-destructive outputs.
Unabatted craving, or multi-system control with high gain that tears up
a system clearly needs to be focused by reorganizing some control system
that coordinates the natural control process that better reduce error at
the system image level.

Here--this is just a better, more specific description that what Buddhism might present on paper. It's more personal-practical. Buddhism (or really Buddhist Teachings) always operates from a spiritual vantage point so it doesn't get so specific or personal in it's tone. PCT is more useful in this way. Buddhism is very general--on paper anyway. Now, if this were fleshed out more from a so-called spiritual standpoint it might look like this..."craving" is related to a personalized sense of self trying to complete itself in something. Like this, I think I need to marry so and so, once I do I'll be complete, whole, basically OK. It's fine, but it is a kind of misperception at the same time. It doesn't work out as we might think. So, craving at the level of the self has to do with gaining something in the future which will complete me. And...it is a bit off as most know now. Now, a Buddhist of any kind might claim--yes, and it is that very mis-perception which produces stress--th!
at is, when you think you need something to complete you, you experience stress because that belief or idea is not true. The body knows it isn't true and registers stress...that is, there is an error signal created simply because, on a personal level, you believe you are not OK or complete now. This is one idea I have seen and played with. I am not sure about it yet.

In Zen, craving is understood as a part of how we live in this world, so the elimination of it is not the goal. To be aware of it or study it might be a part of the practice though. To retain one's balance in the midst of craving and error is a part of the practice. It means not to be tossed away by these experiences, but still respond somehow if needed. To try to eliminate these experiences directly or willfully is not part of Zen--but some Buddhist schools may get onto this. Ultimately, Zen is a practical religion--so it might be more like--do what needs doing, what is most appropriate, craving, error signals and all. That is, the "life force" (a Zen expression for reality or experience unfolding) itself manifests as craving, thinking, feelings, awareness and so on. In Zen there are two folds--one, study the self and see what leads to suffering--yes...but, you may not be able to totally eliminate suffering, delusions, thinking, craving, belief--etc. So, you live in the mid!
st of this imperfection itself. Maybe this is my Zen, but I think I can say it is so in general too. In classical Buddhism, the talk is more like--you are the lotus growing in the mud (mud is like craving/delusions/stress/etc.)...to me, they speak like that. I may have it wrong, but I get that in my readings. In Zen, you are also the mud itself...or the basis and nutrition for the flower--all that life stuff or humanity...which, I sense some religions attempt to drain away. I include classical Buddhism in my critique on this point.

The final area of emphasis is--DO SOMETHING--even if it is nothing...typically it means do something to take care of suffering...even though you may not be able to do it perfectly, try and see what happens--or experiment. Traditional Buddhism doesn't emphasize a practical doing as far as I can tell--nor an experimental mind. Furthermore, it does not embrace creativeness--so, I remain suspicious of it. Ultimately, meditation in Zen aims at flexibility or the ability to meet and respond to a shifting reality. It is closer to--just become the observer...but don't stick to the observer. That is, the observer may include all aspects of experiencing and not be removed from them totally. In other words, in meditation, experiencing at a personal level is the scenery of meditation and not something separate from it. This is one factor that could be relevant to PCT. I just don't know how to build in a description of it now...mainly the issue of flexibility and what it is in a psycholo!
gical sense...i.e., clincal-PCT. Of course, psychological flexibility may not be separate from having a broad behavioral repertoire for responding. So, it may depend on many factors.

Sorry to rant about this. I am actually more interested in your PCT explanations than Buddhism's take on it at this point.

Thanks, Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU]On Behalf Of B. Thalhammer
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:40 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: clinical or spiritual issues: stress and PCT

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.24.2125 CST)]

Whew, I looked at the Eightfold Path on Wiki, and I think that from the
mystic point of view, probably PCT and what you write could not be put
in parallel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path&gt;\.

But I think that both Bill and the Buddhist writer of the noble truths
seem to acknowledge the existence of conflict that is part of being a
living control system. But beyond that, each writer has a different
purpose. Bill's, as I understand, is a scientific one, that of proposing
an explanation of behavior (and therefore the internal conflict that is
part of being alive), whereas the Buddhist writer is instead proposing
an application or a treatment for that conflict, how to deal with it,
much like Ed Ford and the Responsible Thinking Process (RTP). Both the
Buddhist writer and Ed, as I understand, while they understand the basic
problem that conflict presents, would care less of the theory conflict
and more of solving the problem of conflict.

(Point of order here, I think that over coffee, we would have a lot more
opportunity to negotiate and collaborate in finding mutual understanding
of where each of us is, and how we both control the perceptions of these
words. So my unilateral writing here always implies my seeking to come
closer, or at least, to identify differences. I may take pokes at ideas,
but not at you. Were this a real convo, we would have more mutual
empathy than these words.)

1. The first noble truth, is the truth of suffering. The Buddha explains
that life in samsara (the ego's world of maya, or illusion) contains the
seeds of suffering.

Suffering. Seems to me that this is a philosophical description of the
discomfort experienced when internal conflict is high, due to the
chronic error suffered in two or more control systems because their
perceptual signals are not matching with their respective reference
signals, and moreover, outputs that try to reduce error in one or more
control systems drives up error in one or more other control systems:
Like: "Two steps forward, and three steps backwards. I never get ahead.
The more I want the less I get." There is no higher level control system
for pulling back, for stepping away, for stopping one's acting in the
face of increasing chronic error.

2. The second noble truth, is the truth of the origin of suffering. The
origin of suffering is craving. craving for sensual desires, craving for
being, craving for non-being, craving for more, better, etc.

Craving. Another philosophical description of something that PCT also
describes (as well as other behavioral and psychological paradigms).
Seems to me that craving is like the biological basis of control.
Remember that since PCT is an explanation that works for unicelluar
organisms as well as humans, control (and maybe craving) has to be able
to explain life. At the lowest levels of life, control has to do with
maintaining life in spite of environmental disturbances. Craving, if we
can use that for a metaphor for control, is the living control system's
propensity (or that of its DNA) to not become ballistic, staying intact
in spite of external energies. I would guess that as control becomes
more complex, and as perceptions are reorganized at the level of
self-awareness, craving/control can be for all kinds of things, some
which further the existence of the individual, some which are benign,
and perhaps others, like having the exhilerating sensations of
experiencing risk, those that may end the control potential for this
individual. The problem of craving, perhaps, from the point of view of
PCT, is that it is agnostic as it sends outputs through its environment
of lower level control systems. Craving can suck away energies from
beneficial outputs to both benign and self-destructive outputs.
Unabatted craving, or multi-system control with high gain that tears up
a system clearly needs to be focused by reorganizing some control system
that coordinates the natural control process that better reduce error at
the system image level.

3. The third noble truth, is the truth of the cessation of suffering. It
says quite simply that suffering caused by craving can be understood,
penetrated, and overcome.

Reorganization of higher level control systems (probably at the levels
of programs, principles, and system image can reduce suffering or the
experience of high chronic error. While this may not be important so
long as the organism continues to survive to pass on its genes and in
some cases memes, the experience of lowered chronic error may be desirable.

4. The fourth noble truth, is the truth of the path which leads to the
cessation of suffering. Namely, the Eightfold Path. This is the path
which, if followed and practiced, can lead us to salvation in this very
lifetime.

Here (and probably even above) PCT and Buddhist noble truths may
diverge, just as PCT and RTP might diverge. In the first case, PCT is a
matter of explanation and prediction in the light of certain conditions,
  but in the two second cases, that explanation is used as a vehicle for
a presumed beneficial treatment of interpersonal and social problems.
Nothing wrong in those differences, in my opinion, of course, but I
think each paradigm (?) achieves different things. With regard to the
8fold path, I read the word "right" too many times, and I had to think
that PCT and the 8fold path were not necessarily consistent: "knowledge
with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of sadness"
seems to be observer-based, or perhaps just not clear enough to compare
with PCT. Perhaps knowledge is not a program, principle or system image
perception, but rather a way of describing the process of
reorganization, different in each person. Nothing usable in a PCT
experiment, but if a student or client of monk or RTP practitioner can
focus on reducing gain, abandoning maintaining a perception in favor of
another or in favor of just letting it go, or finding a way to balance
control outputs, then that reorganization process might be similar to
the first element, as it might be also similar to the other "right"
elements. Some of these elements seem to be related to a reduction in
gain that might otherwise send disruptive outputs into the social
environment. The 8fold path seeks to reduce disruptive behaviors which
ultimately bring on control attempts that increase chronic error. That
last statement is a big part of what we have been squabbling about on
this forum when we talk about "I see you have chosen," "trolling," and
other things.

To be sure that we do not mix spiritual or metaphysical things here, it
is presumed that the 8fold path would be directed at controlling
perceptions of personal and interpersonal events, so Right thought,
speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, concentration, etc. are
perceptions at the program, principle or system image level that
coordinate control while maintaining the lowest possible chronic error.
At least, that is a way of trying to speak of the noble truths and the
8fold path in terms of PCT in a one-off passage.

The hard thing for me is to stay with measurable and testable
descriptions, that could be observed or at least reported in an
experiment similar to that of Testing the Self as a Control System.

Folks, I am just chatting with Jason here, so I am not putting out an
anchor or drawing a line. The notion that PCT and the 8fold path both
talk about error reduction is interesting enough to explore the
similarities, but I think that fundamentally there are a lot of
differences, particularly in terms of the goals of each paradigm (?).

===================================================================
After writing the stuff above, I found this link:
<http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/index.html&gt;
I am taking a macro-level of looking at this, not classic or traditional
necessarily, k?

The Four Noble Truths
1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

Seems that if living is controlling, and controlling, particularly at
higher levels of perception, is always going to result in an experience
of chronic error, life means suffering. Not bad, that seems to be closer
to fact than a philosophical observation. Likewise, attachment seems
nothing more at a basic level, than having objects of control, or
perceptions. Suffering ends at death, which I think is as close to a
biological description of this that I can come up with. However,
reduction of suffering is therefore also attainable, so I would offer
that vocabulary change to buddhism, that cessation is so much what is
wanted as is a reduction. Now, as to what level suffering can be
reduced, that is a personal matter, and for many people, error reduction
is a goal of control. One could also argue for a mathematical reduction
so close to 0 that it may as well be. OK. Reorganization is the path,
which takes one to the fourth truth.

Jason, thanks, now it's your turn.

--Bryan

> Thanks Bryan--I agree with most every point below. Sorry I could not
> package this up very well before sending it--it felt scattered. It still
> is. There are some points of yours I need to process a bit more. For
> now...the classic or traditional way--although some Buddhists
> disagree--of writing the four noble truths is: [see above]
>

[B_Thalhammer]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.26.1035 CST)]

Jason,

One other thing, besides internal conflict and reorganization, that is
an important feature of PCT, whether a basic concept or an application,
is *negative feedback*. I see that feature as a part of the diagnostics
and prescriptives of Buddhism or any meditative way of thinking.

(Let me emphasize that I realize there is a diff between the theory and its applications and that we are in the midst of muddying the differences, but this is just a discussion, rather than a line drawn in the sand.)

I am guessing you are aware of the diffs between negative feedback loops
and positive feedback loops (vicious cycles)? I will assume that ya do,
so here is my take (if not, ask away, or perhaps others can jump in?):

Suffering is the experience of chronic error, brought about by the experience of error between a perception signal and the reference signal of a whole slew of control systems, not just one in particular.

Control systems are negative feedback systems that reduce the error signal (difference) between the perception signal and the reference signal. Action (at least for a single system) can reduce the error signal, but it may create disturbances that increase the error in other control systems.

Craving is likely a positive feedback loop or vicious cycle. The more you want, the more you suffer, the more you want the more you suffer... A positive feedback loop will go on and on until it breaks apart, and the system explodes and stops. I guess that in spite of being composed of control systems, a living control system can develop positive feedback relationships which cause oscillations that lead to a vicious cycle, where actions do not succeed in reducing chronic error.

Suffering can be due to the lack of control by a lack of higher level control systems for setting reference levels. So, fluctuating reference levels, or none at all, may make for a chaotic approach to maintaining the system image, the Self. RTP as well as other applications of PCT ask the questions, what are you doing, what do you want, etc. in the attempt to trigger reorganization of a control system that sends down consistent reference signals. The result is, if actions are balanced and not excessive, generally lowering of chronic error, I do believe.

Likewise, suffering can be due to high gain response (smack down approach, eh?), or a rapid response to the experiencing of error. In that case, there can be an oscillation of error reductions and error increases that never succeed in reducing chronic error.

Meditation may reduce that high gain response and induce a cooling-off period? What I understand of Zen is to direct the force of a disturbance against that disturbance, but the big thing is not to push back against force, but perhaps to wait for moment when action is most efficient and effective. The basic PCT perspective is that the control system sends output signals to its environment of other control systems and the external environment when it experiences error. That amounts to a somewhat blind push-back that opposes the disturbance, possibly making the perceptual signal closer to to the reference setting. PCT specifically states that the system does not control behavior, it controls perceptions by means of behavior. Zen sounds like a behavior controlling paradigm (but those are just words), I bet that Zen functions more by controlling the perception of how fast one has to act (working on the slowing factor at a higher level?) a program, principle or system image perception, so that the system has a lower gain, is less spasmodic and allows for better reduction of chronic error.

So, remembering the basic model of the control system, one could describe (I hope I have done so correctly) what Zen seeks to achieve as a reorganization of a system image to program level control system that damps down output signals, allows for more reorganization of new control system, and allows outputs to be more effective in reducing chronic error, hence what they call suffering.

Below you bring up *balance*. That is the basic description of the result of maintaining a negative feedback loop, when the reference signals are consistent, the outputs are slowed to a point where they don't upset other reference signals and the system basically controls for its perception of its existence with reasonably low chronic error.

Not a bad thing, but it is instructive to understand that the two vocabularies can have words that cross-polinate, that seem to be at cross-purposes, or that even make the comparison between the two somewhat slippery. You have to allow for the fact that words/jargon are imperfect tools, and that a single email of them can be taken too far or not enough. What it necessary is to identify the goals of each paradigm, clarify the jargon, and then nail down the goals of wanting to explain one (Zen) with the other (PCT). I THINK that I may have helped in this effort (but I am no expert), by talking about suffering, conflict, reorganization, pos/neg feedback, slowing factor, gain, balance and chronic error.

[See just a few notes below, too]

--Bryan

[Jason Gosnell (01.25.2006 22.25 CDT)]

Your points are good and smooth-flowing ... a Zen ad ....

...each paradigm (?) achieves different things.

I think that this is correct. I have for the past 3 years tried to
see the overlap between PCT and Buddhism, but I am not sure there is
one. There may be...I can't find a word for the way in which they may
not mix well. I am beginning to think they may be better studied
separately. And I have tried to integrate--just no success. I value
PCT's contribution as much as Buddhism's now. Different paradigms
seems correct--different things seems correct. I think of PCT as one
of the clubs in my golf bag for problem solving along with Zen and
other approaches from psychology.

With regard to the 8fold path, I read the word "right"

I have always been appalled at classical Buddhism in this sense.

Zen can basically be reduced to meditation or "awake-awareness" they
say. Morality and "teachings" are there but behind one's direct
experience of life. "Right" this or that is tiring to me. ...

Most religions are too focused on behavioral control as a way to reduce conflict. True, when Dao is interpreted as a plea to reorganize using perceptual control of the living control system, ah sure, that's ok. But I wonder that a rigid hierarchy lets that happen too long. Maybe that is the virtue of Zen being personalized rather than institutionalized???

Craving. Another philosophical description of something that PCT
also describes (as well as other behavioral and psychological
paradigms). Seems to me that craving is like the biological basis
of control.... Unabatted craving, or multi-system
control with high gain that tears up a system clearly needs to be
focused by reorganizing some control system that coordinates the
natural control process that better reduce error at the system
image level.

Here--this is just a better, more specific description that what
Buddhism might present on paper. It's more personal-practical.
Buddhism (or really Buddhist Teachings) always operates from a
spiritual vantage point so it doesn't get so specific or personal in
it's tone. PCT is more useful in this way. Buddhism is very
general--on paper anyway. Now, if this were fleshed out more from a
so-called spiritual standpoint it might look like this..."craving" is
related to a personalized sense of self trying to complete itself in
something.... The body knows it isn't true and registers stress...that

> is, there is an error signal created

simply because, on a personal level, you believe you are not OK or
complete now. This is one idea I have seen and played with. I am not
sure about it yet.

Spirituality itself means nothing in PCT, plus it's a very slippery subject area. Saying this does not necessarily denigrate that concept or perception, but spirit must be left out of the PCT equation as "hardware". Rather, how one acts with respect to one's perception of spirituality or the "software", ok, that can be measured. But afterwards above, you talk about completing oneself. Ah. What is completion? No need to progress. No driving force. =Death. "I will be perfect (completed) at death." But The need to complete is the craving, the life force, the act of control as systems continue to experience error and send outputs to reduce it. =Life. Seeking perfection is a nice term, but all it may mean is the life force of reducing the error of not being/having what you want. Being, that is system image level for sure, having is what you need to be who you want. And where we talk about Zen, focus, and negative feedback, well perhaps, that is just slowing down the output, finding opportunity rather than flailing and causing a runaway positive feedback loop and an explosion. =Mastery of Self whilst alive... maybe..

In Zen, craving is understood as a part of how we live in this world,
so the elimination of it is not the goal. To be aware of it or study
it might be a part of the practice though. To retain one's balance in
the midst of craving and error is a part of the practice. It means
not to be tossed away by these experiences, but still respond somehow
if needed. To try to eliminate these experiences directly or
willfully is not part of Zen--but some Buddhist schools may get onto
this. Ultimately, Zen is a practical religion...

That sounds like a subjective (this is a good thing, btw) notion of PCT, something akin to what I wrote above. Balance = Negative feedback = relatively manageable chronic error in a personal and social environment that has been slowed down, simplified, and reorganized. Sounds good to me. Just remember that jargon can be misinterpreted.

The final area of emphasis is--DO SOMETHING--even if it is
nothing...typically it means do something to take care of
suffering...even though you may not be able to do it perfectly, try
and see what happens--or experiment. Traditional Buddhism doesn't
emphasize a practical doing as far as I can tell--nor an experimental
mind. Furthermore, it does not embrace creativeness--so, I remain
suspicious of it. Ultimately, meditation in Zen aims at flexibility
or the ability to meet and respond to a shifting reality.

Again, the notion of creativity is more akin to a PCT um, philosophy of control of perception rather than control of behavior. Okie. If Zen says get there anyway you can without causing too much of a ruckus, to paraphrase Hillel, all the rest is commentary... (?) No religion is too fond of creativity except in the facilitation of its own rigidity. Normal, eh?

Sorry to rant about this. I am actually more interested in your PCT
explanations than Buddhism's take on it at this point.

Doesn't sound like rant. No. We are just tossing a few things back and forth. I will let you know when I draw my line in the sand, if ever I do that. ;

PS, I once tried reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig. Still can't figure it out. I still have it. I did read The Buddha in the Robot, by Masahiro Mori (ever read that?), which I did figure out, and I still have. I recommend the second, but welcome a summary of the first.

Chau,

--Bry

···

Thanks, Jason

[Jason_Gosnell]

[from Jason Gosnell (01.26.06 1130 CDT)]

Bryan...I want to give a more specific example--the last post seemed too abstract. I don't like it when I do that. Let me see if I can present an example where Zen/psychotherapy/PCT might converge or overlap. There is a psychotherapy based on Zen in Japan called Morita Therapy--so I'll use this approach.

Take a very common issue--public speaking and fear/anxiety. The "neurotic" solution to the problem from the point of view of psychotherapy is not to show up or do it at all--that's one way to handle a conflict. The other is to try to make the anxiety go away directly--that is to struggle with it. In a way, these are avoidance measures, which we all do from time to time and it may be functional in some instances to do so. Another problem in the preparation stage for a speech is get obsessed with what the audience will think of you and lose focus on preparing good material--as best you can anyway. In Morita Therapy, they say "fear is misplaced attention." What they mean is that a neurotic moment finds us more interested in whether or not people are impressed with us rather than on if we are speaking hosestly, intelligently, and deliverling useful info to the audience. They might say it is more ego-based. But, again, Zen doesn't aim at eliminating ego or self or desire or belie!
fs. Nor, does Morita Therapy. Another saying is that "life is a matter of attention"...same kind of saying. This is the case here. PCT might account for this another way though. (Here, PCT has one issue that allows it more depth--the view of the being as a control system with different levels of experiencing.)

In Zen and Morita Therapy the solutions to this issue are basically...

1. Since you cannot control your feelings, accept all of what you feel...they may even say "plunge into fear."
2. Know your other purpose--other than making a good impression...i.e., to educate your audience in this example. This gives you another focal point.
3. "Do what needs doing" feelings and all--this means to follow that other purpose and accept any fears that come up in relationship to desire to be liked, approved of, accepted etc.

All of these would be Zen and Morita views and approaches. I don't know how these relate to "craving" as an experience or 4 noble truths exactly. I'll think about that. Maybe the accepting attitude already addresses craving in some way?

Please allow me to impose one more time...what is your PCT take on this example of fear and public speaking?

Regards, Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU]On Behalf Of B. Thalhammer
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:40 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: clinical or spiritual issues: stress and PCT

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.24.2125 CST)]

Whew, I looked at the Eightfold Path on Wiki, and I think that from the
mystic point of view, probably PCT and what you write could not be put
in parallel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path&gt;\.

But I think that both Bill and the Buddhist writer of the noble truths
seem to acknowledge the existence of conflict that is part of being a
living control system. But beyond that, each writer has a different
purpose. Bill's, as I understand, is a scientific one, that of proposing
an explanation of behavior (and therefore the internal conflict that is
part of being alive), whereas the Buddhist writer is instead proposing
an application or a treatment for that conflict, how to deal with it,
much like Ed Ford and the Responsible Thinking Process (RTP). Both the
Buddhist writer and Ed, as I understand, while they understand the basic
problem that conflict presents, would care less of the theory conflict
and more of solving the problem of conflict.

(Point of order here, I think that over coffee, we would have a lot more
opportunity to negotiate and collaborate in finding mutual understanding
of where each of us is, and how we both control the perceptions of these
words. So my unilateral writing here always implies my seeking to come
closer, or at least, to identify differences. I may take pokes at ideas,
but not at you. Were this a real convo, we would have more mutual
empathy than these words.)

1. The first noble truth, is the truth of suffering. The Buddha explains
that life in samsara (the ego's world of maya, or illusion) contains the
seeds of suffering.

Suffering. Seems to me that this is a philosophical description of the
discomfort experienced when internal conflict is high, due to the
chronic error suffered in two or more control systems because their
perceptual signals are not matching with their respective reference
signals, and moreover, outputs that try to reduce error in one or more
control systems drives up error in one or more other control systems:
Like: "Two steps forward, and three steps backwards. I never get ahead.
The more I want the less I get." There is no higher level control system
for pulling back, for stepping away, for stopping one's acting in the
face of increasing chronic error.

2. The second noble truth, is the truth of the origin of suffering. The
origin of suffering is craving. craving for sensual desires, craving for
being, craving for non-being, craving for more, better, etc.

Craving. Another philosophical description of something that PCT also
describes (as well as other behavioral and psychological paradigms).
Seems to me that craving is like the biological basis of control.
Remember that since PCT is an explanation that works for unicelluar
organisms as well as humans, control (and maybe craving) has to be able
to explain life. At the lowest levels of life, control has to do with
maintaining life in spite of environmental disturbances. Craving, if we
can use that for a metaphor for control, is the living control system's
propensity (or that of its DNA) to not become ballistic, staying intact
in spite of external energies. I would guess that as control becomes
more complex, and as perceptions are reorganized at the level of
self-awareness, craving/control can be for all kinds of things, some
which further the existence of the individual, some which are benign,
and perhaps others, like having the exhilerating sensations of
experiencing risk, those that may end the control potential for this
individual. The problem of craving, perhaps, from the point of view of
PCT, is that it is agnostic as it sends outputs through its environment
of lower level control systems. Craving can suck away energies from
beneficial outputs to both benign and self-destructive outputs.
Unabatted craving, or multi-system control with high gain that tears up
a system clearly needs to be focused by reorganizing some control system
that coordinates the natural control process that better reduce error at
the system image level.

3. The third noble truth, is the truth of the cessation of suffering. It
says quite simply that suffering caused by craving can be understood,
penetrated, and overcome.

Reorganization of higher level control systems (probably at the levels
of programs, principles, and system image can reduce suffering or the
experience of high chronic error. While this may not be important so
long as the organism continues to survive to pass on its genes and in
some cases memes, the experience of lowered chronic error may be desirable.

4. The fourth noble truth, is the truth of the path which leads to the
cessation of suffering. Namely, the Eightfold Path. This is the path
which, if followed and practiced, can lead us to salvation in this very
lifetime.

Here (and probably even above) PCT and Buddhist noble truths may
diverge, just as PCT and RTP might diverge. In the first case, PCT is a
matter of explanation and prediction in the light of certain conditions,
  but in the two second cases, that explanation is used as a vehicle for
a presumed beneficial treatment of interpersonal and social problems.
Nothing wrong in those differences, in my opinion, of course, but I
think each paradigm (?) achieves different things. With regard to the
8fold path, I read the word "right" too many times, and I had to think
that PCT and the 8fold path were not necessarily consistent: "knowledge
with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of sadness"
seems to be observer-based, or perhaps just not clear enough to compare
with PCT. Perhaps knowledge is not a program, principle or system image
perception, but rather a way of describing the process of
reorganization, different in each person. Nothing usable in a PCT
experiment, but if a student or client of monk or RTP practitioner can
focus on reducing gain, abandoning maintaining a perception in favor of
another or in favor of just letting it go, or finding a way to balance
control outputs, then that reorganization process might be similar to
the first element, as it might be also similar to the other "right"
elements. Some of these elements seem to be related to a reduction in
gain that might otherwise send disruptive outputs into the social
environment. The 8fold path seeks to reduce disruptive behaviors which
ultimately bring on control attempts that increase chronic error. That
last statement is a big part of what we have been squabbling about on
this forum when we talk about "I see you have chosen," "trolling," and
other things.

To be sure that we do not mix spiritual or metaphysical things here, it
is presumed that the 8fold path would be directed at controlling
perceptions of personal and interpersonal events, so Right thought,
speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, concentration, etc. are
perceptions at the program, principle or system image level that
coordinate control while maintaining the lowest possible chronic error.
At least, that is a way of trying to speak of the noble truths and the
8fold path in terms of PCT in a one-off passage.

The hard thing for me is to stay with measurable and testable
descriptions, that could be observed or at least reported in an
experiment similar to that of Testing the Self as a Control System.

Folks, I am just chatting with Jason here, so I am not putting out an
anchor or drawing a line. The notion that PCT and the 8fold path both
talk about error reduction is interesting enough to explore the
similarities, but I think that fundamentally there are a lot of
differences, particularly in terms of the goals of each paradigm (?).

===================================================================
After writing the stuff above, I found this link:
<http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/index.html&gt;
I am taking a macro-level of looking at this, not classic or traditional
necessarily, k?

The Four Noble Truths
1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

Seems that if living is controlling, and controlling, particularly at
higher levels of perception, is always going to result in an experience
of chronic error, life means suffering. Not bad, that seems to be closer
to fact than a philosophical observation. Likewise, attachment seems
nothing more at a basic level, than having objects of control, or
perceptions. Suffering ends at death, which I think is as close to a
biological description of this that I can come up with. However,
reduction of suffering is therefore also attainable, so I would offer
that vocabulary change to buddhism, that cessation is so much what is
wanted as is a reduction. Now, as to what level suffering can be
reduced, that is a personal matter, and for many people, error reduction
is a goal of control. One could also argue for a mathematical reduction
so close to 0 that it may as well be. OK. Reorganization is the path,
which takes one to the fourth truth.

Jason, thanks, now it's your turn.

--Bryan

> Thanks Bryan--I agree with most every point below. Sorry I could not
> package this up very well before sending it--it felt scattered. It still
> is. There are some points of yours I need to process a bit more. For
> now...the classic or traditional way--although some Buddhists
> disagree--of writing the four noble truths is: [see above]
>

[B_Thalhammer]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.26.1205 CST)]

Jason,

My take is still as I wrote, with the following concrete responses. Bear in mind, I am reading words from Morita Therapy that confuse my understanding of behavior: control of perception, but I will set that aside for the moment:

Fear of Public Speaking:
Neurotic approach: Well, this is resetting the reference for speaking, either at this event or forever. There might be other perceptions that are still being maintained, such as being listened to, listening to one's voice, getting honorariums or certs from ToastMasters, etc. that are now in error because the speaking engagement has been blown.

Struggling with it: Since the perception of public speaking is not in line with the reference for not being in front of hundreds of eyes, there is an error signal being produced. Struggling with that, that is, enduring that error with the *goal* of working through it, is reorganizing, or creating a new control system at system image to program level for mitigating exposure with the benefits it brings.

Misplaced or just plain old attention: I have no idea what attention is here, but the goal is to act productively or efficiently, without, as I suggested earlier, flailing about. Sounds to me like: Stop controlling for something, lowering the gain, upping the slowing factor, in a control system, or reorganizing a higher level control system that controls for flailing about, actions that distract, and so on. Careful here, not control of behavior, but control of the perception of behavior.

Morita therapy: Yes, this is a therapy using some knowledge of the human condition, just as we could use an RTP treatment using some knowledge of PCT:

1. ...accept what you - "plunge into fear."
2. Know your other purpose[s]-- [focus on speaking to] your audience
3. "Do what needs doing" follow other - accept any fears

Phew, this looks like PCT reorganization where the new learning (control system) for balance damps down or increases the slowing factor on the flight output (running from the audience), and ups the gain or decreases the slowing factor on the act output (talking to the audience). Words like plunge, know, focus, do, accept, have no meaning per se in PCT, but what is happening is changing of reference signals on a wide range of interpersonal behavior perceptions at high levels.

I am somewhat scared of the words used in your text from the point of view of PCT. They are so VETBT (vague enough to be true) words (not that there is anything wrong in that) that I would have a hard time nailing down what it means to plunge into something from a behavior: control of perception point of view. Ah jargon...! ;

Thanks,

--Bryan

[Jason_Gosnell]

{from Jason Gosnell (1.26.06 1220 CDT)

[Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.26.1035 CST)]

I am guessing you are aware of the diffs between negative feedback loops
and positive feedback loops (vicious cycles)? I will assume that ya do,
so here is my take (if not, ask away, or perhaps others can jump in?):

Okay, I see my problem now...I haven't fully clarified the diff betwen positive and negative loops. Most of this email hinges on that point. I think I get it, but I need a little more detail. It seems, as you say below, that might help clarify what is meant by the link between craving and suffering. Can you iron it out for me?

Regarding other points...unfortunately, Zen fell into institutionalization in Japan, it is being reborn in America and Europe, so it is getting mixed in with western issues and is developing into a more personal approach. To me, it's a good thing. The 60s version was a disaster though--too much go with the flow attitude to work.

The only two books I could recommend are..."Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" by Suzuki and "Opening the Hand of Thought" by Uchiyama. Both were fed up with the state of Zen in Japan and brought it to America to renew it. They both have a Western and Eastern mind. "Zen and The Art of..." don't understand it myself. In fact, I hated it when I read it. I don't know the other one, but I think I have another book by him--unread to date.

Regards, Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU]On Behalf Of B. Thalhammer
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:39 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: clinical or spiritual issues: stress and PCT

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.26.1035 CST)]

Jason,

One other thing, besides internal conflict and reorganization, that is
an important feature of PCT, whether a basic concept or an application,
is *negative feedback*. I see that feature as a part of the diagnostics
and prescriptives of Buddhism or any meditative way of thinking.

(Let me emphasize that I realize there is a diff between the theory and
its applications and that we are in the midst of muddying the
differences, but this is just a discussion, rather than a line drawn in
the sand.)

I am guessing you are aware of the diffs between negative feedback loops
and positive feedback loops (vicious cycles)? I will assume that ya do,
so here is my take (if not, ask away, or perhaps others can jump in?):

Suffering is the experience of chronic error, brought about by the
experience of error between a perception signal and the reference signal
of a whole slew of control systems, not just one in particular.

Control systems are negative feedback systems that reduce the error
signal (difference) between the perception signal and the reference
signal. Action (at least for a single system) can reduce the error
signal, but it may create disturbances that increase the error in other
control systems.

Craving is likely a positive feedback loop or vicious cycle. The more
you want, the more you suffer, the more you want the more you suffer...
A positive feedback loop will go on and on until it breaks apart, and
the system explodes and stops. I guess that in spite of being composed
of control systems, a living control system can develop positive
feedback relationships which cause oscillations that lead to a vicious
cycle, where actions do not succeed in reducing chronic error.

Suffering can be due to the lack of control by a lack of higher level
control systems for setting reference levels. So, fluctuating reference
levels, or none at all, may make for a chaotic approach to maintaining
the system image, the Self. RTP as well as other applications of PCT ask
the questions, what are you doing, what do you want, etc. in the attempt
to trigger reorganization of a control system that sends down consistent
reference signals. The result is, if actions are balanced and not
excessive, generally lowering of chronic error, I do believe.

Likewise, suffering can be due to high gain response (smack down
approach, eh?), or a rapid response to the experiencing of error. In
that case, there can be an oscillation of error reductions and error
increases that never succeed in reducing chronic error.

Meditation may reduce that high gain response and induce a cooling-off
period? What I understand of Zen is to direct the force of a disturbance
against that disturbance, but the big thing is not to push back against
force, but perhaps to wait for moment when action is most efficient and
effective. The basic PCT perspective is that the control system sends
output signals to its environment of other control systems and the
external environment when it experiences error. That amounts to a
somewhat blind push-back that opposes the disturbance, possibly making
the perceptual signal closer to to the reference setting. PCT
specifically states that the system does not control behavior, it
controls perceptions by means of behavior. Zen sounds like a behavior
controlling paradigm (but those are just words), I bet that Zen
functions more by controlling the perception of how fast one has to act
(working on the slowing factor at a higher level?) a program, principle
or system image perception, so that the system has a lower gain, is less
spasmodic and allows for better reduction of chronic error.

So, remembering the basic model of the control system, one could
describe (I hope I have done so correctly) what Zen seeks to achieve as
a reorganization of a system image to program level control system that
damps down output signals, allows for more reorganization of new control
system, and allows outputs to be more effective in reducing chronic
error, hence what they call suffering.

Below you bring up *balance*. That is the basic description of the
result of maintaining a negative feedback loop, when the reference
signals are consistent, the outputs are slowed to a point where they
don't upset other reference signals and the system basically controls
for its perception of its existence with reasonably low chronic error.

Not a bad thing, but it is instructive to understand that the two
vocabularies can have words that cross-polinate, that seem to be at
cross-purposes, or that even make the comparison between the two
somewhat slippery. You have to allow for the fact that words/jargon are
imperfect tools, and that a single email of them can be taken too far or
not enough. What it necessary is to identify the goals of each paradigm,
clarify the jargon, and then nail down the goals of wanting to explain
one (Zen) with the other (PCT). I THINK that I may have helped in this
effort (but I am no expert), by talking about suffering, conflict,
reorganization, pos/neg feedback, slowing factor, gain, balance and
chronic error.

[See just a few notes below, too]

--Bryan

[Jason Gosnell (01.25.2006 22.25 CDT)]

Your points are good and smooth-flowing ... a Zen ad ....

...each paradigm (?) achieves different things.

I think that this is correct. I have for the past 3 years tried to
see the overlap between PCT and Buddhism, but I am not sure there is
one. There may be...I can't find a word for the way in which they may
not mix well. I am beginning to think they may be better studied
separately. And I have tried to integrate--just no success. I value
PCT's contribution as much as Buddhism's now. Different paradigms
seems correct--different things seems correct. I think of PCT as one
of the clubs in my golf bag for problem solving along with Zen and
other approaches from psychology.

With regard to the 8fold path, I read the word "right"

I have always been appalled at classical Buddhism in this sense.

Zen can basically be reduced to meditation or "awake-awareness" they
say. Morality and "teachings" are there but behind one's direct
experience of life. "Right" this or that is tiring to me. ...

Most religions are too focused on behavioral control as a way to reduce
conflict. True, when Dao is interpreted as a plea to reorganize using
perceptual control of the living control system, ah sure, that's ok. But
I wonder that a rigid hierarchy lets that happen too long. Maybe that is
the virtue of Zen being personalized rather than institutionalized???

Craving. Another philosophical description of something that PCT
also describes (as well as other behavioral and psychological
paradigms). Seems to me that craving is like the biological basis
of control.... Unabatted craving, or multi-system
control with high gain that tears up a system clearly needs to be
focused by reorganizing some control system that coordinates the
natural control process that better reduce error at the system
image level.

Here--this is just a better, more specific description that what
Buddhism might present on paper. It's more personal-practical.
Buddhism (or really Buddhist Teachings) always operates from a
spiritual vantage point so it doesn't get so specific or personal in
it's tone. PCT is more useful in this way. Buddhism is very
general--on paper anyway. Now, if this were fleshed out more from a
so-called spiritual standpoint it might look like this..."craving" is
related to a personalized sense of self trying to complete itself in
something.... The body knows it isn't true and registers stress...that

> is, there is an error signal created

simply because, on a personal level, you believe you are not OK or
complete now. This is one idea I have seen and played with. I am not
sure about it yet.

Spirituality itself means nothing in PCT, plus it's a very slippery
subject area. Saying this does not necessarily denigrate that concept or
perception, but spirit must be left out of the PCT equation as
"hardware". Rather, how one acts with respect to one's perception of
spirituality or the "software", ok, that can be measured. But afterwards
above, you talk about completing oneself. Ah. What is completion? No
need to progress. No driving force. =Death. "I will be perfect
(completed) at death." But The need to complete is the craving, the life
force, the act of control as systems continue to experience error and
send outputs to reduce it. =Life. Seeking perfection is a nice term, but
all it may mean is the life force of reducing the error of not
being/having what you want. Being, that is system image level for sure,
having is what you need to be who you want. And where we talk about Zen,
focus, and negative feedback, well perhaps, that is just slowing down
the output, finding opportunity rather than flailing and causing a
runaway positive feedback loop and an explosion. =Mastery of Self whilst
alive... maybe..

In Zen, craving is understood as a part of how we live in this world,
so the elimination of it is not the goal. To be aware of it or study
it might be a part of the practice though. To retain one's balance in
the midst of craving and error is a part of the practice. It means
not to be tossed away by these experiences, but still respond somehow
if needed. To try to eliminate these experiences directly or
willfully is not part of Zen--but some Buddhist schools may get onto
this. Ultimately, Zen is a practical religion...

That sounds like a subjective (this is a good thing, btw) notion of PCT,
something akin to what I wrote above. Balance = Negative feedback =
relatively manageable chronic error in a personal and social environment
that has been slowed down, simplified, and reorganized. Sounds good to
me. Just remember that jargon can be misinterpreted.

The final area of emphasis is--DO SOMETHING--even if it is
nothing...typically it means do something to take care of
suffering...even though you may not be able to do it perfectly, try
and see what happens--or experiment. Traditional Buddhism doesn't
emphasize a practical doing as far as I can tell--nor an experimental
mind. Furthermore, it does not embrace creativeness--so, I remain
suspicious of it. Ultimately, meditation in Zen aims at flexibility
or the ability to meet and respond to a shifting reality.

Again, the notion of creativity is more akin to a PCT um, philosophy of
control of perception rather than control of behavior. Okie. If Zen says
get there anyway you can without causing too much of a ruckus, to
paraphrase Hillel, all the rest is commentary... (?) No religion is
too fond of creativity except in the facilitation of its own rigidity.
Normal, eh?

Sorry to rant about this. I am actually more interested in your PCT
explanations than Buddhism's take on it at this point.

Doesn't sound like rant. No. We are just tossing a few things back and
forth. I will let you know when I draw my line in the sand, if ever I do
that. ;

PS, I once tried reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by
Robert M. Pirsig. Still can't figure it out. I still have it. I did read
  The Buddha in the Robot, by Masahiro Mori (ever read that?), which I
did figure out, and I still have. I recommend the second, but welcome a
summary of the first.

Chau,

--Bry

Thanks, Jason

[B_Thalhammer]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.26.1230 CST)]

{Jason Gosnell (1.26.06 1220 CDT)

[Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.26.1035 CST)]

I am guessing you are aware of the diffs between negative feedback
loops and positive feedback loops (vicious cycles)? I will assume
that ya do, so here is my take (if not, ask away, or perhaps others
can jump in?):

Okay, I see my problem now...I haven't fully clarified the diff
betwen positive and negative loops. Most of this email hinges on that
point. I think I get it, but I need a little more detail. It seems,
as you say below, that might help clarify what is meant by the link
between craving and suffering. Can you iron it out for me?

Negative feedback loop and Positive feedback loop: These are engineering terms that are really well-described in B:CP, or found somewhere in the really great CSG site: <http://www.perceptualcontroltheory.org/&gt;\. These engineering terms have been adapted for the PCT explanation.

<http://www.perceptualcontroltheory.org/pct_faq.html&gt;
"While other theories view behavior as mechanical and responsive, PCT views behavior as goal directed and purposeful. PCT is a theory that explains how purposeful behavior works. The basic process that underlies purposeful behavior is closed loop *negative feedback control.* Control involves the production of consistent results in the face of disturbances that would otherwise prevent those results from repeating. For example, control is involved when you consistently write your name in the face of disturbances, such as differences in the pen and your orientation to the paper on each occasion."

Basically negative feedback loop gets you control, but a positive feedback loop will magnify outputs until there is an explosive end to the process.

Gary Cziko wrote a Wikipedia article on PCT:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_Control_Theory&gt;
It has a nice section on MOL, but there are a lot of sections under construction.

Wikipedia has these:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback&gt;
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback&gt;
I do not know how good these articles are, but by searching from these starting points could eventually arrive at a clear understanding?

--Bryan

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2006.01.26.1050)]

Jason Gosnell (01.26.06 1130 CDT)

  (Jason, your posts are filtered out by my spam filter, even when I tell it that your address is OK. I don't understand why you posts are not sent to me by the CSG server).

Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.24.2125 CST)

I haven't been following this exchange very closely But I did want to make one little comment.

I think the emphasis of this discussion has been on internal conflict as a source of stress or anxiety and on comparing the PCT and Zen approach to dealing with the problem of conflict. I would just like to point put that another source of stress, from a PCT perspective, is simply lack of ability to deal with a situation -- a lack of skill -- that can exist even when there is no internal conflict at all.

In PCT, stress is just a perceived physiological side effect of chronic error in a control system. Error in a control system exists when the system can't manage to act in a way that keeps its perception matching its reference: the system can't get what to wants. Chronic error (and, thus, stress) exist when there is a _failure_ of control.

Failure of control can result from 1) immaturity/ lack of skill (like the child who has not yet leaned how to control for walking) 2) internal conflict (like the adult who is already a skillful walker but can't move because he has conflicting goals about where to go -- to the whore house or the church -- so he remains frozen in the middle of the street and experiences error regarding both goals) and 3) insuperable disturbance (like the adult who is able to earn money by teaching but is unable to control for money in this way because there are no teaching jobs).

The last two sources of stress (lack of control) are probably the most relevant to the current discussion because they exist in individuals who are otherwise quite capable of controlling for the perceptions that they can't seem to get. The person in conflict is perfectly capable of walking to the whore house or the church, he just can't do both simultaneously, so he fails to do either. The person without work is perfectly capable of controlling for money by teaching but can't do that if there are no teaching jobs.

The solution to the stress is, I believe, quite different depending on whether the stress is the result of conflict or disturbance. With stress created by conflict, the _only_ way to remove the stress is to change the goals that are creating the conflict. This means going up a level and finding a way to want that does not create conflict. There is no way to cleverly improve control of the goals that you are not achieving because of the conflict -- getting to the whore house and the church -- because control of these variables is already quite good; that's why the conflict exists). With stress created by disturbance, however, you can reduce stress by improving control; learning to teach things for which there are jobs, for example.

Anyway, the point is that all stress does not have the same cause so the solution to stress must depend on an understanding of the cause of the stress. Is the stress caused by internal conflict or is it caused by a disturbance with which you are currently unable to overcome. The solution to conflict based stress is therapy (MOL preferably) and the solution to disturbance based stress is education.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[B_Thalhammer]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.26.1355 CST)]

Yes, I was working from memory, and did not include this. Jason, let Rick be the guide here, I cannot control for my perceptions of PCT very well. Now I am suffering stress. Actually I sense a flushing or a red face. ;

[Rick Marken (2006.01.26.1050)]

Jason Gosnell (01.26.06 1130 CDT)

...I think the emphasis of this discussion has been on internal conflict as a source of stress or anxiety and on comparing the PCT and Zen approach to dealing with the problem of conflict. I would just like to point put that another source of stress, from a PCT perspective, is simply lack of ability to deal with a situation -- a lack of skill -- that can exist even when there is no internal conflict at all.

Summary of what I think Rick said:

�Chronic error = stress <= failure to control, which can result from:�

1) immaturity/ lack of skill (developmental issue?)
2) internal conflict <--- related to Jason's points, MOL therapy
3) insuperable disturbance <--- related to Jason's points, Learning/Education

Solution: �change the goals that are creating the conflict�
That is reorganization, no? By creating a control system that manages those goals better? So what you say, you can't learn to control (that is the closed system) but you can maybe create control systems for stress management? And that can arrive through the use of MOL?

> Anyway, the point is that all stress does not have the same cause
> so the solution to stress must depend on an understanding of the cause
> of the stress. Is the stress caused by internal conflict or is it
> caused by a disturbance with which you are currently unable to
> overcome. The solution to conflict based stress is therapy (MOL
> preferably) and the solution to disturbance based stress is education.

Thanks!

--Bryan

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (2006.01.26.1310)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2006.01.26.1355 CST)

Yes, I was working from memory, and did not include this. Jason, let
Rick be the guide here, I cannot control for my perceptions of PCT very
well. Now I am suffering stress. Actually I sense a flushing or a red
face. ;

No need for stress. You made no error and I'm sorry if I created an error for you. It just occurred to me -- having recently been laid off at RAND-- that stress is not only a result of conflict. Sometimes it results because "shit happens". In my case, the shit that happened was having all my sources of funding dry up. That was, for me, an insuperable disturbance. And while being laid off didn't create a huge error for me -- since I have benefits, a retirement fund and, now , a teaching position at LMU -- it did create an error; it was an ego hit, to some extent, and I miss getting that nice, regular check. I think of it as a skill deficit problem because the funding failure was really a result of my own inability to get funding. I can make all kinds of excuses for _why_ I was unable to get funding. But all those excuses revolve around the fact that I really didn't have the skills necessary to get the funding.

The solution to my stress problem was to reorganize, which is the same as the solution to conflict. But reorganization is a pretty general term. I think what constitutes a successful reorganization is different depending on whether you were "stressed" into reorganzing by conflict or insuperable disturbance.

When I think about it, in my case it's not entirely clear that there was not some conflict involved in my failure at RAND. To a large extent the failure resulted from lack of skill: I was new to getting grant money to support my healthcare research but I was in a senior position where I was expected to be able to get such funding. So I was a novice doing an expert's job. But I also had a conflict because I could have supported part of my time working on national security projects. Yet I went to RAND specifically to do non-national security work. So I had a conflict: I wanted to work at RAND (doing healthcare) but I didn't want to work at RAND (doing national security). So my control of "working at RAND" was not very good as a result of this conflict.

Anyway, I think there are cases where stress is due entirely to insuperable disturbance: this is surely the case for civilian victims of war, poverty and recent national elections in the US. These are not failures of control but, unlike those resulting from conflict, they can't be solved by going up a level (mentally, anyway;-)

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken, PhD
Psychology
Loyola Marymount University
Office: 310 338-1768
Cell: 310 729 - 1400