[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