# communication (was Congratulations)

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345>\
**Category:** CSG2003\
**Created:** [December 16, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345 "2003-12-16T15:01:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 17\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor2)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/1 "2003-12-16T15:01:24Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.09.52]

> From [Marc Abrams(2003.12.16.0636)]
> 
> [From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 12:46 AM CST]
> 
> Martin & Bill,
> 
> Why does it matter \_what\_ the reference level of another individual is? What  
> matters is what is perceived about that individual, not what the 'real  
> intent' of the other is.

I thought I pointed that out. Was I wrong?

> That we will never know for sure. That's why it's  
> important to make sure you are perceiving correctly, \_that\_ is somthing we  
> \_do\_ have some control over.

How?

> We obviuosly, cannot get into someone's head  
> and 'see' intent.

Nevertheless, that's what we must do to the best of our ability in  
any communication. Successful communication (seen from the omniscient  
viewpoint) occurs when both parties correctly perceive the intent of  
the other.

Successful communication (from the viewpoint of the originator of a  
communication) occurs when the originator of the communication  
perceives that the recipient correctly perceived the originator's  
intent.

Successful communication (from the viewpoint of the recipient) occurs  
when the recipient perceives that the originator perceives the  
recipient to have correctly perceived the originator's intent.

That complexity is why communication is so difficult--and why it is  
hard to be sure whether someone is an enemy. Deceit is a part of  
communication.

Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no  
power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and  
if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve  
some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),  
then he is an enemy. Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means  
physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to  
control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/2 "2003-12-16T16:19:26Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.1106)]

> [Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.09.52]

> \>That we will never know for sure. That's why it's  
> \>important to make sure you are perceiving correctly, \_that\_ is somthing

we

> \>\_do\_ have some control over.
> 
> How?

By reflection and introspection, to name two ways. The MOL is a technique of  
this type and Chris Argyris has a number of successful techniques he uses,  
with 'Going-up-the-ladder' the equivalent to the MOL.

> Nevertheless, that's what we must do to the best of our ability in  
> any communication. Successful communication (seen from the omniscient  
> viewpoint) occurs when both parties correctly perceive the intent of  
> the other.

And, I'm suggesting something different. We need to make sure that our  
perceptions are in line with what the other party intends them to be. We can  
check our perceptions, we can't check someone else's intent.

> Successful communication (from the viewpoint of the originator of a  
> communication) occurs when the originator of the communication  
> perceives that the recipient correctly perceived the originator's  
> intent.

�t depends on what and how you define 'successful'. If I'm communicating  
something to someone, I intend for them to take a specific action, this is  
not always explicit, but it is always implied. So a 'succesful'  
communication would be one where I saw the intended action I wanted or was  
told by the individual why he /she did not intend to take that action. If I  
did not get either, chances are he did not percieve my communication  
correctly.

> That complexity is why communication is so difficult--and why it is  
> hard to be sure whether someone is an enemy. Deceit is a part of  
> communication.

Yes, but there are ways around that.

> Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no  
> power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and  
> if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve  
> some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),  
> then he is an enemy. Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means  
> physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to  
> control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.

Martin, this is why I said it makes no difference what the 'intent' is. What  
is critical here is if a threat is perceived and acted upon.

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/73ab20/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams1)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/3 "2003-12-16T17:07:35Z")

</div>

[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 11:00 AM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.09.52]

Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no  
power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and  
if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve  
some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),  
then he is an enemy.

Perhaps I should have said, \_while\_ a person lacks the capacity to injure me I wouldn't consider them an enemy.

And, Martin says,

Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.

You might be right, but I'm not familiar with how this would work. A comic could be said to create laughter by "symbolic manipulation." However, the laughter is "created" only in the context of a willingness to attend to the message. In the absence of a choice to attend to the message I can't see that any manipulation of symbols could have an effect.

However, I think I see how to cope with the question you raise, without giving away everything I wanted to claim. So, I'll concede that if the person generating the communication is more intelligent than the receiver, the receiver might be conned, and thus "hurt."

Bill Williams

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor2)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 10:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/4 "2003-12-16T22:30:23Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.1721]

> From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.1106)]
> 
> \> [Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.09.52]

I think I should refere you you the papers on the  
Layered Protocol (aka PCT approach to  
communication in the PCT sepcial issue of the  
International Journal of Human Computer  
Communication.

> \> Nevertheless, that's what we must do to the best of our ability in
> 
> > any communication. Successful communication (seen from the omniscient  
> > viewpoint) occurs when both parties correctly perceive the intent of  
> > the other.
> 
> And, I'm suggesting something different. We need to make sure that our  
> perceptions are in line with what the other party intends them to be. We can  
> check our perceptions, we can't check someone else's intent.

In spite of what you said int eh part of your  
message I didn't quote, I regasrd it as literally  
impossible to determine that one's perceptions  
are an accurate reflection of teh real outer  
world (assuming it exists).

> \> Successful communication (from the viewpoint of the originator of a
> 
> > communication) occurs when the originator of the communication  
> > perceives that the recipient correctly perceived the originator's  
> > intent.
> 
> �t depends on what and how you define 'successful'. If I'm communicating  
> something to someone, I intend for them to take a specific action, this is  
> not always explicit, but it is always implied. So a 'succesful'  
> communication would be one where I saw the intended action I wanted or was  
> told by the individual why he /she did not intend to take that action. If I  
> did not get either, chances are he did not percieve my communication  
> correctly.

Exactly. You got it!!

> \> That complexity is why communication is so difficult--and why it is
> 
> > hard to be sure whether someone is an enemy. Deceit is a part of  
> > communication.
> 
> Yes, but there are ways around that.

Within the communication, no. By incorporating  
the perception that was the "Promal Message" of  
the communication into a perception that has  
other inputs, yes. But that's not the point, when  
you are talking about the act of cumminicating.

> \> Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no
> 
> > power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and  
> > if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve  
> > some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),  
> > then he is an enemy. Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means  
> > physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to  
> > control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.
> 
> Martin, this is why I said it makes no difference what the 'intent' is. What  
> is critical here is if a threat is perceived and acted upon.

You can be under threat from somebody that isn't  
an enemy. Anyone with whom you are in conflict  
can be a threat. So can an inanimate object such  
as an overhanging snow wall. It is intent that  
makes an enemy. And then it does not matter  
whether that enemy has presently the power to  
hurt me (i.e. reduce my ability to control). One  
can be an enemy without being a threat, and one  
can be in conflict without being an enemy.

One I perceive as an enemy is one I perceive as  
having a reference for a controlled perception  
that intrinsically involves the reduction of my  
ability to control (i.e. not for a perception  
whose satisfactory control has a side-effect of  
reducing my ability to control).

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/73ab20/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams1)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/5 "2003-12-16T23:18:49Z")

</div>

[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 5:24 PM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.1721]

> \> Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no
> 
> > power to hurt me. I say he can,

OK. If you want to define enemy this way it makes sense in terms of the way you are considering the issue. What I was concerned with was the tendency that people sometimes have of attributing intentions to others where it is doubtful such intentions exist-- the result sometimes being a self-confirming prediction. Thus hostilities can arrise out of over active immaginations.

Bill Williams

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 12:05am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/6 "2003-12-17T00:05:51Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.1834)]

> [Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.1721]

> \> \> Nevertheless, that's what we must do to the best of our ability in  
> \>\> any communication. Successful communication (seen from the omniscient  
> \>\> viewpoint) occurs when both parties correctly perceive the intent of  
> \>\> the other.  
> \>  
> \>And, I'm suggesting something different. We need to make sure that our  
> \>perceptions are in line with what the other party intends them to be. We

can

> \>check our perceptions, we can't check someone else's intent.
> 
> In spite of what you said int eh part of your  
> message I didn't quote, I regasrd it as literally  
> impossible to determine that one's perceptions  
> are an accurate reflection of teh real outer  
> world (assuming it exists).

There are \_many\_ 'real' worlds. Our perceptions are one of them.

> \>�t depends on what and how you define 'successful'. If I'm communicating  
> \>something to someone, I intend for them to take a specific action, this

is

> \>not always explicit, but it is always implied. So a 'succesful'  
> \>communication would be one where I saw the intended action I wanted or

was

> \>told by the individual why he /she did not intend to take that action. If

I

> \>did not get either, chances are he did not percieve my communication  
> \>correctly.
> 
> Exactly. You got it!!

Great, so we \_do\_ perceive this in a similar light.

> \> \> Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no  
> \>\> power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and  
> \>\> if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve  
> \>\> some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),  
> \>\> then he is an enemy. Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means  
> \>\> physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to  
> \>\> control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.  
> \>  
> \>Martin, this is why I said it makes no difference what the 'intent' is.

What

> \>is critical here is if a threat is perceived and acted upon.
> 
> You can be under threat from somebody that isn't  
> an enemy. Anyone with whom you are in conflict  
> can be a threat. So can an inanimate object such  
> as an overhanging snow wall. It is intent that  
> makes an enemy. And then it does not matter  
> whether that enemy has presently the power to  
> hurt me (i.e. reduce my ability to control). One  
> can be an enemy without being a threat, and one  
> can be in conflict without being an enemy.

Martin, this is all a play on words. No matter how you slice it and dice it,  
it all comes down to what we perceive to be the truth. \_That\_ is the  
'reality' of the situation because we act to bring that (i.e.  
perception)into a certain state, whether that perception is real, imagined  
or a combination of the two. For each of us our perceptions \_are\_ our world  
and our reality. Whether I consider somebody an enemy, threat, friend,  
buddy, rival, etc. depends on how \_I\_ perceive that person. Certainly that  
person has a say in how I perceive them, but not \_totally\_. I can only  
influence another person and the amount of influence I have depends not on  
me, but on the other person. Let me remind you that we still have a flat  
earth society, and people who believe in astrology.

> One I perceive as an enemy is one I perceive as  
> having a reference for a controlled perception  
> that intrinsically involves the reduction of my  
> ability to control (i.e. not for a perception  
> whose satisfactory control has a side-effect of  
> reducing my ability to control).

\_This\_ I believe may very well be true. It may also be a bit presumptuous.

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 12:57am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/7 "2003-12-17T00:57:00Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.16.1700)]

> Bill Williams (16 December 2003 5:24 PM CST) --

> What I was concerned with was the tendency that people sometimes  
> have of attributing intentions to others where it is doubtful such intentions  
> exist-- the result sometimes being a self-confirming prediction.

I thought that what you were initially concerned with was having a reference for a person being an "enemy". I think this was a very legitimate concern. People do develop references for people (or groups) being their enemy and this, of course, leads these people to act to bring their perception of that person (or group) to the reference.

If you want (have a reference for) a person to be your enemy you control for perceiving them this way. In extreme cases this is called paranoia and it's certainly not a good basis for communication. But sometimes people really \_are\_ your enemy and it's wise to take some precautions to protect yourself from them. This is clearly true of bin Laden. He is my enemy, not because I  
want him to be but because \_he\_ wants himself to be. This is clearly not true of Saddam Hussain. He was not my enemy or America's enemy; indeed, he was our ally for quite some time. I think this administration did set a reference for Saddam being the enemy and went after him, possibly because he was easier to get than bin Laden. This strikes me as somewhat crazy.

What the administration should have done (I think, but of course, the White House didn't call me either) is try to catch bin Laden and the people who support him. At the same time they should have done things to get at the root cause of Islamic terrorism, which, I believe, is a pervasive feeling on the part of many Arabs of humiliation at the hands of the West, including  
Israel. I think the Bush administration could have done these things -- for the same reasons that Nixon was able to patch up US relations with China -- but they didn't. So now I would at least like to them to protect me from our real rather than our imagined enemies.

Best

Rick

[marken1.vcf](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/short-url/z1fHR05AxD7ItCx1JjxGcAQevIs.vcf) (93 Bytes)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor2)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 1:24am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/8 "2003-12-17T01:24:07Z")

</div>

> [From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 5:24 PM CST]
> 
> [Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.1721]
> 
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;\> Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no
> > 
> > > &nbsp;&nbsp;power to hurt me. I say he can,
> 
> OK. If you want to define enemy this way it makes sense in terms of  
> the way you are considering the issue. What I was concerned with was  
> the tendency that people sometimes have of attributing intentions to  
> others where it is doubtful such intentions exist-- the result  
> sometimes being a self-confirming prediction. Thus hostilities can  
> arrise out of over active immaginations.

Yes, to point that out was my original intention in mentioning "You  
are not the target".

We do tend to perceive that another has bad intentions towards us  
when actually the adverse results of their actions are a side effect  
of their controlling some perception unrelated to us. If we try to  
control that perception, the result may well be that the other  
perceives us as being their enemy (in the sense I suggested). And  
then they may start controlling perceptions relating to us, becoming  
our enemy in fact instead of in imagination.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor2)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 1:39am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/9 "2003-12-17T01:39:20Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16 2027 EST]

> From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.1834)]
> 
> \> [Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.1721]
> 
> \>... I regard it as literally  
> \> impossible to determine that one's perceptions
> 
> > are an accurate reflection of teh real outer  
> > world (assuming it exists).
> 
> There are \_many\_ 'real' worlds. Our perceptions are one of them.

(a) How do you know there are \_many\_ 'real' worlds? Are you asserting  
the literal truth of the Copenhagen interpretation? (b) If not, what  
ARE you trying to say? What I am trying to say is that the only world  
we know is our perceptions.

> \> \> \> Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no
> 
> > \>\> power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and  
> > \>\> if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve  
> > \>\> some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),  
> > \>\> then he is an enemy. Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means  
> > \>\> physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to  
> > \>\> control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.  
> > \>  
> > \>Martin, this is why I said it makes no difference what the 'intent' is.
> 
> What
> 
> > \>is critical here is if a threat is perceived and acted upon.
> > 
> > You can be under threat from somebody that isn't  
> > an enemy. Anyone with whom you are in conflict  
> > can be a threat. So can an inanimate object such  
> > as an overhanging snow wall. It is intent that  
> > makes an enemy. And then it does not matter  
> > whether that enemy has presently the power to  
> > hurt me (i.e. reduce my ability to control). One  
> > can be an enemy without being a threat, and one  
> > can be in conflict without being an enemy.
> 
> Martin, this is all a play on words.

Very far from it. It's crucial.

> No matter how you slice it and dice it,  
> it all comes down to what we perceive to be the truth.

As I have tried to emphasise.

> For each of us our perceptions \_are\_ our world  
> and our reality. Whether I consider somebody an enemy, threat, friend,  
> buddy, rival, etc. depends on how \_I\_ perceive that person.

I can't fathom why you write as if you were contradicting me, when  
you are emphasising the same point I tried to emphasise.

I think that the problem lies elsewhere. There is a big difference in  
whether I perceive John Smith is doing something that accidentally  
poses a threat to me or whether I perceive him doing the same thing  
in order to harm me. In the first case, he is not an enemy, and is  
likely to try to stop if I warn him of the threat to me. In the other  
case I may well try to hide the fact that I perceive a threat,  
because to let him know I perceive the threat is to let him know he  
is bringing his perception closer to its reference (to see me harmed).

An intermediate condition occurs if John Smith and I are in conflict.  
Either "winning" the conflict harms the other in the sense that the  
loser's ability to control is reduced. But I don't see John Smith as  
an enemy, in that I don't perceive his intention to be to harm me. I  
assume that if he had another way to control his perception without  
harming me, he would be as happy to use that other means. It's when I  
don't make that assumption, then I begin to see him as an enemy.

> \> One I perceive as an enemy is one I perceive as
> 
> > having a reference for a controlled perception  
> > that intrinsically involves the reduction of my  
> > ability to control (i.e. not for a perception  
> > whose satisfactory control has a side-effect of  
> > reducing my ability to control).
> 
> \_This\_ I believe may very well be true. It may also be a bit presumptuous.

What's presumptuous about that? Surely it's central to the whole idea?

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 3:55am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/10 "2003-12-17T03:55:08Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.2232)]

> [Martin Taylor 2003.12.16 2027 EST]

> What I am trying to say is that the only world we know is our perceptions.

Me too.

> I think that the problem lies elsewhere. There is a big difference in  
> whether I perceive John Smith is doing something that accidentally  
> poses a threat to me or whether I perceive him doing the same thing  
> in order to harm me. In the first case, he is not an enemy, and is  
> likely to try to stop if I warn him of the threat to me. In the other  
> case I may well try to hide the fact that I perceive a threat,  
> because to let him know I perceive the threat is to let him know he  
> is bringing his perception closer to its reference (to see me harmed).

A) How do you know it's accidental? I said it was a play on words before  
\_not\_ to minimize the importance, but to shorthandedly say it doesn't matter  
\_what\_ the scenario is. Your perceptions will be formed by your sensory  
inputs, imagination and emotions and in a combination thta may or may not be  
effective for you. I don't think we disagree on this. One of my points was  
that \_many\_ times we imagine things to be a in a way that are not in  
accordance with what actually happened.

> \> \> One I perceive as an enemy is one I perceive as  
> \>\> having a reference for a controlled perception  
> \>\> that intrinsically involves the reduction of my  
> \>\> ability to control (i.e. not for a perception  
> \>\> whose satisfactory control has a side-effect of  
> \>\> reducing my ability to control).  
> \>  
> \>\_This\_ I believe may very well be true. It may also be a bit

presumptuous.

> What's presumptuous about that? Surely it's central to the whole idea?

It might be presumptuous to think that his intent is/was to 'reduce your  
ability to control'.

Marc

> **···**
>
> > Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/73ab20/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams1)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 4:08am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/11 "2003-12-17T04:08:17Z")

</div>

[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 10:00 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.16.1700)]

> Bill Williams (16 December 2003 5:24 PM CST) --

> What I was concerned with was the tendency that people sometimes  
> have of attributing intentions to others where it is doubtful such intentions  
> exist-- the result sometimes being a self-confirming prediction.

I thought that what you were initially concerned with was having a reference for a person being an "enemy". I think this was a very legitimate concern. People do develop references for people (or groups) being their enemy and this, of course, leads these people to act to bring their perception of that person (or group) to the reference.

Right. And, when you consider the combined effects from both sides, the slippery slope is very steep. So you have two very real enemies in almost no time.

If you want (have a reference for) a person to be your enemy you control for perceiving them this way. In extreme cases this is called paranoia and it's certainly not a good basis for communication. But sometimes people really \_are\_ your enemy and it's wise to take some precautions to protect yourself from them. This is clearly true of bin Laden. He is my enemy, not because I  
want him to be but because \_he\_ wants himself to be. This is clearly not true of Saddam Hussain. He was not my enemy or America's enemy; indeed, he was our ally for quite some time. I think this administration did set a reference for Saddam being the enemy and went after him, possibly because he was easier to get than bin Laden. This strikes me as somewhat crazy.

Reminds me of looking for the key under the streetlight.

What the administration should have done (I think, but of course, the White House didn't call me either) is try to catch bin Laden and the people who support him. At the same time they should have done things to get at the root cause of Islamic terrorism, which, I believe, is a pervasive feeling on the part of many Arabs of humiliation at the hands of the West, including  
Israel.

This certainly part of it. It wouldn't cost us anything outside of the effort of reorganization to stop doing unnecessary things that they consider humiliating.

I think the Bush administration could have done these things -- for the same reasons that Nixon was able to patch up US relations with China -- but they didn't.

Presidents tend to follow the opinion polls, and there has been a lot of anti-Arab feeling.

So now I would at least like to them to protect me from our real rather than our imagined enemies.

Dollar for dollar I would bet that Arabic cultural studies, and exchanges might be one of the most effective ways to protect ourselves from these enemies people who consider themselves our enemies.

Best

Bill Williams

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor2)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 7:00am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/12 "2003-12-17T07:00:49Z")

</div>

[Martin taylor 2003.12.17.0200 EST]

> From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.2232)]
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2003.12.16 2027 EST]
> 
> > What I am trying to say is that the only world we know is our perceptions.
> 
> Me too.
> 
> > I think that the problem lies elsewhere. There is a big difference in  
> > whether I perceive John Smith is doing something that accidentally  
> > poses a threat to me or whether I perceive him doing the same thing  
> > in order to harm me. In the first case, he is not an enemy, and is  
> > likely to try to stop if I warn him of the threat to me. In the other  
> > case I may well try to hide the fact that I perceive a threat,  
> > because to let him know I perceive the threat is to let him know he  
> > is bringing his perception closer to its reference (to see me harmed).
> 
> A) How do you know it's accidental?

You don't, but you can perceive it as such, which is what I said.

> \> \> \> One I perceive as an enemy is one I perceive as
> 
> > \>\> having a reference for a controlled perception  
> > \>\> that intrinsically involves the reduction of my  
> > \>\> ability to control (i.e. not for a perception  
> > \>\> whose satisfactory control has a side-effect of  
> > \>\> reducing my ability to control).  
> > \>  
> > \>\_This\_ I believe may very well be true. It may also be a bit
> 
> presumptuous.
> 
> > What's presumptuous about that? Surely it's central to the whole idea?
> 
> It might be presumptuous to think that his intent is/was to 'reduce your  
> ability to control'.

Yes, but if you do think that, then you are perceiving him as your  
enemy, presumptuous or not.

It's all in what you perceive to be the other's intentions.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/13 "2003-12-17T14:10:29Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.17.0906)]

> [Martin taylor 2003.12.17.0200 EST]

> It's all in what you perceive to be the other's intentions.

\_That\_ has been my only point. I don't see how we disagree on any of this  
stuff. I'm going to review this thread and get back to you on it. This  
thread might be an interesting case in point of 'mis-perceptions' 🙂

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor2)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 3:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/14 "2003-12-17T15:02:15Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.17.1001 EST]

> From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.17.0906)]
> 
> > [Martin taylor 2003.12.17.0200 EST]
> 
> > It's all in what you perceive to be the other's intentions.
> 
> \_That\_ has been my only point. I don't see how we disagree on any of this  
> stuff. I'm going to review this thread and get back to you on it. This  
> thread might be an interesting case in point of 'mis-perceptions' 🙂

And on the Layered Protocol Theory, which was what led me to PCT when  
I realized that LPT actually formed a subset of PCT.

I'm sure you will find lots of places where a missed or poorly chosen  
word or two, along with preconceptions (imagined perceptions) led to  
unintended interpetations that would have been quickly resolved in  
face-to-face communication.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/15 "2003-12-17T16:33:28Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.17.0908 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.2232)--

> Your perceptions will be formed by your sensory  
> inputs, imagination and emotions and in a combination that may or may not be  
> effective for you.

This doesn't tell us much unless you're ready to propose a model explaining  
how this interaction works. I don't mean that you have to run it on a  
computer or write the equations, just that you need to say what you mean by  
all these terms and spell out the relationships among the phenomena to  
which they refer.. What do you mean by the words perception, sensory  
inputs, imagination, and emotion? And from those definitions, how are you  
proposing that perception is formed from the other three? For example, I  
can see my glasses case lying on the table next to the monitor screen. How  
does sensory input help to produce that perception? In what way does  
emotion influence it, and by what proposed mechanism? By what means does  
imagination (taking into account your definition of it) contribute to my  
perception of that glasses case -- and again, by what mechanism?

It would help if you could draw diagrams showing the relationships between  
these elements -- where they come from, and what other things they  
influence. So far you've described how these things seem to come together  
in your experience, but that's only the first step toward a model. The next  
step is to lay out the details of the relationships you're talking about,  
to the extent possible.

You once asked what is required of a good model. The above questions and  
comments are a partial answer. Modeling is not just describing how the  
world appears to you; it's trying to explain, in terms of underlying  
mechanisms, why it appears that way . You may have to guess at most of the  
mechanisms, but you can make the guesses plausible in terms of what is  
known about neurophysiology, and you can at least put together a proposed  
structure of mechanisms as a starting point, a structure that would produce  
the effects you're describing if everything worked as you propose. Then of  
course, begins the long process of making predictions from the model,  
comparing them with what actually happens, and modifying the model as  
differences show up.

I certainly agree that sensory inputs, memory, and imagination all  
contribute to the world we perceive. But that is only a beginning sketch.  
If you want to get beyond that point you have to take a chance and make  
specific proposals about mechanisms. That means you risk being wrong, but  
that's the name of the game. Turtle progesses by sticking neck out (Charlie  
Chan).

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/73ab20/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams1)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/16 "2003-12-17T17:33:44Z")

</div>

[From Bill Williams 17 December 2003 11:35 AM CST]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.17.0906)]

> [Martin taylor 2003.12.17.0200 EST]

> It's all in what you perceive to be the other's intentions.

\_That\_ has been my only point. I don't see how we disagree on any of this  
stuff. I'm going to review this thread and get back to you on it. This  
thread might be an interesting case in point of 'mis-perceptions' 🙂

View from the side lines it has certainly looked that way.

Bill Williams

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 8:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/communication-was-congratulations/13345/17 "2003-12-17T20:44:46Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.17.1538)]

> [From Bill Powers (2003.12.17.0908 MST)]

> This doesn't tell us much unless you're ready to propose a model

explaining

> how this interaction works.

Fair questions and a good proposal, thanks. Give me a day ot two to put this  
together. I feel like the guy who has a pile of stuff on his desk a mile  
high and to any outsider, it looks like a \_mess\_, but I know where \_every\_  
piece is. Now I need to organize it in a fashion that is both more useful  
and more productive. Thanks for providing the impetus to clean up my desk.  
🙂

Marc