Congratulations

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.15.0910)]

Bjorn Simonsen(2003.12.15,11:55 EuST)--

The silence in connection with my "Congratulation" thread and
your uncertainty Marc indicates a huge difference in what
people in Norway and USA were absorbed by yesterday. In
Norway there were extra broadcasting/TV the whole day and
people I talked with rejoiced at the arrest of Saddam Hussein.

I was certainly glad to learn that Saddam was caught. I hope it makes things better for our troops over there and the people if Iraq. I wasn't overwhelmed with unreserved joy, though, because it just reminded me that Saddam was an irrelevant diversion from the real problem -- Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Our actual enemies, if anyone recalls, are Osama bin Laden and his followers.

Catching Saddam is rather like catching Milosovic; we captured a person who was oppressing and murdering people in his own country. That's certainly a good thing to do (I wish we had done it with Pinochet, the Shah, Samosa, and any number of other murderous US puppets, too, instead of installing and supporting then). I found the capture of Milosovic far more satisfying, emotionally, than the capture of Saddam because we fought the war against him for humanitarian reasons in the first place. We fought the war against Saddam on false pretenses -- not to liberate Iraq but to defend ourselves.

I hope that something good will come of this for Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. But I have a feeling that the person who is happier about this than almost anyone is Osama himself.

Best regards

Rick

Richard Marken, Ph. D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
RAND Corporation
1700 Main St., P.O. Box 2138
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
310 393-0411 Ext. 7971
rmarken@rand.org

2

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 `1:34 PM CST]

Rick,

You say,

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.15.0910)]

Our actual enemies .... are Osama bin Laden and his followers.

from a control theory standpoint it doesn't seem to me that it is a good idea to generate a reference level such as "enemies." To make such a choice might put one in a position where people could say, "I see you have choosen...to have enemies." And, they might be right.

I would think that people like Osama bin Laden and some of his folowers, some Jewish fundamentalist, some Christian fundamentalist, some PCT fundamentalist have some common characteristics-- an inclination to generate within themselves a perception of a world populated by enemies. This might in fact be true, but it will always be a conjecture.

Of course, if someone else is going to adopt the view that I am an enemy, then it may be neccesary to take precautions. However, to adopt the view that someone _is_ an enemy is, I think, a completely different issue.

I happen to know some Islamic fundamentalists. They don't appear as far as I can tell to be any different in any important way than other fundamentalists.

Bill Williams

3

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.1632)]

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 `1:34 PM CST]

I would think that people like Osama bin Laden and some of his folowers,

some Jewish fundamentalist, some >Christian fundamentalist, some PCT
fundamentalist have some common characteristics-- an inclination to generate

within themselves a perception of a world populated by enemies. This might

in fact be true, but it will always be a >conjecture.

Maybe, but Jewish 'fundamentalists' and Christian 'fundamentalists' do not,
at this time in history want to kill or enslave non-believers. You need to
distinguish between the 'religous' folks and the 'political' Islamists, who
want to turn the world back to the 10th century. If that is what they want I
hope they get it. Just don't make me one of the crowd.

Do you remember 9/11?

I happen to know some Islamic fundamentalists. They don't appear as far as

I can tell to be any different in any >important way than other
fundamentalists.

So? Maybe they're not. But then again, maybe they are. Not every Moslem
fundamentalist is an Islamist, but every Islamist _IS_ a Moslem. That my
friend is a _fact_.

Marc

4

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.15.1659)]

From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.1632)]

So? Maybe they're not. But then again, maybe they are. Not every Moslem
fundamentalist is an Islamist, but every Islamist _IS_ a Moslem. That
my
friend is a _fact_.

They don't make Jews like Jesus any more, and that my friend is
_another_ fact." If you want more facts, I recommend the _World Almanac
and Book of Facts_.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

5

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.1732)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.15.1659)]

They don't make Jews like Jesus any more, ...

Do you know Kinky Friedman? He wrote a song with that very title.

and that my friend is
_another_ fact." If you want more facts, I recommend the _World Almanac
and Book of Facts_.

Yes, and I use it all the time. What's your favorite section?

Marc

6

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 4:40 PM CST]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.1632)]

You say,

".... Jewish 'fundamentalists' and Christian 'fundamentalists' do not,
at this time in history want to kill or enslave non-believers.

Actually, the perception, "from the other side," is that Jewish and Christian fundamentalists do wish to dominate and are engaged in such efforts on a large scale. There are enough "facts" availible to convince some Arabs of this.

You say,

You need to distinguish between the 'religous' folks and the 'political' Islamists,...

Encountered at close hand, I can not distinguish between the two. The Arabs I know are, at the same time, both 'religious' and 'political.' The same holds true of fundamentalist Christians I have known. I've never encountered a Jewish fundamentalist.

You say,

Do you remember 9/11?

I do. But, _how_ I remember 911 may be different than _how_ you remember it.

You say,

every Islamist _IS_ a Moslem. That my friend is a _fact_.

Perhaps. But is there an axiological conclusion that I should derive from your statement?

Bill Williams

7

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.15.1751)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.1732)

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.15.1659)]

They don't make Jews like Jesus any more, ...

Do you know Kinky Friedman? He wrote a song with that very title.

Indeed he did, and I shamelessly appropriated it from him. i suspect he
won't mind.

and that my friend is
_another_ fact." If you want more facts, I recommend the _World
Almanac
and Book of Facts_.

Yes, and I use it all the time. What's your favorite section?

So many facts. So little time.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

8

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.1854)]

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 4:40 PM CST]

".... Jewish 'fundamentalists' and Christian 'fundamentalists' do not,
at this time in history want to kill or enslave non-believers.

Actually, the perception, "from the other side," is that Jewish and
Christian fundamentalists do wish to dominate and are engaged in such
efforts on a large scale. There are enough "facts" availible to convince
some Arabs of this.

Please state them.

You need to distinguish between the 'religous' folks and the 'political'
Islamists,...

Encountered at close hand, I can not distinguish between the two. The Arabs
I know are, at the same time, both 'religious' and 'political.' The same
holds true of fundamentalist Christians I have known. I've never
encountered a Jewish fundamentalist.

So how can you make that comment about Jewish fundamentalists? By what your
islamist friends tell you? Good luck. Just for your information, Jews do not
prostelitize. They do not seek converts.

You say,

Do you remember 9/11?

I do. But, _how_ I remember 911 may be different than _how_ you remember it.

You bet. I actually watched the buildings come down in real time from the
roof of my building. I also saw the second plane slam into the 2nd tower. So
yes, I bet we had different experiences

Perhaps. But is there an axiological conclusion that I should derive from
your statement?

Figure it out for yourself.

Marc

9

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.1902)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.15.1751)]

Indeed he did, and I shamelessly appropriated it from him. i suspect he
won't mind.

Nah, I don't think so. Have you ever heard it? It's very funny. Along with
some of his other favorites, such as _I am an a--hole from El Paso_ and his
unforgettable little ditty Ol' Ben Lucas.

So many facts. So little time.

Might I suggest the "World Almanac" - Cliff notes

Marc

10

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 7:00 PM CST]

Marc,

In the sequence which end,

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.1854)]

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 4:40 PM CST]

".... Jewish 'fundamentalists' and Christian 'fundamentalists' do not,
at this time in history want to kill or enslave non-believers.

Actually, the perception, "from the other side," is that Jewish and
Christian fundamentalists do wish to dominate and are engaged in such
efforts on a large scale. There are enough "facts" availible to convince
some Arabs of this.

Please state them.

There is the existence of Israel for one thing. The US occupation of Iraq for another.

You need to distinguish between the 'religous' folks and the 'political'
Islamists,...

Encountered at close hand, I can not distinguish between the two. The Arabs
I know are, at the same time, both 'religious' and 'political.' The same
holds true of fundamentalist Christians I have known. I've never
encountered a Jewish fundamentalist.

So how can you make that comment about Jewish fundamentalists?

Because, as I say, I have never encountered a Jewish fundamentalist. So, I'm limiting my conclusions to the experience that I have had.

By what your islamist friends tell you?

I am not aware of having said that I have "Islamic friends." As a matter of fact the ones that I talk to seem to have some values that I don't share.

Good luck. Just for your information, Jews do not prostelitize. They do not seek converts.

I have for some time been aware of this. To repeat, My comment about Jewish fundamentalist, merely pointed out that I have not had direct encounters with them

You say,

Do you remember 9/11?

I do. But, _how_ I remember 911 may be different than _how_ you remember it.

You bet. I actually watched the buildings come down in real time from the
roof of my building. I also saw the second plane slam into the 2nd tower. So
yes, I bet we had different experiences

No doubt we do.

Perhaps. But is there an axiological conclusion that I should derive from
your statement?

Figure it out for yourself.

I doubt that I have enough information.

Bill Williams

11

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.2025)]

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 7:00 PM CST]

Time to move on William :slight_smile:

I misunderstood your comment.

Marc

12

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 8:00 PM CST]

to Marc, and CSGnet folk,

Earlier in the sequence of the "Congratulations" thread, I suggested that from a control theory perspective, adopting the perception that someone or some group was an enemy was probably not a good idea.

I also suggested that identifying "enemies" appeared to be a characteristic common to fundamentalists of various persuasions.

I didn't intend to imply that all fundamentalists groups share precisely the same traits-- the different fundamentalist cultures quite obviously exhibit differences, even marked differences.

What I had hoped to provoke was a discussion of the question which is: if one genuinely understands the implications of control theory, can one justify, or under what circumstance one can justify, adopting the reference level "enemies" as a guide by which to control one's perceptions.

Bill Williams

13

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.2143)]

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 8:00 PM CST]

What I had hoped to provoke was a discussion of the question which is: if
one genuinely understands the implications of control theory, can one
justify, or under what circumstance one can justify, adopting the reference
level "enemies" as a guide by which to control one's perceptions.

I think this is a fair question. But what does it mean to understand the
implications of control theory. Post-hoc we seem to do fine in explaining
how something _might_ have been controlled. What we can't seem to do is to
predict the types of perceptions people might have, given the input. We know
we can't predict behavior because behavior varies, but we _should_ in theory
be able to predict what kind of perceptions people might have, given the
input. That is why I have been stressing imagination and emotions so
strongly. I don't think we will ever be able to 'predict' the type of
perceptions various inputs produce until we know _how_ perceptions are
constructed and what they contain. HPCT _should_ be able to predict (in
general terms) what kind of perceptions someone might have, given certain
inputs. Am I making any sense here?

Marc

14

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 10:15 PM CST]

Marc,

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Marc Abrams
Sent: Mon 12/15/2003 8:57 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Congratulations

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.2143)]

You ask, in response to my use of the conditional phrase "If one understands the implications of control theory."

But what does it mean to understand the implications of control theory[?]

In practice what I had in mind, was an ablity in inter-personal interaction to avoid attributing to others motives, or even actions, which the other persons do not have, or actions which they have not actually carried out. The most common example is the attribution to someone of an evil intent when they have suposedly said something that is thought to be hurtful. First, attribution is often mistaken as to intent, and second, the idea that speech can wound is, as I understand it, contrary to a proper understanding of control theory. The pain associated with what one hears, again as I understand it, is a product of one's perceptions and one's reference levels. Since according to a control theory perspective one ordinarily has control of both one's perceptions and a choice in regard to the reference levels one adopts, the disturbances one experiences are, or can be controlled.

You say,

That is why I have been stressing imagination and emotions so
strongly.

I may be mistaken in my assumptions as to precisely what you mean "That" to stand for. I would insert into "that" my belief that in inter-personal interactions people often interpret what other people say and do in terms of "immagination and emotions" as much or more than the actual content of the situation. And, how else could people make sense of what they experience. Of, neccesity they understand their experience as a product of their "immagination and emotions." There is no getting away from this. The question, and an interesting question I think, is "When is it justified to attribute the status of "enemy" to someone, or somegroup? The question can, I think, be restated in terms of what sorts of immagination and emotions are functional and what sort are likely to lead to unneccesary conflicts.

You say,

Am I making any sense here?

If you mean what I mean, why then of course! And, very perceptively too. If you mean something else, then there may be a need for further clarification.

Bill Williams

15

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.15.0008)]

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 10:15 PM CST]

You ask, in response to my use of the conditional phrase "If one understands
the implications of control theory."

But what does it mean to understand the implications of control theory[?]

Since according to a control theory perspective one ordinarily has control

of both one's perceptions and a choice >in regard to the reference levels
one adopts, the disturbances one experiences are, or can be controlled.

_IF_ we know what someone is actually perceiving

You say,

That is why I have been stressing imagination and emotions so
strongly.

I may be mistaken in my assumptions as to precisely what you mean "That" to
stand for. I would insert into "that" my belief that in inter-personal
interactions people often interpret what other people say and do in terms of
"immagination and emotions" as much or more than the actual content of the
situation. And, how else could people make sense of what they experience.
Of, neccesity they understand their experience as a product of their
"immagination and emotions." There is no getting away from this. The
question, and an interesting question I think, is "When is it justified to
attribute the status of "enemy" to someone, or somegroup? The question can,
I think, be restated in terms of what sorts of immagination and emotions are
functional and what sort are likely to lead to unneccesary conflicts.

_BINGO_ !!!!!!!!!! You got it.

Way to go Bill. Hopefully in the future I'll do a better job of explaining
myself. Thanks for the help. I don't know what I'd do without you and Bruce
G. 'translating' my stuff sometimes. :slight_smile:

Marc

16

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 11:40 PM CST]

Marc,

you say,

_BINGO_ !!!!!!!!!! You got it.

Pleased to be of service.

I don't myself see any reason why what you are interested in can not be accomodated within a control theory perspective.

And, my question still remains, the question of when it is justifiable to designate someone or some group as an "enemy."

Bill Williams

17

Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.0108 EST]

[From Bill Williams 15 December 2003 11:40 PM CST]

And, my question still remains, the question of when it is
justifiable to designate someone or some group as an "enemy."

Isn't this part of a more general question of how one perceives
another person's reference levels? My "enemy" is someone who has a
reference level to perceive me as being damaged (i.e. with reduced
ability to control my perceptions). I can't know another person's
reference levels, but I can nevertheless have a perception of them.

A person I perceive as an enemy may not in the least have a reference
to see me damaged. Would I be justified in designating such a person
as an enemy? Only if my perception happened to be true. Since we
don't have an omniscient referee to appeal to, the question is
unanswerable.

Martin

18

[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 12:46 AM CST]

Martin,

You say,

Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.0108 EST]

A person I perceive as an enemy may not in the least have a reference
to see me damaged. Would I be justified in designating such a person
as an enemy? Only if my perception happened to be true. Since we
don't have an omniscient referee to appeal to, the question is
unanswerable.

I am not persuaded that the question is _entirely_ unanswerable.

There are at least two parts to whether I am justified in regarding someone as an enemy. Their intent is one part of the question, and I would agree that questions regarding intent are in principle unanswerable. Someone who is nice to us may just be acting nice so as to be in a position to really hurt us later. We can't absolutely know for sure what is really going on in an other person's mind.

However, there is also a question of capabablity. What ever another person's intent, if they are lacking in any capacity to harm me, can they in any genuine sense be considered to be an enemy? I would say no.

The application which I wish to make that follows from my denying that a person who is not in a position to harm us can plausibly be considered to be an enemy is this: in the present situation where we are typing words back and forth to and at each other, we don't have the capacity to physically harm each other. So, any damage that is done is limited to the symbolic realm. That is, we read symbols from the screen, and that is the limit of our contact with each other. (For the purpose of argument I'll rule out hacking attacks, and the like.) As I understand it the symbols we read from the screeen do not have the power to actually injure us. Any pain we feel as a result of reading the screen is entirely a pain that we generate within ourselves. I'm not saying that the pain is any less real, only that the pain is internally generated. The pain isn't, if I understand the principles of control theory properly, caused by the person I may think is the enemy. The source of the pain is within us, is a question of our set of reference levels, our imagination, and our emotional disposition.

It seems to me that this is a very basic application of a control theory perspective, however, it would also appear that it is a lesson that is difficult to internalize, or at least internalize with a measure of comprehensiveness.

At least as I see it in the context of the CSGnet the notion of an enemy doesn't make sense. This leaves a lot of the great outdoors which may be inhabited by enemies, but I would still maintain that the adoption of control theory implies a shift in the understanding of what it means to have enemies.

Bill Williams

19

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.15.2358)]

Great night at Walt Disney Hall singing the Messiah. What great acoustics!!

Anyway, I see that the post attached below was not posted to CSGNet this afternoon. It's probably still in the queue at earthlink so I apologize if copies of this start pouring out in a few days.

···

---
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.15.1420)]

Bill Williams (15 December 2003 `1:34 PM CST) --

Rick Marken (2003.12.15.0910)]

Our actual enemies .... are Osama bin Laden and his followers.

From a control theory standpoint it doesn't seem to me that it is a
good idea to generate a reference level such as "enemies."

Perhaps. What I actually have is a reference level of zero for people I perceive as wanting to hurt me.

To make such a choice might put one in a position where people
could say, "I see you have choosen...to have enemies." And, they
might be right.

If I have chosen to have enemies then they would indeed be right. I don't think I chose Osama for an enemy. though. It looks like he chose me.

By the way, I never had any objection to the phrase "I see you have chosen" when that phrase is used by someone who has seen that a person _has_ chosen. I only object to the phrase when it is used as a deceitful way to evade one's own responsibility for what one is doing to another person. A policeman who says to a parking violator "I see you have chosen to get a ticket" is lying if can see that the violator clearly does not want the ticket and he is verbally evading responsibility for the fact that he (the policeman) is the one who has chosen to give the ticket.

I would think that people like Osama bin Laden and some of his
folowers...have some common characteristics

It's the unique characteristics that are of concern to me. Osama says he wants to kill Americans and he has already helped to carry out a horrendous terrorist attack on US soil. I don't care about him being Islamic or a fundamentalist or an "enemy". I care about the fact that he wants to kill Americans.

Of course, if someone else is going to adopt the view that
I am an enemy, then it may be neccesary to take precautions.

OK. So you're just like me. Someone has rather openly adopted the view that we (Americans) are the enemy and I would like to see those charged with protecting Americans take some precautions against that person. Capturing Saddam, wonderful as it is for the Iraqis, does not protect Americans from Osama.

Best

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

20

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.15.2358)]

Bill Williams (15 December 2003 `1:34 PM CST) --

>>Rick Marken (2003.12.15.0910)]

>>Our actual enemies .... are Osama bin Laden and his followers.

>From a control theory standpoint it doesn't seem to me that it is a
>good idea to generate a reference level such as "enemies."

Perhaps. What I actually have is a reference level of zero for people I
perceive as wanting to hurt me.

> To make such a choice might put one in a position where people
> could say, "I see you have choosen...to have enemies." And, they
> might be right.

If I have chosen to have enemies then they would indeed be right. I
don't think I chose Osama for an enemy. though. It looks like he chose
me.

By the way, I never had any objection to the phrase "I see you have
chosen" when that phrase is used by someone who has seen that a person
_has_ chosen. I only object to the phrase when it is used as a
deceitful way to evade one's own responsibility for what one is doing
to another person. A policeman who says to a parking violator "I see
you have chosen to get a ticket" is lying if can see that the violator
clearly does not want the ticket and he is verbally evading
responsibility for the fact that he (the policeman) is the one who has
chosen to give the ticket.

> I would think that people like Osama bin Laden and some of his
> folowers...have some common characteristics

It's the unique characteristics that are of concern to me. Osama says
he wants to kill Americans and he has already helped to carry out a
horrendous terrorist attack on US soil. I don't care about him being
Islamic or a fundamentalist or an "enemy". I care about the fact that
he wants to kill Americans.

> Of course, if someone else is going to adopt the view that
> I am an enemy, then it may be neccesary to take precautions.

OK. So you're just like me.

Not exactly. No, not quite. Among the "precautions" I would hope Americans might take is to think about the issues involved. When you say,

"I don't care about him being Islamic or a fundamentalist or an "enemy". I care about the fact that he wants to kill Americans."

It seems to me that you are adopting a rather limiting perspective. According to your perception as I understand it, Osama selected you as his enemy. And that as I understand it is all that you believe that you need to know about this difficult question. You seem to think that it will be possible solve the problem by targeting Osama-- if only it were that simple. Not that I am opposed to this, killing him off might help to some extent. However, it might also help if we thought things through on a bit wider angle.

Bill Williams