from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.0634)]
[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."
When you perceive a 'threat'. Real or imagined
Marc
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. 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. We obviuosly, cannot get into someone's head
and 'see' intent.
Marc
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.16.0751 MST)]
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.”
To me, the question you raise boils down to the arguments we can present,
pro and con, concerning the idea of enemies. My own preference is never
to assign someone permanently to the role of enemy (“sworn
enemy” as they say in Soldier of Fortune). As Rick and Martin both
said, approximately, my definition of an enemy is based pretty much on a
person’s actions and stated intentions toward me or things and people I
value. If someone declares himself my enemy, I assume he’s going to feel
free to harm me and I will probably take precautions. I can’t recall ever
having declared myself the enemy of someone else. at least not since WW 2
when I was 17 years old and inclined toward drama. I doubt that my
declaration terrified either Hitler or Hirohito.
That may not be responsive to your question, though. It would help if you
laid out what we have to do to justify a course of action, or an opinion.
I understand how to justify, for example, cancelling the x in the
equation y = (3x)/(4x) to get y = 3/4. There are principles and rules of
mathematics involved, so if I want to say I am doing mathematics and have
others agree that I am, I stick to those principles and rules. But how do
we justify things for which there are no agreed principles or
rules?
This question is germane to some conversations I have had with Zhang Hua
Xia, the Chinese philosopher who is translating B:CP into Chinese. His
interest is axiology (you are the only other person I have ever heard
using that word), which I learned is the study of values. He felt that
PCT offers a way to establish “natural” values (the idea of
intrinsic reference levels, together with my essays on natural selection,
led him to that conclusion). My argument concerned in part what we do
with people who fail to adopt these “natural” values. Do we
treat them as criminals and punish them? Do we say they are mentally
defective by reason of bad heredity, and segregate them in some
institution? Do we try to cure them of their aberration? Whatever we do,
it seems strange to have to do anything if these values are
“natural.” We don’t have to do anything special to obey the law
of gravity, or entropy, and it would be astonishing if anyone coulddisobey such basic principles, bad heridity or good. If values are
objective facts of the universe (the idea Hua Xia seemed to be headed
toward), how can we possibly act contrary to them?
I trust you see my problem.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.16.1116)]
Bill Williams 15 December 2003 10:15 PM CST
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.
It is not at all obvious to me that from a control perspective one
necessarily has control of one's perceptions or one's reference levels.
(Or even what "one" is!)
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
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.1136)]
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.16.1116)]
It is not at all obvious to me that from a control perspective one
necessarily has control of one's perceptions or one's reference levels.
(Or even what "one" is!)
Excellent point. Not in 'real' control time anyway. That is, while the
control process is actually taking place.
I think we only 'feel' the effects (emotions) of it and see the results of
it.
Marc
[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 11:30 AM CST]
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.16.0751 MST)]
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."
This question is germane to some conversations I have had with Zhang Hua
Xia, the Chinese philosopher who is translating B:CP into Chinese. His
interest is axiology (you are the only other person I have ever heard using
that word), which I learned is the study of values.
I've never bothered to looked up the term's history, the english value theory or theory of valuation may be less pretentious. But, I like the idea of rehabilitating a word that I would guess was all but discarded in a positivistic era when questions concerning values and behavior became two radically different studies. And, axiological questions were expelled from psychology, because such questions were considered "unscientific." A control theory approach to issues, it seems to me brings the categories of behavior and axiology or values back into contact with each other. And, it may, emphasis on the _may_ provide the means to think more systematically about values. I don't think I agree in any literal sense with Zhang Hua Xia's suggestion concerning "natural values." But, I do consider the idea that it might be possible to think about values in a less arbitrary and capricious way appealing. We obviously make some choices about the values we act upon, and this introduces an element of circularity into the consideration. But, the values we act upon have genuine consequences. And, there are concepts like "health" that are not entirely arbitrary and this may come close to what Zhang Hua Xia has in mind as a 'natural value."
You comment on the problem of what to do with other people who act in ways that we perceive as a threat to our scheme of values. You say,
I trust you see my problem.
I think so. I don't believe there is any difficulty in recognizing the existence of such a problem. As Rick says, he has a problem with people out there who want to kill him. Makes sense to me. And, I don't suppose the source of the problem is somehow a question of a failure to communicate. Once matters reach the point of kill or be killed the axiological issues have been reduced close to the level of two wasps in a bottle. Or, in the problems we currrently face, three wasps-- Jewish, Islamic, and Christian fundamentalism. Funamentalism isn't quite the right word, but it has the force behind it of common useage. However, when we use the term "fundamentalism" to describe religious traits that encourage domination and violence in a literal sense it libels the basic characteristics of these religions. I would hope that the "fundamental" characteristics of these religions are not those of "fundamentalism."
But, back to your "problem." My suggestion, such as it is, is that while we may be to some considerable extent locked in a kill or be killed situational logic, there is nothing that I can see in the situation that compells us to regard the people who are attempting to disturb us with contempt. Even in regard to efficiency in killing the other guy first, I don't see that an attitude of contempt makes a useful contribution. Not in the present circumstance. Rather, it may delude one into under estimating the capacities of the other guy. And, if one is being treated with contempt, it can, I think, make it more difficult for the other guy to reconsider his decision to kill us. Contrary to Xia's inclination to frame the discussion in terms of "natural values" a choice to avoid an attitude of contempt and expressions of contempt instead may be "unnatural values." But, natural or not, it seems to me that such choices, while difficult, are within the human capacity.
I don't have a large experience to draw upon in coming to any definative conclusions, but my experience with Arab students has been that they expect to be treated with contempt. When it becomes obvious that they, and their culture are not, in the immeadiate situation, being regarded with contempt they almost always relax. Is this a good thing? Or, is there some compelling reason why they ought to be thought of and treated with contempt?
Bill Willians
[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 12:27 PM CST]
Bruce,
I think I should have said, choices about some of the reference levels, etc, etc.
I thought it had been settled that we are "one" and all control systems.
Bill Williams
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.16.1137 MST)]
Bill Williams 16 December 2003 11:30 AM CST–
We obviously make some choices
about the values we act upon, and this introduces an element of
circularity into the consideration. But, the values we act upon have
genuine consequences. And, there are concepts like
“health” that are not entirely arbitrary and this may come
close to what Zhang Hua Xia has in mind as a 'natural
value."
I like that idea. As you say, the values we choose to adopt have
consequences, and it is through such consequences that the reorganizing
system gets involved. The reorganizing system ties the learned hierarchy
to evolution, through inherited intrinsic reference levels and the
particular set of intrinsic variables that is monitored by the
reorganizing system. If a particular value produces intrinsic error, it
is likely to be reorganized away. At least this leads to values
consistent with survival, whether they are the only effective set or
not.
This, however, explains the values we do pursue (some of them)
without endorsing them as values we should pursue, in the same
sense that natural selection explains the organisms that do
survive as opposed to those that should survive. It may be that
adopting one set of values rather than another leads to better chances of
survival, but can we say “Therefore, that set of values is
objectively right”? Does the universe care whether we survive?
My definition of fundamentalism is a little different from yours. I have
always understood it to mean the acceptance of some kind of Gospel as the
absolute and literal word of God, so that one must behave exactly
according to this document in order to be spiritually saved, admitted to
Heaven, saved from Hell or Purgatory, or whatever the doctrine says. The
fundamentalist does not even admit that any human interpretation of the
document is involved; one is led to understand it by the grace or will or
inspiration of God. Being a fundamentalist is as near as a human being
can come to giving up control to an outside agency. It also means that
there is no room for any other set of beliefs – if God gave me my
beliefs, how can any others that are different be right?
I would say that Muslim, Christian, and Jewish fundamentalists are those
who believe in holy writings or stories of one sort of another and who at
least claim they believe that they are doing God’s bidding (whether they
actually believe that is something I have trouble swallowing, but never
mind that). I’m sure there are Shinto fundamentalists, Bhuddist
fundementalists, and Confucian fundamentalists, too, but they haven’t
been causing problems lately. The Big 3 fundamentalists do their best to
shuck off responsibility for their own actions, saying that God is making
them act that way or approves their actions, but I have a sneaking
suspicion that all the righteous outrage, followed by explosions and body
parts and blood and all that cool stuff, is highly exciting, and is far
more interesting than the lives the participants would otherwise be
leading. After all, it’s always the guy next to you who takes the bullet,
isn’t it? And if you blow yourself up, the next thing you know, 73
georgeous virgins are hanging all over you. I wonder what they promised
the female suicide bombers. Being raped by 73 male virgins?
Interesting, isn’t it, that even survival can take a back seat to belief
– although such beliefs supply a promise of even better
survival.
Best,
Bill P.
:Bill Cunningham 921209:
Gary,
Congratulations on the papers!
Despite the pain reported by others, I'm just beginning to really appreciate
what a frustrating experience it is. Your success keeps us all going.
Bill C.