[From Rick Marken (940611.1100)]
Ed Ford (940610.12.40) --
And I really don't appreciate your continual
criticism of the head of my church.
I'm not sure that I have criticized the Pope "continually" but I
was pretty sure that my comments would be a disturbance to a
controlled variable.
I consider it very insulting and it has absolutely nothing to do
with what I wrote or PCT.
I think it had something to do with what you wrote; I was trying
to show that one person's "responsible thinking" (the Pope's
position on birth control, for example) can be another person's
irresponsible thinking. This raised a question in my mind:
"who decides who's thinking is _really_ responsible"? Perhaps
this is answered in your book. If you don't want to discuss it on
the net, then I'm happy to wait (with great anticipation) for my
copy of he book 
My comment (disturbance, as it turned out) also had quite a bit to
do with PCT. The fact that you reacted to my comment so
strongly suggests the existance of a controlled variable which I
would call "being Catholic". This system level controlled
variable involves the maintenance of many lower level
perceptions in the appropriate states. For example, I would
imagine that, when you go to worship, out of all the Churches in
the Phoenix area, you probably always manage to end up at a
Catholic Church. I would bet that you never accidentally find yourself
worshiping in a Baptist church -- even one that looks a lot like a
Cathlolic Church. You are controlling for perceptions of a certain
type of service, a certain type of crowd, etc -- and I bet you produce
these perceptions very reliably. Of the many children and
grandchildren you have, probably every one was confirmed; not
one was bar mitzphaed by mistake. You are controlling for the
perception of "being Catholic" as reliably as you control the
position of your car on the road.
I bet that one perception involved in being Catholic is "respect for
the Pope" so criticism of the Pope would be a disturbance to that
perception, demanding action (such as your response to my
comments). I bet that, had I substituted the name "Martin
Luther" for "the Pope" in my post, you would have produced a
very different kind of reply, or no reply at all. I have a feeling
that criticism of Martin Luther creates far less disturbance to
"being Catholic" (it might even be one of those "good
disturbances") than does criticism of "the Pope".
By the way, I am not in any way implying that there is anything
wrong with controlling for "being Catholic" -- at all. My point is
just that "being Catholic" is indeed a controlled perceptual
variable. So, like everything else people do, "being Catholic"
does have something to do with PCT , because it is something
people do -- something they control. I mention this because I
think it is important to see that PCT is a theory of everything
people do -- nothing is exempt, including "being Catholic" and "doing
PCT". "Doing PCT" is one of the percpetions I am controlling for and,
becuase it is, I react strongly to some of the things said about PCT. To
me, the sentence "there is information about the disturbance in
the perceptual signal" is as big of a disturbance to perceptions
involved in controlling for "being a PCTer" as the sentence "the
Pope is wrong" is to one of the perceptions involved in controlling
for "being Catholic". The importance (in Bill Power's sense; high
gain in the loop) to me of controlling for "being a PCTer" seems
to be about the same as the importance to you of controlling for
"being a Catholic".
I say all this becuase I want to make sure that we do not overlook
any example of high gain controlling -- like that done by me with
respect to PCT and that done by you with respect to Catholicsm -- as
evidence that people control. When I say that PCT applies to every-
thing that people do, I mean it applies to _everything_; important and
unimportant, sacred and profane, liberal and conservative, moral and
immoral, theistic and atheistic. PCT is about how people do
EVERYTHING they do.
There is a sense in which PCT and "being Catholic" do have, as
you say, absolutely nothing to do with each other and that is in
terms of their existence as reference signals in your head. The
hierarchical control model suggests that, if the reference signals
specifying "being a PCTer" and "being Catholic" are at the same
level of the control hierarchy then they have nothing to do with
each other -- at that level. But there could be interactions at lower
levels and conflict might result from controlling lower level
variables in support of "being a PCTer" and "being Catholic". For
example, there is the unlikely possibility that the Pope will decree
tomorrow that PCT is heresy. But I don't think we have to go
that far; I think there is already some lower level conflict between
PCT and Catholicism. For example, as I have said before, the
hierarchical control model assumes that reference signals at all
levels except the top must be able to be varied in order to control
higher level perceptions. This implies that references for what
are typically called "morals" or "values" must be able to be
varied, unless they are reference signals at the top of the
hierarchy. In the current version of HPCT (which you seem to
accept) they are not at the top; they are below system concepts. So
I think there is a potential conflict since my understanding is that
Catholicism says, essentially, that there are absolute "right"
settings for the references levels for "morals" and "values". I
think this kind of conflict can be solved by imagining that
HPCT works differntly. This is fine; but, I think, it can limit one's
ability to see how some aspects of the PCT models actually work.
You've spent many years trying to teach and explain
PCT and very few have been willing to really take the
time and understand it.
Right. So you can see how actively I am trying to control my
perception of "being a PCTer". I'm controlling --just like you.
Bill Leach (940610.22:14 EST(EDT)])--
Bill leach said:
and yet humans can not successfully interact with each other
without some ethical/ moral standards in place.
I said:
I'm not sure that that's true. What does seem to be true ...
Bill replies:
I agree that without assuming any "standard", my statement
does not stand.
You missed my point (because I didn't make it). Many organisms
(nesting ants, flocking birds, etc) "successfully interact" apparently
without "ethical/ moral standards in place". It may be that
successful interaction in humans does depends on the fact that people
are able to control for "ethical/ moral" perceptions; but it may not
always be the case. Some interactions may require control of what are
called "moral/ethical" perceptions; some may not. When I used
to play music with people I often considered it a successful
interaction (great sounds) even though we were not controlling any
moral/ethical perceptions I was aware of; an observer might have perceived
moral rules reflected in our interactions (cooperation, do unto others,
etc) but I think the successful interaction ultimately happened just
because we all wanted to produce some nice music.
It seems to me that the preoccupation with control of what are
categorized as "moral/ethical" perceptions is more of a focus of
people in judeo-christian-muslim (ie. Abrahamic) cultures.
I accept the stand taken several times by people on CSG-L that
society is not a control system in the PCT sense.
Good. That's the only point Tom and I were trying to make.
The driving force for the existance of "society" is probably fear.
Fear (stimulus) --> Society (response)
Perhaps you could fill in some of the details of this mechanism of
societal formation ;-).
You are probably going to have to carry your tirade against
"society" a bit further if you really want me to stop talking about
such concepts.
"Tirade against society"? Neither Tom nor I said anything
"against" society. I'm personally a big fan of the "society" perception;
that's why I live in LA instead of alone in the woods. Saying that
something is a perception or a "side effect" is not a tirade against it.
Society is as real as any percpetion; actually, it is many different
perceptual variables, some of which people control. I control for
being in the CSG. Ed controls for being in the Catholic church.
We are really controlling real perceptions -- as real as the percpetion
of the sensations and configurations you see when you look at your hand.
Refering to "society" doing something or "government" doing
something is a very handy method of refering to the actions of
people in a specific context.
Yes. No problem. But in scientific discussion it helps to be clear. I
talk informally about "alerting lights" on the dashboard but I wouldn't
model their effect on people that way. Also, the "handy" method of
referring to "government" or "business" doing something is often
used as a way of diverting attention from the fact that it was
individual people doing something -- producing perceptions to match
reference signals that they, themselves, set.
I am beginning to get the perception that at least some PCTers
believe that anarchy is the best form for society.
You are again making the mistake of thinking of PCT as
prescriptive. It's not. Any advocacy of anarchy in what Tom
and I have said about society is, I submit, in your own mind. I
personally haven't got a good idea of the "best form of society" .
If I did, it might be influenced by my understanding of PCT
but it could not possibly be what is recommended by PCT because PCT
doesn't make any recommendations: it just says how behavior works;
ANY behavior. The best PCT can do is say what might happen in an
anarchistic, socialistic, monarchistic, or whatever other kind of
society one might define. An anarchistic society, for example,
would, I imagine, be one where most of the members shared a disdain
for government or any formal rules. Assuming that you could
get a majority of people agreeing to control this system level
perception, then PCT could (in principle -- probably never in
actuality) tell you what might happen; how well the indivuals
who shared this systems level reference could control all their
other perceptual variables in the context of the environment
(physical and social) in which they exist.
Best
Rick