[From Bill Powers (961023.0530 MDT)]
Tim Carey (221096.0800)--
Powers claims that an emotion is the
combination of a goal and a feeling and then goes on to say that there
must also be a blocking of action before a state would be described as
emotional. Does this just apply to negative emotions?
I think so -- I don't think you feel pleasure more intensely when you're
prevented from carrying out the implied behavior. It's more as though
successful behavior is its own reward, with the feelings that accompany it
being labeled "good" because they go with success. Of course this doesn't
cover the pleasant bodily feelings, which are, according to the official
story, caused by internal morphine ("endorphines"). Pleasure can certainly
be chemically simulated, but I suspect that kind of pleasure is like
simulating a race in a car by operating the speedometer needle with the car
sitting in the garage. The subject of positive emotions needs a good deal
more sorting out. Any ideas?
Instead of thinking of the "blockage" as causing negative emotions, think of
uncorrected error as producing the bodily states that we associate with
negative emotions. Blocking the action is only one way of creating
uncorrected error. Not knowing what to do is another.
I understand that a control
system acts on the environment to counter perceived environmental
disturbances in order to maintain a match between a perceptual signal
and a reference signal. If this is the case, is it theoretically
possible that if a control system that was especially creative at
perceiving continued to perceive a match between these two perceived
signals, the control system would never have to act on the
environment.
You're talking about a different subject here -- not control of
environmental inputs but control of imagined inputs. But you're right in
supposing that "creative perception" could satisfy a reference condition
without the need for actually having any effect on the environment. This is
obviously not advantageous for the organism except under very special
circumstances. As Martin Taylor has said, roughly, it's perceptions that you
control but reality that affects you. At the very least, the perceptions you
control should be related to actual effects in the environment, especially
effects on you. You may feel lots better after taking a placebo, but
sometimes you need an actual antibiotic.
In terms of the rubber band experiment I can see two
possibilities: a) could someone perceive that their dot was so large
that movement of the rubber band rarely shifted the knot off the dot
(does this explain "easy-going" people?); and b) could someone
continually perceive the variable position of the knot to be right
where they wanted it to be (I guess that would be like continually
shifting your knot to follow the dot)? Is this what people who
experience delusions are doing?
You got it. This is one reason that experiment is so important in science,
as well as ordinary life. It's easy to imagine a universe that works
according to some theory, because in imagination your actions always have
just the right effects. If you don't submit your theory to a reality check,
however, the universe you imagine might have nothing to do with what's
actually going on. Then the guy on the other end of the rubber bands has to
clear his throat to get your attention and gently remind you that you're
supposed to be keeping the knot OVER the dot. You may be convinced you're
doing it, but it doesn't look that way to him.
ยทยทยท
-----------------------------
Tim Carey (1023.1430)
RE: method of levels
I asked him what he thought about thinking something like
that. Understandably he gave me a strange kind of a look and asked me
what I meant. I clarified as best I could and we continued the
converstation in a similar vein. I must admit I didn't really know
what I was doing but I thought I had some idea of what I wanted at the
end (is that PCT at work). Eventually (after 5-10 minutes) he said
that on the one hand he thinks that things will never get better and
he may as well quit while he's ahead, and on the other hand he thinks
that if he quits now he'll never get anywhere. Is this the kind of
internal conflict Powers was referring to in the paper?
Yes, it does make for a strange kind of conversation, doesn't it? But it
works. Yes, this is what I mean by a conflict. Nothing complicated about it.
What level of perception does a statement like this represent?
I don't know and it doesn't matter. Think in terms of _relative_ levels.
When he was just talking about how everything sucks, he was a level down
from the conflict. By asking him questions about what he was perceiving, you
got him to go up a level (or two or three, who knows?), whereupon he started
describing the conflict to you. At that point he is in the position where
changing his mind can make a difference in the conflict.
And what do I then do with a statement like that? Where do I go?
It's very tempting to start giving advice or pointing out what the conflict
is, but I don't think that helps. What you do is more of the same. "Tell me
more about quitting while you're ahead." And "Tell me more about not getting
anywhere." And back and forth and back and forth, switching when one side
seems to be slowing down. And, of course, if you detect some still higher
level of comment, be sure to ask more about it ("I'm just a mixed-up kid",
which is followed by "What do you think about being a mixed-up kid?" (And
NOT by "Oh, no, you're perfectly normal").
I predict that the next time you see this kid, he'll have some new ideas.
Just noticing the conflict will have an effect.
I think the important thing about the method of levels is that you're not
trying to solve the other person's problem. You don't know what higher-level
considerations are at work; what seems to be a conflict to you may be only a
reflection of a more important one. And solutions that occur to you might
work for you, but they aren't likely to work for the other person. If the
solution is really obvious, the other person will think of it. If he
doesn't, it's not obvious within his structure of perceptions and goals, and
probably not useful, either.
If the kid asks you "What the hell should I do?" you say "What's it like to
be wondering what you should do? Tell me more about feeling that way." Of
course you vary the way you ask and say things -- it helps in keeping the
conversation real if you realize that you DON'T know what's going on inside
the other person, and you're trying to find out.
At some point I always end up telling the other person what I've been doing
(if not at the very start, which I usually do). The reason is not to show
how clever I am, but to show the person what "going up a level" means in
terms of that person's own experiences. This is very useful to know, because
it means that you have a way of solving problems when your guide isn't
there. Most of life's little problems go away as soon as you remember to
back up a level and look at what you're thinking about the problem instead
of just experiencing the problem. It helps to have another person observing
and reminding you, but that person isn't doing the actual work, and isn't
usually necessary after you get the hang of it. Of course it usually helps
to have another person around who can say "What are you doing?" when you're
too hung up at one level. Ed Ford's "discipline for home and school" program
is based on this idea. Ed calls it "teaching kids to think."
It works for adults, too, though, doesn't it? I am delighted that you're
trying this idea. Don't worry about not knowing what you're doing. I don't,
either. Or perhaps I should say, "Tell me more about not knowing what you're
doing."
Best,
Bill P.