From MONSIEUR REMI COTE 960222.0000 EST
< to [Bill Leach 960219.18:43 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]
you repeated said that you "don't care".
I hope indeed that maybe it was that I unintentionally wounded your
"little" ego (as you have referred to your ego several times) and you
really do care.
Me: I said to myself "I don't care" and "I cannot and don't want to
control Bill Leach" and it worked, it protect me from the "pain" of
rejection. Like antihistamine protect from headeach. It is a plain
exploitation of PCT.
I see a potential in this list, like no other list could have.
Researcher on this list have a kind of vision, they are "engaged".
They have a vision, a representation of the living world, and they
want to proove their point tothe rest of the world.
They want to see their systemic representation of the world fit
their perception of the theoretical system and set of
experimental data. It is the first time in history, that people
gather and communicate togeter about their truely nature, their
control system nature. So let forget about the lack of manner
that we both show...
Artificial mean Man-Made (harrap)
Distinction between artificial and natural is a crucial one.
It is not evolution that created the biological weapon use
in IRAK. If ETerrestrial, visit the vestige of our civilisation
in 1000 years and they found these weapon, they won't explain
it with evolution theory...I am a bit hollywoodian
Quality of life is at stake here, not quantity.
"quality of life" = "sustained overall control system error"
within the specific individual ... to a minimum possible.
I wanted to hypothesised an inverse relation between the two.
That is between: overall control system error & "quality of life"
Reasercher on this list could object in saying that it is in
adversity that one find the zest of life... Who's right?
slavery appear after fire
I am not a great student of anthropology but I do doubt that your
assertion is correct if salvery is meant to mean the forcing of one or
more persons to do the will of yet another person(s).
Me: Chimps don't enslave themself, to antropologised we can say that
their social link look like mafia, but it is no chaingang... But
I cannot proove my point, but you don't either. Who's right?
So called "natural events" can perturb our perceptions. Any change in
any CEV that is perceived regardless of the cause does this so I don't
see the significance of what you said.
Me: I am saying that a technologicaly conmtaminated environement cause
more perturbation than the same environement "unspoiled" by technology.
5. Therefore technology IS RESPONSIBLE for perturbations to our
controlled variables. That is technology because of some physical
property of technology itself causes people to do what they actually
are observed doing.
Me: More exactly, a teck environement where people have to deal with more
disturbance, cause more discrepancy between reference and input. Because
we are not adjusted to a natural environement, we are adjusted to an
artificial one, and artificial environement are more permissive for
individual who have big reference - input discrepancy (IN HIGHER LAYER
ON CONTROL LOOP, OF COURSE), and allow them to survive, and to suffer.
The Jews did not die in the holocaust because fire
Me:Without technology: no culture, no religion, no mass murder.
Without fire, no technology.
BUT IT DID NOT CAUSE THE EVENT TO OCCUR!!
Me: without technology = no accumulation of good, no economy, no politics
no mass media, no collective histeria based on ignorance, no language
no myths, etc...
I think that you will probably agree with:
1. Humans have probably been using direct "brute" force "against" each
other to achieve their own wants for as long as humans have existed
in groups of a size exceeding one.
Me: No, cooperation and respect of hierarchies role are necessary to
survival, there is no need for brute in a team, where survival is at
2. Fire was NOT the first application of technology. The use of rocks
and sticks to do something other than just lay on the ground (as
would be their "natural" state) was probably the first technological
Me: I have seen horse using a branche, holding it in their teeth, and
scratch temselves with it. They don't have civilisation for that.
3. Both rocks and sticks were used by humans to attempt to control the
behaviour of other humans (besides the other uses to which such
"technology" was applied).
Me: If you hit somebody with a bat, in an atechnological world, you
will find yourself in a dominant position or in an submisive one, if
everybody decide to pick on you. There is no monopole of wooden bat.
But there can be a monopoly of technology (Norbert Elias wrote on this) You:
If you do not agree with item 2 above, I would REALLY like to know why!
Me: really, or are you blinded by preconception?
For example, do you mean that characteristics such as the color of the
eye is not a "selected" mutation even though multiple colors persist?
Me: I am sorry for my impatience, I should have took time to explain to
you what I meant. A selected reorganisation of gene is a caracterise reor-
ganisation of gene that is somehow necessary for survival in a precise
environement and is necessary advantageous compare to a previous
organisation of the gene in a given environement.
Something is advantageous if it enhance survival and reproduction.
And here I guess I will again be a bit "harsh" with my own attitude. To
tell PCTers that it is the environment as opposed to people that causes
or "allows" "more psychological suffering" and then tell one of us that
challenges that assertion that "It is too bad." is a discourtesy.
Proove me wrong. I can't proove you are wrong, but I cannot proove
I am wrong (and honestly I tried because it is my duty as a scientific).
It's too bad but that is the way it work.
But as far as I am concerned it is really a shame that you seem not
to care enough about me or respect me enough to even
make the effort to seriously attempt to communicate your ideas.
Me: you nasty antagoniser
I (naturally enough, I think) believe that I am correct when I am saying
something about PCT (or I would not say it) but I also have a couple of
years of experience with the fact that my understanding may not be as
good as I thought it was -- IF I interact with others here and IF the
dialog is an honest attempt at reaching an understanding then I learn
something and correct my errors (either in fact or in my understanding of
the ideas of another).
Me: The difficulty is the theory, the conceptual environement. It is
a technological environement. Like I told you the error are always
big in these environement, it is frustrating and lead to antagonism.
It is too bad...
A teck-environement is totaly different from a "natural" world.
What does this statement mean? Is this meant to be some sort of profound
statement? Is anything more than humans running around naked picking
berrys and vegetables a "non-natural" world? Is using rocks, sticks,
hides using technology? If not, why is it not? To me such a statement
says no more than "A different world is a different world."
Me: As I said, in a teck world sometimes we don't have to care, which
as you underlined it is a bad thing, and sometimes we care too much
and there is no end to our suffering, because we are suffering from
big perpetual error signal in higher layer control loop...
Since you care enough to reply to me, then I find it ok to care
about your reply. But I don't care about you if you just want
to shut me with no argument at all. Do you realize that you
didn't gave me a single argument that proove me wrong beyound
reasonnable doubt. Are you reasonnable? Then I propose you
a challenge. Give me 3 reasonable argument that proove that
big brain came before technology. And remember that chiken
and egg are sometimes served in the same dish in our civilisation.
Is that a shame, a mother and her son on the grill...
[To Martin Taylor 960220 14:00]
I can't imagine where you get your data. It may be plausible, but is it
Me: Here are some ref.:
Goudsblom, J. (1986). The human Monopoly on the use of fire: Its Origins
and Conditions, Human Evolution, 1,6, 517-523.
Goudsblom, J. (1987). The domestication of fire as a civilizing process.
Theory, Culture and Society, 4, 457-476.
Goudsblom, J., Jones, E.L. & Mennel, Stephen (1989). Human history & social
process, University of Exeter Press. (good explanation of phaseology)
Jacobs, K. & Godfrey,L. (1982). Cerebral leaps and bounds: a punctuational
perspective on hominid cranial capacity, man and his origin, Anthropos
Brno, 21, 77-87. (Jacobs teach at UdM)
For example, if one
is in a prison cell, like an animal in a zoo, one will not be controlling
perceptions that are components of such perceptual controls as "foraging
me: Good example. From my point of view, technology is a prison.
It is an environement where we have big disturbances and we cannot control
efficiently these disturbances (can I say that in PCT: " we cannot control
You find a lot more depressed animal (human included) in artificial
environement than in natural one.
If that is actually true, then one has to ask what it means to be "depressed."
What is going on in a "depressed" animal?
Me:just take the observable symtom, fatigue, no playfulness, no vivacity
necessary for survival... no need to look at mood
To survive, an animal can't pay himself this luxury. Human can because
of their golden cage.
Helplesness doesn't exist in nature, evolution reject this kind of
sickness, fire allowed promethea to live the live of god, but there
were no happy ending for him...
We have a lot of metaphoric "concrete walls" in our social environment,
which have nothing to do with conflict. We try to change things, but
have no effect. Eventually we stop trying. What's the voting percentage
in US elections? People who don't find their vote making any difference
to their perception of society don't bother.
Me: concrete wall = technological wall, cultural. Since we decided to
go against the law's of nature, we loose our real freedom. It soud
granola to an extreme degree, but it is bigger than me. We were not
"suppose" to meet fire. It was an accident. I conceive humanity as an
accident. Of course, some accident can have good consequence, in the
long term, put I think we are still in the turmoil of the car crash,
we haven't yet figure out that the other driver is a beautiful blonde.
(blonde=PCT, of course)
If the imagined perception
moves toward the imagined future reference value, then the imagined action
Me: Question: Is this If-then sentence a description of unworryness?
If this is a fair description of "worry" then I should think that a pre-fire
hunter could and would "worry" just as much as a modern business manager.
But of course, "worry" may be something quite different.
Me: I refer more to gatherer, than to hunter. Gatherer spend day's looking
for fruit, and also breaking bones for marrow. It is not dying of heart attack
at 31, having a binge of IBM share.
One of my first question was this one:
Is it ok to correlate minimum "reference - will" for higher
hierarchical control loop with the auto-actualisation phase
from Maslow or "whole" functionning from Rogers?
Since I don't know what you are referring to,
I presume you don't want to enter in third force thing, but you
understand the meaning of "reference - will" for top control loop.
I can reask. Is someone with a minimum "reference - will" happier
than someone with a significantly higher "reference - will", for
the top layer of control loop.
as something that falls out from PCT.
Me: In my Bible, all theories are created equal, until they are falcified.
I would like to make a proposal:
I am practicing lucid dreaming, If I enter a lucid dream, can I engage in
a specific activity that can give support to the PCT view about nature
of pure imagination, that is uncontaminated by outside distubance?