[From Bjorn Simonsen
Peter Small (
understand it, the perception of flame in a post occurs only
In the mind
of the recipient (the reader). This is irrespective of
post is perceived as a flame by anyone else.
I don’t quite
understand your last sentence relative to your first sentence. I myself would
perception of flame in a post occurs only in the mind of a recipient (a reader).
If you had used
Martin’s “could” technique I will say I think as you. I think it is more
difficulty to test which perception S is controlling when he exercises his
actions (sending an e-mail) than people often give voice to.
From Martin Taylor (about 2004.03.21)
perceives a message from S as a
does that mean? I think it means that R perceives S to
intention of hurting R. If R perceives a message from S as a
does that mean? I think it means that R perceives S to
intention of hurting R. And what, in turn, does that mean?
“have the intention” means to have a reference value for some
That perception would have to be related to S’s
of R. If S “intended” to hurt R, S wants to perceive R as
some way damaged.
I think you explain PCT as I like it. I often
reorganize after reading your mails.
There is another thing I will involve. Take a look
From Bill Williams (about 2004.03.22)
there is a predator-- a serial killer-- at work what
then? Or, in less dramatic example what if a
nasty jerk does stuff-- or
just says stuff that makes other people feel bad?
I will talk
about a receiver’s perception of the sender’s intention. Martin has a hypothetical example; “I
think it means that R perceives S to have the intention of hurting R”. And _I
perceive Bill to have the perception that the serie killer has an intention (reference)
to kill people. I perceive that Peter excludes the sender’s intention when he
controls the flame.
I am sorry but I
have to repeat myself and I will make the most of the opportunity to say that
the world will benefit most from PCT if they (learn PCT and) really understand
that we can’t place side by side a person’s action (writing a letter) and his
intention or purpose.
I am almost
fixedly on the theme that we shall not assume that the sender has an
intention/purpose before she admits the correctness of it.
p = (ke* ko *r + kd
- d )/ (1 + ko* ke). …………(d#
the sender’s purpose)
know this is a ghost from me and I will use Bills § words to slip through
that we are justified to argue that we know something about the extern
world/the purpose of the Sender.
I agree with Bill P when he [From Bill Powers (2002.06.23.0831 MDT)]
said (my italics):
There is one last twist to this problem:
The idea that the
world consists of perceptions is, of course, also a
perception, as is the idea that we have something called
“a brain” organized into control systems, and so on.
Because the same theory requires that a real world
exist outside us, through which our actions affect
our perceptions, and it tells us that there are
other agencies in that real world that can affect
our perceptions even when we do nothing*. Indeed,
most of our actions are needed to nullify the effect
of unwanted independent disturbances.* Learning to
control our own perceptions is very much dependent
on learning the effects of actions applied to the
real but invisible world. From
these actions and their
in innumerable experiments conducted
every moment of the day, we build up a picture that I
is at least consistent, as far as it goes, with the
properties of reality**.** So while we may never have
any direct knowledge of the real world, we are
continuously in contact with it as it’s reflected
in our perceptual abstractions from it. We are
always acting on it and experiencing the consequences
of its actions on us. That’s a pretty close relationship,
although it’s not what a passionate realist wants.
Let me repeat
with my own words: “Living organisms, also we in CSG can describe parts of the
extern world because we know that our actions try to eliminate the disturbances
which are different from our references. When I react on a force effecting on
me, I know something about that force (the extern world). I know that the force
(the extern world) is in harmony with my reference and in addition the opposite
value of my reaction. If we know our references, and I think we do, then we
know something about the extern world. Using the test, we can learn what other
people really control. This gives us a more fundamental knowledge about the
This is a step
forward for me relative to my earlier understanding of PCT. Earlier I quite
definite rejected knowledge about the extern world beyond physical laws
(learned) and statements I agree with other people.
I admit that I can have knowledge about the extern world (here the senders
purpose) I have fallen back on a personal rule (reference).
Don’t place side by side the sender’s
actions and his intentions/purposes.
If I don’t devote time and
energy on coming up with the sender’s intentions/purposes it is advantageous
to forget the whole flame. If I can’t forget it I have to devote time and
energy on coming up with the senders intentions/purposes.
will conclude with some axioms (in my words) that I remember from Carl. R.
Rogers. (Am I correct Dick R.?)
I believe in the dignity and
value of all people. I think they are able to understand their own decisions
and I respect their right to carry them out.
I think all people in all
essentials live in their own subjective world. Even when it acts in what
we say is the most objective way it is a result of subjective purposes and
I think that all people have
their naturally capacity for growth and development and that they realize
themselves in accordance to their capacity.
I think people are wiser than
they have knowledge. (Something unconscious happens us all).
this and viewed in the light of this back to the purpose of this letter. I agree
with you Peter Small