For Those Who Share My Higher Level Goals

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.20.2240)]

If you don't like political posts -- and, in particular, if you don't
like my politics -- then you should delete this post immediately. It
will just get you upset.

For those of you who share my political perspective -- which means you
share a lot of my higher level goals regarding the kind of person you
want to be and the kind of world you want to live in -- then you might
enjoy this letter that my darling sister-in-law sent me. My
sister-in-law happens to be a lesbian, but I think of her as just a
very intelligent, attractive and funny person. I don't know if the
letter was written by one of her fellow homos. I don't think my
sister-in-law knows who wrote it. But whoever wrote it could have been
channeling me (I always suspected that I was a latent lesbian, being,
as I am, inordinately attracted to women).

I found it a nice way to get over the tragic events of Nov. 2, 2004.

Best regards

Rick

<author unknown>

Friends,

It would be difficult to fully communicate my disappointment in a
simple
email. On the other hand, slipping out and drowning myself
in the bay would mean that someone else would have to feed the dog.

As Kerry has conceded defeat, I have too. Even if someone finds that
crate full of votes for Kerry bobbing down the Cuyahoga River,
the American people have spoken, and they have sent the world a
message:
"We're barely bright enough to chew our own food."

Incompetence, incoherence, inarticulateness, pettiness and random
savagery apparently do not deter the majority of Americans. The
thing that really, REALLY matters to Americans? Homos. And foreigners.
Both must be stopped at any cost.

Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of bigotry, amending state
constitutions around the country to prevent same-sex couples from
having any rights beyond the right to live on the margins of society.
We
clearly have far more to fear from The International
Homosexual Conspiracy(tm) than we do from North Korea and the collapse
of the American health care system.

Apparently, we are truly a nation of slack jawed yokels, awed only by
grotesque displays of wealth and violence, reverent only of
the boss man and beholden not even to our children, since we seem
content to mortgage their future in favor of a $300 tax refund
that we have traded for decent jobs, healthcare, and a just society.

We make pious noises about worshipping a Just and Merciful God, while
doling out destruction and horror upon the innocent, pausing
only to pat ourselves on the back for waging a "just" war to rid the
world of tyrants that audaciously aspire to exist after they
lose their utility to us in endless low-level conflicts to control the
world's oil supply. We seem to have become cheap, venal,
vulgar and petty while we apparently don't have the ability to reason
our way out of the dilemma of taking care of the sick,
watching out for the elderly, and teaching our children not to be
credulous, callow dupes.

To my friends from the UK, France and anyone to whom they choose to
forward this, I feel that I owe you an apology. It is as if I
have brought an orangutan to high tea. While he flings shit at you and
tries to snatch pastries from your plate, I am left wondering
how I might make it up to you.

The world's richest and most powerful nation seems to have lost its
moral compass. We have lost interest in leading by example in
favor of taking by force. I would like to say that I believe that one
day in the future America might regain its senses.
Unfortunately, I am not terribly optimistic. The best I can offer you
is
to remind you that Nixon also won a second term before he had to
resign.

Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

2

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.21.0320)

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.20.2240)]

Something you might want to send your sister-in-law to cheer her up a bit :slight_smile:

A Unity Poem

 

  The election is over, the results are now known.

  The will of the people has clearly been shown.

  We should show by our thoughts, our words and our deeds

  That unity is just what our country needs.

  Let's all get together. Let bitterness pass.

  I'll hug your elephant.

  You kiss my ass.
3

[From Bill Powers (2004.11.21.0630)] --

Rick Marken (2004.11.20.2240)--

If you don't like political posts -- and, in particular, if you don't
like my politics -- then you should delete this post immediately. It
will just get you upset.

I agree with some of your politics, but thanks for the warning. This is as
far as I read.

Best,

Bill P;

4

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.21.0850)]

Bill Powers (2004.11.21.0630)] --

Rick Marken (2004.11.20.2240)--

If you don't like political posts -- and, in particular, if you don't
like my politics -- then you should delete this post immediately. It
will just get you upset.

I agree with some of your politics

OK. I admit that the part about putting right wing fundamentalist
Republicans into concentration camps may be a bit extreme;-)

but thanks for the warning.

You're welcome. It seems like a fair way to deal with this.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

5

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.11.21.1245)]

Oops, dont read on again... :slight_smile:

I on the other hand read on... :slight_smile: Haha bravo, bravo. Many people may have
to vote with their feet, I think, if what is what is coming. Rick, both you
and your sister-in-law have a great sense of humor about this but it is
grim, and you are right on target. Right on target: And now the powers that
be are rewriting the history books about Matthew Shepard? (that it wasnt a
hate crime?) I hear? Well, as the sister-in-law points out, "It ain't over
til its over [John Dean may still have a Volume 2 to write! :)) ]."

Now, back to work. :))

--Bry

PS. This evening many people are meeting to assess the damage to be caused
by Nov. 2 and how to take steps to mend it (not with "unity poems," I think,
no, not with that).

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:39 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: [CSGNET] For Those Who Share My Higher Level Goals

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.20.2240)]

If you don't like political posts -- and, in particular, if you don't
like my politics -- then you should delete this post immediately. It
will just get you upset...

6

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.20.2240)]

  If you don't like political posts -- and, in particular, if you don't
  like my politics -- then you should delete this post immediately. It

will just get you upset.

  For those of you who share my political perspective -- which means you share a lot of my higher level goals regarding the kind of person you want to be and the kind of world you want to live in -- then you might enjoy this letter

DITO MARK LAZARE —

** An open letter to Europe and Liberals Everywhere**

November 11, 2004
by
HERBERT E. MEYER

  Hi.  Are you nuts?

  Forgive me for being so blunt, but your reaction to our reelection of President Bush has been so outrageous that I’m wondering if you have quite literally lost your minds.  One of Britain’s largest newspapers ran a headline asking “*How Can 59 Million Americans Be So Dumb*      ?â€?, and commentators in France all seemed to use the same word – *bizarre* -- t to explain the election’s outcome to their readers.  In Germany the editors of *Die Tageszeitung* responded to our vote by writing that “*      Bush belongs at a war tribunal – not in the White House*      .â â€?  And on a London radio talk show last week one Jeremy Hardy described our President and those of us who voted for him as “*      stupid, crazy, ignorant, bellicose Christian fundamentalists*.â€?

  Of course, you are entitled to whatever views about us that you care to hold.  (And lucky for you we Americans aren’t like so many of the Muslims on your own continent; as the late Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh just discovered, make one nasty crack about them and you’re likely to get six bullets pumped into your head and a knife plunged into your chest.)  But before you write us off as just a bunch of sweaty, hairy-chested, Bible-thumping morons who are more likely to break their fast by dipping a Krispy Kreme into a diet cola than a biscotti into an espresso –  and who inexplicably have won more Nobel prizes than all other countries combined, host 25 or 30 of the world’s finest universities and five or six of the world’s best symphonies, produce wines that win prizes at your own tasting competitions, have built the world’s most vibrant economy, are the world’s only military superpower and, so to speak in our spare time, have landed on the moon and sent our robots to Mars – may I suggest t you stop frothing at the mouth long enough to consider just what are these ideas we hold that you find so silly and repugnant?

  We believe that church and state should be separate, but that religion should remain at the center of life.  We are a Judeo-Christian culture, which means we consider those ten things on a tablet to be commandments, not suggestions. We believe that individuals are more important than groups, that families are more important than governments, that children should be raised by their parents rather than by the State, and that marriage should take place only between a man and a woman.  We believe that rights must be balanced by responsibilities, that personal freedom is a privilege we must be careful not to abuse, and that the rule of law cannot be set aside when it becomes inconvenient.  We believe in economic liberty, and in the right of purposeful and industrious entrepreneurs to run their businesses – and thus create jobs – with a minimum of government nt interference.  We recognize that other people see things differently, and we are tolerant of their views.  But we believe that our country is worth defending, and if anyone decides that killing us is an okay thing to do we will go after them with everything we’ve got.

  If these beliefs seem strange to you, they shouldn’t.  For these are precisely the beliefs that powered Western Europe – you -- from the Middle Ages into o the Renaissance, on to the Enlightenment, and forward into the modern world.  They are the beliefs that made Europe itself the glory of Western civilization and – not coincidentally – ignite ited the greatest outpouring of art, literature, music and scientific discovery the world has ever known including Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Bach, Isaac Newton and Descartes.

** Europe is Dying**

  It is your abandonment of these beliefs that has created the gap between Europe and the United States.  You have ceased to be a Judeo-Christian culture, and have become instead a secular culture.  And a secular culture quickly goes from being “un-religious� to anti-religious.  Indeed, your hostility to the basic concepts of Judaism and Christianity has literally been written into your new European Union constitution, despite the Pope’s heroic efforts to the contrary. 

  Your rate of marriage is at an all-time low, and the number of abortions in Europe is at an all-time high.  Indeed, your birth rates are so far below replacement levels that in 30 years or so there will be 70 million fewer Europeans alive than are alive today.  Europe is literally dying.  And of the children you do manage to produce, all too few will be raised in stable, two-parent households. 

  Your economy is stagnant because your government regulators make it just about impossible for your entrepreneurs to succeed – except by fleeing to the U United States, where we welcome them and celebrate their success.  

  And your armed forces are a joke.  With the notable exception of Great Britain, you no longer have the military strength to defend yourselves.  Alas, you no longer have the will to defend yourselves.

  What worries me even more than all this is your willful blindness.   You refuse to see that it is you, not we Americans, who have abandoned Western Civilization.  It’s worrisome because, to tell you the truth, we need each other.  Western Civilization today is under siege, from radical Islam on the outside and from our own selfish hedonism within.  It’s going to take all of our effort, our talent, our creativity and, above all, our will to pull through.  So take a good, hard look at yourselves and see what your own future will be if you don’t change course.  And please, stop sneering at America long enough to understand it.  After all, Western Civilization was your gift to us, and you ought to be proud of what we Americans have made of it.

  THE AMERICAN THINKER
··· 
    — *        Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan administration as special assistant to the director of Central Intelligence and vice chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. His new video is* [        The Siege of Western Civilization](http://www.siegeofwesternciv.com/).

Storm King Press

Publishers of Books that *Work*

©2004 Storm King Press - all rights reserved

7

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.22.1015)]

Bravo Mark!!

But you know better than most that the folks on this list are generally to the left of Michael Moore. :slight_smile:

For those interested here is a map of our PURPLE America; County by county

For those uninitiated; Red is Republican and Blue is Democrat. The redder the area the more dominant the republican vote, the same with the blue and the Democrats. They say we 20 % on the hard left and 20 % on the hard right, with 60% in the middle. This map seems to bare this out.

purple_america_2004.gif

8

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.23.1010)]

Rick Marken (2004.11.20.2240)--

For those of you who share my political perspective -- which means you share
a lot of my higher level goals regarding the kind of person you want to be
and the kind of world you want to live in -- then you might enjoy this letter

MARK LAZARE replies by posting:

An open letter to Europe and Liberals Everywhere
by HERBERT E. MEYER

I think this is a very useful letter because it describes a higher level
goal -- a system concept -- that is rather different from my own (and, I
presume, from that of a large minority of the population of the US). I think
it is one of the main system concepts that is being controlled by Bush and
those who voted for him. It is, indeed, the system concept that strikes fear
in the heart of liberals like myself. It is the non-liberal system concept.

We believe that church and state should be separate,
but that religion should remain at the center of life.

I agree that "we" should want a world where church and state are separate,
but the reason I want "us" to want this is so that everyone can make their
own decision about whether or not religion should be at the center of their
own lives. Meyer apparently wants all of us ("we") to want religion to
remain at the center of life. It seems that the current administration wants
the same thing. This belies their desire to have church and state separate.
The desire for "us" to have religion at the center of life is the
fundamental difference between the kind of world (country) I want to live in
and the kind of country Meyer, Bush and apparently, you want to live in.

We are a Judeo-Christian culture, which means we consider those ten things
on a tablet to be commandments, not suggestions.

What happened to separation of church and state? If I don't take these as
commandments am I less of a citizen? In fact, I violate the first five
commandments regularly, as does my wife and children and most of my friends
(all of whom I consider wonderfully good people). I don't think JHWH or
Jehovah (or whatever his name is) is god, I have graven images all over the
house, and I don't keep the Sabbath. Moreover, I don't think homosexuality
is a sin, I don't think abortion is murder, I don't think obstreperous
children should be stoned to death in public and I eat the meat of certain
cloven hoofed animals and of shellfish with relish.

I think this open letter describes a system concept that is, indeed, quite
different than the liberal system concept that I control for, where I would
define the liberal system concept as it is described in the dictionary:

  Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
  authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
  Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
  and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

A majority of Americans are apparently controlling for something quite
different than this liberal system concept. Which is, indeed, too bad for us
liberals but great news for you non-liberals. As a liberal, I suppose I
should be tolerant of your non-liberal ideas. But it's a bit difficult not
to be concerned since we're all riding in the same boat and your ideas are
almost certainly going to run it into a reef. Being part of the Brie and
Chablis set, I'm pretty sure I'll survive. But, bleeding heart that I am, I
feel bad for all those less well off -- many of whom voted it upon
themselves -- who will have some very hard times coming up.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

9

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.23.1332)]

In a message dated 11/23/2004 1:10:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.23.1010)]

I’d like to try and address a few of Rick’s points.

First, Rick’s secularism IS a religion. What is surprising is that as a modeler Rick keeps on confusing the NUMBER zero with being UNDEFINED or nonexistent?

Having zero faith does NOT mean you have NO faith. It means you have zero AMOUNT of a certain kind of faith.

The word GOD is in EVERY state Constitution and in our federal Constitution. GOD does not belong to a single faith or religion. GOD is the concept of a higher presence then ourselves. As Ken Kitzke would say; The 12th Level

So, whether you believe that Jesus is your God or some other deity is IRRELEVANT to the concept.

In this country, MANY more people than not believe that there is SOME higher deity that was, and still might be, responsible for our welfare, whether that be Jesus or a Moon God.

You are indeed in a very small minority of people BUT you are also extremely lucky. Because unlike an Islamic Republic, where you and your sister-in-law would be dead at this point. You and she enjoy the freedom’s of this country just as every other citizen does and if you think you might find it more agreeable somewhere else Canada beckons. You have no anchor tied to your ass. I also understand the Ivory Coast is particularly nice this time of year. Think of the PCT possibilities in Africa

Onto a little Civics. The separation of Church and state in the US was intended for ONE purpose, and that was to stop the possibility of forming a STATE RELIGON and forcing folks to belong to a single church, like the Church of England. GOD was very much on the minds of our forefathers.

You might want to look into the notion of Federalism. We don’t have one central government in this country for some very good reasons, you really should have some idea why that is the case.

Don’t worry Rick, I could care less who you have sex with and I care even less who you do or do not worship and neither do the rest of us ‘Purple’ folks. :slight_smile:

Marc

10

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.23.1441]

Bravo to Rick for trying to bring this thread back to a discussion of
PCT. It's very hard to do that in a topic of such fundamental and
emotional importance. I'm afraid even this message, which started as
an attempt to talk PCT, has drifted off topic again. Sorry about
that, but it's hard to avoid.

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.23.1010)]

Rick Marken (2004.11.20.2240)--

For those of you who share my political perspective -- which means you share
a lot of my higher level goals regarding the kind of person you want to be
and the kind of world you want to live in -- then you might enjoy
this letter

MARK LAZARE replies by posting:

An open letter to Europe and Liberals Everywhere
by HERBERT E. MEYER

I think this is a very useful letter because it describes a higher level
goal -- a system concept -- that is rather different from my own (and, I
presume, from that of a large minority of the population of the US). I think
it is one of the main system concepts that is being controlled by Bush and
those who voted for him. It is, indeed, the system concept that strikes fear
in the heart of liberals like myself. It is the non-liberal system concept.

I agree with Rick. It was a VERY scary letter, and I had been trying
to understand just why it (and the electoral result) was so truly
terrifying. I mean, after all, the US had the opportunity to rejoin
the community of civilized nations, and rejected it. Why? And why
does it matter so very much?

I think Rick is correct. A majority of the poeple in the USA do seem
to have a system reference like that of the supporters of Soviet
style dicatorships (and Marc's map shows that they tend to be the
ones furthest from contact with other parts of the world -- I
understand that only a very small percentage of US citizens have
passports). Authoritarianism is good, but only if it is
authoritarianism in support of my own other reference values. If
someone disagrees with me, the correct action is to destroy him, not
to try to show why my views would serve him better. The gun is much
more effective than the pen in an argument. Just like the Inquisition!

Conflict at a very high perceptual level has to be more dangerous
than conflict at a low level, because there is much less opportunity
to "go up a level" in order to resolve the conflict. And that, I
think, is why it is so scary that the "land of the free and the home
of the brave" has turned into "the land of the Patriot Act and the
home of the paranoid."

If the USA were a powerless country like Iraq, one would simply try
to be compassionate and assist the people of the country, but when
the country in question is so powerful and flails around like a giant
with his eyes put out, it's very dangerous for the rest of the world
as well as for its own people. Before 9/11, the international
community (including the USA) had been slowly and quietly rolling up
Al Qaeda, and had blocked several 9/11-type attacks in different
countries. But Bush destroyed those efforts, first before 9/11 by
stopping US participation, and afterward by his blind military
blundering.

But of course, when one talks of "power" one is talking about the
ability to bring one's perceptions near their reference values. Does
the USA have that kind of power? The USA accounts for something like
half the world's spending on the military, and yet is "overstretched"
in trying to bring the Iraqis to act as the US wants. If military
might is "power", isn't that rather strange?

A majority of Americans are apparently controlling for something quite
different than this liberal system concept. Which is, indeed, too bad for us
liberals but great news for you non-liberals.

I don't think it's great news for them, either. Authoritarian systems
that have popular support tend to exaggerate their authoritarianism
over time. There's some kind of a positive feedback effect. It's as
if the gain of the system that perceives differences between their
own systems concepts and those of other people increases over time.
(I know that's a very vague theoretical position, but all I can say
is that historically that's what it looks like). Initially, they seem
to have more tolerance than they do later on. They do tend to get rid
of a lot of their early supporters, who seem to become less
supportive (in their view) over time. It usually takes a revolution
to get out from under, if they aren't stopped early on.

As a liberal, I suppose I
should be tolerant of your non-liberal ideas. But it's a bit difficult not
to be concerned since we're all riding in the same boat and your ideas are
almost certainly going to run it into a reef.

Do you have to be a "liberal" to believe in the freedoms for which
the English have fought over the last 400 years and more (and I
include the American Revolutionaries as "English", since that's how
they saw themselves)? It wasn't only over the taxing power that the
English Civil War and the American Revolution were fought! What I
can't understand is how anyone who proclaims to follow Christian
beliefs could vote for a regime that so consistently acts in
opposition to the teachings of Christ, and is so devoted to
destroying the liberties of the individual that are fundamental to
true Christianity?

In my younger days, conservatives and liberals both believed in
freedom, and they not only talked the talk, they walked the walk. But
that was before "1984". Orwell knew what he was talking about, and we
have a regime for which the Patriot Act is called a defence of
freedom, the Clean Air Act enhances pollution, and a treaty is a
piece of paper to be torn up at a whim.

God help the USA -- and the rest of us.

Martin

11

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.23.1520)]

Martin Taylor 2004.11.23.1441]

Bravo to Rick for trying to bring this thread back to a discussion of
PCT. It's very hard to do that in a topic of such fundamental and
emotional importance.

Thanks, Martin. I really appreciate it (though you know you shouldn't
encourage me;-))

Do you have to be a "liberal" to believe in the freedoms for which
the English have fought over the last 400 years and more ...

In my younger days, conservatives and liberals both believed in
freedom, and they not only talked the talk, they walked the walk...

I meant "liberal" in terms of the system concept I described: Not limited
to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes,
views, or dogmas; free from bigotry, etc.

People who are not controlling for this system concept (and we now know that
this includes millions of Americans, including at least two who are on
CSGNet) don't want the same kind of society we want -- regardless of who
fought for such a society for however many years. The liberal system concept
in the US is now maintained mainly by those Nobel prize winners, academics,
artists, scientists and engineers who, because of their liberality, had the
ideas that built the vibrant US economy that is now being plundered by the
authoritarians.

Regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

12

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.23.1847)]

In a message dated 11/23/2004 3:25:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

···

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.23.1441]

I agree with Rick. It was a VERY scary letter, and I had been trying
to understand just why it (and the electoral result.) was so truly
terrifying. I mean, after all, the US had the opportunity to rejoin
the community of civilized nations, and rejected it. Why? And why
does it matter so very much?

This is precisely the attitude the writer was talking about and 60 million Americans said FUCK YOU to.

What a bunch of sanctimonious horse shit. Three thousand people were killed because of some phantom wrongs some maniacs believe we committed, We then liberate 50 million people from brutal dictators, over a thousand of our men die and you have the freakin nerve to sit there and talk about ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty.’?

Put a shoe in it asshole.

Marc

13

In a message dated 11/23/2004 3:25:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.23.1441]

BTW MT, how’s the Oil for food program going these days among your ‘community of civilized nations’.

Now that the Sudan is on the UN’s human rights commission, maybe they’ll stop bombing children’s relief centers.

Have the Dutch figured out who killed the Van Gogh yet? Why not talk about the deplorable conditions and bigotry faced in Europe by the North African Muslims and one of the main reasons why Europe is such a breeding ground for Islamist Fundamentalism.

Because UNLIKE America Martin, European country’s DO NOT integrate and these people have formed a huge underclass that is threatening the very fabric of modern Europe.

I would say the rest of the world has a much bigger job of coming up to our standards then we have of going _DOWN _ to theirs.

Marc

14

Re: For Those Who Share My Higher Level
Goals
[Martin Taylor 2004.11.23.23.11]

From
[Marc Abrams (2004.11.23.1847)]

In a
message dated 11/23/2004 3:25:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

[Martin Taylor
2004.11.23.1441]

I agree with Rick.
It was a VERY scary letter, and I had been trying

to understand just why it (and the electoral result.) was so
truly

terrifying. I mean, after all, the US had the opportunity to
rejoin

the community of civilized nations, and rejected it. Why? And
why
does it matter so
very much?

What a bunch of
sanctimonious horse shit. Three thousand people were killed because of
some phantom wrongs some maniacs believe we committed, We then
liberate 50 million people from brutal dictators, over a thousand of
our men die and you have the freakin nerve to sit there and talk about
‘freedom’ and ‘liberty.’?

I guess, with by English
heritage, I do know about “the white man’s burden”. But we
learned last century that it wasn’t such a good idea. I guess each
Empire has to learn for itself. Too bad.

It would be interesting to
know what the Iraqis feel about their “liberation”. From
what I read, and see, it seems that they aren’t all tremendously
enthusiastic, even the ones who initially were all in favour. Could a
PCT-based observation be that they now have less control over their
perceptions than they did before? That does seem to have been the
opinion of Margaret Hassan, at least, in a piece published in the
Globe and Mail shortly after her murder.

Actually, I wasn’t commenting
on the “freedom” and “liberty” the USA is imposing
on other nations, but on its regression within the USA, which is very
sad to see in a country that has such a wonderful national rhetoric.
It’s so sad, too, that a country to which the world looked up as a
beacon of hope only a few years ago is now so despised
internationally.

Very depressing.

Martin

15

From {Marc Abrams (2004.11.23.2325)]

In a message dated 11/23/2004 11:22:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

Life-Head-01.jpg

···

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.23.23.11]

Actually, I wasn’t commenting on the “freedom” and “liberty” the USA is >imposing on other nations, but on its regression within the USA, which is very >sad to see in a country that has such a wonderful national rhetoric. It’s so sad, >too, that a country to which the world looked up as a beacon of hope only a few >years ago is now so despised internationally.

Very depressing.

Aren’t you glad you live in Canada. I happen to be TICKLED PINK with the election outcome as I know 61 million other Americans are in this country.

You’ll get over it.

I guess, with by English heritage, I do know about “the white man’s burden”. But >we learned last century that it wasn’t such a good idea. I guess each Empire has >to learn for itself. Too bad.

Why don’t you start your crusade by giving back what you took in Canada to the natives? Exactly what did you learn?

It would be interesting to know what the Iraqis feel about their “liberation”.

Yes, it would be. If they are not interested, neither am I. Just make sure you keep your hands to yourself.

From what I read, and see, it seems that they aren’t all tremendously >enthusiastic, even the ones who initially were all in favour.

I hope you read this Martin; From Life magazine, 6 months after the end of W.W.II.

The headline speaks for itself. Your old enough to remember this Martin. Were we the big bad guys then too? Anyone interested in reading this article can find it on; http://www.jessicaswell.com/Life-Page01.htm

Something’s Never change, apparently including the American left.

Could a PCT-based observation be that they now have less control over their >perceptions than they did before?

Are you serious? What you and Rick among others can’t seem to understand Martin is that the SAME control systems that produce YOUR thoughts, behavior, and higher level goals produced the thoughts and behavior of Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and Mother Teresa as well.

We are all control systems, so I guess IF PCT is an accurate theory it would have to account for the higher level goals of EVERYONE. Not just the ones you happen to agree with. PCT is not even close in this regard

That does seem to have been the opinion of >Margaret Hassan, at least, in a >piece published in the Globe and Mail shortly >after her murder.

Ah, the Globe. The British equivalent to the National Enquirer here in the US. What a fine pub. Is this where you get your ‘news’ from MT?

Try the Economist, the best news pub in the world. That is of course you can pass up the tits in the Globe.

Marc

16

From {Marc Abrams (2004.11.24.0004)]

For any who have the illusion that PCT can help answer some of the most vexing problems concerning human behavior, all you need to do is look at this thread to understand that this is a myth.

Knowing how we use our arms and legs and other muscles might be a nice thing for a robotics person, but most people I know want to know where our higher level goals come from and how the environment affects them and we the environment. The motor control is nice but not very interesting.

Bill Powers has taken the research position of trying to work from the bottom up. That is, from the physio circuitry of our nervous system up to and through our cognition. Unfortunately we don’t know enough about how our physio circuits currently work to advance very far up the ladder.

What has not been attempted and what might prove to be useful is to take a top down approach? That is, disregard the circuitry and talk about how the control mechanisms might provide us with feelings, emotions, and thoughts WITHOUT getting caught up in exactly how this is all actually wired together. The key word here is actually. A model needs to represent the processes involved. In a functional model the processes need not be physiological isomorphic. Just theoretically plausible

Anyone interested in exploring the possibilities? I received two private responses to my last post on perceptions. This is in the same vein. I will be doing this through a Multi paradigm modeling tool that combines SD, Discrete, and Agent based modeling.

The basic PCT control loop found on page 274 of B:CP is the basis for this model.

Again, you can contact me at; matzaball50@aol.com

No political affiliation required , no church to join, and gays are welcome. The only requirement is an interest in trying to advance a potential science (PCT).

Marc

17

Re: For Those Who Share My Higher Level
Goals
[Martin Taylor 2004.11.24.00.38]

My last in this thread (I hope).

From
{Marc Abrams (2004.11.23.2325)]

In a
message dated 11/23/2004 11:22:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

[Martin Taylor
2004.11.23.23.11]

I guess, with by
English heritage, I do know about “the white man’s burden”.
But >we learned last century that it wasn’t such a good idea. I
guess each Empire has >to learn for itself. Too
bad.

Why don’t you start
your crusade by giving back what you took in Canada to the natives?
Exactly what did you learn?

I guess you haven’t been reading much news about Canada over the
last few years, have you? You wouldn’t ask that question if you
had.

But the mistake of the “white man’s burden” was that
Britain thought that by force of arms it could liberate the savages
from their barbarity and give them the benefits of civilization and,
in the longer run, democracy. By 1950, it knew better. Maybe by 2050,
the US will, too.

I hope you read this
Martin; From Life magazine, 6 months after the end of
W.W.II.

The headline speaks for
itself. Your old enough to remember this Martin. Were we the big bad
guys then too?

Actually, that headline wasn’t an evaluation. It was a statement
of fact, which was turned around by the Marshall Plan. The Marshall
Plan may have been the US’s finest hour. It probably saved Western
Europe from coming completely under Soviet domination. And had
something similar been offered to the poor countries of Africa and the
Middle East, the world probably would now be looking at the US with as
great admiration as it did in the 50s and 60s.

Could a PCT-based
observation be that they now have less control over their
perceptions than they did before?

Are you serious? What
you and Rick among others can’t seem to understand Martin is that the
SAME control systems that produce YOUR thoughts, behavior, and
higher level goals produced the thoughts and behavior of Joseph
Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and Mother Teresa as well.

It helps if you read what you comment on, sometimes. The ability
to control doesn’t depend only on the structure of the control systems
or on the values of their reference signals. The violence of the
disturbances and the stability of the feedback paths do have an effect
on the ability to control, you know.

Your comment is much like saying that a millionaire and a welfare
mom have the same ability to control their perceptions. It’s just
silly.

That does seem to
have been the opinion of >Margaret Hassan, at least, in a
piece published in the Globe and Mail shortly >after her
murder.

Ah, the Globe. The
British equivalent to the National Enquirer here in the US. What a
fine pub. Is this where you get your ‘news’ from
MT?

The Globe and Mail ain’t British, me lad!

I guess you get your news from the “fair and balanced”
Fox News, do you? They call the G&M communist, but even they
wouldn’t have thought to suggest that it showed tits–I don’t think it
even showed Janet Jackson’s. But then, in the G&M entertainment
very much takes a back seat to the business and political news. And
although I think its columnists mostly have a right wing bias, it does
have a few from the left as well, and it’s hard to detect much
favoritism in its news coverage, when checked against the reports of
the same stories in media from other countries. No one source
can be trusted to be reliable, but the Globe and Mail is about as good
as they come, most of the time.

Enough. I need a tar-baby solvent.

Martin

18

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.24.0940)]

Marc Abrams (2004.11.24.0004)

For any who have the illusion that PCT can help answer some of the most vexing
problems concerning human behavior, all you need to do is look at this thread
to understand that this is a myth.

It seems to me that the thread is a nice demonstration of how well PCT
explains control at the highest level. I started the thread by posting a
letter written by a person who clearly shares one of my higher level goals,
which is to live in a liberal society: one in which people are not limited
to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes,
views, or dogmas; is free from bigotry, etc.

For people who share this goal, the election results were an enormous
disturbance -- and an insuperable one at that. I posted the letter simply to
share it with those who share my system concept; I knew it would be a
disturbance to those who don't. And, sure enough, two of you who don't share
my higher level goals went ahead and read the letter anyway and acted as
expected, writing e-mails aimed at protecting your system concept
perceptions from the disturbance.

So this thread on "My Higher Level Goals" is a nice demonstration, it seems
to me, of control of system level perceptions. It shows how the very same
perception (of the Bush administration, for example) can be exactly what
some people want to experience (those who do not share my goal of living in
a liberal society) and what others don't want to experience.

Knowing how we use our arms and legs and other muscles might be a nice thing
for a robotics person, but most people I know want to know where our higher
level goals come from and how the environment affects them and we the
environment. The motor control is nice but not very interesting.

"Motor control" (I would call it control of lower level perceptions, like
positions, rates of change and relationships) illustrates (and allows us to
test quantitatively) the basic model of control of perception. Once you
understand "motor control", however, I believe that you are also in a very
good position to understand how control of higher level perceptions works as
well, in principle if not in quantitative detail.

One thing that is nice about learning about control in terms of control of
lower level perceptual variables is that people usually don't come to this
learning with strong commitments (goals) regarding the state of these
variables. For example, people don't come to a tracking task with strong
commitments about what constitutes the "right" position for the cursor. But
people do come to a political discussion (a kind of verbal tracking task
where you try to make points that match your goals for those points) with
strong commitments about what constitutes the "right" position for the
points made in the discussion. So the study of control of higher level
perceptions is often confounded with arguments about who is actually
_right_. If you look at control in terms of right and wrong -- for example,
if you look at a tracking tasking in terms of whether or not the subject has
the right goal for where the cursor should be -- you will miss seeing the
controlling itself.

PCT doesn't tell us what it is right or wrong to control; that is, it
doesn't say who has the right goals regarding particular perceptual
variables. For example, PCT doesn't say whether controlling for a "liberal"
system concept is more or less correct than controlling for a "conservative"
one, any more than it says whether controlling for keeping the cursor zero
distance from the target is more or less correct than keeping it 1 inch to
the right of it.

If you step back and try to ignore whether you think someone is controlling
for the right perception (system concept, in this case) or not, I think you
will see the controlling itself quite clearly. But it is hard, at these
higher levels, to get past one's own goals for the perceptions in question.
If, for example, you don't care for people who criticize the government
then you are not likely to notice that these critics are controlling a
higher level perception in the same way that you are controlling a higher
level perception when you criticize the critics. But if you can ignore the
question of whether what a person wants is right or wrong, you can see
higher level controlling very clearly. And you can see that the control of
higher level perceptual variables -- like system concepts -- that is done by
people whose goals for these perceptions are inconsistent with your own, is
still very clearly the control of perception.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

19

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.24.1227)]

In a message dated 11/24/2004 1:08:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

···

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.24.00.38]

My last in this thread (I hope).

the mistake of the “white man’s burden” was that Britain thought that by force of >arms it could liberate the savages from their barbarity and give them the benefits >of civilization and, in the longer run, democracy. By 1950, it knew better. Maybe >by 2050, the US will, too.

Really?? ‘White men’??

You mean the Japanese had no imperial designs 80 years ago starting in China?

The Arabs conquering of Europe was an exercise in what?

How about the Mongols?

How about our own North American Indians. Who did they take the land from? There is very good evidence that CAUCASIAN people were here over 13,000 years ago.

You mean the Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Italians, and French had no colonial designs on the rest of the world?

In fact Martin, please tell me which culture or race DID NOT at some time in the history of the human race colonialize others?

‘White men’ indeed.

By 1950 the British didn’t know crap. Like the Soviet Union, the British ‘empire’ collapsed because they could not afford it.

Your revisionistic look at human history is a great deal more appealing when you stay focused on the human race of 10,000 years ago and the formation of religious beliefs.

I’m glad and proud to be part a country that is NOT a colonial power.

Actually, that headline wasn’t an evaluation. It was a statement of fact, which >was turned around by the Marshall Plan.

WRONG!!! If Hitler was not defeated you would be speaking German right now NOT English and they came VERY close to doing just that.

Do you seriously believe you could have defeated Nazi Germany without this country? What are you smoking? And what of Japan?

The Marshall Plan may have been the US’s finest hour.

I see, winning the war was incidental. But your wrong here to Martin, Not demanding to get paid back has been our finest hour.

It probably saved Western Europe from coming completely under Soviet >domination.

What a shame that is. I’m sorry they didn’t. They too could have partaken in the fruits of communism and had the wonderful lifestyle Eastern Europe enjoyed until very recently. I’m sure the Germans and French are crying every day because they were not allowed to become communist and had all these years to degenerate into the state of the current Soviet Union.

But I must hand it to France and Germany. With their stagnant economies and socialistic practices they are giving the Soviet Union a real run for their money.

So is Canada.

Somebody’s got to INVENT the drugs you folks buy off of our backs and investments

And had something similar been offered to the poor countries of Africa and the >Middle East, the world probably would now be looking at the US with as great >admiration as it did in the 50s and 60s.

This is such a crock of shit. Where is Canada’s "Marshall Plan’ for Africa? We are giving Africa 15 BILLION in AIDS funding, unfortunately the corrupt governments in Africa are stealing the money. Where is Europe in all this? Save me from your hyperbole. We are too nice.

If Europe didn’t screw up the Middle East after the first World War there might be peace there today. The modern Middle East is all about colonial Europe.

I don’t need, nor do I want your ‘admiration’ and neither do a very large majority of Americans Rick Marken can go around kissing your behind, but remember Martin, most people in this country are here because they did NOT like it some where else and those that do not like it here are ALWAYS free to leave.

It helps if you read what you comment on, sometimes. The ability to control >doesn’t depend only on the structure of the control systems or on the values of >their reference signals. The violence of the disturbances and the stability of the >feedback paths do have an effect on the ability to control, you know.

Yes, Martin and the devil is in the details. THAT is my point. Like your tossing off of the defeat of Germany and Japan as a mere formality compared to the ‘compassion’ of the Marshall Plan.

Please share with me your keen insights on how the ‘violence of disturbances’ and the ‘stability of feedback’ affect our ability to control. In what ways does this happen? Where do your ‘top’ level goals come from? And how do you know they are the ‘top’? Where is the ‘little man’?

Your comment is much like saying that a millionaire and a welfare mom have the >same ability to control their perceptions. It’s just silly.

THIS sentence sums up the hubris that surrounds most of your arguments. Because you think its silly makes it so.

What you fail to grasp and understand is that ‘behavior’ is not only about motor control. It is what is BEHIND the actions that matter as well. Our actions are simply functions of our COGNITIVE CONTROL systems. NO, not PCT. PCT does not, and cannot _currently_account for our cognition. But my point is; SOMETHING MUST account for it, and I believe there are FEEDBACK processes that are responsible for it. I know Bill Powers believes this as well. He just hasn’t gotten to it yet

So yes, smart ass, a millionaire and a welfare Mom might control for the feelings they have with different MEANS but to say that a millionaire and a pauper don’t ‘feel’ the same excitement, sorrow, happiness, and other assorted human feelings is nonsense. To say that a millionaire and a pauper would not kill you if you threatened their life is ‘silly,’ to think that a millionaire and a pauper would not control for thirst or food when they are thirsty or hungry is ‘silly.’ To think that a millionaire and a pauper would not crave sex equally as much is ‘silly.’

In essence EVERYTHING EVERYONE DOES they do for the same damn REASONS. What varies is the MEANS. Just like PCT tells you it does

EVERYTHING we do, is purposeful. Note, I did not say or mean meaningful to SOMEONE ELSE. There is a purpose behind every action. PCT tells us so.

The question becomes what is the purpose and why does it exist? These are the ‘extensions’ to PCT I am looking into and having an absolute ball with.

I feel these questions center on the continuos interactions between our perceptions, reference levels, and feelings/emtions. I believe there is a great deal more to our perceptions and reference levels than PCT currently accounts for.

I also believe the current model actually hurts our chances of answering those questions because of the very narrow field of view the model provides. There is nothing that has happened in the last 35 years to make me want to adhere to the hierarchy as it exists, and I’m not simply talking about the labels of the levels.

The Globe and Mail ain’t British, me lad!

I got them confused with the London tabloids. I know the Globe is a Toronto based paper.

I guess you get your news from the “fair and balanced” Fox News, do you?

Not most of the time. I read the Economist, News Max, & the NY Times. I don’t watch TV, unless the NY Mets baseball team is playing or the NY Giants football team. Otherwise I’m a reader.

But if there is a breaking story the news I do watch is either MSNBC or Fox. The networks are garbage and so is CNN.

Who do you recommend Al Jezeera? How about the BBC for clear and balanced? Edward R. Murrow, where are you when they need you

Enough. I need a tar-baby solvent.

Don’t get any in your eyes, it stings like hell

Marc

20

From {Marc Abrams (2004.11.24.1811)]

In a message dated 11/24/2004 12:43:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.24.0940)]

“Motor control” (I would call it control of lower level perceptions, like
positions, rates of change and relationships) illustrates (and allows us to
test quantitatively) the basic model of control of perception. Once you
understand “motor control”, however, I believe that you are also in a very
good position to understand how control of higher level perceptions works as
well, in principle if not in quantitative detail.

Rick, I can’t say I fully agree with this assessment. I believe an understanding of the PCT control loop paradigm is essential but NOT the HPCT hierarchy.

Understanding the control of inputs is of course the key, but as I have repeatedly said, I believe a different structure is required among control systems to produce what we call ‘cognition.’

At this point I’m also not totally convinced that positive feedback does not play a role. I understand Bill’s objections to it and I understand the whole cybernetic position, but my research in neuroscience has given me some food for thought and that will remain an open question until we have some further empirical evidence.

And finally, ‘cognition’ has elements that PCT just does not address. It is not simply a matter of addressing emotion, or imagination. It is a matter of trying to determine ‘Qualia.’ It is the sum total of our existence that I believe we have the capability of understanding.

No, I’m not talking about a predictive model here. I’m talking about a descriptive model. I truly believe a functional model is within our grasp.

No, I don’t think we are any where near the capability of a circuit diagram, but so what? Every trip requires the first step.

In my mind Bill Powers has provided that with the control of the input model. This is no less significant then finding out that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around. But what comes next?

Bill decided that a bottom up approach was the surest and most accurate way of building the model. To this point people simply have not agreed with Bill. By this I mean, people have not taken his original work any further. Sure, people like Martin Taylor and Bourbon and yourself have done some wonderful work, but Martin has been the only one who has tried to examine the theoretical limits of the work and no one has come up with a hierarchy of any empirical significance even though 95 out of 100 people believe a hierarchy is involved, no one can make one of any number of significant levels work properly.

This is not a knock on the theory. It is a fact. Why not try a different organizational structure? The answer I get is that Bill Powers has not been able to come up with one that works. Who said it was his responsibility to do so?

If the development of PCT does not end with the life of Bill Powers, why should the current development solely hinge on it right now?

Bill Powers has laid a wonderful path. The final destination though is not yet in sight.

You really think I’m an ‘enemy’ of PCT and you could not be further from the truth. What I am opposed to is the dogmatic approach Bill is taking and his near neurotic feelings that I’m somehow looking for fame and fortune in all this.

I’m a person with a tremendous amount of drive and desire to learn and understand the world around me.

One thing that is nice about learning about control in terms of control of
lower level perceptual variables is that people usually don’t come to this
learning with strong commitments (goals) regarding the state of these
variables. For example, people don’t come to a tracking task with strong
commitments about what constitutes the “right” position for the cursor.

They don’t because they are told not to, and for a few minutes they are willing to follow YOUR higher level reference level and make it THEIRS.

If life were only so easy. :slight_smile:

But people do come to a political discussion (a kind of verbal tracking task
where you try to make points that match your goals for those points) with
strong commitments about what constitutes the “right” position for the
points made in the discussion. So the study of control of higher level
perceptions is often confounded with arguments about who is actually
right. If you look at control in terms of right and wrong – for example,
if you look at a tracking tasking in terms of whether or not the subject has
the right goal for where the cursor should be – you will miss seeing the
controlling itself.

And herein lies the rub. What does it mean to be ‘right’? For each of us being ‘right’ means bringing the error as close to zero in as many of our control systems as possible, and for each of us that will be a different set of control processes. The only way PCT can talk about ‘conflict’ right now is if we are in a zero-sum game dealing with the SAME EXACT CONTROL PROCESS OR REFERENCE LEVEL. What one wins the other loses. The strategy is clear under those circumstances. Either abandon the goal or be prepared to fight to the death for it. A control system will tolerate nothing in between.

But if the situation is NOT a zero-sum game and incremental gains and loses can be made, then both parties can work toward a compromise that suits each’s greater set of goals

.

‘Political’ decisions are zero-sum, ‘Economic’ choices are incremental

In ANY ‘political’ situation regarding ANY law, there will be a group of people who will be pissed about the law and against its implementation, there will be another group who will love the law, and the rest, the vast majority that resides in the middle and just doesn’t give a hoot one way or the other. It’s these folks in the middle who decide most elections, including this one.

America is a PURPLE country. It’s not red, nor is it Blue.

Only Saddam can get 98% of the vote. :slight_smile:

PCT doesn’t tell us what it is right or wrong to control; that is, it
doesn’t say who has the right goals regarding particular perceptual
variables. For example, PCT doesn’t say whether controlling for a “liberal”
system concept is more or less correct than controlling for a “conservative”
one, any more than it says whether controlling for keeping the cursor zero
distance from the target is more or less correct than keeping it 1 inch to
the right of it.

Unfortunately this has become the PCT mantra. The problem is that this is a strawman.

This is the control paradox. What is ‘right’ for a control system is to reduce error. PERIOD. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

But reducing error in one control system can and DOES cause many other errors in other control systems. Right Martin?

Life is NOT a system of coordinated control systems. Hell, they aren’t even fully coordinated in each of our own bodies.

This turns out to be a HUGE problem. We know how strong our control systems are and we know how persistent and determined they are in trying to reduce error. We have control systems that will literally KILL the entire organism in trying to preserve one of its control systems.

So you can’t be thinking about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for a control system. That kind of thinking is ‘silly’ and very dangerous.

What we need to understand is how we affect our ABILITY to control and how we affect that in others.

We need to be thinking about how to provide for alternative and incremental SOLUTIONS TO ISSUES, but we can’t do that until we know not only what someone’s ‘goals’ are, but how they are formed, and if possible how they are constructed and maintained.

Maybe I’m being a Don Quixote wannabe here but we all have our crap to deal with and this is mine.

Marc