Gaping Hole

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.09.27)]

Ruhan (rlul2096@MAIL.USYD.EDU.AU) says on Sept. 27 :
<What people should control is not specified in the theory, and thus I don't
think it <will answer alot of these arguements.

Truer words were never spoken. As valuable as PCT may be to the life
sciences, its overall value to human beings has a gaping hole which can
render it overrated for solving many human arguments and conflicts. This may
also repress PCT's acceptance and usefulness in solving various important
human problems and sorrows which we all perceive and must deal with somehow.
But, who am I to speculate? :sunglasses:

I am off to Hawaii for two weeks with my sweetheart of 35 years on a holy
journey. Won't be opening a lap top, running any demos, blaming anyone for
anything or trying to fix the world or get the people in it to see it all my
way, at least 'till I get back, God willing. :sunglasses: Is there a PCT application
to life to be found in that mode of behavior?

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0927.1303)]

Kenny Kitzke (2001.09.27)

I am off to Hawaii for two weeks with my sweetheart of 35 years on a holy
journey. Won't be opening a lap top, running any demos, blaming anyone for
anything or trying to fix the world or get the people in it to see it all my
way, at least 'till I get back, God willing. :sunglasses: Is there a PCT application
to life to be found in that mode of behavior?

Just don't eat any shellfish. You know what God thinks about that.

from Kenny Kitzke: Truer words were never spoken. As valuable as PCT may be
to the life
sciences, its overall value to human beings has a gaping hole which can
render it overrated for solving many human arguments and conflicts. This
may
also repress PCT's acceptance and usefulness in solving various important
human problems and sorrows which we all perceive and must deal with somehow.
But, who am I to speculate? :sunglasses:

I don't think this is a problem with PCT, but a fact of any theory of human
functioning. What is controlled, or what is important to a person, is
choosen/ determined by them. When a grand theory such as PCT tells us what
we should control per sa, and is hailed as correct, that's when I'll start
running, as we mase well put it all in a computer and let it do the thinking
for us.If we do it ourselves we might be wrong!!!

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU]On Behalf Of Kenneth Kitzke Value
Creation Systems
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 2:31 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Gaping Hole

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.09.27)]

Ruhan (rlul2096@MAIL.USYD.EDU.AU) says on Sept. 27 :
<What people should control is not specified in the theory, and thus I don't
think it <will answer alot of these arguements.

Truer words were never spoken. As valuable as PCT may be to the life
sciences, its overall value to human beings has a gaping hole which can
render it overrated for solving many human arguments and conflicts. This
may
also repress PCT's acceptance and usefulness in solving various important
human problems and sorrows which we all perceive and must deal with somehow.
But, who am I to speculate? :sunglasses:

I am off to Hawaii for two weeks with my sweetheart of 35 years on a holy
journey. Won't be opening a lap top, running any demos, blaming anyone for
anything or trying to fix the world or get the people in it to see it all my
way, at least 'till I get back, God willing. :sunglasses: Is there a PCT
application
to life to be found in that mode of behavior?

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0927.2032)]

I don't think this is a problem with PCT, but a fact of any theory of human
functioning. What is controlled, or what is important to a person, is
choosen/ determined by them.

I seem to be in the minority on this one, but as far as I can tell, what is
important to a person is determined by reorganization. The only things we
can "choose" are things that are less important to us (like what to have
for dinner).

Bruce Gregory
is an American ex-patriot.
He lives with the poet And painter
Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut

Quoting Bruce Gregory <bruce_gregory@USA.NET>:

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0927.2032)]

>I don't think this is a problem with PCT, but a fact of any theory of
human
>functioning. What is controlled, or what is important to a person, is
>choosen/ determined by them.

I seem to be in the minority on this one, but as far as I can tell, what
is
important to a person is determined by reorganization. The only things
we
can "choose" are things that are less important to us (like what to
have
for dinner).

Rohan.
I get your point here, and probably need to develop understanding of
reorganistion. I were probably trying to make the point PCT theory as a body of
thought, is limited in its ability to tell anyone how best to re-organise
themselves(PCT Theory can't controll anyone), or can it.

I would really like to see more discussion on re-organisation. Something I am
thinking about is....Is reorganisation partly or often a result of
contingencies in the environment influenceing(disturbing) the control of
reference variables, precipitating a reorganisation, and thus change in
reference variable? I hope I haven't just gone full cirsle and confused
everyone. Its an issue I think has a lot of interest and appliactions.

Rohan Lulham
PhD Student
Department of Architecture
University of Sydney
Australia

···

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.09.28)]

Ruhan (rlul2096@MAIL.USYD.EDU.AU) says <> on Sept. 27 :

<I don't think this is a problem with PCT, but a fact of any theory of human

functioning. What is controlled, or what is important to a person, is

choosen/ determined by them. When a grand theory such as PCT tells us what

we should control per sa, and is hailed as correct, that's when I'll start

running, as we mase well put it all in a computer and let it do the thinking

for us.If we do it ourselves we might be wrong!!!>

You are quite a remarkable fellow. I'm pleased to have you participate on
CSGNet. Of course, theories of psychology generally _do not_ specify exactly
what people should think or believe. They are more aimed at explaining the
observable behavior of human beings. The exception, or logical extension,
may be in providing therapy for those whose behavior bothers or disturbs
themselves or others.

I would point out a neat expanded breadth of PCT over many human psychology
theories. PCT explains the behavior of animals, even single celled ones
without brains. It is more a science of living things, including humans.

Unfortunately, IMHO, some have tried to expand PCT, or HPCT, into a science
of human origins, evolution and even an encompassing description of human
nature. HPCT postulates specific levels of perceptions and even mechanisms
like "reorganization" systems in humans to try to explain what PCT cannot
explain.

Of course, this is just speculation at this point. No tests have been done
on precisely how many levels of perceptions people have, or how system level
references are created or changed during life. No bodily mechanism that
specifically performs reorganization has ever been discovered or isolated in
a laboratory. That is why continued research into PCT, and especially HPCT,
is so important.

All of us who find PCT worthwhile should encourage those whose purpose is
research to expand the science. And, it would be nice if researchers
encouraged those trying to apply PCT and HPCT based on what is known to help
solve human issues that distract from contentment in life.

But, realistically, when all that can be known and proven about PCT and HPCT
is, I imagine that men will still have to turn to other meta-recourses to
understand what man should do and what purposes they should have and try to
control. No, science cannot give every person all that is important in the
nature of our life. It can't all be loaded into a computer to be infused in
each of us to close the gaping hole.

We are each a unique creature, different from and superior to all other
living things, and different from one another. We will never all be the
same, never be robots programmed by other men or anything else for that
matter, and that is marvelous and mind boggling. We all look different,
think different, believe different. We also all act different, even given
the same external environment. It's great.

Now, wouldn't it be nice if we could all rejoice in those differences and
edify one another with friendship and understanding? But, as we can see on
CSGNet, when the differences arise, even PCT and HPCT fail its experts in
that regard. It is easier to just depart and avoid the disturbances of the
words and ideas of others when there is nothing for them in being here. So,
they give up and leave and break off contact and dialogue. It's all PCT all
right, but is it right? Or, as you suggest, might it be wrong? PCT/HPCT
will never tell us. But, who can judge at all? Only those acting can know
for themselves for sure. Others suddenly just don't matter much.

But, you matter Ruhan to me as a new explorer into the mysteries of PCT and
human nature, so I'll stick around to hear what you think; that is after I
stop controlling for my Hawaii journey and purpose(s) my wife and I have
agreed upon while there. But, I hope to converse with you when I return to
this net after October 15 believing, like my friend Bill Williams, that words
can be quite harmless, even when meant to harm, for those with a PCT
understanding of behavior.

Respectfully,

Kenny

[From Kenny Kitzke (20

But, you matter Ruhan to me as a new explorer into the mysteries of PCT and
human nature, so I'll stick around to hear what you think; that is after I
stop controlling for my Hawaii journey and purpose(s) my wife and I have
agreed upon while there. But, I hope to converse with you when I return to
this net after October 15 believing, like my friend Bill Williams, that words
can be quite harmless, even when meant to harm, for those with a PCT
understanding of behavior.

While I've argued that from a control theory standpoint words themelves are
harmless, I don't wish to be misundertood as approving vile speech or speech
that is intended to harm. Such speech, it seems to me, can be a form of
"manipulative" behavior. I use quotes around "manipulative" because the words
do not actually, in a causal sense, do anything. It is the one percieving the
words that does the acting. Never-the-less vile speech directed toward
injuring the dignity of other persons, or speech that is intended to do harm is
cruel. It seems to me that it is a form of intellectual bullying. It can be
defended against if one understands control theory, by setting one's reference
levels so that painful errors are avoided. However, many people who do not
understand that this is possible and threrefore can it seems to me be in a
sense "hurt" by hateful speech. However we choose to express this, I think both
side of the issue concerning words are important.

Quoting from a source that Ken will approve, Christ said "it's what comes out
of your mouth that defies you."

best of vacations to Ken
    Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.09.27 15:29 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0927.2032) --

I seem to be in the minority on this one, but as far as I can tell, what is
important to a person is determined by reorganization. The only things we
can "choose" are things that are less important to us (like what to have
for dinner).

It follows that our strongest predispositions are in a certain sense inaccessible to us and may be "best fit" accommodations to overwhelming disturbances at some time in our past experience.

This is consistent with many kinds of psychiatric theorizing.

However, it seems to me that the examined life is possible, so maybe that isn't the whole story. Don't know enough about reorganization to be sure.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 20:33 09/27/2001 -0400, Bruce Gregory wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.1603)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.09.27 15:29 EDT)

However, it seems to me that the examined life is possible, so maybe that
isn't the whole story. Don't know enough about reorganization to be sure.

Your post suggested the following to me. What if the most "transforming"
actions we can take involve, not examining our lives, but subjecting
ourselves to disturbances that we can either counter, or if that fails,
lead to reorganization. Most of the time we seem to be pretty good at
avoiding such disturbances, especially disturbances that might lead to
reorganization.

It seems that some of the terrorists experienced such reorganization, with
unfortunate results.

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.09.27 16:57 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.1603)--

Your post suggested the following to me. What if the most "transforming"
actions we can take involve, not examining our lives, but subjecting
ourselves to disturbances that we can either counter, or if that fails,
lead to reorganization. Most of the time we seem to be pretty good at
avoiding such disturbances, especially disturbances that might lead to
reorganization.

There are those who have advocated this, Gurdjieff for one (and what's a koan for) but always with some oversight and support, because the trouble is, as with coercion, the outcome of reorganization might 'work' but might include undesirable characteristics. Since what you're affecting includes the 'glasses' through which you comprehend your perceptions, it's easy to get lost, how could you know if you had, are you already, etc. Confusion, confusion.

There are other ways to cast oneself upon the mercy of the random. Oracles have always had their appeal, from carefully structured ones like I Ching, to opening a book and reading the passage on which the eye falls, to flipping a coin.

Meditation is especially interesting for disclosing the backdrop of the as it were Brownian movement of the 'contents' of awareness. (Aniccha is usually translated "impermanence".) I suspect reorganization is the constant and resistance to it is what is remarkable and to be studied in PCT.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 16:02 09/28/2001 -0400, Bruce Gregory wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.1712)]

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.09.27 16:57 EDT)]

There are other ways to cast oneself upon the mercy of the random. Oracles
have always had their appeal, from carefully structured ones like I Ching,
to opening a book and reading the passage on which the eye falls, to
flipping a coin.

I am not sure that reorganization is necessarily random. Religious
conversion of the sort apparently experienced by some of the terrorists is
far from random. It seems to involve embracing a solution to a problem that
apparently cannot be solved by the existing set of beliefs (organization).

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.09.27 17:40 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0928.1712) --

I am not sure that reorganization is necessarily random. Religious conversion of the sort apparently experienced by some of the terrorists is
far from random. It seems to involve embracing a solution to a problem that
apparently cannot be solved by the existing set of beliefs (organization).

Guided reorganization? Set up or intensify irresolvable conflict, establish attributions (higher-level perceptions) of the sources of disturbances, perhaps even higher-level perceptions of CVs and reference values, and present a way of resolving the conflict. Sounds like an approximate description of torture, extortion, 'brainwashing', cult indoctrination, and some forms of conversion. 'Oversight and support' for the student facing the koan or the disciple undergoing the rigors of discipline is perilous kindness. "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." Gaping hole, indeed! What abhors a vacuum?

Could be tested experimentally, but the ethical issues are rugged. Rokeach's belief-disbelief stuff might get at it.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 17:12 09/28/2001 -0400, Bruce Gregory wrote: