[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