[From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.2015)]
Marc Abrams (2005.10.27.1927)
I'd be happy to answer your questions just as soon as you answer mine.
Well, I tried. I have no idea what you want, Marc.
If it seems l like I'm ignoring you again, I am.
---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400
In a message dated 10/27/2005 11:20:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:
[From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.2015)]
Marc Abrams (2005.10.27.1927)
I’d be happy to answer your questions just as soon as you answer mine.
Well, I tried. I have no idea what you want, Marc.
Yes, you tried very hard to control and manipulate the situation unilaterally as you are attempting to do right now, but evidently what you didn’t seem to do was read what I wrote, and then you might have had some idea.
Which questions specifically confused you?
If it seems l like I’m ignoring you again, I am.
I’m heart broken. You don’t seem to understand that your ‘attention’ is very much unwanted by me
If you were actually interested in what I had to say and were not clear as too what you thought I wanted you would ask me for a clarification. But you have no more desire to hear what I think then you do anyone else who happens to disagree with you or your ideas.
So what would be my purpose & payoff in getting involved in a contest with you? Rick have you noticed that there are only a handful of people who post on CSGnet? Do you really believe the whole world (except for the Chinese) is against you?
Have you been a victim your whole life?
You seem to have this very strange idea that if you ignore me or throw strawmen and red herrings up that others will not notice.
Well, my questions will not go away, and many folks see through you like a clear pane of glass.
I’m not your ‘enemy’ and I’m not looking to ‘destroy’ PCT regardless of the demon you and Bill imagine and make me out to be.
[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.28,15:30 EuST)]
From Rick
Marken (2005.10.27.0900)
From Marc
2005.10.27.
Rick and
Marc, I had a nice time following your discussion From Rick Marken
(2005.10.27.0900)] -
[From
Rick Marken (2005.10.27.1200)].
Rick, you
explained thoughts also I have in a convincing way to me. When I have tried to
explain the same I have used the concept “Respect”. In future I will use both “Respect”
and “Tolerance”. Thank you.
I guess
your argumentation was a consequence of some well-formulated questions from
Marc. Thank you Marc for your questions.
Rick, I
also appreciated the way you said:
Back-stabbing
and digging are simply outputs – extreme outputs --that are
used
to try to get a perception that is in conflict (in this case, the
perception
of what another person is saying) to its goal state. The way to
avoid
this is for one or both parties to the conflict to either change their
goal
and start agreeing with the other party or simply stop participating in
the
conflict.
I think
your last sentence explains how to build social relations between people.
May also
I ask a question?
From
Rick Marken (2005.10.27.0900)
A
person can
be
tolerant with respect to some goals and intolerant with respect to
others.
In PCT terms, this means that a person controls for some perceptions
with
low gain and for others with high gain, respectively.
Could it
also be with respect to the reference value? A person controls for some
perceptions with a not so high reference value for some goals and with a high
reference value for other goals.
bjorn
In a message dated 10/28/2005 9:32:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.28,15:30 EuST)]
I guess your argumentation was a consequence of some well-formulated questions from Marc. Thank you Marc for your questions.
Please don’t thank me. One day when Rick actually tries to answer some of them will there be a day for thanks. 
Rick did not
answer my questions. He advocated his position while attempting to derail my inquiry. Rick, like us all, is a good controller and he will act accordingly (try to exercise unilateral control) when he feels threatened.
Part of the way of exercising control in my opinion is to stop or neutralize any attempt at inquiring into how you may have come to your beliefs.
This would force you to look at and possibly question foundational beliefs you have and for most controllers, not just Rick, this is a very difficult thing to do.
This is not a Rick thing, it is a control thing.
Regards,
Marc
In a message dated 10/28/2005 9:32:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.28,15:30 EuST)]
The way to avoid this is for one or both parties to the conflict >to either change their goal and start agreeing with the other >party or simply stop participating in the conflict.
I think your last sentence explains how to build social relations between people.
If only life were that easy.
Regards,
Marc
In a message dated 10/28/2005 9:32:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.28,15:30 EuST)]
Could it also be with respect to the reference value? A person controls for some perceptions with a not so high reference value for some goals and with a high reference value for other goals.
Why not? Reduce the gain as Rick said himself. You can also reframe the problem or conflict so you perceive it from a different perspective. Neither one though is easy to do because it’s tough messing with control systems.
Especially the cognitive ones where we know so very little about.
Marc
This is Phil Runkel on 28 Oct replying to Thalhammer's of 2005.10.24.1245 CDT:
Bryan: Thank you. Me too. __p
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.29.0115 CDT)]
Dear Phil,
This is about science and perceptions about being able to do it.
This is all I have tonight: This is not the country I was raised to know and love. Today as I. Scooter Libby gets "his," the net widens beyond even Rove, and the rest are standing in line for possible indictment, I was listening to the radio, shaking my head and *smiling*, thinking, where the heck did these guys get their Civics lessons? Art of War? Exodus and Leviticus? Medici? Pat Robertson? When people think our country was founded on God's principles and that greed and acquisition are a demonstration of success and a patriotic duty, I wonder what the heck has gotten into us. But to clarify, I never thought that the myths of the wild west and manifest destiny were anything but an aberation of their times. Rather, I thought of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Dewey, Roosevelt, Thurgood Marshall, MLK, RFK, etc. were the real Americans. I have been instructed by the pundits that I am wrong, that freedom is something for corporations and not for individuals of a suspect leaning. Well, I simply don't get it anymore.
Quoting myself:
"I have a perception, maybe a principle, that says that it is not patriotic to hoard, to take more than you deserve, to take advantage from others, to gather riches depriving them from others. I think that this perception comes from my reading and thinking about the Galil�an cynic guy... who was a liberal."
Seriously, I almost shocked myself when I searched (for the first time) the Constitution, Declaration and related docs for certain key words people presume are in there. Nope! It is one thing to read it through, but to search through it for presumed words that everyone thinks are in there, and not find them. Wow, that is science.
We are at a fork in the road, and the government, such as it is, cannot see the danger that we have been in since 2000 (no, 2001 is a symptom, not a cause). My new standard, regardless of the pundits out there, is to name the frame (in the way of George Lakoff) of our dilemma to get beyond the denial we have been in since 2001. The frame/perception is: "It CAN Happen here," that is, yes, neocon fascists can take over the U.S.
Because, my dear compatriots, if we go in the direction these goofballs seem to be leading us, *science* (the very subject of this forum, and the ultimate theme of this missive) will be a restricted to a neo-Lamarckian strategy for proving doctrines such as Intelligent Design, Dianetics, Eugenics, the traditional family, Biblical scientific foresight, and Flat-Earth science. Speak out, or one day be forced to espouse rubbish.
October 23, 2005 - NYT.
Colleges Protest Call to Upgrade Online Systems
By SAM DILLON and STEPHEN LABATON
"The federal government, vastly extending the reach of an 11-year-old law, is requiring hundreds of universities, online communications companies and cities to overhaul their Internet computer networks to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to monitor e-mail and other online communications. The action, which the government says is intended to help catch terrorists and other criminals..."
There ya are. 
<-- still smiling, listening to good music and ready to listen to late night radio drama.
--B.
Philip Runkel wrote:
This is Phil Runkel on 28 Oct replying to Thalhammer's of 2005.10.24.1245 CDT:
Bryan: Thank you. Me too. __p
[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.30,11:10 EuST)]
A
mail from Marc received 2005.10.28, 17:48 EuST.
Rick
To
avoid this is for one or both parties to the conflict
To
either change their Goal and start agreeing with the other
Party
or simply stop participating in the conflict.
Bjorn
I think your last sentence explains how to build social relations between
people.
Marc
If only
life were that easy.
Can you tell a
story, Marc, where you tried this without success?
Bjorn
Bjorn,
In a message dated 10/30/2005 5:08:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.30,11:10 EuST)]
A mail from Marc received 2005.10.28, 17:48 EuST.
Rick
To avoid this is for one or both parties to the conflict
To either change their Goal and start agreeing with the other
Party or simply stop participating in the conflict.
Bjorn
I think your last sentence explains how to build social relations between people.
Marc
If only life were that easy.
Can you tell a story, Marc, where you tried this without success?
I don’t need PCT to tell me that two ways of ending conflict’s are to break off contact with an individual or to agree with him/her.
That would end conflict with any theory. But as I tried pointing out, even those two things do not necessarily ‘end’ conflict, and gave examples of feuds that have lasted for years, and lifetimes.
Second, the reason that conflicts exist is precisely because people have a very difficult time doing just those two things. Why? IMHO, it is because of our need to control, and when we feel threatened, we will react. We are not rational beings, we are controllers with very vivid imaginations.
Regards,
Marc
Bjorn
[rom Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.30,14:15 EuST)]
From
Marc 2005.10.30, 13,27 EuST.
Can
you tell a story, Marc, where you tried this without success?
(this
is:
Rick
The way to avoid this [back-stabbing
and digging] is for one or
both parties to the
conflict to either change their goal
and start
agreeing with the other
party or simply stop participating in
the conflict.)
I don’t need PCT to tell me that two ways
of ending conflict’s
are to break off contact with an individual or to agree with him/her.
No, all people end their conflicts as
described in PCT. They don’t need to know PCT to end a conflict.
PCT describes how people can end a conflict.
I don’t know any other ways. Do you?
That would end conflict with any theory. But as I tried
pointing out, even those two things do not necessarily ‘end’
conflict, and gave examples of feuds that have lasted for
years, and lifetimes.
Tell me how cognitive theory accounts for conflict.
I really don’t know.
Yes I think PCT back you up when you say that
conflicts sometimes don’t end before people die.
Second, the reason that conflicts exist
is precisely because
people have a very difficult time doing just those two things.
Why? IMHO, it is because of our need to control, and
when we feel threatened, we will react. We are not rational
beings, we are controllers with very vivid imaginations.
It looks like you agree with Rick if people
don’t have a very difficult time.
Yes, when we perceive something our
perceptions become compared with our references. And if our perceptions are
different from our perceptions we show some actions. Our perceptions need not perceive
a threatening, but if so happens it happens.
Sometimes I think I am rational. Are we
rational when we perceive according to our references or if we perceive
according to references a group of people agree are rational? I am not quite
sure.
Bjorn
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.30.1107)]
In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:15:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:
[rom Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.30,14:15 EuST)]
No, all people end their conflicts as described in PCT. They don’t need to know PCT to end a conflict.
No Bjorn, if you would take a look at some of the theoretical PCT work of Martin Taylor you would see that ‘conflicts’ are ultimately unavoidable, and that the best one can hope for is to manage them successfully. There will never be an end to conflict because there will never be an end to controlling.
PCT describes how people can end a conflict. I don’t know any other ways. Do you?
Again, I do not believe you can end conflict. The notion of either breaking off contact with someone or ultimately agreeing with them is not PCTish, it’s common sense.
That would end conflict with any
theory. But as I tried
pointing out, even those two things do not necessarily ‘end’
conflict, and gave examples of feuds that have lasted for
years, and lifetimes.
Tell me how cognitive theory accounts for conflict. I really don’t know.
Look at the work of Chris Argyris and Karl Weick among many others, and not just in cog sci.
Yes I think PCT back you up when you say that conflicts sometimes don’t end before people die.
I don’t need PCT to ‘back me up’. PCT needs to explain to me why this all takes place. Martin Taylor has a very fundamental beginning. Much more work is needed to understand how control is involved in conflict.
Second, the reason that conflicts exist is precisely because
people have a very difficult time doing just those two things.
Why? IMHO, it is because of our need to control, and
when we feel threatened, we will react. We are not rational
beings, we are controllers with very vivid imaginations.
It looks like you agree with Rick if people don’t have a very difficult time.
I have no idea what you are saying here. I do not agree with Rick on the concept’s of conflict or tolerance.
Yes, when we perceive something our perceptions become compared with our references. And if our perceptions are different from our perceptions we show some actions. Our perceptions need not perceive a threatening, but if so happens it happens.
Again, I have no clue as to what you are trying to say here.
Sometimes I think I am rational. Are we rational when we perceive according to our references or if we perceive according to references a group of people agree are rational? I am not quite sure.
There are many different definitions of rationality. I personally don’t think any of the ones I have seen account for purposeful human behavior. Control does.
Regards,
Marc
Re: Good Corporate Citizen (was Interesting
law)
[Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.00.39]
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.28,15:30
EuST)]
[From Rick Marken
(2005.10.27.1200)].
Rick, you explained thoughts also I have in a
convincing way to me. When I have tried to explain the same I have
used the concept “Respect”. In future I will use both “Respect”
and “Tolerance”. Thank you.
Bjorn,
don’t do that. “Tolerance” carries the connotation of
“I’m right, but I’ll allow you to go on pretending you are”,
whereas “respect” suggests “You have the same rights as
I do; if we differ, either of us may be right, or both, or neither.”
Respect for others is much better than tolerating them.
Martin
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.31.00045 CST)]
Martin,
Tolerance used to be a good word, but it had failings, which you are right to see. The next word to be used here is respect, but it has some failings that confuse mutual respect with loyalty. How about inclusion or equality? Sure, they have some difficulties but we can work with them.
This whole thing started when we began discussing the misuse of power in warranties. Tolerance is a give-up, and so is respect. Perhaps when all entities are found to be equal, and the earth is understood as finite, we will learn how to share--equally, including all. The fear is these days is that some equals are more equal than others in our fair country...
We have some work to do...
--Bryan
[Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.00.39]
[Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.28,15:30 EuST)]
[Rick Marken (2005.10.27.1200)].
Rick, you explained thoughts also I have in a convincing way to me. When I have tried to explain the same I have used the concept "Respect". In future I will use both "Respect" and "Tolerance". Thank you.
Bjorn, don't do that. "Tolerance" carries the connotation of "I'm right, but I'll allow you to go on pretending you are", whereas "respect" suggests "You have the same rights as I do; if we differ, either of us may be right, or both, or neither." Respect for others is much better than tolerating them.
Martin
In a message dated 10/31/2005 1:54:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.31.00045 CST)]
We have some work to do…
Yes we do, and a good start might be in gaining a better understanding of how control contributes to disrespect, intolerance, greed, and conflict.
[From Bjorn
Simonsen (2005.10.31,09:15 EUST)]
From Marc
2005.10.30,13:27 EuST)
No Bjorn,
if you would take a look at some of the
theoretical PCT work of Martin Taylor you would
see that ‘conflicts’ are ultimately unavoidable, and
that the best one can hope for is to manage them
successfully. There will never be an end to conflict
because there will never be an end to controlling.
I don’t agree
with your last “stimulus – response” sentence.
Maybe there
exists biological reasons for conflicts never end, but I think it’s more
important that conflicts don’t make problems for us in our daily control of
perceptions.
Again, I
do not believe you can end conflict. The
notion of either breaking off contact with someone
or ultimately agreeing with them is not PCTish, it’s common sense.
If you can’t
end your conflicts it’s bad for you. I’ll give you an advice. Study BPC second.
Ed. Chapter 18 or use your own common sense.
I don’t
need PCT to ‘back me up’. PCT needs to explain
to me why
this all takes place. Martin Taylor has a very
fundamental beginning. Much more work is needed to
understand how control is involved in conflict.
Good for you
that you don’t need PCT to ‘back you up’. I don’t think PCT needs to explain
you anything, I think you need to understand PCT as I do (or better as Rick
does). Also I appreciate Martin Taylor’s work. But I don’t agree with your last
sentence. Please, tell me what PCT can’t explain about how control is involved
in conflict.
I have no
idea what you are saying here. I do
not
agree with Rick on the concept’s of conflict or tolerance.
You said …………” and when we feel threatened, we will react”.
I am sure Rick says the same. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe it’s Rick who agrees
with you. But that’s the same, isn’t it?
Bjorn
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.0435)]
In a message dated 10/31/2005 12:42:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:
[Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.00.39]
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.28,15:30 EuST)]
[From Rick Marken (2005.10.27.1200)].
Rick, you explained thoughts also I have in a convincing way to me. When I have tried to explain the same I have used the concept “Respect”. In future I will use both “Respect” and “Tolerance”. Thank you.
Bjorn, don’t do that. “Tolerance” carries the connotation of “I’m right, but I’ll allow you to go on pretending you are”, whereas “respect” suggests “You have the same rights as I do; if we differ, either of us may be right, or both, or neither.” Respect for others is much better than tolerating them.
Martin
Interesting, add another perspective to the pile already mounting. What I find interesting here is that both ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect’ essentially involve others without their direct input necessary.
These are values we place on others based on theories and assumptions about characteristics we each hold about others that may or may not actually exist in others. It is how we feel we need to view others. Could this all be for our own protection?
Regards,
Marc
Marc
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,10:55 EUST)]
[Martin Taylor 2005.10.31.00.39]
[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.28,15:30 EuST)]
Rick,
you explained thoughts also I have in a convincing
way to me. When I have tried to explain the same I have
used the concept “Respect”. In future I will use both
“Respect” and “Tolerance”. Thank you.
Bjorn, don’t do that.
“Tolerance” carries the connotation of "I’m right,
but I’ll allow you to go on pretending you are", whereas
“respect”
suggests "You have the same rights as I do; if we differ, either of us
may be right, or both, or neither." Respect for others is much better
than tolerating them.
Well that connotation is yours (and many other’s).
It is important that we
understand how we define concepts when we communicate.
Maybe we have a problem here.
Rick - From Rick Marken
(2005.10.27.0900)]
………………………… Tolerance is
the degree to which one accepts
error in a control system: the more error
one
accepts (without reorganizing) the more tolerant one is.
Marc – (I don’t know when he said this because he
never tell us when he sends his mails). His definition is from Encarta.
Tolerance
acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of
other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the
people who hold these different views.
Bjorn
Respect
With respect I think upon an act of giving particular
attention.
Tolerance (Merriam Webster)
sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices
differing from or conflicting with one’s own (and ** -** the act of allowing
something).
Let me re-explain how I conduct myself to these two
concepts.
My best touch with the world outside my brain is my conscious
perceptions. I hypothesize that this perceptions are matrixes of different perceptual
signals. I cannot assume that my perceptions are equal the world out there, but
there is a world out there.
This uncertainty is no problem for me. I have chosen
to respect other people I perceive and I have chosen to tolerate them.
I think it is difficult to tolerate something I don’t
respect. (see my definitions)
Maybe I will change my definition of tolerance and
accept Rick’s definition. But I don’t understand what he means yet.
Bjorn
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.0446)]
In a message dated 10/31/2005 3:24:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,09:15 EUST)]
From Marc 2005.10.30,13:27 EuST)
No Bjorn, if you would take a look at some of the
theoretical PCT work of Martin Taylor you would
see that ‘conflicts’ are ultimately unavoidable, and
that the best one can hope for is to manage them
successfully. There will never be an end to conflict
because there will never be an end to controlling.
I don’t agree with your last “stimulus – responseâ€? sentence.
I’m sorry Bjorn, what is there about my last sentence that leads you to believe it has something to do with S–>R?
Maybe there exists biological reasons for conflicts never end, but I think it’s more important that conflicts don’t make problems for us in our daily control of perceptions.
Bjorn, I agree that conflicts create problems. I don’t believe you can ever eliminate conflict.
Even disconnecting yourself from the rest of the world will not eliminate your conflicts.
Again, I do not believe you can end conflict. The
notion of either breaking off contact with someone
or ultimately agreeing with them is not PCTish, it’s common sense.
If you can’t end your conflicts it’s bad for you. I’ll give you an advice. Study BPC second. Ed. Chapter 18 or use your own common sense.
And how do you suggest you resolve the conflict you are in with me right now without disconnecting our conversation? Does chapter 18 tell you? If so, why not share it? And if it is just as good as common sense why do I need chap 18?
Are you suggesting I have no common sense? If so, join the club, and go to the end of a long line.
I don’t need PCT to ‘back me up’. PCT needs to explain
to me why this all takes place. Martin Taylor has a very
fundamental beginning. Much more work is needed to
understand how control is involved in conflict.
Good for you that you don’t need PCT to ‘back you up’. I don’t think PCT needs to explain you anything, I think you need to understand PCT as I do (or better as Rick does).
Why? Actually I think you and Rick should understand PCT like I do.
Why do you view your position as a superior one? I grant you it is different than mine, but superior? On what basis? Because you or Rick proclaim it so? Sorry
Wouldn’t it be a pretty dull world if we all perceived things the same way?
Also I appreciate Martin Taylor’s work.
What do you appreciate about it? That is, what about his work with mutuality do you agree with or disagree with?
But I don’t agree with your last sentence. Please, tell me what PCT >can’t explain about how control is involved in conflict.
For one, why does conflicts last so long? Two, why can’t we seem to avoid conflicts before they begin? That is, why can’t we seem to avoid situations where conflicts are good possibilities of happening?
When you can answer these first two I have a few more for you.
I have no idea what you are saying here. I **** do not****
agree with Rick on the concept’s of conflict or tolerance.
You said …………â€? and
when we feel threatened, we will react�. I am sure Rick says the same. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe it’s Rick who agrees with you. But that’s the same, isn’t it?
No, Rick and I do not agree on the nature of conflicts, nor on the definition of tolerance. Rick also equates tolerance with error and I have asked him repeatedly to please explain to me how he has come to this.
According to Rick’s view we would be in a continual state of agitation or error, not something a control system can tolerate. Second Rick’s definition would lead to each of us being ‘intolerant’ of ourselves. Is this possible? Sure, but again, not for any extended period of time.
Regards,
Marc
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.31.0531)]
In a message dated 10/31/2005 4:56:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.31,10:55 EUST)]
Marc – (I don’t know when he said this because he never tell uss when he sends his mails). His definition is from Encarta.
Tolerance
acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views.
Sorry Bjorn, this is only half the story. After I posted this Rick disagreed with it so I went and posted the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary. The one that has 27 volumes. Rick seemed to disagree with this definition too. I say seemed to because he continued with his old argument ignoring the Oxford definition and my post.
Regards,
Marc