government

CSGnet Archive CSG1994
1

<[Bill Leach 940213.20:01 EST(EDT)]

[Rick Marken (940213.1430)]

Good posting! (even if you did "eat me up" on terminology)

Galileo's claim of a solar centric vs earth centric system was NOT
supported by his observations and mathematics. There are two common
errors concerning Galileo and the Church. The first is that he "proved"
the solar system to be solar centric. This is just plain false and is
made worse by the fact that at the time, the Pope was qualified to
examine and DID examine the data. He repeatedly challenged Galileo to
present further data that DID support his claim. Not until Kepler was
the data accurate enough for the proof.

The actual persecution of Galileo was for religious reasons not directly
related to his "celestial assertions." That is, Galileo attacked the
Papacy itself. For those of us that live in the times that we do, even
that seems rather bad, but in Galileo's time you did not question the
religious authority of the Pope.

It is not clear that there is a "direct link" between available control
actions and ANY perceptual variable; governmental perceptions are
not special in this sense.

No, and the word "direct" may well be too strong a term. However, in any
control system there are important control characteristics that we have
not been discussing directly (since I have been on the list).

If the "gain" of the Transfer function is either too high or too low,
control will be poor for an environmental situation that varies with
time. If their are excessive delays in any part of the control system,
control will be poor.

I assert that in a real free market economy, the perception of service
providers concerning such matters as value and quality of service more
closely tracks the same perceptions of their customers. Anytime that a
"layer" of bureaucracy is inserted into the process the "goals" of the
people that make up the bureaucracy interfere with the goals of both the
producers and consumers. My belief is that this is inevitable. While
you may get "the benevolent dictator" now and then, the odds are that
eventually "the one's in charge" will be more interested in their own
power, money or whatever than they are in the alleged "goal" of the
organization. This situation BEGS for "corruption", "influence peddling"
and ultimately creates a worse situation in the very area that the
bureaucracy was created to prevent than existed in the first place.

Freedom

Freedom is clearly a Perceptual matter as the term is usually employed.
It is a fact that many people that have come to the USA after being
raised in dictatorship nations are deeply troubled for some time learning
to deal with decisions that most of us expect to make as an almost
inconsequential matter. We are not used to being told where we may
travel and where we may not go. There are a many entire classes of
decisions that we consider to be our right to make and think almost
nothing about them... but that's us in the USA.

I also assert that being given freedom of action up to the point where
such action does not infringe upon the same rights of others; a human can
be most human. I am not saying that defining those rights and therefore
"limits" is an easy task by any means.

I suspect that PCT as a model for human behaviour supports this
assertion. That is, when one has maximum freedom to control perception
one has the greatest opportunity for "success" however it is normally
defined. I say "normally" because I recognize that for purposes of
argument one can easily define success such that freedom to accomplish
that success would be ultimately bad for any number of people. I do not
accept that such definitions are appropriate.

Certain behaviour in humans can be defined to be "human behaviour" as
certain behaviour can be defined as inappropriate behaviour for a human.
Again, I am not going to try to make the definitions, nor to nit pik any
particular existing set. I believe that most "standards" of moral
conduct all contain at least some degree of definition of what it mean to
be human as far as behaviour is concerned. I also believe that much of
these "codes" are probably a combination of "malarky", superstition, "hog
wash", manipulation or whatever.

Your comments concerning "government" along with Mary's on society in
general are excellent. I know that I must give a great deal more thought
to the implications of what you are both saying.

In a sense you are both saying that "society" and "government" do not
exist as entities but only as ideas. I agree in principle and agree that
each of these ideas is really a collection of individuals.

However, while government as an entity may not exist but more than one of
our ancestral philosophers has stated that there is nothing more powerful
than an idea. Government is "reality" of life regardless of how you view
or perceive it, though the particular perception may revolutionize the
concepts.

Governments are not purposeful entities - so they can't "ensure"
anything or have "duties". Only people can do these things.

Maybe you have given the greatest possible support for my assertions
concerning "government" with the preceding "Governments are not
purposeful entities -"!

-bill

2

[From Rick Marken (940213.1430)]

Bill Leach (940211.19:20 EST(EDT)--

the data of Galileo did not support his claim.

What claim of Galileo's was not suported by his data?
Constant acceleration?

Bill Leach (940212.09:48EST(EDT)

I think PCT does, at least in a
sense, predict the nature of the problem [ of government]

You betcha. The problem is that all people are perceptual
control systems often controlling the same or similar
perceptual variables in the same environment.

The reason that government IS fundamentally evil is that
there is NO direct link between the available control
actions and perception within the government itself and
those that are governed.

It is not clear that there is a "direct link" between available control
actions and ANY perceptual variable; govenmental perceptions are
not special in this sense.

1. On the whole, people free to act as they wish will produce more ideas
and more wealth than people that are restricted in their freedom.

I think we have to decide what we mean by human "freedom". In PCT I
think "freedom" might be defined as "the ability to keep all perceptual
variables under control". Because of the nature of control, particularly
hierarchical control, freedom (in the conventional sense of "able to do
whatever one wants") is a relative concept: one is not free to select
goals (reference signals) in whatever way one "want". Goals must be
selected in a way that achieves higher level goals. The highest level
goals of the hierarchy (intrinsic references in PCT) are the basic constraints
on "freedom". However, a control system must be free to vary lower level
goals (actions) in ALL ways necessary to counter disturbances to controlled
perceptions. So "freedom" is relative to one's perspective on a control
system:the control system is not free to select the goals (reference signals)
that it is given as input (which are "commands" for perception that come
from "above"); but it must be free to select the actions (lower level goals)
that combine with prevailing circumstances to produce the commanded
perception.

Bill Powers once put it something like this -- a human is only free to be
human. The intrinsic references are our "humanness"; we are free within
the context of these references and environmental constraints to control
our perceptions.

Human freedom (from the point of view of PCT) is really better described
as "autonomy".

The founders believed (as some stated directly) that
giving the power of compulsion to government, though necessary, made
government evil.

So it's not really government, per se, that is evil; it is the "power of
compulsion". I too think that this is evil -- and the fact that compulsion
is usually not very "effective" at getting societies to behave as one might
want is consisent with PCT; the best way to screw things up (with people) is
to compel them to act in a particular way (ie. to control them).

Bill Leach (940212.11:14 EST(EDT)th and knowledge that is essential.

As I see it, PCT will work (does work) because it does demand "system"
solutions.

PCT "works" if it is the right model of human nature. In PCT "working"
means "being an accurate and complete model of behavior". It does not
suggest how the "good" government or society will be organized. But it does
provide a basis for making a choice; it tells people "this is how we are
organized as behavioral systems; people are not output generators or
responders to stimuli. People CONTROL their own PERCEPTUAL experience.
PCT can tell you the consequences of various approaches to social
organization; but you have to decide whether you want those con-
sequences or not".

PCT is like Newtonian physics. Newton didn't tell people the "best"
orbit for a satellite but he did provide a method of calculatin how they
would orbit depending on how you launched them.

Bill Leach (940212.11:34 EST(EDT)]

Government's sole duty, responsibility and authority is to insure
the above.

Governments are not purposeful entities - so they can't "ensure"
anything or have "duties". Only people can do these things.

Government authority derives solely from the "rights" of
individuals.

Governments ARE individuals. This is true whether the government
be a dictatorship, democracy, commune, whatever. It's just people
controlling their own perceptions.

All of your statements about govenment assume that there is an entity
called a "govenment". This might just be a handy shorthand but I
think it can lead to much mischief and confusion. Failure to understand that
govenments are controlled perceptions leads to problems like people who
talk about "overthowing an oppressive government" as though the
government were an invisible monster to be slain. What they are REALLY
talking about (and what REALLY happens when people overthrow
governments) is the destruction of people. I personally consider this
kind of thing just as disgusting as people acting oppressively toward one
another in the name of "government" -- in fact, it IS people acting
oppressively towards one another, but in the name of "anti-government"
instead -- Thomas Jefferson notwithstanding.

Best

Rick

3

{From Rick Marken (940214.1100)]

Bill Leach (940213.20:01 EST(EDT))--

I assert that in a real free market economy, the perception of service
providers concerning such matters as value and quality of service more
closely tracks the same perceptions of their customers.

This may or may not be the case. As far as PCT is concerned, we would
point out that people are controlling many different perceptual variables
simultaneously that contribute to perceptions like "value and quality of
service". These variables are at different levels of a control hierarchy
so the dynamics of control are different for each. The effect of "speed of
response" (how quickly output variables have an effect on input variables)
will be different for variables controlled at differentlevels of the
hierarchy. For example, it is possible to be at a restaurant and be served
too quickly -- if, for example, you are controlling the perception of
the meal at "romantic dinner". So it seems unlikely that the dynamics
of a free market economy would _necessarily_ improve people's ability to
keep all their perceptions of "value and quality of service" under control.

PCT implies that there is no "right" way to do ANYTHING; in order to produce
goal results, the means used must VARY to compensate for varying
circumstances (disturbances). This is true at ALL levels of control. So
there is no "right" position of the steering wheel that will keep the car
going in a particular direction; the steering wheel position must be varied
in order to compensate for disturbances to the direction of travel. There is
no "right" direction to travel in order to get to a destination; the
direction must be varied to avoid obstacles (like roads that have collapsed
due to earthquakes); there is no "right" destination, no right place to work,
no right kind of work, etc. All means must be variable in order to achieve
higher level goals which must themselves be variable in order to achieve
even higher level goals. The required variability stops only at the level
of "intrinsic" goals -- the "ultimate" goals of life.

This means, I think, that there can be no "right" way to organize an
economy or a government in order to achieve any particular goals (the
goals which I presume are the ones that governments and ecomonies
are ostensibly formed to achieve are each individual's "intrinsic" goals--
the one to which Jefferson was probably referring when he spoke of
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"). A "free market" economy
(whatever that is) might be a great way to achieve these goals in SOME
circumstances but NOT in others. This MUST be true; it is simply the nature
of the world. If you want to produce some result, you can sometimes do it by
producing a particular action, but not always; sometimes you must produce a
different action in order to produce the same result. This is because the
result is not caused by your actions alone - - it is caused by your actions
AND other influences, many of which you can neither detect nor predict. If
you could always produce a particular result using the same means, then
there would be no need for PCT; you could always do just what the Bible says
and count on getting "good" results (Job notwithstanding).

In PCT, freedom is the ability to vary one's means, as necessary, in order
to achieve "intrinsic" goals. The enemy of freedom is anything that
prevents this kind of variation; in PCT, the enemy is always CONFLICT.
Conflict prevents the variability of means that is required in order to
compensate for disturbances and achieve higher level goals. Conflict results
from the existence of another control system that is controlling the
same or a similar perception relative to a different reference level. This
control system can be inside or outside of one's own body; when it is
outside, the conflicting control system is called an "oppressor"; when it is
inside, the conflicting control system results in what is called "narrow
mindedness". PCT shows how both kinds of conflict can be eliminated -- by
going "up a level" (though, as Mary Powers pointed out, it is not guaranteed
to work -- though it's always worth a shot before hauling out the nukes).

Best

Rick

4

<[Bill Leach 940214.22:21 EST(EDT)]

{Rick Marken (940214.1100)]

This means, I think, that there can be no "right" way to organize an
economy or a government in order to achieve any particular goals (the

Rick; I think you are contradicting yourself.

If I were to claim that PCT clearly points the way to a particular way to
organize institutions created by humans for the purpose of serving or
facilitating the activities of humans, I would quite obviously be wrong.

It would be even worse if I asserted that PCT provides support for only
one particular form of government.

I did not (or at least did mean) to make such an assertion.

I do think that it is probably possible to show that a particular method
of organizing a "set of rules" for a society is either going to increase
or decrease the amount and frequency of external conflict within its
members (given some knowledge of the traditions and customs of the
particular society along with some general characteristic of humans).

I will also admit that I don't know if PCT can show that humans in
general that are generally free of external conflict requiring
reorganization are more likely to achieve their personal goals than those
that are experiencing such freedom.

Humans ARE humans and there are characteristics that all humans have and
even more characteristics that the overwhelming majority of all humans
display (that is overwhelming to the point where if the characteristic is
not present there would be serious doubt that the subject is human).

If PCT denies this, then PCT is a fundamentally flawed theory. It could
still be useful but it would still be flawed.

Personnally, I don't think that PCT does deny the idea and even (at least
implicitly) supports the idea. Now asserting this, certainly is not the
same thing as making a particular claim that PCT supports a specific
"characteristic".

BTW, my original posting was not intended to CLAIM that PCT supports the
idea that a system of governmental organization is superiour to another
but rather to explore the idea.

ยทยทยท

-------------
You also seem to be claiming that PCT does support the idea that there is
any validity to concepts of "right" and "wrong" or that there might be
any "basic", "fundamental", or "natural" morality. Is this true?

I am not asking if PCT fails to support any particular view in this
matter but rather that it does support the idea that everything is
relative and there are NO absolute truths or no absolute "rights" or
"wrongs."

-bill

5

<[Bill Leach 940215.20:57 EST(EDT)]

[Bill Leach 940214.22:21 EST(EDT)]

English is soooo slippery and the implications of the whole concept of a
human as a control system are so vast!

I said:

Humans ARE humans and there are characteristics that all humans have and
even more characteristics that the overwhelming majority of all humans
display (that is overwhelming to the point where if the characteristic
is not present there would be serious doubt that the subject is human).

If PCT denies this, then PCT is a fundamentally flawed theory. It could
still be useful but it would still be flawed.

I think that I might have sounded as though I believe that these
"characteristics" that I am talking about (that I take as fundamental to
BEING human) are a large group or even "well defined." I mean neither.

What I am trying to suggest is that there are characteristics about the
way the humans behave that I believe are "driven" or influenced just by
the fact that the subject IS a human.

The sort of thing that I am refering to is a bias or tendancy that is
present independent of environmental circumstances (though within
individuals the strenght of such bias likely will be influenced by
environment and experience).

An example that I think might be "safe" to mention is the idea that the
human creature is a "social creature." I maintain that there IS an
inherent "wiring" that causes humans to be social in nature.

Such a bias or tendency is not one that can not be "overwhelmed" by
circumstances and/or experience. I can not think of any right at this
moment that can not be so overwhelmed.

I would guess that there are probably quite a few things that people
generally think of as characteristics for humans, that PCT would predict
a behavioural bias; if for no other reason than the relationship between
the limitations of control ability verses the normal range of disturbance
that would be experienced.

One of the difficulties in any sort of discussion such as I tried to
initiate is that much of the discussion floats around on how specific and
how precise the terms are in use.

As soon as one begins trying to assert something along the lines of PCT
supporting or denying "truth", "right" and "wrong", we are into the area
of epistemology and philosophy.

-bill