[Martin Taylor 2004.09.04.11:03]
Back again for a week or so!
Reading through this thread on guilt, none of which I will quote,
reminds me of a lot of other things relating to the control of one's
perception of self, and to Layered Protocol Theory (LPT). Guilt is a
perception, and it is a perception inexcapably tied to a social
context.
According to LPT, the reason one communicates is that one can control
some perception by means of the actions of another person. That means
that O (the Originator, who we can call Oliver) counter-controls R
(the Recipient, who we call Rachel) so that Rachel's actions become
part of Oliver's external feedback loop for the control of his
perception.
Counter-control, as discussed earlier this year, does not involve
Rachel opposing a disturbance induced by Oliver. She does that, for
sure, but her actions in doing so are perceived by Oliver, and
Oliver's perceptions of Rachel's actions contribute to the perception
Oliver originally intended to control.
Consider a specific example. Oliver wants the door shut, and Rachel
is standing near the door. Oliver says "could you close the door,
please", Rachel does so, and Oliver says "Thanks". Where's the
counter-control in that sequence?
Here it is...
Oliver perceives Rachel as being, if not favourably disposed toward
him, at least not actively hostile. He perceives that Rachel has the
means to close the door (imagine if Rachel were holding a loaded tray
of dishes, or was confined to a wheel chair and out of reach of the
door; would Oliver, being well-disposed toward Rachel, make the same
request?). Oliver therefore can reasonably suppose that his request
would disturb a controlled perception held by Rachel, that Oliver is
well-disposed toward her.
If Rachel failed to shut the door, Oliver might think less well of
her, which would create error in her controlled perception of
Oliver's feeling toward her. Shutting the door might lead Oliver to
be well-disposed toward her, so she shuts the door. Oliver's
controlled perception of the door state, with its reference level for
seeing the door shut, is then brought to a state of no error.
Counter-control has happened, on the part of both Oliver and Rachel.
Oliver perceives the door shut, and Rachel perceives Oliver to
increase his positive feelings toward her, if minimally. He said
"Thanks".
What does Oliver's counter control depend on? It depends primarily on
whether Rachel is in fact controlling for a perception that Oliver is
well-disposed toward her. If she wanted to make Oliver hostile, she
might say "Close it yourself", in response to his request. Oliver,
therefore, should be controlling a perception that Rachel feels well
disposed toward him. (I use "should be controlling" in a sense of
engineering efficiency, not moral correctness; an effectively
reorganized system would control what "should be controlled").
So, in this simple interaction, we find both parties needing to
control a perception that the other feels well disposed toward him or
her. Equivalently, Each has reorganized so as to act ordinarily in a
way that does not bring them into conflict by either acting in direct
opoosition to the other's control actions. If conflict is inevitable,
then some other component of the perception of each other's
disposition has also to be brought into play so that the perceptions
each has of the other's disposition remains under control in a
negative feedback loop (i.e. "The Bomb in the Machine" must not be
allowed to explode <http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/DFS93/DFS93_8.html>).
In the example of closing the door, Rachel might say "I'm sorry, I'm
stuck right now, and can't close it for you" rather than "No, I
won't".
Now we leave that example, and consider the perception of self. There
are at least two perceptions of self (probably many, but two kinds).
One is the perception one has of oneself "directly" through
perceiving one's own actions in the environment, the other is what
one perceives others to perceive of oneself. Both, presumably, are
controllable, though, as Rabbie Burns said "Wud some Guid the giftie
gie's, tae see ourselves as ithers see's" -- it's hard to be sure how
others perceive us.
Hard as it may be, if we want to perceive others as perceiving us in
a way that allows us to counter-control them effectively (as by
having them close the door when we want it closed and they can do it
easily), there are certain things that often work. One might allow
others to counter-control us, by obliging their requests when it is
convenient to do so, and one might try to act so as not to reduce
their ability to control their own actions. Those kinds of statements
correspond to reference levels for perceptions of "principles".
"Principles" also enter into one's own perception of self. One may
have a reference for perceiving oneself as following certain
principles, whether they be the ones above, or ones asserted by one's
religion (which may conflict with the ones given as examples).
Whatever they may be, those principles that enter into one's
perception of self must form controlled perceptions, and the actions
that control those perceptions become reference levels for all the
overt actions observable by others.
(Slowly we are coming toward "guilt").
Let's get back to Oliver and Rachel. Oliver wants to perceive himself
as a "good guy", meaning one who acts so as not to impede Rachel's
ability to control. But there comes a time when in order to control
some lower level perception (e.g. to have some ready cash), Oliver
has an available action (take some of Rachel's cash) that does impede
Rachel's control. Oliver might be able to get some of Rachel's cash
by saying "Could you lend me some money" (using counter-control), or
by stealing some, unknown to Rachel.
If Oliver uses counter-control to get cash from Rachel, he might
slightly reduce Rachel's feeling of goodwill toward him -- less so if
his request is customary and he has always repaid Rachel promptly,
meaning he perceives Rachel to perceive him as trustworthy. But if
Oliver steals the money and Rachel never finds out, then Rachel's
feeling of goodwill toward Oliver will not be disturbed, and Oliver
will not have induced error in his own perception of Rachel's feeling
of goodwill toward him. So Oliver steals.
Oliver having stolen, however, introduces error in his perception of
himself as a "good guy". He perceives that he has in fact reduced
Rahel's ability to control (though he wouldn't put it that way unless
he had studied PCT). It introduces error in his controlled perception
of one of his principles. He has managed to create a difference
between the way he sees himself and the way he perceives others as
seeing him. Since the error is in his perception of his own
principles, but not in his perception of how others perceive him as
controlling his own principles, he feels "guilt". If, on the other
hand, he had been brought up in Fagin's troop of young pickpockets,
he might feel guilt if he failed to steal some of Rachel's cash, the
principle in question being to perceive himself as acting in
accordance with the Fagin-based social norms, which allow him to
counter-control the members of Fagin's gang.
It is important that in either case (normal or Fagin-based), the
feeling of guilt requires that the reference levels associated with
the stealing action include a reference that Rachel not perceive
Oliver as having acted against her own ability to control.
If it does not matter to Oliver whether Rachel knows, or if Oliver
actively wants Rachel to know, there would ordinarily be no feeling
of guilt associated with the theft. Only if Oliver had a principle
that excluded the action of theft, and yet stole because some other
controlled perception conflicted with the control of that "principle
perception" would Oliver feel guilt.
The end result of this pseudo-analysis is that guilt is a concomitant
of actions that increase error in a controlled perception of
principle that contributes to the perception of self. Actions that
increase error in any perception can occur, either in a poorly
reorganized structure, or in a situation in which the control of some
other perception leads to an internal conflict in which the control
of the "principle" perception loses out. So one can develop a feeling
of guilt either by not knowing how to act "properly" or through
internal conflict.
Sorry for the length. It's all a bit complicated. I know I wound up
agreeing with Rick that conflict is central to the question of guilt
-- Sorry, Rick 
but I thought that to go through the interpersonal and social loops
according to LPT might help in other related analyses.
···
-------------------
I probably won't contribute much in the near future. There's another
meeting coming up next week, and I have a lot else that must be
attended to after the last month of pleasantly stressful activities.
Martin