Hopeless?

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · December 7, 1999, 4:47pm

[From Kenny Kitzke 991207]

According to PCT, this self-indulgence occurs because it gets them what they
want. It would seem that these people are not controlling for PCT becoming
better known or replacing less successful models of behavior when they
indulge their personal perceptions of what they want.

Is it hopeless to expect people to set aside whatever they want, whatever
feels good or bad to them, in favor of some grand goal that other people will
learn PCT and accept it as a more successful model of human behavior?

My life's experience with groups of people tell me it is a hopeless idea.
That is not to say that for those with such a high-level (but not
well-defined) shared goal, they would not behave in a way to achieve it. For
some fraction of time, for each person, they may well change their behavior
to accomplish the shared goal. They might suppress their foul language,
sarcasm, personal criticism, etc., for a while.

The hopelessness IMHO stems from the ease with which self-indulgent goals
conflict with and override the shared goal. This is our human nature. And,
we control for our personal perceptions. This is PCT.

The heart of the problem on this CSGNet is the heart of the people on it. We
are selfish people who think of ourselves (our perceptual needs) first. Our
autonomous, independent human spirit will prevail over group harm, and even
over self-harm to death itself if necessary.

Without shared high-level goals, people simply do what makes them feel good
at the moment in deference to other people and their goals, even those of
people with similar intents who are part of a group. It is no different for
those who know PCT and accept it as a better model of behavior. Knowing PCT
will not change ones heart. Knowing that using drugs can kill you or harm
your family or society, has not and never will stop drug use. Knowledge is
of the mind, not of the heart.

PCT, as a science, is incapable of addressing matters of the human heart and
what is good or bad on any objective basis. PCT does not even acknowledge
the spirit nature of man which works as a mysterious signal generator in
humans unlike that of the animal world.

So, PCT will remain merely one more interesting bit of knowledge about man
and his audacious behavior and human nature. The problems on this net will
continue. It is hopeless to expect our human spirit to be overridden by some
concern about the proliferation of a new and better theory of behavior: PCT.

That is what I think. I would not expect much agreement here. But, I do
wonder what other PCTers think about hopelessness in the behavior of groups
composed of autonomous individuals.

Kenny

BJORN_SIMONSEN · December 8, 1999, 10:55am

[Bjoern Simonsen (991208.12:00 EU-time)]
[From Kenny Kitzke 991207]

The hopelessness IMHO stems from the ease with which self-indulgent goals
conflict with and override the shared goal. This is our human nature. And,
we control for our personal perceptions. This is PCT.

I understand what you write, that is the point. (I would not used the word self-indulgent and I for myself prefer to write " this is how I perceive human behave". I don't think there is a human nature.). The point is:_all of us experiences daily conflicts between (what you write) goals_......... (what is IMHO)

Without shared high-level goals, people simply do what makes them feel good
at the moment in deference to other people and their goals, even those of
people with similar intents who are part of a group. It is no different for
those who know PCT and accept it as a better model of behavior. Knowing PCT
will not change ones heart. Knowing that using drugs can kill you or harm
your family or society, has not and never will stop drug use. Knowledge is
of the mind, not of the heart.

I think knowing PCT is good for me. I choose what I will perceive and sometimes I choose to "shear goals with other people". When I do that, it is important for me not only to know that we share a common formulated goal. That is a linguistic technique. I tell the other about my system concepts, my principles and I invite them to discuss which programs and which sequences it is effective to present the correct category of information in.

I guess they who started up this group formulated a purpose.
I for myself consider the purpose for the group is to be a greenhouse for PCT, and I deeply whish for Bill's sake that PCT will be better known and help other people behaving themselves.

My systemconcept related to the circumstances that this group shall be a greenhouse for PCT is the formulation that "All information should be scientific". "The information must be testable".
My principles related to this group is that "Information is power", "All people can contribute with something that results in relevant information" and of current interest these days "I will forget non-professional modes of expression" and " I will respect everybody contributing with information". I will also ask myself if all periods in my letters are necessary for other partners in the group to the circumstances that this group shall be a greenhouse for PCT.
My program related to this group is. "I shall every day spend time to learn more about PCT", "I shall ask other people when I am unsure and don't find the correct information anywhere", "I shall inform the group when I have an other or a new information about PCT whish leads to professional growth for anybody" and "I have a social responsibility in the group. This responsibility I most often will show when anybody ask"

These references hang on the wall near my PC and I hope somebody will contribute with other formulations that I can implement and I look forward to hang up new and better references on the wall in year 2000.

Bjoern

E-mail bsimonse@c2i.net

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · December 8, 1999, 7:58pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (991208)]

Thanks for your comments. All respectfully given.

<(I would not used the word self-indulgent and I for myself prefer to write "
this is how I perceive human behave". I don't think there is a human
nature.).>

The term "self-indulgent" actually came from Mary Powers referring to various
posting behaviors of some on CSGNet. I just referenced it. It has a noxious
ring that certainly would not always be the case. But, if you believe all
behavior is purposeful (as I do), that comes pretty close to behavior which
indulges ones own purpose or "self-indulgent" behavior.

I think there is strong evidence that the nature of human beings is different
from the nature of animals. That is what I would call human nature
distinctions such as the ability to create work plans, write music, etc.,
Things all human beings have that no animals do. Behavior (the observable
kind) is for the most part is pretty similar between apes and human beings.
The broader concept of the overall nature of humans compared to animals is
astoundingly different. I really don't understand why you don't think there
is a human nature?

<(what is IMHO)>

That is an Email short cut for "in my humble opinion," something often used
to express ideas which are anything but humble. (an Email smile) I'll
try not to use IMHO on CSGNet as it usually goes without saying that what we
say is our opinion or perception. It is usually redundant, IMHO. Ooops!

Me too. It even helps me understand why having shared and well-understoood
goals in a group (written and unwritten) helps produce individual output
which maximizes group output. But, knowing how behavior works is different
from knowing what behavior is most proper or appropriate in a given
circumstance, especially when in a relationship with another person or group
social environment. Pursuing even shared goals can have unwanted side
effects on other people.

Not a bad analogy, but there are both weeds and manure in most greenhouses.

On this we do not quite agree. I see science as useful to people, even
psychology. But, much of what matters most to people in life does not rely
on science and is not testable. Love would be an example, or its antithesis,
hate or even war. These can elevate or destroy life.

Since we claim to deal with the life sciences, human behavior and human
interactions on this net, it seems to me we should discuss human phenomena
such as mutual respect (like we are doing) and responsibility which are
considered to be an art or a philosophy rather than a science as far as I
know. And, you seem to say this as well? So, I am not sure we disagree.
Perhaps you mean we should be sociable and professionally responsible in
discussing the science of PCT on this net? On this I would agree.

No problem there. Thanks for the comments, self-indulgent or otherwise.

Kenny

BJORN_SIMONSEN · December 9, 1999, 7:49am

[From Bjoern Simonsen(991209.09:00 EU-time)]

[From Kenny Kitzke (991208)]

But, if you believe all behavior is purposeful (as I do), that comes pretty close to >behavior which indulges ones own purpose or "self-indulgent" behavior.

I do, but why do X have to use the words "ndulge"and "elf-indulgent"about Y when X knows nothing about Y's indulging/self-indulging. It is only X's perceptions .

We think different and this is more explicit below.

I think there is strong evidence that the nature of human beings is different
from the nature of animals. That is what I would call human nature
distinctions such as the ability to create work plans, write music, etc.,
Things all human beings have that no animals do. Behavior (the observable
kind) is for the most part is pretty similar between apes and human beings.
The broader concept of the overall nature of humans compared to animals is
astoundingly different. I really don't understand why you don't think there
is a human nature?

I think there is neither a nature of animals nor a human nature. Regardless how much I use the Test perceiving what an other human being is doing/saying , I have the principle that I know nothing more about other human beings than what I perceive._And everything I perceive happens inside me_
In this group we should more I often say. "My perception is........"

Me too. It even helps me understand why having shared and well-understood
goals in a group (written and unwritten) helps produce individual output
which maximizes group output. But, knowing how behavior works is different
from knowing what behavior is most proper or appropriate in a given
circumstance, especially when in a relationship with another person or group
social environment. Pursuing even shared goals can have unwanted side
effects on other people

If I, X perceives unwanted side effects on other people, Z, when Y is doing/saying something it's my perception. If I choose to tell Y what I perceive, we may agree if there is (or not is) a conflict between his and mine Reference. We may/may not solve this conflict. This is the way I see it. What I do is an other case.
The central point here is that I, X can not describe Y. I can only describe how I perceive Y.
Y has not a human nature. It is I who perceive something (you and others name "human nature").

Not a bad analogy, but there are both weeds and manure in most greenhouses.

There are not both weeds and manure in most greenhouses. We perceive there are both weeds and manure.

On this we do not quite agree. I see science as useful to people, even
psychology. But, much of what matters most to people in life does not rely
on science and is not testable. Love would be an example, or its antithesis,
hate or even war. These can elevate or destroy life.

I see what you say. I can stop here. But I'll continue.
We both know the Hierarchy. I am working with and I am going to ask the group for >help with supplying the levels wit possible References. I know there may be endless >formulations of References whitin each level (I am most interested in the levels from >References and upward)
Having this matrix I'll start wondering what references which may work together (not >together) in certain events.
Maybe I'll look at References (formulations) which can be intact when a seaman gives >his survival suit to a passenger when the ship is going to be lost. (this is love ?)

I am trying to say that all events in life take place _inside me_ (and inside you). Bill has helped us with the Hierarchy. I look forward to put name on many Reference formulation which explain special events in my life in my controlling of different perceptions. I think there are more formulations than I daily think about. I'll write about the matrix in an other letter.

Since we claim to deal with the life sciences, human behavior and human
interactions on this net, it seems to me we should discuss human phenomena
such as mutual respect (like we are doing) and responsibility which are
considered to be an art or a philosophy rather than a science as far as I
know. And, you seem to say this as well? So, I am not sure we disagree.
Perhaps you mean we should be sociable and professionally responsible in
discussing the science of PCT on this net? On this I would agree.

In this group there should be many rooms. You have discussed human phenomena earlier on the net (both here and on the RT-net). Why don't continue. But you should use the PCT theory, the PCT nomenclature _and Reference formulations from the Hierarchy_.
Other in the group can discuss if the reaction times are 50 msec or 300 msec.

Life is not hopeless. I'll stop here. Maybe we can have a discussion about Reference formulations working together when we are in a named situation characterized as Love.

Bjoern

I manage what I choose

E-mail bsimonse@c2i.net