I am confused

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

[ From Bjorn Simonsen (2002.10.30.,22:45 EST)]

from _many_ contributors on the CSG net. From _really many_ contributors on
the CSG net.

I am a not a man with many words. On the contrary I typify the man who read
and listen.
Some times I express myself. I think that is in one of two cases. Either it
is expected that I say something or I say something to get comments from
other when I am unsure. ( Let me also say that I don't feel well if I don't
get any comments).

This time I express myself to get comments back. It is because I am
confused.

Before I express myself I must tell you that I am extreme happy about the
accident which brought me to CSG net. And I cannot estimate the value of
having learned about PCT. Thank you to all of you who have contributed on
the net. I have met some of you and others I have seen and heard on some of
Dag's videos.

But now I am confused.

Before I express myself, let me quote Tom Burbon because I think he once
felt as I still do.
I will quote from his second section in "Perceptual Control Theorist Studies
RTP".
............."I first read about PCT in 1973, and knew immediately that it
was a revolutionary theory of behavior. It showed how and why all
traditional theories of behavior were fatally flawed. My career as a
traditional research psychologist ended that day. Ever since then, I have
thought about perceptual control theory, and I have conducted behavioral
research and done computer modeling on the theory".

I think I feel as he felt, but I am confused.

Reading what you have expressed in your letters has placed me in a bilateral
world. Let me be punctual, - I perceive a bilateral world. The first world
is a professional, technical world were you describe how you understand PCT.
Saying "'Emotion' seems to be one of those ideas that people tend to build a
reference for" or "We have said that PCT is not about the control of
behavior", etc.
I perceive these as "your actions" which also are your perceptions ( in a
world free from disturbances) that result in an error with value zero. Your
perceptions (which I read) are the same as your (memory) reference.
I don't say to myself: "This is his opinion". I say that this perception (my
perception) is the sum of the feedback from my own control system and the
disturbance coming from the screen when I read your letter. I am not
absolutely safe that I understand your opinion (your reference) because my
perceptions are influenced of my own feedback.

The second world I perceive is your description of your external world. When
you express "This aspect of the conversation is leading steadily downward"
or "You're also the guy who used the argument about the gulag to ambush Ed
Ford and Tom Bourbon".
You are talking about the external world as if you really believe it is what
you perceive. All of us knows that the variables coming from the external
world are totalized with the feedback from the system we are controlling. I
think it is daring to say we know how the external world is.

There is an external world but the variables coming from there are
influenced of our own feedback.

Now I am approaching the genuine thing about PCT. We never know the real
external world. I don't know if it is Bills opinion/purpose what I perceive
when I read [From Bill Williams UMKC 30 October 2002 12:39 AM CST] etc.
And my opinion is that Bill don't know if it is my opinion/perception when
he read (if he read) [ From Bjorn Simonsen (2002.10.28.,12:40)].

When I talk to my wife in this way she just looks at me, and maybe she is
some frightened (?).

I understand this in my way, and my conclusion is: I don't know exactly how
the external world is and I will never know it. Sometimes you exist in my
external world and sometimes I exist in your external world. The only way to
co-exist is to respect each other _absolutely_.

This is problematic. Therefore we have to do as Stephan Balke describes in
his book. We have to agree about rules of the game.

This is what PCT can teach the rest of the world.

I am really confused if you really know how the real world (Rick) is. Then
my understanding of PCT must be wrong.

Remember I expressed myself to get comments. Because I am confused.

bjorn

2

[From Bill Powers (2002.10.31.0600 MST)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2002.10.30.,22:45 EST) --

I think that your point is valid: we do not know what goes on inside other
people, but only guess. We do, however, make models of other people and try
to fit them to our observations. In doing this, we use as a starting point
the system we know best, which (whether we specifically realize this or
not) is ourselves. It is very common for people to see in others traits
that are really their own, because the explanation of other people's
behavior that comes most readily to mind is the one that is correct for
themselves. If I looked and acted that way, I would be angry, or jealous,
or bluffing, and so forth -- therefore, that is what the other person is
feeling or doing. The things we accuse others of reveal more about
ourselves than about the others.

Best regards,

Bill P.

3

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2002.11.01,09:40 EST)]
[From Bill Powers (2002.10.31.0600 MST)

I think that your point is valid: we do not know what goes on inside other
people, but only guess. We do, however, make models of other people and try
to fit them to our observations. In doing this, we use as a starting point
the system we know best, which (whether we specifically realize this or
not) is ourselves. It is very common for people to see in others traits
that are really their own, because the explanation of other people's
behavior that comes most readily to mind is the one that is correct for
themselves. If I looked and acted that way, I would be angry, or jealous,
or bluffing, and so forth -- therefore, that is what the other person is
feeling or doing. The things we accuse others of reveal more about
ourselves than about the others

You describe what I mean better than I can do it myself. But I don't want to
stop here.
When this is how people behave _my conclusion_ is (because I know PCT) that
I shall stop describing other people or what they mean viewed in the light
of my perceptions.

My confusion is caused by the perception that other fellows who knows PCT
don't fall down at the same conclusion. Here I am susceptible to arguments.

If I decide to "co-exist" with the other person who I perceive, I can ask
him to describe how he controls his perceptions in the named situation. I
can also make a Test.
Probable here will be a conflict between two people.
If both of us decide to "co-exist" we can respect each other and decide to
solve the conflict doing a MOL. Maybe we find a level and a common reference
value. Then we can start controlling our perception relative to this
reference level. This is how people may learn to live together. This is what
PCT can learn the world.

In most situations we don't have energy enough for such achievement. Then we
can decide to _not_ "co-exist". Most people don't do that. But there is no
way out of Respecting each other. Because there is no objective correct
perception of the extern world. One description is not better than an other
description. The only objective correct perception of the extern world is
the one two or more people agree about.

This is also what PCT can learn the world.

You exemplified a degree of "co-existence" in your answer
[From Bill Powers (2002.11.01.0719 MST)]

Bruce Abbott (2002.10.31.1630 EST)--

But I don't want to argue about this. If my model doesn't strike you as an
improvement, then it doesn't, and I can't do much about that. I don't have
any more experimental evidence that my model is right than you have that
your model is right.

I liked these words and phrases and I will start to use them.

From Bill Williams UMKC 1 November 2002 2:00 AM CST

I think it is daring to say we know how the external world is.

I would agree that it is daring. But we do it anyway.

My confusion is caused by the perception of your comment "But we do it
anyway". I know you are a fellow who knows PCT.

I understand this in my way, and my conclusion is: I don't know exactly

how

the external world is and I will never know it. Sometimes you exist in my
external world and sometimes I exist in your external world. The only way

to

co-exist is to respect each other _absolutely_.

Co-existence may be difficult. An existence apart may be more workable in
situations in which mutual respect is not possible. Mutual respect is not a
viable option when a person behaves repeatedly so as to unnecessarily hurt
other people.

You write "when a person behaves repeatedly so as to unnecessarily hurt

other people" as if this is an example of an objective correct perception.

How can you as a fellow who knows PCT argue that there is an objective
correct perception of the extern world.

This is problematic. Therefore we have to do as Stephan Balke describes

in

his book. We have to agree about rules of the game.

This might be helpful. But, I don't expect rules to cover everything.
Ordinarily we expect others to tell the truth, not cheat us, and so forth.

When

these expectations are violated then we may feel justified in complaining,

and

taking other measures.

Neither I expect rules to cover everything. But I still respect the other
person when he behaves repeatedly as he do. He is controlling his
perceptions.

I am really confused if you really know how the real world (Rick) is.

As I understand it your question may have been addressed to me.

_No_.

...........................................................No, I wouldn't
claim to know "how the real world (Rick) is." Not in the sense of knowing
what motives Rick is acting from. What I do know about is some of what

Rick

has done.

My understanding is that you know about your perceptions of what Rick has
done.

But, some of the things that RIck has done have been dishonest in the sense
that they have been untruthful in ways that a reasonable person would

expect

would hurt other people in very serious ways.

Again my understanding is that you know about your _perceptions_ of what
Rick has done. And your perceptions (I am not addressing this sentence only
to you) is not a description of the objective correct extern world. It
doesn't exist. The only existence of an objective correct external world is
the description two or more people agree exist.

This is not an inference, I could testify about these matters in court

under oath giving factual >testimony.

As I see it the objective correct external world will _not_ be more
objective correct if you "under oath give a factual testimony". The only way
to make it objective correct is to make an agreement between two or more
people.

The my understanding of PCT must be wrong.

I'm not confident that I understand what you intend to say in the above.

I mean that my understanding of PCT must be wrong if there is an objective
correct world.

Bill (W) I will quote Bill (P) and say "I don't want to argue more about
this. If my model doesn't strike you as an improvement, then it doesn't, and
I can't do much about that. I don't have any more experimental evidence that
my model is right than you have that your model is right."

But if you will take part in an experiment we can isolated on private e-mail
addresses try to agree how the objective correct external world is for us
two in this relation. We can also do it on the list. If not I don't want to
argue more about this. And I will continue to respect the way you control
your actual systems. :=).

bjorn

4

[Bjorn Simonsen (2002.11.03,21:30 EST)]

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.02.0724 MST)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2002.11.01,09:40 EST)--

If both of us decide to "co-exist" we can respect each other and decide to
solve the conflict doing a MOL. Maybe we find a level and a common

reference

value.

This can be a great problem when two people have already developed
different ideas about the world and don't want to let go of them. Are you
willing to put your understanding of PCT aside in order to reach agreement
with someone else, say a Gibsonian or a naive realist? I don't think that
saying we control our perceptions is enough to solve that problem.

I didn't express myself clearly and but my basis is to "co-exist" _within
clearly defined limits_ of our perceptual world. An example is when an
Euclid mathematics master and a kindergarten teacher decides to work
together to solve an environmental problem (my fantasy has its limits).

(I don't know what you mean with a Gibsonian realist, do you bear William
Gibson in your mind?)

Even if we control perceptions of the world rather than the world itself,
the basic question is how our perceptions correspond to reality. I think
it's clear that we can't prove that any perception is an accurate
representation of something in the external world. But it's easy to forget
that the same reasoning also says we can't prove that our perceptions, or
some of them at least, do NOT correspond to aspects of reality. The whole
point is that we don't know, either way. It would be a mistake to assume we
know perceptions DO NOT EVER correspond to any reality, just as big a
mistake as assuming that we know they EVER DO.

I liked these words and I could expect them from you. They explain why I
think we are forced to respect the world itself (a single person may also be
the world). I don't think about a subservient meaning of the word respect, I
think about the meaning of respect viewed against the background indicating
that the fountain of the variables I perceive may be different than I
experience.

The rest of your letter is also great.

I perceive your thoughts describing how hard it is to develop an agreement
about a theme two persons control. But also as a textbook. I see PCT and the
few equations describing a negative feedback loop behind your words. Thank
you.

Bjorn

5

[From Bill Williams UMKC 1 November 2002 2:00 AM CST]

[ From Bjorn Simonsen (2002.10.30.,22:45 EST)]

>From _many_ contributors on the CSG net. From _really many_ contributors on
the CSG net.

I am a not a man with many words. On the contrary I typify the man who read
and listen.
Some times I express myself. I think that is in one of two cases. Either it
is expected that I say something or I say something to get comments from
other when I am unsure. ( Let me also say that I don't feel well if I don't
get any comments).

This time I express myself to get comments back.

OK.

I
think it is daring to say we know how the external world is.

I would agree that it is daring. But we do it anyway.

There is an external world but the variables coming from there are
influenced of our own feedback.

Yes.

Now I am approaching the genuine thing about PCT. We never know the real
external world. I don't know if it is Bills opinion/purpose what I perceive
when I read [From Bill Williams UMKC 30 October 2002 12:39 AM CST] etc.
And my opinion is that Bill don't know if it is my opinion/perception when
he read (if he read) [ From Bjorn Simonsen (2002.10.28.,12:40)].

When I talk to my wife in this way she just looks at me, and maybe she is
some frightened (?).

I think the implications of control theory are sufficiently profound that when
at first taken seriously can be frightening.

I understand this in my way, and my conclusion is: I don't know exactly how
the external world is and I will never know it. Sometimes you exist in my
external world and sometimes I exist in your external world. The only way to
co-exist is to respect each other _absolutely_.

Co-existence may be difficult. An existence apart may be more workable in
situations in which mutual respect is not possible. Mutual respect is not a
viable option when a person behaves repeatedly so as to unneccesarily hurt
other people.

This is problematic. Therefore we have to do as Stephan Balke describes in
his book. We have to agree about rules of the game.

This might be helpful. But, I don't expect rules to cover everything.
Ordinarily we expect others to tell the truth, not cheat us, and so forth. When
these expectations are violated then we may feel justified in complaining, and
taking other measures.

This is what PCT can teach the rest of the world.

THere may be a question about what this means. And this is I think, ultimately
may be the question.

I am really confused if you really know how the real world (Rick) is.

As I understand it your question may have been adressed to me. No, I wouldn't
claim to know "how the real world (Rick) is." Not in the sense of knowning
what motives Rick is acting from. What I do know about is some of what Rick
has done. Now, I've said that I don't think Rick should be deomonized. I don't
think this is a good idea. And, I would rather that this not focus on RIck.
But, some of the things that RIck has done have been dishonest in the sense
that they have been untruthful in ways that a resonable person would expect
would hurt other people in very serious ways. This is not an inference, I could
testify about these matters in court under oath giving factual testimony.

Then

my understanding of PCT must be wrong.

I'm not confident that I understand what you intend to say in the above.

Remember I expressed myself to get comments. Because I am confused.

bjorn

Understood.

best

Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

6

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.02.0724 MST)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2002.11.01,09:40 EST)--

>If both of us decide to "co-exist" we can respect each other and decide to

solve the conflict doing a MOL. Maybe we find a level and a common reference
value.

This can be a great problem when two people have have already developed
different ideas about the world and don't want to let go of them. Are you
willing to put your understanding of PCT aside in order to reach agreement
with someone else, say a Gibsonian or a naive realist? I don't think that
saying we control our perceptions is enough to solve that problem.

Even if we control perceptions of the world rather than the world itself,
the basic question is how our perceptions correspond to reality. I think
it's clear that we can't prove that any perception is an accurate
representation of something in the external world. But it's easy to forget
that the same reasoning also says we can't prove that our perceptions, or
some of them at least, do NOT correspond to aspects of reality. The whole
point is that we don't know, either way. It would be a mistake to assume we
know perceptions DO NOT EVER correspond to any reality, just as big a
mistake as assuming that we know they EVER DO.

So where does that leave us? I think one major human concern is simply to
build up ways of perceiving the world that we can justify, either to
ourselves or to other people. Consciousness that perceptions need
justification is a great advance over assuming that all of one's
perceptions are a transparent window into Reality Itself. By
"justification" I mean proof of some sort (in terms of things we already
agree about) that says a perception is a valid or useful representation of
reality. This is definitely not the same as saying that any perception is
as good as any other perception. It's not just that we have to agree on
perceptions: we have to agree on their justifications, and the whole web of
understanding within which those justifications have meaning.

I think that this way of looking at perceptions bypasses the unanswerable
question of correspondence between perceptions and reality. First, I must
justify my perceptions to myself by showing that I can control them by
acting on the world, or when that is impossible, anticipate them
accurately. Then, if I want anyone else to adopt similar perceptions, I
must show how they fit into the world on which we already agree -- that the
other person can control something similiar, and that we can agree on the
background of details in which the perceptions exist.

Before we can come to agreement about any perception, we must first agree
on the rules of the game. What constitutes a proof, or corrobating
evidence, or disproof? If we can't agree on that, there is no point in
discussing any particular perception. Without agreement on the rules,
arguments just turn into shouting matches. But agreeing to rules means a
certain degree of loss of sovereignty, and many people are unwilling to
submit to rules and their consequences for that reason.

There is also the problem of who gets to say what the rules are. If only
two people are involved, the answer is easy: the only effective rules are
those on which both freely agree. But with three or more people, the idea
of majority rule rears its ugly head. A 2 to 1 vote on a given rule is not
satisfactory when a three-way discussion is wanted. When unanimous
agreement is needed, either there is a superhuman effort to achieve
unanimity, or (much more likely) subgroups form, self-selected by the
willingness of ALL members in them to accept the same rules (or lack of them!).

To paraphrase John F. Kennedy: "We choose to develop PCT not because it is
easy, but because it is hard." The return on investment will be
proportionate to the effort to resolve hard problems. The easy way out of
human problems is to band together with others who agree to overlook each
others' deficiencies and to avoid questioning of assumptions that make
agreement seem easy. If we all agree that a fact can be accepted if it
proves to be true 51% of the time, then we can churn out facts at a
tremendous rate, and congratulate each other on our scientific
productivity. But if we require that facts have to pass a three-sigma or
four-sigma test before acceptance, we will not be be able to accumulate
nearly as many facts per year. The facts we do let in, however, will have a
half-life of hundreds of years rather than dozens of months. That, very
briefly, expresses my preference and my argument in favor of it.

I see our problem in developing PCT as being a lack of agreement on the
rules of the game. Rick Marken and I and a few others prefer facts that
have a three or four sigma probability of being repeatable and predictable.
Others see no need for such rigor, and refer to those who insist on it as
"thought police." Similarly resentful pejoratives are used in the other
direction. The problem is not who is right, but that there is a
self-selection process going on, splitting the CSG into separate groups who
want to operate under different rules. Nobody is saying "Let's split up,"
Instead, the group is spontaneously splitting along natural planes of
cleavage. I see no way to stop this process; the best we can hope for is to
minimize casualities by disengaging cleanly.

I have resisted this outcome since the first meeting of the CSG, where I
hoped to see an idealized group made, roughly, of theoreticians and
practitioners. For a while it seemed to be working. Maybe, at face-to-face
meetings, it still works that way to some degree. But the internet has made
it much easier for people who are not willing to go along with the idea of
rigorous theorizing to bring their outside interests into the discussion,
wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. Which is better, a revolution
that forces you to change all your ideas, or a revolution that allows you
to conclude that in most respects, you were right all along? The general
preference for the latter becomes more evident to me all the time.

So, will coexistence come into being, or will we go our separate ways? I am
as confused as you, Bjorn. Unless some incredibly effective leader shows up
soon, a position for which I am not a candidate, I don't see any way for
the CSG to survive. Perhaps it is simply dying of old age, as problems
which were there all along begin to predominate over the rash dreams of
youth. Or maybe if we all just take two aspirins and go to bed, it will all
be better in the morning.

Best,

Bill P.

7

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.02.0930)]

Bill Powers (2002.11.02.0724 MST) --

Bjorn Simonsen (2002.11.01,09:40 EST)--

>If both of us decide to "co-exist" we can respect each other and decide to
>solve the conflict doing a MOL. Maybe we find a level and a common reference
>value.

This can be a great problem when two people have have already developed
different ideas about the world and don't want to let go of them. Are you
willing to put your understanding of PCT aside in order to reach agreement
with someone else, say a Gibsonian or a naive realist? I don't think that
saying we control our perceptions is enough to solve that problem.

Well, I don't mean to fawn but... What a great post!!

So, will coexistence come into being, or will we go our separate ways? I am
as confused as you, Bjorn. Unless some incredibly effective leader shows up
soon, a position for which I am not a candidate, I don't see any way for
the CSG to survive.

I'm obviously not the one, either. But I think CSG will survive even without an
incredibly effective leader, or any leader, for that matter. The composition of
the group may continuously change, as it has since we started back in 1985 or so,
but I think the group will survive, as long as there are people willing to plan
the meetings and keep (not cook;-) the books.

Perhaps it is simply dying of old age, as problems
which were there all along begin to predominate over the rash dreams of
youth. Or maybe if we all just take two aspirins and go to bed, it will all
be better in the morning.

It's already morning and it seems to me that CSG in no more dead than it was when
it started. Indeed, although the number of scientific presentations at each
meeting may have gone down somewhat since the first meetings, I think the quality
of those presentations has improved substantially. And attendance has been nearly
the same (between 25 and 40) over those years. CSG was neither my idea nor my
dream. But I have always ended up enjoying the meetings. They have provided a
forum for presenting (and, thus, to some extent, a reason for doing) my research
on PCT. And it's always fun to try to explain what PCT is about and why I think
it's so important. And, by and large, the people who attend are a very nice lot.

And, most important, we have a contract with Loyola Marymount University (LMU) in
Los Angeles to have the CSG there next year (July 23-27,2003). Once we get final
cost information (soon, I hope) I will prepare a meeting announcement. I am
optimistic about the meeting; I think it will be very well attended.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

8

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.03.2140)]

Bill Williams (UMKC 1 November 2002 2:00 AM CST) --

No, I wouldn't
claim to know "how the real world (Rick) is." Not in the sense of

knowning

what motives Rick is acting from. What I do know about is some of

what Rick

has done...some of the things that RIck has done have been dishonest

in the sense

that they have been untruthful in ways that a resonable person would

expect

would hurt other people in very serious ways. This is not an

inference, I could

testify about these matters in court under oath giving factual

testimony.

I'm still waiting to hear what I did that was dishonest. I can think of
some stupid things I've done but I don't recall ever having been
dishonest. You have to be a lot smarter than I am to be dishonest
successfully. So I just don't even try.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

9

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2002.11.01,09:40 EST)]
[From Bill Powers (2002.10.31.0600 MST)

>I think that your point is valid: we do not know what goes on inside other
>people, but only guess. We do, however, make models of other people and try
>to fit them to our observations. In doing this, we use as a starting point
>the system we know best, which (whether we specifically realize this or
>not) is ourselves. It is very common for people to see in others traits
>that are really their own, because the explanation of other people's
>behavior that comes most readily to mind is the one that is correct for
>themselves. If I looked and acted that way, I would be angry, or jealous,
>or bluffing, and so forth -- therefore, that is what the other person is
>feeling or doing. The things we accuse others of reveal more about
>ourselves than about the others

You describe what I mean better than I can do it myself. But I don't want to
stop here.
When this is how people behave _my conclusion_ is (because I know PCT) that
I shall stop describing other people or what they mean viewed in the light
of my perceptions.

My confusion is caused by the perception that other fellows who knows PCT
don't fall down at the same conclusion. Here I am susceptible to arguments.

If I decide to "co-exist" with the other person who I perceive, I can ask
him to describe how he controls his perceptions in the named situation. I
can also make a Test.
Probable here will be a conflict between two people.
If both of us decide to "co-exist" we can respect each other and decide to
solve the conflict doing a MOL. Maybe we find a level and a common reference
value. Then we can start controlling our perception relative to this
reference level. This is how people may learn to live together. This is what
PCT can learn the world.

In most situations we don't have energy enough for such achievement. Then we
can decide to _not_ "co-exist". Most people don't do that. But there is no
way out of Respecting each other. Because there is no objective correct
perception of the extern world. One description is not better than an other
description. The only objective correct perception of the extern world is
the one two or more people agree about.

But, two or more people can be in agreement concerning a perception that is not
an accurate description of an "objective external world" supposing there could
be such a thing. I think the issue usually talked about in terms of an
"external world" is more complicated.

This is also what PCT can learn the world.

You exemplified a degree of "co-existence" in your answer
[From Bill Powers (2002.11.01.0719 MST)]

Bruce Abbott (2002.10.31.1630 EST)--

>But I don't want to argue about this. If my model doesn't strike you as an
>improvement, then it doesn't, and I can't do much about that. I don't have
>any more experimental evidence that my model is right than you have that
>your model is right.

I liked these words and phrases and I will start to use them.

>From Bill Williams UMKC 1 November 2002 2:00 AM CST

>> I think it is daring to say we know how the external world is.

>I would agree that it is daring. But we do it anyway.

My confusion is caused by the perception of your comment "But we do it
anyway". I know you are a fellow who knows PCT.

>> I understand this in my way, and my conclusion is: I don't know exactly
how
>> the external world is and I will never know it. Sometimes you exist in my
>> external world and sometimes I exist in your external world. The only way
to
>> co-exist is to respect each other _absolutely_.

>Co-existence may be difficult. An existence apart may be more workable in
>situations in which mutual respect is not possible. Mutual respect is not a
>viable option when a person behaves repeatedly so as to unnecessarily hurt
>other people.

You write "when a person behaves repeatedly so as to unnecessarily hurt
>other people" as if this is an example of an objective correct perception.

How can you as a fellow who knows PCT argue that there is an objective
[world]

I expressed myself poorly.

I am not of the opinion that there is an objective reality. I would associate
the notion that there is an "objective reality" with positivism-- which even
its supporters eventually acknowledged was fundamentally faulty. To consider
what should replace positivism and its notion of an "objective external world"
is something that requires an epistomological industry to define. while I think
it is an important matter I'm certainly not an expert.

My conception of reality is close to that expressed by:

Habermas, Jurgen Commuicative Interaction ( in two volumes )

John Dewey Knowing ahd the Known

or George Mead see

Clark McPhail et al 1979 "Mead vs Blummer" American Sociological Review vol
44 p. 449-67. see also Blummer's reply and Clark's rebuttal. McPhail was
once an active member of CSG.

>>The my understanding of PCT must be wrong.

>I'm not confident that I understand what you intend to say in the above.

I mean that my understanding of PCT must be wrong if there is an objective
correct world.

But, I don't hold this notion of "objectivity." There is, however, I would
claim a "world" that is something more than our immaginative creation. How this
world is constructed is an important and difficult question-- but despite the
difficulties a question that may be worth pursuing.

Bill (W) I will quote Bill (P) and say "I don't want to argue more about
this.

Bill (P) also requests of me that I do more to support my argument. He
describes me as presenting authoritative claims which are without evidence.
He describes me as making _Ex Cathdra

If my model doesn't strike you as an improvement, then it doesn't, and

I can't do much about that. I don't have any more experimental evidence that
my model is right than you have that your model is right."

But if you will take part in an experiment we can isolated on private e-mail
addresses try to agree how the objective correct external world is for us
two in this relation. We can also do it on the list. If not I don't want to
argue more about this. And I will continue to respect the way you control
your actual systems. :=).

Arguments come in different flavors. Where there is mutual respect the taste of
am argument can be good. Where there is loathing the taste is likely to be
bitter, but some times it may be neccesary to put up with a bad taste for a
while. And, sometimes even the smell can be bad-- if people are into flinging
excreta at each other. But, I am confident we can conduct a sweet tasting and
even good smelling experiemnt. So, if you wish we can initiate it?

Cordially yours

  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/