[ 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