idealized sense of self and true self

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
1

Dear CSG...I want to request some feedback for opinions about neurotic
behavior and PCT clinical views. I'll be succinct...Most
humanistic-existential approaches to the issue of being "neurotic" explain
the problem along the lines of having an idealized sense of self vs. a true
self or a more authentic self. Zen makes a similar distinction. The basic
distinction that they seem to make is that there is confusion over what we
want and what we think we "should" want--the neurotic tends to go with the
should statement. When he is asked later, he tends to consider the
should--related to the idealized sense of who he is--to be the true self, or
to be what he, himself, really wants. And his own inner feelings, needs, and
wants to be a kind of disturbance to be gotten rid of--if he is aware of
them at all.

So, he seems to know himself as a collection of ideals and shoulds (perhaps
neurotic policies) vs. his actual feelings, wants, needs etc. I assume that
this happens to some degree for everyone, but that the neurotic
classification is used for more extreme cases of confusion and being
alienated from one's body, emotions, etc. Zen seems to lean in the direction
of explaining it as there being too much energy in the head around the
thought-based sense of self....therefore there is a strong tendency to
reference recorded "policies" about how one should behave which are not in
sync with the more visceral aspects of the person. So the goal is to
increase the energy in the body and senses--at least part of the goal.

So, it seems that these therapies and Zen differentiate between two
selves--a kind of image in the head and then your experience on a more
visceral level I suppose--your feelings, senses, the "inner" body some say,
gut impressions, etc.

If a PCT therapist were working with someone who is primarily living by way
of inner dictates as shoulds--described as neurotic--would they use this
type of differentiation used by other schools or would they frame,
conceptualize and go about working on the problem differently?
All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

2

From Jason Gosnell [2005.01.14.1635 EST]

Sorry--I rarely post and forgot my heading here.

Dear CSG...I want to request some feedback for opinions about neurotic
behavior and PCT clinical views. I'll be succinct...Most
humanistic-existential approaches to the issue of being "neurotic" explain
the problem along the lines of having an idealized sense of self vs. a
true self or a more authentic self. Zen makes a similar distinction. The
basic distinction that they seem to make is that there is confusion over
what we want and what we think we "should" want--the neurotic tends to go
with the should statement. When he is asked later, he tends to consider
the should--related to the idealized sense of who he is--to be the true
self, or to be what he, himself, really wants. And his own inner feelings,
needs, and wants to be a kind of disturbance to be gotten rid of--if he is
aware of them at all.

So, he seems to know himself as a collection of ideals and shoulds
(perhaps neurotic policies) vs. his actual feelings, wants, needs etc. I
assume that this happens to some degree for everyone, but that the
neurotic classification is used for more extreme cases of confusion and
being alienated from one's body, emotions, etc. Zen seems to lean in the
direction of explaining it as there being too much energy in the head
around the thought-based sense of self....therefore there is a strong
tendency to reference recorded "policies" about how one should behave
which are not in sync with the more visceral aspects of the person. So the
goal is to increase the energy in the body and senses--at least part of
the goal.

So, it seems that these therapies and Zen differentiate between two
selves--a kind of image in the head and then your experience on a more
visceral level I suppose--your feelings, senses, the "inner" body some
say, gut impressions, etc.

If a PCT therapist were working with someone who is primarily living by
way of inner dictates as shoulds--described as neurotic--would they use
this type of differentiation used by other schools or would they frame,
conceptualize and go about working on the problem differently?

All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

3

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.15.1400)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.01.14.1635 EST) ---

...I want to request some feedback for opinions about neurotic
behavior and PCT clinical views...

[the neurotic] seems to know himself as a collection of ideals and
shoulds (perhaps neurotic policies) vs. his actual feelings, wants,
needs etc...

So, it seems that these therapies and Zen differentiate between two
selves--a kind of image in the head and then your experience on a more
visceral level I suppose--your feelings, senses, the "inner" body some
say, gut impressions, etc.

If a PCT therapist were working with someone who is primarily living by
way of inner dictates as shoulds--described as neurotic--would they use
this type of differentiation used by other schools or would they frame,
conceptualize and go about working on the problem differently?

It sounds to me like you are describing a conflict in a particular way:
in terms of "ideal" and "actual" wants. I presume the "ideal" wants
would be those that most people take to be the "good" wants, like
wanting to be a good husband. The "actual" wants would be those that
most people take to "bad" wants, like wanting to get laid by your cute
secretary. There is a conflict because reducing error in a system with
the "ideal" want increases error in the system with the "actual" want,
and vice versa. You can't be a good husband while you are getting laid
by the secretary, and you can't get laid by the secretary if you are
being a good husband. "Ideal" and "actual" wants are in conflict.

A PCT therapist assumes that the root of problems, like neuroses of
various kinds, is the inability control (get what you want or need) and
that the most likely source of an inability to control (in a skilled
adult) is internal conflict. The essential goal of PCT therapy --
which is probably the essential goal of all therapies -- is to help the
person with the problem identify the conflicts that are causing the
problem and then to help them go "up a level" to become conscious of
the higher level wants that are creating the conflict. The therapeutic
technique that helps a person go "up a level" is the method of levels
(MOL), the basic therapeutic tool of PCT.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

4

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0115.1810)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.15.1400)]

A PCT therapist assumes that the root of problems, like neuroses of
various kinds, is the inability control (get what you want or need) and
that the most likely source of an inability to control (in a skilled
adult) is internal conflict.

One's mind boggles at the possibility of Hitler benefitting from access
to a PCT therapist.

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

5

[From Dick Robertson,2005.01.15.1735CST]

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Gosnell <JGosnell@BRIDGEWAY.ORG>
Date: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:27 pm
Subject: idealized sense of self and true self

Dear CSG...I want to request some feedback for

opinions about neurotic

behavior and PCT clinical views. I'll be

succinct...Most

humanistic-existential approaches to the issue of

being "neurotic"

explainthe problem along the lines of having an

idealized sense of

self vs. a true
self or a more authentic self. Zen makes a similar

distinction.

The basic
distinction that they seem to make is that there

is confusion over

what we
want and what we think we "should" want--the

neurotic tends to go

with the
should statement. When he is asked later, he tends

to consider the

should--related to the idealized sense of who he

is--to be the

true self, or
to be what he, himself, really wants. And his own

inner feelings,

needs, and
wants to be a kind of disturbance to be gotten rid

of--if he is

aware of
them at all.

This is a fairly good description of the conditions
for a person riddled with conflicts at verious upper
hierarchy levels. As a shrink withe CSG as my basic
theoretical understanding, I still often just use
Rogerian type of reflection of what the
client/patient is reporting. This results, as Rogers
found long ago, that the client expands on what he
is saying. Sooner or later he/she becomes aware of
conflicts especially in the principle and program
levels. Sometimes a MOL approach is directly useful
then. Other times he/she needs help (I'm talking
about my practice, remember) to get ready for
working with the MOL methods--by a dialogue leading
to greater recognition that he/she is perpetuating
both sides of the confllict, rather than (as is
pretty common) perceiving the "false self" aspects
as his real intentions and the inner rebellion as
externally caused. (No, I didn't get that last
statement backwards.)

So, he seems to know himself as a collection of

ideals and shoulds

(perhapsneurotic policies) vs. his actual

feelings, wants, needs

etc. I assume that
this happens to some degree for everyone, but that

the neurotic

classification is used for more extreme cases of

confusion and being

alienated from one's body, emotions, etc. Zen

seems to lean in the

directionof explaining it as there being too much

energy in the

head around the
thought-based sense of self....therefore there is

a strong

tendency to
reference recorded "policies" about how one should

behave which

are not in
sync with the more visceral aspects of the person.

So the goal is to

increase the energy in the body and senses--at

least part of the goal.

So, it seems that these therapies and Zen

differentiate between two

selves--a kind of image in the head and then your

experience on a more

visceral level I suppose--your feelings, senses,

the "inner" body

some say,
gut impressions, etc.

Yes, there is a lot of empirically discovered
rules-of-thumb in good therapy practices that are
unwittingly consistent with PCT theory.

If a PCT therapist were working with someone who

is primarily

living by way
of inner dictates as shoulds--described as

neurotic--would they

use this
type of differentiation used by other schools or

would they frame,

conceptualize and go about working on the problem

differently?

See above

Best,

Dick R.

6

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.01.15.1750CST]

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Gregory <bruce_gregory@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Date: Saturday, January 15, 2005 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0115.1810)]

> Rick Marken (2005.01.15.1400)]
>
> A PCT therapist assumes that the root of

problems, like neuroses of

> various kinds, is the inability control (get

what you want or need) and that the most likely
source of an inability to control (in a skilled
adult) is internal conflict.

One's mind boggles at the possibility of Hitler

benefitting from accessto a PCT therapist.

Am I misreading an assumption here-- that a normal
person might want to control the lives of millions
of other people?

I think it is entirely possible that, if Hitler had
had access to a good therapist, CSG or not, who
would have helped him deal with the "false self"
that he developed following a childhood and
adolescence tortured with continual beatings by a
neurotic, sadistic father, that the world might well
never have heard of Adolf Hitler.

Best,

Dick R.

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of

truth is certainty.

7

From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.15.1910)

<Rick Marken (2005.01.15.1400)>

<The essential goal of PCT therapy --
which is probably the essential goal of all therapies -- is to help the
person with the problem identify the conflicts that are causing the
problem and then to help them go "up a level" to become conscious of
the higher level wants that are creating the conflict. The therapeutic
technique that helps a person go "up a level" is the method of levels
(MOL), the basic therapeutic tool of PCT.>

I am struggling to apply my understanding of MOL in this instance...Let's
say I notice the feeling of loneliness--nothing else really (if someone
observed my life perhaps they would attribute it to my actions in the
world--avoiding contact with others on an emotional level, etc, but I don't
realize this). Now at what level do I go? Am I essentially trying to contact
the level of basic needs? Is there a "most fundamental level" here? Or would
it be difficult to say what level I need to go to? And, is the awareness
movement also somewhat random--trial and error--the awareness moves up and
down the levels looking for the key? I can shift it experimentally or
perhaps it moves of it's own accord?

Also, is the responsible thinking process basically a structured way to do
awareness-MOL?

Thanks...Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Marken [mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 4:59 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.15.1400)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.01.14.1635 EST) ---

...I want to request some feedback for opinions about neurotic
behavior and PCT clinical views...

[the neurotic] seems to know himself as a collection of ideals and
shoulds (perhaps neurotic policies) vs. his actual feelings, wants,
needs etc...

So, it seems that these therapies and Zen differentiate between two
selves--a kind of image in the head and then your experience on a more
visceral level I suppose--your feelings, senses, the "inner" body some
say, gut impressions, etc.

If a PCT therapist were working with someone who is primarily living by
way of inner dictates as shoulds--described as neurotic--would they use
this type of differentiation used by other schools or would they frame,
conceptualize and go about working on the problem differently?

It sounds to me like you are describing a conflict in a particular way:
in terms of "ideal" and "actual" wants. I presume the "ideal" wants
would be those that most people take to be the "good" wants, like
wanting to be a good husband. The "actual" wants would be those that
most people take to "bad" wants, like wanting to get laid by your cute
secretary. There is a conflict because reducing error in a system with
the "ideal" want increases error in the system with the "actual" want,
and vice versa. You can't be a good husband while you are getting laid
by the secretary, and you can't get laid by the secretary if you are
being a good husband. "Ideal" and "actual" wants are in conflict.

A PCT therapist assumes that the root of problems, like neuroses of
various kinds, is the inability control (get what you want or need) and
that the most likely source of an inability to control (in a skilled
adult) is internal conflict. The essential goal of PCT therapy --
which is probably the essential goal of all therapies -- is to help the
person with the problem identify the conflicts that are causing the
problem and then to help them go "up a level" to become conscious of
the higher level wants that are creating the conflict. The therapeutic
technique that helps a person go "up a level" is the method of levels
(MOL), the basic therapeutic tool of PCT.

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400
All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

8

From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.15.1930)

<Dick Robertson,2005.01.15.1735CST

Thanks Dick.

<other times he/she needs help (I'm talking
about my practice, remember) to get ready for
working with the MOL methods--by a dialogue leading
to greater recognition that he/she is perpetuating
both sides of the confllict, rather than (as is
pretty common) perceiving the "false self" aspects
as his real intentions and the inner rebellion as
externally caused. (No, I didn't get that last
statement backwards.)>

So, is the following understanding below the same understanding as yours...I
restate it different ways to make sure I am clear about this. Sorry about
the length--I am still muddling through these distinctions. I want to see if
PCT can help with this, especially when integrated with client-centered
therapy and other approaches.

One way to frame it is that the inner rebellion, often viewed as the
problem, is basically real, legitimate human needs-wants pressing for
realization and action in some form (or however one words it). But, the
person may perceive this as the problem to be eliminated in favor of
sticking to the previously formed policies or shoulds. What he calls "my
self," is not his self at all, but a poorly symbolized image of it. He has
it backwards, mixed up a little at best. To deal with the conflict--rather
than stopping, looking deeply into the issue, noting the error signals etc.
he may externalize-project these issues or use other defenses. So, as a
matter of framing it, they pick the ideal self over actual
needs/wants/values--deeper layers of being in a sense. He is trying to meet
basic needs in an unskillful way, through actualizing his idealized self, a
self put together by safety policies, it doesn't work and he ends up
miserable and not knowing why. Everyone has some of this I suppose.

In verbalizing it, these conflicts begin surfacing in awareness for the
client or maybe just for the therapist. The therapist may then notice that
the client seems to think that he should be the idealistic notions or comply
with the neurotic policies and that the error signals are indicators that
there is something "wrong" with him. But the "him" he is referring to, the
self he thinks he is, was really meant to be a tentative formulation of
policies/images, etc--he is sticking to it rigidly and attemtping to
actualize this limited-thought-based self. There is a lack of flexibility
with these tentative understandings layed down by thought. The error signals
are a part of his real self and are providing him information about what
needs doing...at least they provide some information for him to take notice
of, but he doesn't use these signals skillfully in this way--they are
rejected as a nuissance mostly or used as an excuse to shut down operations.
To quit doing something. This is one kind of example only of course. He
favors what is not real (former tentative beliefs agreements, self-images),
over what is real (his actual experience here and now). He rejects elements
of experience to maintain the familiar limited notion of self. Which is
safer perhaps..it feels that way anyway.

So, he prevents himself from working towards an integration of feelings,
needs, wants, values etc. and prefers the surface-level views. He prevents
the thought-based self from being updated-reorganized to reflect his actual
experience--to the degree that thoughts, images can accomodate actual
experience. He doesn't allow awareness to go to work and he avoids
reorganizing, which is anxiety-provoking. I remember some of this from your
book now--time to review it again. You discuss acting from a position of
"integration" rather than remaining in and actualizing the opposing battle
from various neurotic policies (overly rigid, glorified,etc.) that may be
linked, odd as they seem, to different needs/wants--sub-selves, etc. That
is, energizing the battle between apparently opposing selfs or agreements,
etc...perpetuating neurosis.

I assume this is what you meant by not trying to control your "self"--not
trying to dominate the world of actual exprience (really your larger self or
self-as-alive-presence) with policies that are ultimately life-denying in
their restrictiveness. This version of self-control. And not the other kind
of self-control (a legitimate form of self-control)which relates to
refraining from actions that don't support us meeting our needs or values
and performing actions which do support our life in the truest sense--what
we really want, need, value throughout our being.

Do you agree with the basic expressions here? Please enlighten me if I am
off base.

Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Robertson Richard [mailto:R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 6:44 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Dick Robertson,2005.01.15.1735CST]
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Gosnell <JGosnell@BRIDGEWAY.ORG>
Date: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:27 pm
Subject: idealized sense of self and true self

Dear CSG...I want to request some feedback for

opinions about neurotic

behavior and PCT clinical views. I'll be

succinct...Most

humanistic-existential approaches to the issue of

being "neurotic"

explainthe problem along the lines of having an

idealized sense of

self vs. a true
self or a more authentic self. Zen makes a similar

distinction.

The basic
distinction that they seem to make is that there

is confusion over

what we
want and what we think we "should" want--the

neurotic tends to go

with the
should statement. When he is asked later, he tends

to consider the

should--related to the idealized sense of who he

is--to be the

true self, or
to be what he, himself, really wants. And his own

inner feelings,

needs, and
wants to be a kind of disturbance to be gotten rid

of--if he is

aware of
them at all.

This is a fairly good description of the conditions
for a person riddled with conflicts at verious upper
hierarchy levels. As a shrink withe CSG as my basic
theoretical understanding, I still often just use
Rogerian type of reflection of what the
client/patient is reporting. This results, as Rogers
found long ago, that the client expands on what he
is saying. Sooner or later he/she becomes aware of
conflicts especially in the principle and program
levels. Sometimes a MOL approach is directly useful
then. Other times he/she needs help (I'm talking
about my practice, remember) to get ready for
working with the MOL methods--by a dialogue leading
to greater recognition that he/she is perpetuating
both sides of the confllict, rather than (as is
pretty common) perceiving the "false self" aspects
as his real intentions and the inner rebellion as
externally caused. (No, I didn't get that last
statement backwards.)

So, he seems to know himself as a collection of

ideals and shoulds

(perhapsneurotic policies) vs. his actual

feelings, wants, needs

etc. I assume that
this happens to some degree for everyone, but that

the neurotic

classification is used for more extreme cases of

confusion and being

alienated from one's body, emotions, etc. Zen

seems to lean in the

directionof explaining it as there being too much

energy in the

head around the
thought-based sense of self....therefore there is

a strong

tendency to
reference recorded "policies" about how one should

behave which

are not in
sync with the more visceral aspects of the person.

So the goal is to

increase the energy in the body and senses--at

least part of the goal.

So, it seems that these therapies and Zen

differentiate between two

selves--a kind of image in the head and then your

experience on a more

visceral level I suppose--your feelings, senses,

the "inner" body

some say,
gut impressions, etc.

Yes, there is a lot of empirically discovered
rules-of-thumb in good therapy practices that are
unwittingly consistent with PCT theory.

If a PCT therapist were working with someone who

is primarily

living by way
of inner dictates as shoulds--described as

neurotic--would they

use this
type of differentiation used by other schools or

would they frame,

conceptualize and go about working on the problem

differently?

See above

Best,

Dick R.
All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

9

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0115.2235)]

Dick Robertson, 2005.01.15.1750CST

Am I misreading an assumption here-- that a normal
person might want to control the lives of millions
of other people?

Nothing I know from PCT precludes the possibility that a "normal"
person might want to control the lives of millions of other people. Do
you rule out the possibility that heads of state are normal? Come to
think of it, you might have a point.

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

10

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.16.0910)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.01.15.1910) --

Rick Marken (2005.01.15.1400)>

The essential goal of PCT therapy --
which is probably the essential goal of all therapies -- is to help
the
person with the problem identify the conflicts that are causing the
problem and then to help them go "up a level" to become conscious of
the higher level wants that are creating the conflict.

I am struggling to apply my understanding of MOL in this
instance...Let's
say I notice the feeling of loneliness--nothing else really (if someone
observed my life perhaps they would attribute it to my actions in the
world--avoiding contact with others on an emotional level, etc, but I
don't
realize this). Now at what level do I go?

You would probably start at the level at which the conflict is
expressed, which is as the feeling of loneliness. Loneliness is an
emotion, of course, and emotions are experiential symptoms of lose of
control. What seems to be uncontrolled is your ability to control for
contact with others. You apparently want contact with others (this, I
believe, is why you call the emotion "loneliness") and don't want
contact with others (which you state explicitly and, to the extent that
you succeed at achieving this goal, you create error in the system that
wants contact, resulting in the feeing loneliness).

I wouldn't worry about the specific level in the PCT hierarchy
(program, principle, etc) at which this conflict exists (if it really
exists; determining the nature of the conflict would be the main goal
of an MOL therapy session). If there is a conflict, then it exists at
_some_ level (or levels). Once the conflict is discovered (by the
patient him or herself) the next step in the MOL is to try to help the
person get "above" it, in consciousness, to see the conflict from the
point of view of the systems that are creating it. If my guess about
the conflict creating loneliness is correct, for example, the next step
in the MOL would be to try to get the patient to "go up a level" and
become conscious of their controlling from the point of view of the the
higher level systems that are creating the conflict: system that wants
contact with others and the system that does not want such contact.
More simply (and using less jargon) the MOL aims to help the patient
understand _why_ he or she both wants and does not want certain
experiences, such as contact with people.

Also, is the responsible thinking process basically a structured way
to do
awareness-MOL?

In only one way that I know if, and that is by requiring that teachers
ask misbehaving kids "what are you doing?" rather than trying to stop
the misbehavior by force. This is a very "up a level" question
inasmuch as, in order to answer it, the kid has to look at their own
controlling (the misbehavior) from a higher (or, at least, different)
level.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

11

[From Dick Robertson,2005.01.16.1540CST]

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Gosnell <JGosnell@BRIDGEWAY.ORG>
Date: Saturday, January 15, 2005 8:26 pm
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.15.1930)

<Dick Robertson,2005.01.15.1735CST

Thanks Dick

Welcome.

So, is the following understanding below the same

understanding as yours...Irestate it different ways
to make sure I am clear about this. Sorry about

the length--I am still muddling through these

distinctions. I want to see if PCT can help with
this, especially when integrated with client-
centeredtherapy and other approaches.

One way to frame it is that the inner rebellion,

often viewed as the problem, is basically real,
legitimate human needs-wants pressing for
realization and action in some form (or however one
words it).

Yes, good formulation. If you think about it you
can imagine how various centers in the intrinsic
system are often in a state of some amount of
chronic error because of the "poor service" they get
as a result of false self requirements. ( I. e.
Priciple level systems controlling for
intellectually influenced perceptions rather than
for perceptions down the line that would produce
greater intrinsic functioning.

But, the person may perceive this as the problem

to be eliminated in favor of sticking to the
previously formed policies or shoulds. What he
calls "my

self," is not his self at all, but a poorly

symbolized image of it. He has it backwards, mixed
up a little at best. To deal with the conflict- -rather

than stopping, looking deeply into the issue,

noting the error signals etc.

he may externalize-project these issues or use

other defenses. So, as a matter of framing it,
they pick the ideal self over actual
needs/wants/values--deeper layers of being in a
sense. He is trying to meet

basic needs in an unskillful way, through

actualizing his idealized self, a self put
together by safety policies, it doesn't work and he
ends up

miserable and not knowing why. Everyone has some

of this I suppose.

Not a bad way to put itl

In verbalizing it, these conflicts begin surfacing

in awareness for the client or maybe just for the
therapist. The therapist may then notice that

the client seems to think that he should be the

idealistic notions or comply with the neurotic
policies and that the error signals are indicators that

there is something "wrong" with him. But the "him"

he is referring to, the self he thinks he is, was
really meant to be a tentative formulation of
policies/images,

Here I think that Wilhelm Reich has something to
contribute. The infant and growing child, being
dependent upon his caregivers, learns certain
compromises in his behavior to keep from eliciting
puritive actions from the caregiver (whether
conscious or unconscious on the caregiver's part)
and thus, by the time we see him in therapy he has
long practiced certain actions to the point where
they have the power of ingrained habits. Thus he
will get error signals when acting contrary to them
despite the competition from intrinsic error. This
might well complicate effects of the reorganizing
system.

etc--he is sticking to it rigidly and attemtping to

actualize this limited-thought-based self. There

is a lack of flexibilitywith these tentative
understandings layed down by thought. The error
signals

are a part of his real self and are providing him

information about what needs doing...at least they
provide some information for him to take notice

of, but he doesn't use these signals skillfully in

this way--they are rejected as a nuissance mostly
or used as an excuse to shut down operations.To
quit doing something. This is one kind of example
only of course.

Right, and see above for other aspects.

He favors what is not real (former tentative

beliefs agreements, self- images),over what is real
(his actual experience here and now). He rejects
elements

of experience to maintain the familiar limited

notion of self. Which is safer perhaps..it feels
that way anyway.

Yes.

So, he prevents himself from working towards an

integration of feelings,needs, wants, values etc.
and prefers the surface-level views. He prevents
the thought-based self from being
updated-reorganized to reflect his actual
experience--to the degree that thoughts, images can
accomodate actual experience. He doesn't allow
awareness to go to work and he avoids reorganizing,
which is anxiety-provoking. I remember some of this
  from your book now--time to review it again. You
discuss acting from a position of

"integration" rather than remaining in and

actualizing the opposing battle from various
neurotic policies (overly rigid, glorified,etc.)
that may be linked, odd as they seem, to different
needs/wants--sub-selves,

etc. That is, energizing the battle between

apparently opposing selfs or
agreements,etc...perpetuating neurosis.

Well put.

I assume this is what you meant by not trying to

control your "self"--not trying to dominate the
world of actual exprience (really your larger self
or self-as-alive-presence) with policies that are
ultimately life-denying in their restrictiveness.
This version of self-control. And not the other
kind of self-control (a legitimate form of
self-control)which relates to

refraining from actions that don't support us

meeting our needs or valuesand performing actions
which do support our life in the truest sense--what

we really want, need, value throughout our being.

Do you agree with the basic expressions here?

Yes, I think you have a good view of it. You might
make an exercise for yourself, if you like, to try
to envision just what is happening in the person's
control hierarchy in these various conditions,
putting it in as concrete terms as you can as to
what the person might be controlling at each level
in any given apsect of maintaining his/her self image.

Good work,

Best,

Dick R

12

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.01.16.1600CST]

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Gregory <bruce_gregory@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Date: Saturday, January 15, 2005 9:35 pm
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0115.2235)]

> Dick Robertson, 2005.01.15.1750CST
>

> Am I misreading an assumption here-- that a normal
> person might want to control the lives of millions
> of other people?
>

Nothing I know from PCT precludes the possibility

that a "normal"

person might want to control the lives of millions

of other

people. Do
you rule out the possibility that heads of state

are normal? Come to think of it, you might have a
point.

Thank you.

Best,

Dick R.

13

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.16.1921CST)]

<Dick Robertson,2005.01.16.1540CST>

Thanks for the feedback. I'm on the right track I think with some of these
points. And thanks for this reminder, I needed to consider the following
piece more closely...

<Here I think that Wilhelm Reich has something to
<contribute. The infant and growing child, being
<dependent upon his caregivers, learns certain
<compromises in his behavior to keep from eliciting
<puritive actions from the caregiver (whether
<conscious or unconscious on the caregiver's part)
<and thus, by the time we see him in therapy he has
<long practiced certain actions to the point where
<they have the power of ingrained habits. Thus he
<will get error signals when acting contrary to them
<despite the competition from intrinsic error. This
<might well complicate effects of the reorganizing
<system.

Bringing this into focus, basically the issue is we've got 2 sets of error
signals, as you say some intrinsic need error and then some error related to
violating various policies meant to meet our needs perhaps at an earlier
time, to protect us, etc. So, there is a danger here in that we may
misinterpret error signals in too generalized of a way--"something is wrong
I'd better do something to put it back right"--perhaps to re-align my action
with the well-established habits then. That is, drop the new direction, new
behaviors and return to the comfort zone. Fortunately, there may continue
some intrinsic error (if we can allow ourselves to be aware of these signals
still and not attempt to bury them)--a clue that returning to the ways of
old is not really working. Or, perhaps we are trying some new limited action
that still doesn't really meet our deeper needs. I'm sure there are more
caveats here. For instance, one may be on the right track, in the early
stages of re-organization, but needs to press on further in the direction
they are headed, more trial and error, skill development, etc. for the
intrinsic error to diminish significantly. Then there are ongoing scenarios
on this theme.

Now, I recall from your book and some postings here that one way to address
this is to reframe the error signals in a sense so that we can know that
some of these are due merely to re-organization. I suppose one must stay
mindful and try to distinguish these differences step by step. It may be
difficult to distinguish though so trial-error and continued awareness seem
to be required. To some degree, I guess this is obvious, there seems to be
the need for an experimental attitude about all this because it is hard to
tell where you are really headed. In Zen they call this beginner's mind and
contrast it with expert's mind--the mind in service of habits, certainties,
ego-based-ideals, etc.

I think that this Reichian point of view also helps with empathy for self
and others, to know that these strategies were laid down to cope with
previous difficult situations certainly helps this stuff to be seen in a
different light rather than thinking how pathetic myself or someone else is.
It may be pathetic at times, the way we may be living, but one can see how
the person's struggle to meet actual and legitimate needs was one of the
conditions for this kind of development. Even in extreme cases--like Hitler
for example.

Thanks for taking the time to review and address these issues.

Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Robertson Richard [mailto:R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:56 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Dick Robertson,2005.01.16.1540CST]
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Gosnell <JGosnell@BRIDGEWAY.ORG>
Date: Saturday, January 15, 2005 8:26 pm
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.15.1930)

<Dick Robertson,2005.01.15.1735CST

Thanks Dick

Welcome.

So, is the following understanding below the same

understanding as yours...Irestate it different ways
to make sure I am clear about this. Sorry about

the length--I am still muddling through these

distinctions. I want to see if PCT can help with
this, especially when integrated with client-
centeredtherapy and other approaches.

One way to frame it is that the inner rebellion,

often viewed as the problem, is basically real,
legitimate human needs-wants pressing for
realization and action in some form (or however one
words it).

Yes, good formulation. If you think about it you
can imagine how various centers in the intrinsic
system are often in a state of some amount of
chronic error because of the "poor service" they get
as a result of false self requirements. ( I. e.
Priciple level systems controlling for
intellectually influenced perceptions rather than
for perceptions down the line that would produce
greater intrinsic functioning.

But, the person may perceive this as the problem

to be eliminated in favor of sticking to the
previously formed policies or shoulds. What he
calls "my

self," is not his self at all, but a poorly

symbolized image of it. He has it backwards, mixed
up a little at best. To deal with the conflict- -rather

than stopping, looking deeply into the issue,

noting the error signals etc.

he may externalize-project these issues or use

other defenses. So, as a matter of framing it,
they pick the ideal self over actual
needs/wants/values--deeper layers of being in a
sense. He is trying to meet

basic needs in an unskillful way, through

actualizing his idealized self, a self put
together by safety policies, it doesn't work and he
ends up

miserable and not knowing why. Everyone has some

of this I suppose.

Not a bad way to put itl

In verbalizing it, these conflicts begin surfacing

in awareness for the client or maybe just for the
therapist. The therapist may then notice that

the client seems to think that he should be the

idealistic notions or comply with the neurotic
policies and that the error signals are indicators that

there is something "wrong" with him. But the "him"

he is referring to, the self he thinks he is, was
really meant to be a tentative formulation of
policies/images,

Here I think that Wilhelm Reich has something to
contribute. The infant and growing child, being
dependent upon his caregivers, learns certain
compromises in his behavior to keep from eliciting
puritive actions from the caregiver (whether
conscious or unconscious on the caregiver's part)
and thus, by the time we see him in therapy he has
long practiced certain actions to the point where
they have the power of ingrained habits. Thus he
will get error signals when acting contrary to them
despite the competition from intrinsic error. This
might well complicate effects of the reorganizing
system.

etc--he is sticking to it rigidly and attemtping to

actualize this limited-thought-based self. There

is a lack of flexibilitywith these tentative
understandings layed down by thought. The error
signals

are a part of his real self and are providing him

information about what needs doing...at least they
provide some information for him to take notice

of, but he doesn't use these signals skillfully in

this way--they are rejected as a nuissance mostly
or used as an excuse to shut down operations.To
quit doing something. This is one kind of example
only of course.

Right, and see above for other aspects.

He favors what is not real (former tentative

beliefs agreements, self- images),over what is real
(his actual experience here and now). He rejects
elements

of experience to maintain the familiar limited

notion of self. Which is safer perhaps..it feels
that way anyway.

Yes.

So, he prevents himself from working towards an

integration of feelings,needs, wants, values etc.
and prefers the surface-level views. He prevents
the thought-based self from being
updated-reorganized to reflect his actual
experience--to the degree that thoughts, images can
accomodate actual experience. He doesn't allow
awareness to go to work and he avoids reorganizing,
which is anxiety-provoking. I remember some of this
  from your book now--time to review it again. You
discuss acting from a position of

"integration" rather than remaining in and

actualizing the opposing battle from various
neurotic policies (overly rigid, glorified,etc.)
that may be linked, odd as they seem, to different
needs/wants--sub-selves,

etc. That is, energizing the battle between

apparently opposing selfs or
agreements,etc...perpetuating neurosis.

Well put.

I assume this is what you meant by not trying to

control your "self"--not trying to dominate the
world of actual exprience (really your larger self
or self-as-alive-presence) with policies that are
ultimately life-denying in their restrictiveness.
This version of self-control. And not the other
kind of self-control (a legitimate form of
self-control)which relates to

refraining from actions that don't support us

meeting our needs or valuesand performing actions
which do support our life in the truest sense--what

we really want, need, value throughout our being.

Do you agree with the basic expressions here?

Yes, I think you have a good view of it. You might
make an exercise for yourself, if you like, to try
to envision just what is happening in the person's
control hierarchy in these various conditions,
putting it in as concrete terms as you can as to
what the person might be controlling at each level
in any given apsect of maintaining his/her self image.

Good work,

Best,

Dick R

All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

14

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.16.1940CST)]

<Rick Marken (2005.01.16.0910)

Thanks for the time--I have so many questions I know.

<I wouldn't worry about the specific level in the PCT hierarchy
<(program, principle, etc) at which this conflict exists (if it really
<exists; determining the nature of the conflict would be the main goal
<of an MOL therapy session). If there is a conflict, then it exists at
<_some_ level (or levels). Once the conflict is discovered (by the
<patient him or herself) the next step in the MOL is to try to help the
<person get "above" it, in consciousness, to see the conflict from the
<point of view of the systems that are creating it. If my guess about
<the conflict creating loneliness is correct, for example, the next step
<in the MOL would be to try to get the patient to "go up a level" and
<become conscious of their controlling from the point of view of the
<higher level systems that are creating the conflict: system that wants
<contact with others and the system that does not want such contact.
<More simply (and using less jargon) the MOL aims to help the patient
<understand _why_ he or she both wants and does not want certain
<experiences, such as contact with people.

This is helpful. Basically, a key point to remember is that when there is
conflict there are two systems--perhaps linked to basic needs in some way
and including all kinds of habits, ways of viewing the world etc. (this may
be the level of self that I am describing, but it is integrated with other
sub-systems)--that are in conflict. It may be the need for autonomy is in
conflict with the need for connection, or the need for security in conflict
with the need for connection. Going up a level allows this to be seen and
perhaps facilitates an integration or compromise between the two systems to
get both needs satisfied. At least I see that there are two systems serving
particular functions, so I can make some sense of the whole conflict. It is
important to know this so that you don't treat the different players in the
conflict, the systems, as trivial--they may be related to important
functions. At least they have developed for reasons to the state they appear
in.

Perhaps the specific level may not be critical because you may need to allow
a scanning of the whole system of the various levels and use clues that you
get through awareness? Any information that emerges can be used. Now, is the
higher level necessary to realize the conflict and is it so that the only
level that re-organization can come from is this higher level? If so, then
the lower levels are dependent on these higher levels for change--for their
organization? This is what my Powers book seems to indicate. Information can
come up from lower levels, be received by, noticed from, a higher level, but
re-organization doesn't come from there--from the lower level?

As a metaphor...In an organization, a company for example, the lower levels
follow the dictates of levels above them--except when there is a need for
the individuals underneath them to make some minor adjustments which they
often do without addressing the upper levels. For the most part, the total
organization flows from the top down and the top--in order to be effective,
to have integrity--tries to get information from the lower levels. Except if
the company is, or the upper levels are, as they say, a victim of their own
corporate narcissism--that is, they don't solicit information from down low
or ignore error signals from down low. Then they are subject to failing and
can't seem to understand why I'm sure. This would be an example of trying to
actualize policies to meet the need for "achievement" for example at a
grandiose level and ignoring other systems, needs, wants, values, etc. in
order to get it...perhaps.

Anyway, in order to change in an organization, the upper levels need to bear
witness to any conflicts, assess them, and then develop new policies to
resolve the conflict or integrate perhaps whatever systems are in
conflict--relative to the company's purpose of course. Does this seem
basically right?

Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Marken [mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM]
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:09 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.16.0910)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.01.15.1910) --

Rick Marken (2005.01.15.1400)>

The essential goal of PCT therapy --
which is probably the essential goal of all therapies -- is to help
the
person with the problem identify the conflicts that are causing the
problem and then to help them go "up a level" to become conscious of
the higher level wants that are creating the conflict.

I am struggling to apply my understanding of MOL in this
instance...Let's
say I notice the feeling of loneliness--nothing else really (if someone
observed my life perhaps they would attribute it to my actions in the
world--avoiding contact with others on an emotional level, etc, but I
don't
realize this). Now at what level do I go?

You would probably start at the level at which the conflict is
expressed, which is as the feeling of loneliness. Loneliness is an
emotion, of course, and emotions are experiential symptoms of lose of
control. What seems to be uncontrolled is your ability to control for
contact with others. You apparently want contact with others (this, I
believe, is why you call the emotion "loneliness") and don't want
contact with others (which you state explicitly and, to the extent that
you succeed at achieving this goal, you create error in the system that
wants contact, resulting in the feeing loneliness).

I wouldn't worry about the specific level in the PCT hierarchy
(program, principle, etc) at which this conflict exists (if it really
exists; determining the nature of the conflict would be the main goal
of an MOL therapy session). If there is a conflict, then it exists at
_some_ level (or levels). Once the conflict is discovered (by the
patient him or herself) the next step in the MOL is to try to help the
person get "above" it, in consciousness, to see the conflict from the
point of view of the systems that are creating it. If my guess about
the conflict creating loneliness is correct, for example, the next step
in the MOL would be to try to get the patient to "go up a level" and
become conscious of their controlling from the point of view of the the
higher level systems that are creating the conflict: system that wants
contact with others and the system that does not want such contact.
More simply (and using less jargon) the MOL aims to help the patient
understand _why_ he or she both wants and does not want certain
experiences, such as contact with people.

Also, is the responsible thinking process basically a structured way
to do
awareness-MOL?

In only one way that I know if, and that is by requiring that teachers
ask misbehaving kids "what are you doing?" rather than trying to stop
the misbehavior by force. This is a very "up a level" question
inasmuch as, in order to answer it, the kid has to look at their own
controlling (the misbehavior) from a higher (or, at least, different)
level.

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400
All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

15

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.01.17.1040CST]

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Gosnell <JGosnell@BRIDGEWAY.ORG>
Date: Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.16.1921CST)]

<Dick Robertson,2005.01.16.1540CST>

Thanks for the feedback. I'm on the right track I

think with some of these points. And thanks for
this reminder, I needed to consider the
followingpiece more closely...

Bringing this into focus, basically the issue is

we've got 2 sets of error

I'd say "sources" instead of "sets" but that's a
minor quibble.

violating various policies meant to meet our needs
perhaps at an earliertime, to protect us, etc.

Right. And here's where other earlier therapy
thinkers have useful observations to contribute. I'm
thinking here of the Brit psychoanalyst , John
Bowlby (THe Making and Breaking of Affectional
Bonds) who in one of his writings pointed out that
neurotic parents provide anti-intrinsic system (not
his words of course) challenges (read
to-be-controlled variables) for their children to
develop control systems for.

So, there is a danger here in that we may
misinterpret error signals in too generalized of a

way--"something is wrong I'd better do something
to put it back right"--perhaps to re-align my action

with the well-established habits then. That is,

drop the new direction, new behaviors and return
to the comfort zone. Fortunately, there may
continue some intrinsic error (if we can allow
ourselves to be

aware of these signals still and not attempt to

bury them)--a clue that returning to the ways of

old is not really working. Or, perhaps we are

trying some new limited action

that still doesn't really meet our deeper needs.

I'm sure there are more caveats here. For
instance, one may be on the right track, in the
early stages of re-organization, but needs to press
on further in

the direction they are headed, more trial and

error, skill development, etc. for the intrinsic
error to diminish significantly. Then there are
ongoing scenarios on this theme.

Very well thought out Jason.

Now, I recall from your book and some postings

here that one way to address > this is to reframe
the error signals in a sense so that we can know that

some of these are due merely to re-organization. I

suppose one

A technical point here. I don't think one can
reframe error signals. In PCT the only things that
can come into consciousness are perceptions. Other
functions of a control circuit are not perceivable
aspects but do of course affect what the perception is.

But I think your main point is a good one, it just
needs to be rephrased--for example, in terms of
re-framing, I can imagine that some analysing
program could substitute an alternate
category-perception of the way one has been
labelling some phenomenon in his experience. The
program would be functioning to keep correct some
Principle that keeps the Self image "accurate" and
that Principle might be something like, "find a more
positive (or constructive) way to "see" this
event/situation/phenomenon, etc.

must stay mindful and try to distinguish these

differences step by step. It may be difficult to
distinguish though so trial-error and continued

awareness seem to be required.

YES

To some degree, I guess this is obvious, there
seems to be the need for an experimental attitude

about all this because it is hard to tell where
you are really headed. In Zen they call this
beginner's mind and

contrast it with expert's mind--the mind in

service of habits, certainties,ego-based-ideals, etc.

I think that this Reichian point of view also

helps with empathy for self and others, to know
that these strategies were laid down to cope with
previous difficult situations certainly helps this
stuff to be

seen in a different light rather than thinking

how pathetic myself or someone else is.

It may be pathetic at times, the way we may be

living, but one can see how the person's struggle
to meet actual and legitimate needs was one of the

conditions for this kind of development. Even in

extreme cases-- like Hitler for example.

Good job, Jason!

Thanks for taking the time to review and address

these issues.

Jason

Best,

Dick R

16

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.17.0915)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.01.16.1940CST)--

Basically, a key point to remember is that when there is
conflict there are two systems..that are in conflict. It may
be the need for autonomy is in conflict with the need for
connection, or the need for security in conflict with the need
for connection. Going up a level allows this to be seen and
perhaps facilitates an integration or compromise between the
two systems to get both needs satisfied.

Yes. And I think the "compromise" almost always involves fully satisfying
both wants at different times. When there is conflict, you can't really
compromise in the sense of simultaneously giving each system only some of
what it wants; this leaves error in both systems, which means that it leaves
the conflict intact. Once a person recognizes that they have two goals that
are incompatible in the sense that both can't be achieved simultaneously --
that is, once the person understands the nature of the conflict that is
causing their neurotic behavior -- then the solution is usually pretty
obvious. For example the person who, like me, enjoys both solitude and
social interaction, can arrange for some quite evenings at home as well as
for some nice social evenings with friends.

At least I see that there are two systems serving
particular functions, so I can make some sense of the whole conflict. It is
important to know this so that you don't treat the different players in the
conflict, the systems, as trivial--they may be related to important
functions. At least they have developed for reasons to the state they appear
in.

I think this is a very important point. The inconsistent wants that produce
a conflict are equally important to the person who has these wants; these
wants presumably exist as the means of achieving other goals. So the
solution to a conflict cannot be to convince a person that one goal is more
legitimate than another. If the conflict is between being a good husband and
diddling the secretary then the solution is not to convince the person that
one goal is better than the other. Both goals exist. This is also a conflict
where a sequential strategy probably won't work as a solution. In this
case, you would probably have to get the person to go up a level and become
conscious of _why_ they want to be a ood husband and _why_ they want to
diddle the secretary. From that point of view, the person may be able to
figure out ways to want that are not in conflict but satisfy the reasons for
wanting to be a good husband and a bad one.

Perhaps the specific level may not be critical because you may need to allow
a scanning of the whole system of the various levels and use clues that you
get through awareness?

I think the specific level is not important because we don't really know
_what_ the specific levels really are. The eleven levels Bill proposed --
and their relationship to each other -- are hypotheses with some
experiential and experimental confirmation. But whether a conflict is
expressed at what you would call the "program" or "principle" level is
really not important. What is important (from the point of view of the
person suffering from the conflict) is that what the conflict (what are the
conflicting wants) and what are the higher level reasons for those
conflicting wants.

Anyway, in order to change in an organization, the upper levels need to bear
witness to any conflicts, assess them, and then develop new policies to
resolve the conflict or integrate perhaps whatever systems are in
conflict--relative to the company's purpose of course. Does this seem
basically right?

Yes, I think so.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

17

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1308)]

Rick Marken (2004.01.17.0915)

I think this is a very important point. The inconsistent wants that
produce
a conflict are equally important to the person who has these wants;
these
wants presumably exist as the means of achieving other goals. So the
solution to a conflict cannot be to convince a person that one goal is
more
legitimate than another. If the conflict is between being a good
husband and
diddling the secretary then the solution is not to convince the person
that
one goal is better than the other. Both goals exist. This is also a
conflict
where a sequential strategy probably won't work as a solution. In this
case, you would probably have to get the person to go up a level and
become
conscious of _why_ they want to be a ood husband and _why_ they want to
diddle the secretary. From that point of view, the person may be able
to
figure out ways to want that are not in conflict but satisfy the
reasons for
wanting to be a good husband and a bad one.

I think it is well to keep in mind that an HPCT system does not "figure
out" or "decide" anything. These are terms from folk psychology. An
HPCT system controls, and this is all it does. In fact, the situation
you describe invokes an agent outside the control system. This agent is
able to discover why the conflict exists and consider alternative
solutions. In essence, the agent does the real work. The HPCT system
exists to carry out the plans of the agent. A model that dispensed with
the agent would solve the problem by reorganizing because of a control
failure, not because it understood anything or decided anything.

So long as we continue to invoke figuring out and deciding we are
kidding ourselves You can see this clearly in a tracking task. I can
invoke an agent that "wants" to track the target then "figures out"
and "decides" how to accomplish this. But such an imaginary agent plays
no role in the model or the way the model works. All the model has is
an input, a reference level, an output and a disturbance, both of which
affect the input.

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

18

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.17.1120)]

Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1308)--

I think it is well to keep in mind that an HPCT system does not "figure
out" or "decide" anything. These are terms from folk psychology.

These are words that describe behaviors. The HPCT model does, indeed,
produce "figuring out" and "deciding" behavior. "Figuring out" appears when
the system is controlling program and principle level perceptions (for
example, the figuring that would be articulated as "Let's see, how can I
make 3 no trump with a spade singleton in my hand? What if I try to set up
my clubs. But that would require a 3-3 split..."). "Deciding" happens when
two systems want incompatible goals ("Let's see, should I stick with the
wife or have the fling with the secretary?")

An HPCT system controls, and this is all it does.

That depends on what the meaning of "does" is. The model only does
controlling in the sense that its components are organized as control loops.
But the model does many different observable behaviors depending on what and
how it is controlling.

In fact, the situation you describe invokes an agent outside the control
system. This agent is able to discover why the conflict exists and consider
alternative solutions.

This is true. In the MOL, you are dealing with an agent outside the
hierarchy.

The HPCT system exists to carry out the plans of the agent.

No. The HPCT system exists to control its own perceptions, some of which
(those at the program level) are themselves plans. The agent outside the
hierarchy is "consciousness" and my guess is that it exists to keep the
hierarchy functioning well: it's the Zen in the art of motorcycle
maintenance, where the hierarchy is the motorcycle and the intrinsic needs
are the operational "specs".

A model that dispensed with
the agent would solve the problem by reorganizing because of a control
failure, not because it understood anything or decided anything.

We can consciously control at levels that allow us to solve these problems.
Blind reorganization is not the only way to fix control problems, though it
certainly is one way, possibly the main way.

So long as we continue to invoke figuring out and deciding we are
kidding ourselves.

It depends on when and how we "invoke" these things. People obviously do
"figuring" and "deciding" so I don't see anything wrong with invoking these
terms in this "behavioral" way. HPCT helps us understand what people are
doing when they are doing these things. I think it is incorrect to invoke
these behaviors as components of a model of these behaviors.

You can see this clearly in a tracking task. I can
invoke an agent that "wants" to track the target then "figures out"
and "decides" how to accomplish this.

What you would be doing is making the mistake of modeling the behavior
rather than the system that produces the behavior. What you see can be
described as a person wanting to track and figuring out/deciding how to do
this. But your model of what you are seeing will not necessarily do these
things. In fact, the PCT model does want certain perceptions but it doesn't
figure out by "figuring out" nor does it decide by "deciding". What you see
as figuring out and deciding are emergent behaviors that come out of the
operation of a hierarchy of input control systems, just as "tracking" and
"catching" are emergent behaviors that come out of the operation of systems
that control optical variables.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

19

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1510)]

Rick Marken (2005.01.17.1120)

Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1308)--

I think it is well to keep in mind that an HPCT system does not
"figure
out" or "decide" anything. These are terms from folk psychology.

These are words that describe behaviors. The HPCT model does, indeed,
produce "figuring out" and "deciding" behavior. "Figuring out" appears
when
the system is controlling program and principle level perceptions (for
example, the figuring that would be articulated as "Let's see, how can
I
make 3 no trump with a spade singleton in my hand? What if I try to
set up
my clubs. But that would require a 3-3 split...").

You seem to be describing a sequence of verbal behaviors. You may
believe that such thoughts lead to actions, but that is simply folk
psychology. It is no different in principle than adding a "voice over"
to the behavior in the tracking example to "explain" tracking. The
model does this without the need to invoke deciding or figuring out.

"Deciding" happens when
two systems want incompatible goals ("Let's see, should I stick with
the
wife or have the fling with the secretary?")

The two systems must be sub-hierarchies and the outcome is determined
by the structure of the system not by controlled sequences of
vocalizations such as, "Let's see...

An HPCT system controls, and this is all it does.

That depends on what the meaning of "does" is. The model only does
controlling in the sense that its components are organized as control
loops.
But the model does many different observable behaviors depending on
what and
how it is controlling.

Of course. Who said otherwise?

In fact, the situation you describe invokes an agent outside the
control
system. This agent is able to discover why the conflict exists and
consider
alternative solutions.

This is true. In the MOL, you are dealing with an agent outside the
hierarchy.

MOL involves an interaction between two hierarchies, is this what you
mean?

The HPCT system exists to carry out the plans of the agent.

No. The HPCT system exists to control its own perceptions, some of
which
(those at the program level) are themselves plans. The agent outside
the
hierarchy is "consciousness" and my guess is that it exists to keep the
hierarchy functioning well: it's the Zen in the art of motorcycle
maintenance, where the hierarchy is the motorcycle and the intrinsic
needs
are the operational "specs".

You have lost me. How does consciousness know that it is acting
properly "to keep the hierarchy functioning"? What role, for example,
does it play in the models of tracking behavior? The notion that
consciousness intervenes whenever needed to keep the hierarchy on track
sounds a lot like Newton's idea that God intervenes from time to time
to keep the solar system on track. We decided long ago that that is not
the case. If consciousness is not supernatural, don't you think it
should be a working part of model?

A model that dispensed with
the agent would solve the problem by reorganizing because of a control
failure, not because it understood anything or decided anything.

We can consciously control at levels that allow us to solve these
problems.
Blind reorganization is not the only way to fix control problems,
though it
certainly is one way, possibly the main way.

Who is this "we" who is "consciously controlling"? Can you diagram the
role it plays in a tracking experiment? Why is it not reflected in the
equations?

So long as we continue to invoke figuring out and deciding we are
kidding ourselves.

It depends on when and how we "invoke" these things. People obviously
do
"figuring" and "deciding" so I don't see anything wrong with invoking
these
terms in this "behavioral" way. HPCT helps us understand what people
are
doing when they are doing these things. I think it is incorrect to
invoke
these behaviors as components of a model of these behaviors.

That's all I've been saying. Yet we seem to do this all the time even
in PCT explanations. Perhaps we should be a little more precise, lest
we give the appearance of explaining something when we are simply hand
waving.

You can see this clearly in a tracking task. I can
invoke an agent that "wants" to track the target then "figures out"
and "decides" how to accomplish this.

What you would be doing is making the mistake of modeling the behavior
rather than the system that produces the behavior. What you see can be
described as a person wanting to track and figuring out/deciding how
to do
this. But your model of what you are seeing will not necessarily do
these
things. In fact, the PCT model does want certain perceptions but it
doesn't
figure out by "figuring out" nor does it decide by "deciding". What
you see
as figuring out and deciding are emergent behaviors that come out of
the
operation of a hierarchy of input control systems, just as "tracking"
and
"catching" are emergent behaviors that come out of the operation of
systems
that control optical variables.

My point is simply that "figuring out" and "wanting" are not terms that
describe the working of the model. They do not need to be invoked to
explain the workings of the model, do they? So why invoke them them
when modeling infidelity?

The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.

20

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.17.1540CST)]

Dick Robertson, 2005.01.17.1040CST

Dick: I appreciate this feedback from both Rick and yourself because this is
an important issue in my own life and I can see it in others in my practice.
I think that I see some new ways to work with my experience and the
experience of others in therapy and personal growth efforts. I find it
interesting that PCT does match some previous intuitions I had about these
issues just from observing experience. PCT is helpful in that it gives me an
intellectual basis and language for communicating it. It seems that all of
these points so far, when I reflect on them, are congruent with my actual
experience. The main issue though is that in my past actual experience I
would try various ineffective solutions, for example, to try to conquer one
system with another. Or, I shudder to think of it, to assist a parent
basically in avoiding true contact with their child with various
programs--that may have some limited use--but are too limited, too
distant...and standing back from the whole guilt-tripping process without
knowing how to work with that. This is like treating oneself as a machine
rather than a human being. Developing a new language in processing this
stuff is the biggest challenge...and letting go of some of my external
control psychology beliefs. Perhaps what can be integrated from my previous
learning will be integrated in time and what can drop off will just do that.

Right. And here's where other earlier therapy
thinkers have useful observations to contribute. I'm
thinking here of the Brit psychoanalyst , John
Bowlby (THe Making and Breaking of Affectional
Bonds) who in one of his writings pointed out that
neurotic parents provide anti-intrinsic system (not
his words of course) challenges (read
to-be-controlled variables) for their children to
develop control systems for.

Good--I have a new book to investigate. I see now how things like RTP and
just having a view of people provided by PCT would help parents to help
their children "align" (not the right word perhaps) intrinsic systems with
the situations they are finding themselves in as they develop socially for
example. Or, I suppose it could be phrased, how to meet their needs in an
actual context which has other people in it, conditions, etc. Of course, the
issue here is that one would have to change their view of self and other (or
"develop" it--expand it) in order to be able to help their child--in a
sense, there would be a shift in world view out of this: One can't pretend
that others aren't trying to take care of themselves--loosely speaking--by
acting. Before, everyone is regarded as an object in one's mind, now they
have to be flesh and blood. As you do too to actually see from this vantage
point.

must stay mindful and try to distinguish these

differences step by step. It may be difficult to
distinguish though so trial-error and continued

awareness seem to be required.

YES

Related to this issue of trial and "error"...I notice now that
re-organization has two sides to it in the realm of emotional experience
(not always perhaps, but sometimes like this)--a fearful side and a kind of
exhilaration side. If re-organization is basically "growth" it makes sense
that it could be experienced this way. I wonder if more neurotic people
don't tend to favor noticing the energy of this as fear and ignore the whole
exhilaration of experimenting with new things. Actually, there would be a
myriad of possible emotional experiences in the midst of this change
process, those two possibilities just leapt out at me today.

Appreciatively,

Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Robertson Richard [mailto:R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:55 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.01.17.1040CST]
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Gosnell <JGosnell@BRIDGEWAY.ORG>
Date: Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: idealized sense of self and true self

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.16.1921CST)]

<Dick Robertson,2005.01.16.1540CST>

Thanks for the feedback. I'm on the right track I

think with some of these points. And thanks for
this reminder, I needed to consider the
followingpiece more closely...

Bringing this into focus, basically the issue is

we've got 2 sets of error

I'd say "sources" instead of "sets" but that's a
minor quibble.

violating various policies meant to meet our needs
perhaps at an earliertime, to protect us, etc.

Right. And here's where other earlier therapy
thinkers have useful observations to contribute. I'm
thinking here of the Brit psychoanalyst , John
Bowlby (THe Making and Breaking of Affectional
Bonds) who in one of his writings pointed out that
neurotic parents provide anti-intrinsic system (not
his words of course) challenges (read
to-be-controlled variables) for their children to
develop control systems for.

So, there is a danger here in that we may
misinterpret error signals in too generalized of a

way--"something is wrong I'd better do something
to put it back right"--perhaps to re-align my action

with the well-established habits then. That is,

drop the new direction, new behaviors and return
to the comfort zone. Fortunately, there may
continue some intrinsic error (if we can allow
ourselves to be

aware of these signals still and not attempt to

bury them)--a clue that returning to the ways of

old is not really working. Or, perhaps we are

trying some new limited action

that still doesn't really meet our deeper needs.

I'm sure there are more caveats here. For
instance, one may be on the right track, in the
early stages of re-organization, but needs to press
on further in

the direction they are headed, more trial and

error, skill development, etc. for the intrinsic
error to diminish significantly. Then there are
ongoing scenarios on this theme.

Very well thought out Jason.

Now, I recall from your book and some postings

here that one way to address > this is to reframe
the error signals in a sense so that we can know that

some of these are due merely to re-organization. I

suppose one

A technical point here. I don't think one can
reframe error signals. In PCT the only things that
can come into consciousness are perceptions. Other
functions of a control circuit are not perceivable
aspects but do of course affect what the perception is.

But I think your main point is a good one, it just
needs to be rephrased--for example, in terms of
re-framing, I can imagine that some analysing
program could substitute an alternate
category-perception of the way one has been
labelling some phenomenon in his experience. The
program would be functioning to keep correct some
Principle that keeps the Self image "accurate" and
that Principle might be something like, "find a more
positive (or constructive) way to "see" this
event/situation/phenomenon, etc.

must stay mindful and try to distinguish these

differences step by step. It may be difficult to
distinguish though so trial-error and continued

awareness seem to be required.

YES

To some degree, I guess this is obvious, there
seems to be the need for an experimental attitude

about all this because it is hard to tell where
you are really headed. In Zen they call this
beginner's mind and

contrast it with expert's mind--the mind in

service of habits, certainties,ego-based-ideals, etc.

I think that this Reichian point of view also

helps with empathy for self and others, to know
that these strategies were laid down to cope with
previous difficult situations certainly helps this
stuff to be

seen in a different light rather than thinking

how pathetic myself or someone else is.

It may be pathetic at times, the way we may be

living, but one can see how the person's struggle
to meet actual and legitimate needs was one of the

conditions for this kind of development. Even in

extreme cases-- like Hitler for example.

Good job, Jason!

Thanks for taking the time to review and address

these issues.

Jason

Best,

Dick R

All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.