[From Rick Marken (920521 10:00)]
Bruce Nevin (Thu 920421 09:30:26)] says:
I guess you mean to lay off the levels that don't provide a higher
vantage point on levels that are conflicted.
Yes. I also mean that, if there is NO conflict, then don't try to become
conscious of these non-conflicting systems. It's OK to go up a level from
a non-conflict. It's like the piano example -- it's ok to be conscious of
the fact that I'm playing a two part invention; it's just a bad idea to
focus on the systems that are successfully producing the perceptions that
are accomplishing this higher level goal.
It seems appropriate to attend to principles (standards) if people are
conflicted at the program, sequence, or category level, such that taking
a point of view through principle perceptions discloses the terms of the
conflict.
Absolutely!! And it is Ok to go up a level even when there is no conflict;
consciousness is just a problem when it is focused on the systems that
are currently successfully achieving a higher level goal; like when you
think about HOW you manage to keep the car on the road WHILE you are
driving (it's perfectly OK-- in terms of control ability-- to think about
how you drive when you are not currently controlling the car).
Assuming that the CSG model is right and that we really do control
perceptions of principles in order to control system concepts, then
I am suggesting that, if you direct someone's consciousness to
the principles that they are controlling while they are succesfully
controlling a system concept (like being a Christian or a Dodger fan)
WHILE thay are controlling that system concept then their control
of that system concept will become less skillful. That's OK if there
is a conflict at the principle level that prevents control of the
system concept; but it's not such a hot idea otherwise (though I
think it can be fun; especially if you don't care for the system
concept a person is controlling. I think this is what goes on in skillful
political debate; get your opponent to look at the principles that they
are controlling; suddenly, their ability to defend their system concept
deteriorates; not because they see anything WRONG with the principle; just
they SEE it [Side not to Greg Williams -- this could be another nefarious
application of PCT; if you get real good at directing a person's consiousness
to certain levels you could screw up their performance on some task. For
example, when you are about to play a game of tennis with your buddy you
might ask "Say, are you still turning your wrist on the backswing?". Encorage
them to think about this during the game. If they do, you are a sure winner.
Actually, people have already discovered this technique; I think Stephen
PoOCer wrote about it in a book called Gamesmanship (a funny book, by the
way)]).
However, I think there is reason for attending to perceptions at or
below the level of conflict. I suggested this to David.
I agree with everything you said about this. The main point of my previous
post (that you responded to) is that ALL LEVELS OF PERCEPTION ARE
EQUALLY IMPORTANT. System concepts are no more important than principles
which are no more important than configurations, etc. If you agree with
this point then my reference for this principle will be satisfied.
Best regards
Rick
ยทยทยท
**************************************************************
Richard S. Marken USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)