[From Dag Forssell (920510.22:00)]
Ed Ford (920507.11:15)
So it isn't the standards as such ............. for they can't be
measured independent of the entire behavioral structure that is the
operational living control system.
I agree with you. The standards certainly fit in a framework. They are
at the 10th of 11 levels in the HPCT structure, as presently defined.
Rather, it is our whole system operating as a continuous process. This
involves a whole bunch of things that are all interlaced, interactive,
and interrelated, each being a part of the whole process.
No argument here.
I might have to adjust my systems concepts (as when I learned PCT), or
change a few standards, or alter specific goals or decisions, or change
my approach to controlling the variable, perhaps by dealing in a more
effective way with the various obvious and sometimes unforeseen
disturbances.
You are describing the HPCT hierarchy and noting that you carefully
consider how it all ties together in order to function well. We are in
perfect agreement. The careful consideration is an important point.
Establishing systems concepts, setting standards, and making decisions
is only a part of this process.
Yes, only the three highest levels.
It also involves being able to control for the right variable, at the
right time, dealing with both foreseen and unforeseen disturbances,
learning to "listen to and deal with" our reorganization system, while
at the same time contending with other conflicting reference signals and
principles, both within our own system and in the various systems around
us.
As I read you, you are describing the essence of "Behavior of Perception"
in a dynamic environment, and noting how reorganization fits into the
picture when normal operation is not enough to control the error signals.
As near as I can tell, we are in perfect agreement - in part because I
have learned from you. Since each of us have our individual construct of
HPCT in our own heads, we will never have quite the same concept of HPCT
or anything else, or the same way to explain or think of it.
I still feel that it is more fruitful for human interaction to focus on
Principles/Values/Standards AS A SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION and would like to
point out that unless I have misunderstood you, this is precisely what
you do when you ask an counseling patient: "What are your priorities?"
You don't ask: "What is your understanding about life?" "What are your
beliefs?" or "What is the meaning of it all?" The systems concepts are
a very large network of understandings. It is unmanageable to question
systems concepts directly in therapy. You would get trapped in a
labyrinth and never get out. The standards are both more relevant and
more accessible.
I grant you that the person will look into his/her systems concepts to
answer the question. "What are your priorities?"
But perhaps not; the problem may be that the person has not spent much
time to integrate a set of systems concepts, depending instead on
fragments of Principles/Values/Standards as taught by and absorbed
without deliberation from parents, peers, siblings, teachers, etc.
Perhaps your question about standards requires the patient to think about
the systems concepts deliberately for the first time in a long time and
create some. You teach PCT, which provides a good framework for that
process, without being (or appearing to be) offensive to whatever pre-
existing systems concepts the person may have.
I read into your post another aspect of your therapy: If the person does
not know how to solve a problem (Program & Sequence level,) even with
newly considered (reasonable) standards, the system does not work. It is
an integrated whole! Then you have to teach how to solve a problem,
starting with one that has a chance of success. Eventually (hopefully)
the person learns to function better at all the (integrated) levels.
···
________________________________________________________________
Many things come together to shape my systems concepts.
Ever since Luther gave Gustavus Vasa an excuse to grab all the Catholic
gold in Sweden in 1523, Sweden has had a Lutheran state church.
From 1st grade through junior college in the public school system, I had
two lessons a week in "Christianity." In the later years, it amounted to
"comparative religion." I was introduced to the basic tenets of all the
major world religions. This is conducive to thinking of them ALL as
systems concepts, (with malice toward none, with charity for all) and
seeing that one of the major purposes of religious teaching down through
the ages is character education: Teaching standards, so that people may
function well.
In science and engineering, I have understood since high school biology
that the ONLY way into the human nervous system is through the nerve
endings of the various senses. With this perspective, it is clear to me
that it's all perception. I did not need Bill Powers to make that a part
of my systems concept. PCT suggests one way to imagine the specifics.
Whether it is done on one level in one massive neural network or in 99
levels of hierarchy is immaterial to the basic premise: It's all
perception.
In the past year I have read Thomas S. Kuhn's book: The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions. It could just as well also be called: The
Structure of Religious Revolutions. Kuhn makes it abundantly clear that
to understand a system of concepts, you must internalize that particular
set of concepts. When you have done that, you will see and understand the
world through the eyes of those rules, that "paradigm." If it works for
you (at least reasonably well), you make it your TRUTH and defend it
against all comers.
I have a tape with the speaker Marilyn VanDerbur where she quotes Joan
of Arc. Joan has been offered her life and liberty if she will only take
back what she has said; deny what she believes in. Says Joan: "The world
can use these words, I know this now. Every man gives his life for what
he believes. Every woman gives her life for what she believes. Sometimes
people believe in little or nothing, and yet they give their lives to
that little or nothing. One life is all we have. And we live it as we
believe in living it, and then it is gone. But to live without belief and
purpose, to me is more tragic than dying. Even more tragic than dying
young."
A few years ago, I read Bertrand Russell's: "A History of Western
Philosophy" and enjoyed the PBS TV series: "The Day the Universe
Changed," by James Burke. It is clear to me that MANY systems concepts,
explaining the world around us, have been used, lived by and died for
down through the ages, and that is only in the west. It is also my
perception that many of these still are in use, handed down through
different religions, cultures and oral traditions.
I am now reading Living Control Systems, volume II. Marvelous!
There are many pearls of wisdom here. Relevant to this thread on religion
is among others: The Good, the True and the Real:
When we use the creation of realities in the right way, we discover not
the nature of the objective world and not the nature of human being, but
the true outcome of being human in a real universe. It is our own nature
that we find, but at the same time it is the human reflection of a
different reality, one that we can never know directly.
There is a Boss Reality, no doubt, but all we individually can know of
it is a created reality in our own minds. It's all perception.
I think to say that
...we discover ....the true outcome of being human in a real universe.
is another way of saying that our systems concepts (the creation of
realities in the right way) are validated by our ability to function
well, which is Ed's point in the first place. If we develop a reasonable
set of systems concepts and reasonable standards to go with them, then
we will function well in the Boss Reality.
To wit: If we have adopted standards for a good diet, we have a better
chance of maintaining health than if we depend on Jello and prayer. Let
me mention that I am in no way against prayer. I think, rather, that it
is the atheist who refuses to engage in introspection and quiet dialogue
with himself as an anti-religious posture who loses out on that deal. It
is the ignorant dependence on Jello that saddens me, and that is a
question both of systems concept in regard to your understanding of
nutrition and standards in applying the knowledge.
To say that it is ALL perception seems ridiculous to a person eating
breakfast. The world is real enough. Indeed, in millions of experiments
since we came of age, we typically never fail to touch an object as
intended. The reality is palpable. We grab the cup. The coffee is hot.
A few months ago, Gary Cziko posted an experiment, which I have adopted.
(Thanks Gary)! Ask a person (while seated) to cover one eye and push on
the other while gazing across the room. All that happens is that the
image moves sideways a little.
Then ask the person to stand up on one leg. Challenge the person to
remain standing. Repeat experiment.
The point is that our senses are so well calibrated that we fail to
notice the difference between the actual and the perception of the
actual. But the moment we push on the eye - sensing instrument - the
difference becomes obvious.
At a higher level, I have adopted Ed Ford's discussion of the concept of
wife. It is quite fun to tell the story of how Christine and I met in a
whirlwind of fun and after three weeks, I say: "I love you, do you want
to be my wife?" She answers: "I love you, I want to be your wife!" My
concept of wife is based on seeing my mother slave away in the kitchen,
taking care of six kids. Christine's concept of wife is based on seeing
her mother shopping in London once a week, with the household handled by
six servants. How long is the marriage likely to last?
So far we have shown that it's all perception at the lowest levels and
at the intermediate levels in the hierarchy. Why should anything be more
than perception at the highest level? How could you POSSIBLY build
certain truth on a foundation of uncertain perceptions? No, it's all
perception; all the way up.
In my post on standards, I made reference to a post by Bill that said:
It's all perception. All of it. Well, I finally read the instructions for
a file find program and located the post. Worth a file server address!
Levels of perception: Bill Powers (920324.0300) (to Mark Olsen)
Behind this exploration of perception lies a fundamental postulate; if
you don't internalize it, I don't think you can even get started on the
problem of modeling the brain's perceptual systems, or for that matter,
in understanding HPCT. The postulate, simply put, is this: it's all
perception.
......In short, take nothing about experience for granted, as if some
aspects of experience were really outside and others were inner
interpretations. Put the whole thing inside, and see what you come up
with when you understand that it's all perception. All of it.
Since the dawn of human experience, people have no doubt tried to make
sense of their experience, to suggest systems concepts which can explain.
In the realm of human behavior among those many concepts are 1) that God
makes us do what we do; 2) that our Soul makes us do what we do; 3) that
impressions of the environment, (accumulated and presently impinging on
us) makes us do what we do. 4) Then there is HPCT, which says that our
purposes in comparison with the environment makes us do what we do.
Through loud shouting matches on this net, we know quite clearly that
HPCT is not compatible with the environmental behaviorism S-R. S-R purely
is a machine concept, directly at odds with the notion of God or Soul.
We do not mention that PCT is also not compatible with the idea that any
one particular concept of God or Soul (as OBJECTIVE TRUTH or BOSS
REALITY). It's all perception. The concept of God or Soul is quite
compatible, however, I think, and perfectly respectable as an individual
person's personal systems concept. All that is required for compatibility
in every direction is for an individual to recognize and acknowledge:
It's all perception.
As organisms, we learn ONLY from experience. Our ONLY source of
information is the intensity (or energy) signals we experience from our
nerve endings. With a head start in the structure our genes have
instructed for the biological machinery, we construct an understanding
of those experiences in our nervous systems. (It is exciting to know that
the Plooij's may have a book in english by early 1993 that spells out 10
phases of reorganization observed in human infants during the first 18
months of life). One advantage we as humans have for this growth process
is the spoken and written language.
By way of language we can share the experiences of others and thus
accelerate and multiply our individual experiences. Still, this all has
to enter through nerve endings.
Ed, I do not mean to pick on you, but by way of your own example: If Ed
has read or been told about a miracle, that is a perceived experience.
If Ed has personally witnessed a miracle, this is a perceived experience
just the same, subject to Ed's perceptual capability and interpretation.
Ed does the perceiving through nerve endings and construction of an
understanding in Ed's mind in either case, and both are subjectively real
to Ed. No-one has any business questioning Ed's reality. It is his. As
I said in my post, I think it obvious that there have to be 5 billion
individually constructed systems concepts among 5 billion people.
The strength of existing understanding was the subject of Bill's post on
momentum.
From Bill Powers (920224.0800)
I'm more or less resigned to the fact that when people from other
disciplines get interested in control theory, they already have built
up a lot of scientific momentum. They are not starting from scratch.
They have built up a complex structure of understandings in the course
of trying to make sense of whatever aspects of life seem most
interesting. They generally think they've been getting somewhere,
although an interest in control theory shows that they see some unsolved
problems. What takes a long time to realize -- years -- is that if
control theory is a correct description of how people work, then way
back in the mists of the past, all the ideas they have built upon for
all these years contain some fatally wrong assumptions. Way back down
there in the foundations.
In my interpretation, "from other disciplines" applies to all systems
concepts, scientific, religious or whatever.
PCT requires a lot of reorganization and takes a long time to grasp
because it does provide a complete perspective which is not really
compatible with many of the systems concepts people have used with
various success since time began.
Things will be much easier 50 years from now, when PCT is taught in
elementary school and all the way up. (Unless fundamentalists catch on
and object, of course). When that happens, the world will be a better
place for our grandchildren. That is worth living, working and dying for!
I have begun to notice that in post after post, Bill persistently and
patiently says: It's all perception. All of it. Bill does not always use
the same words, but the understanding is always there.
Last August I saw the closed loop handshake for the first time.
May I suggest a PCT greeting to go with it:
Greeting: It's all perception!
Answer: All of it!
This way the greeting will illustrate the two (and only two) fundamental
concepts of PCT: 1) The phenomenon of control. 2) It's all perception.
When all PCT'ers have internalized this, discussions of epistemology will
go away and discussion of religion will be reduced to a discussion ABOUT
religion as a systems concept phenomenon.
In the meantime, I believe that discussion of particular systems concept
elements as TRUTHS is pointless, but that it can be very fruitful to
focus on the standards which have a much greater universality and direct
impact on the functioning of an individual control system. (They are
after all one level closer to where the rubber hits the road).
It's all perception!
Dag Forssell
23903 Via Flamenco
Valencia, Ca 91355-2808
Phone (805) 254-1195 Fax (805) 254-7956
Internet: 0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM