# Kenny on sarcasm

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kenny-on-sarcasm/6039>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [December 11, 1999, 3:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kenny-on-sarcasm/6039 "1999-12-11T15:14:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 1999, 3:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kenny-on-sarcasm/6039/1 "1999-12-11T15:14:57Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (991211.1013 EST)]

Kenny Kitzke (991209.1300EST)]

> \<Rick Marken (991209.0820)\>
> 
> Bill Powers (991209.0559 MDT) to Bruce Nevin (991208.1311 EST)--
> 
> > I think it is reasonable to ask children if they had any good  
> > reason for not keeping a committment; but to teach them that all  
> > comittments must be kept no matter what is to teach them something  
> > that no adult believes.
> 
> \<My guess is that nearly all adults believe this (for example,  
> note the prevalence of the belief in an absolute moral code)  
> but, of course, none practice it because they \_can't\_ and  
> still maintain control of their perceptions.\>
> 
> You are hopeless Rick. Your sarcasm is thinly veiled and, [...]

Kenny, I don't think Rick was being sarcastic or attacking your beliefs. I  
don't think he even considered whether this would be a disturbance to you.  
This exchange hearkens back to a discussion in the archives about fixed  
reference signals, as does Rick's commentary on setting a reference to a  
constant in the middle level of his 3-level simulation.

Regarding inability unfailingly to meet the standards of any absolute moral  
code, it looks like you two are in violent agreement.

Rick seems to be saying there is no point in an absolute moral code if it  
is impossible, in the nature of control systems, to put it into "absolute"  
practice. You seem to be saying that the absolute moral code is a given,  
however difficult it may be to put into practice. This difference of  
opinion may be irreconcilable. But I don't think Rick meant to evoke it.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

> **···**
>
> At 01:08 PM 12/09/1999 -0500, Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Kenneth_Kitzke_Value)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 1999, 4:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kenny-on-sarcasm/6039/2 "1999-12-11T16:03:33Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (991211.1030EST)]

\<Bruce Nevin (991211.1013 EST)\>

\<Kenny, I don't think Rick was being sarcastic or attacking your beliefs. I  
don't think he even considered whether this would be a disturbance to you.\>

You are right. Rick probably did not have me in mind at all when he made the  
remark. I do realize that the sarcasm is in my perception. It was a side  
effect of Rick's behavior. For the record, I communicated privately with  
Rick and he apologized for the side effect. Very respectful, I would say.  
Nice.

We have had some CSGNet discussions about whether or not one can (or perhaps  
should) control for side effects of ones behavior on others. Unless there is  
feedback on such a side effect, one could not control for it very well.  
Right? I just gave him some feedback and hoped it wouldn't offend him.

This may be similar to the feedback Rick and Bill try to give advocates of  
RTP. But, as may be surmised from what has been observed, such feedback is  
not always wanted. Apologies are not always issued. Sometimes such side  
effect feedback is a big environmental disturbance. One popular PCT way of  
handling environmental disturbances is to ignore or avoid them. You simply  
quit communicating with people who disturb you. Very human, it seems to me.

OTOH, Rick acknowledges he uses sarcasm on CSGNet. The idea about having  
moral absolutes is one he has been intentionally sarcastic about in the past.  
At least I perceive he would agree with that. I guess I like to  
counter-control those ideas. Life is a big bowl of PCT cherries. 🕶

\<Rick seems to be saying there is no point in an absolute moral code if it  
is impossible, in the nature of control systems, to put it into "absolute"  
practice.\>

I hope Rick will verify if your perception is what he is really saying.

\<You seem to be saying that the absolute moral code is a given,  
however difficult it may be to put into practice.\>

I believe that not being able to uphold any moral code or belief perfectly is  
not a reason for not accepting the validity of that moral belief as a  
reference. Because I lie once in a while, and speed once in a while, does  
not change my acceptance of those moral type codes as references for my life.  
It suggests that the problem is me, and conflicts in me, not the code in  
these cases.

Care to offer how it seems to you?

Kenny

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 11, 1999, 6:16pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kenny-on-sarcasm/6039/3 "1999-12-11T18:16:46Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (991211.1020)]

Bruce Nevin (991211.1013 EST)

> Rick seems to be saying there is no point in an absolute  
> moral code if it is impossible, in the nature of control  
> systems, to put it into "absolute" practice.

Kenny Kitzke (991211.1030EST)

> I hope Rick will verify if your perception is what he is  
> really saying.

I think Bruce's description of my point of view is excellent.

> I believe that not being able to uphold any moral code  
> or belief perfectly is not a reason for not accepting the  
> validity of that moral belief as a reference.

I agree. But it does provide the opportunity (if you want to  
take it) for exploring the higher level reasons for your  
inability to uphold any moral code or belief perfectly. To  
paraphrase Bill's wonderful koan (it would make a great  
frontpiece for a book on "The Method of Levels"):

There are very good reasons for upholding any moral code or  
belief, which makes them [the reasons] more important than  
any moral code or belief.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 1999, 12:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kenny-on-sarcasm/6039/4 "1999-12-13T12:34:48Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (991213.1230)]

Kenny Kitzke (991213)--

> People with different systems level perceptions will not only  
> set different moral belief references, they will even have different  
> system level references for whether the moral beliefs are absolute or  
> relative under various environmental conditions being perceived.

I think it's important to remember that a higher level system  
doesn't really \_set\_ a particular reference for lower level  
systems. In your example, a higher level system concept control  
system doesn't set a particular moral belief reference for the  
lower level moral belief control systems. If it \_did\_ , it would  
not be able to control the system level perception.

Think about it in terms of tracking. The cursor position control  
system can't set a particular reference for hand position; the  
cursor position control system \_must\_ vary the reference for  
hand position as the means of controlling cursor position. When  
you do a tracking task, you've got to be able to vary your hand  
position appropriately to protect cursor position from the  
effects of disturbance.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Kenneth_Kitzke_Value)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 1999, 7:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/kenny-on-sarcasm/6039/5 "1999-12-13T19:24:22Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (991213)]

\<Rick Marken (991211.1020)\>

\<There are very good reasons for upholding any moral code or  
belief, which makes them [the reasons] more important than  
any moral code or belief.\>

I see this the same way.

People with different systems level perceptions will not only set different  
moral belief references, they will even have different system level  
references for whether the moral beliefs are absolute or relative under  
various environmental conditions being perceived.

For example, one person's system level reference allows the belief that "thou  
shalt not murder" to be variable depending on environmental circumstances and  
others do not. This can explain why some people see partial birth abortion,  
war, suicide assistance, etc., as responsible behavior and others do not.

While PCT cannot determine which behavior is right or wrong morally, it  
adequately explains the mechanism behind either. Yet, matters of life or  
death are part of the life sciences. Other aspects of humanness, or even  
higher levels of perceptions, above PCT as a system for control of behavior  
would have to come into play to make a determination.

It is such levels of perception that current HPCT does not address very  
effectively IMHO.

Kenny