Literature and PCT

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.0907)]

The following article in the NYT reminded me of the exchange between
Bill and Marc on CSGnet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/10/books/10LIT.html?th

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.10.0835)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.0907)--

The following article in the NYT reminded me of the exchange between
Bill and Marc on CSGnet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/10/books/10LIT.html?th

Thanks for the reference to the article. But I don't see why it reminds
you of the exchange between Bill and Marc. It doesn't seem to have
anything to do with it. If anything, the exchange between Bill and
Marc reminds me of the one between Settembrini and Naptha in Mann's
_Magic Mountain_.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.1151)]

Rick Marken (2004.01.10.0835)

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.0907)--

The following article in the NYT reminded me of the exchange between
Bill and Marc on CSGnet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/10/books/10LIT.html?th

Thanks for the reference to the article. But I don't see why it reminds
you of the exchange between Bill and Marc. It doesn't seem to have
anything to do with it.

Perhaps it's just the way I think. Moretti and his critics are looking
at what appears to be the same thing -- the history of literature. But
each has a different goal and therefore sees the task differently. As I
see it, Bill is interested in a model of human behavior based on
control theory and Marc is interested in a model of human physiology
built on control theory. Both objectives are valid, but the proponents
have a great deal of difficulty in making sense of what the other is
saying.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

from [Marc Abrams (2004.01.10.1143)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.10.0835)]

Thanks for the reference to the article. But I don't see why it reminds
you of the exchange between Bill and Marc. It doesn't seem to have
anything to do with it. If anything, the exchange between Bill and
Marc reminds me of the one between Settembrini and Naptha in Mann's
_Magic Mountain_.

I'm not quite sure where Bruce sees me in all this but I think your
reference was the point Bruce was trying to make. The good Prof. Moretti
claims that most literature research is based on the same 200 or so novels,
when 20 -30 _thousand_ were actually printed. I have not read _Magic
Mountain_, but I assume it's a classic that many people use to provide
metaphors and analogy's with, like you did here. The professors claim, which
I agree with, is that you should not and cannot judge the entire body of
work from reading and rereading any one novel. You must consider the entire
field and he provides a way to do that, through quantitative methods, that
are not fully described in this article except to say he uses graphs. To
quote from the article and the good professor;

"As he put it in a telephone interview from Rome, where he was on vacation:
"The big picture is not just bigger in terms of the number of texts. The
system is literally a system with different properties than individual
texts. This is something literary studies would never face if we just kept
reading and rereading the same texts."

I believe Bruce is right on, _especially_ in the field of neuroscience. As
Bill said yesterday;

"...If the information is terribly out of date, let me know. Notice that R&C
cite papers from 1892 and 1909 -- knowledge tends to get passed on rather
than updated in neurology...."

This is precisely what the professor was talking about. The same 'core' info
providing all the 'insights', does not necessarily provide the best picture.

My comment in all of this is why people feel there needs to be an
'either-or' approach. Why not utilize _both_. They don't provide the same
exact information and they answer different questions.

thanks Bruce,

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1000)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.1151)--

As I see it, Bill is interested in a model of human behavior based on
control theory and Marc is interested in a model of human physiology
built on control theory. Both objectives are valid, but the proponents
have a great deal of difficulty in making sense of what the other is
saying.

If this were a correct description of the situation there would be no
conflict because Bill and Marc would have different objectives
(references) for _different_ perceptual variables, one variable being a
model of behavior and the other being a model of physiology. But it's
pretty clear that Bill and Marc often have different objectives for the
_same_ perceptual variable, that variable being something like "a model
of human behavior based both physiology and control theory". That's
why the conflict exists.

Much of what Marc says pushes the state of the "model of human behavior
based both physiology and control theory" variable away from Bill's
(and my) reference for it (a reference we call "PCT"), leading to error
and corrective action (which are usually posts aimed at trying to
"correct" our perception, bringing the variable closer to our "PCT"
reference for it). These corrective actions push the state of this
variable away from Marc's reference for it (a reference Marc might call
something like "PCT improved based on current knowledge of
neurophysiology"), leading to error and corrective action on his part
(which are posts aimed at trying to "correct" his perception, bringing
the variable closer to his "PCT improved based on current knowledge of
neurophysiology" reference).

That is my PCT-based interpretation of the conflict. It's not a matter
of the parties to the conflict (the "proponents") having difficulty
making sense of what each other are saying. It's entirely a matter of
the parties having different objectives for the same (or a very
similar) perceptual variable. It's true that neither party's objective
is inherently more or less valid than the other's. The validity of the
objectives will ultimately be judged by whatever criteria are used by
whoever is doing the judging (including the parties to the conflict
themselves).

Best regards

Rick

···

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

from [Marc Abrams (2004.01.10.1312)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1000)]

If this were a correct description of the situation there would be no
conflict because Bill and Marc would have different objectives
(references) for _different_ perceptual variables, one variable being a
model of behavior and the other being a model of physiology.

Sorry Rick, your wrong. There of course is no one single control model for
all of physiology, but _I am_ interested in the physiology of human behavior
as well as other physiologically based systems, like emotions, perceptual
construction, etc. There is some overlap in area's of interest, but PCT does
_not_ need a physiological model. A physiological model would be an
'application' to PCT as an application was defined by Bill yesterday. The
'conflict' as I see it has to do with how we _perceive_ the landscape. We
have different goals. My goal is to establish a physiological model of HPCT,
which is an _application_ of the PCT model. My model is not to describe
behavior in a new way, or a way different from Bill's. My intent is to
describe Bill's work in physiological terms as it relates to emotions and
perceptual construction. Two applications of PCT.

But it's pretty clear that Bill and Marc often have different objectives

for the

_same_ perceptual variable, that variable being something like "a model
of human behavior based both physiology and control theory". That's
why the conflict exists.

No. I'm not interested in developing a model of 'human behavior'. Bill has
already done that. I'm interested in the physiological components and
correlates of the model. The primary one now being the input function. I'm
not interested in changing the model. Again Rick, I'm interested in doing
PCT applications. Do you see that? Do you understand what that means? Bill
did a whole lot of clarifying in his post yesterday and I hope I recpricated
in kind.

Much of what Marc says pushes the state of the "model of human behavior
based both physiology and control theory" variable away from Bill's
(and my) reference for it (a reference we call "PCT"), leading to error
and corrective action (which are usually posts aimed at trying to
"correct" our perception, bringing the variable closer to our "PCT"
reference for it). These corrective actions push the state of this
variable away from Marc's reference for it (a reference Marc might call
something like "PCT improved based on current knowledge of
neurophysiology"), leading to error and corrective action on his part
(which are posts aimed at trying to "correct" his perception, bringing
the variable closer to his "PCT improved based on current knowledge of
neurophysiology" reference).

Rick, first, PCT can't be 'improved'. To say that means it is inadequate in
explaining the phenomena it purports to explain and I do not believe that is
the case. To 'improve' PCT is to come up with a new theory. Can we make
'applications' from PCT that would do a better job of explaining _specific_
occurences of purposeful behavior? Sure. So, what's the big deal? Newton's
laws did not tell us how to fly to the moon but without them we could not
have done it. Your flyball model is just such a PCT 'application'. Were you
looking to change HPCT because you used only 3 levels in the model and none
of them correlated to the stated hierarchy? No, you simply made an
application of the PCT model. So your whole notion of 'improving' and
'changing' PCT is incorrect and I would strongly suggest you start viewing
the efforts of others as trying to build applications to PCT rather than
trying to change or improve it. This is _not_ a nit. It is _huge_.

That is my PCT-based interpretation of the conflict.

You might want to reconsider this.

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.1405)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1000)

That is my PCT-based interpretation of the conflict. It's not a matter
of the parties to the conflict (the "proponents") having difficulty
making sense of what each other are saying. It's entirely a matter of
the parties having different objectives for the same (or a very
similar) perceptual variable. It's true that neither party's objective
is inherently more or less valid than the other's. The validity of the
objectives will ultimately be judged by whatever criteria are used by
whoever is doing the judging (including the parties to the conflict
themselves).

The same analysis could be applied to "literary theory." Where the
question is not who is right about the correct approach to literary
theory, but whether all parties are even talking about the same thing.
You and Bill have one notion about the topic and Marc another. Your
response demonstrates the problem quite well. You are _sure_ that all
parties are talking about the same thing, otherwise there would be no
conflict.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Rick Marken (2003.01.10.1330)]

Marc Abrams (2004.01.10.1312)--

Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1000)

If this were a correct description of the situation there would be no
conflict because Bill and Marc would have different objectives
(references) for _different_ perceptual variables, one variable being
a
model of behavior and the other being a model of physiology.

Sorry Rick, your wrong.

About what? The fact that there is a conflict between you and Bill or
that the explanation of the conflict is that the two of you have
different references for the same or a similar perceptual variable?

But it's pretty clear that Bill and Marc often have different
objectives for the
_same_ perceptual variable, that variable being something like "a
model
of human behavior based both physiology and control theory". That's
why the conflict exists.

No...I'm interested in doing PCT applications.

Do you think that you are controlling completely different perceptual
variables in this discussion than Bill (and me)? If so, then why is
there a conflict?

That is my PCT-based interpretation of the conflict.

You might want to reconsider this.

Sure. Could you tell me your interpretation of why the conflict
between Bill and yourself is occurring? It sounds to me like you're
trying to say that conflict results when people see the same thing
differently. I thought we had already agreed that conflict results when
people want the same (or a similar) variable in different states. It's
a degrees of freedom problem; one variable can't be in two different
states at the same time.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.10.1444 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.0907)

Seems I'd have to sign up with user name and password to see it. Too bad.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.1701)]

Rick Marken (2003.01.10.1330)

Sure. Could you tell me your interpretation of why the conflict
between Bill and yourself is occurring? It sounds to me like you're
trying to say that conflict results when people see the same thing
differently. I thought we had already agreed that conflict results when
people want the same (or a similar) variable in different states. It's
a degrees of freedom problem; one variable can't be in two different
states at the same time.

O.K. There's no conflict. You only _think_ there's a conflict. Just as
in the interpretation of literature example. Good point.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.1705)]

Bill Powers (2004.01.10.1444 MST)

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.0907)

Seems I'd have to sign up with user name and password to see it. Too
bad.

It doesn't cost anything to sign up. And despite what you might have
heard, the NYT is a pretty good newspaper :wink:

Bruce Gregory

Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1420)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.1405)]

Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1000)

That is my PCT-based interpretation of the conflict. It's not a matter
of the parties to the conflict (the "proponents") having difficulty
making sense of what each other are saying. It's entirely a matter of
the parties having different objectives for the same (or a very
similar) perceptual variable. ...

The same analysis could be applied to "literary theory."

Of course. It can be applied to any conflict. It's the PCT explanation
of conflict.

Where the
question is not who is right about the correct approach to literary
theory, but whether all parties are even talking about the same thing.

No, that's not the explanation. The parties in a literary conflict (as
in any verbal conflict) are talking about the same thing in the sense
that they are saying things that influence the same perceptual variable
-- such as the perception of the way to do literary criticism. The
conflict exists because the parties want this variable in different
reference states.

You and Bill have one notion about the topic and Marc another.

So you are saying that Bill and I perceive the same topic differently
than Marc? Why would this be a cause of conflict? I thought we already
agreed that conflict results from a difference in references for what
is functionally the same variable? It's a degrees of freedom problem.

Your response demonstrates the problem quite well. You are _sure_ that
all
parties are talking about the same thing, otherwise there would be no
conflict.

No. My response demonstrates my application of the PCT model of
conflict to what looks to me like a pretty obvious example of a
conflict. The conflict is an observation. It takes the form of a
verbal disagreement. Bill says X and Marc say no, Y. Marc says Z, and
Bill says, no, that's not correct. This is a conflict, I think. What I
did was simply apply the PCT model of conflict to this case. The
conflict must exist, according to PCT, because the parties to the
conflict have different references for what is essentially the same
controlled variable. In this case, the controlled variable is very high
level: a cognitive variable. Based on my reading of the posts I
guessed that the variable could be called "model of human behavior
based both physiology and control theory". But verbal description of
variables of this complexity are bound to be caricatures. So call it
what you like. All I am saying is that PCT says that, when you observe
a conflict between people, then it's happening because control systems
in these people want the same or a very similar variable in different
states.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.1742)]

Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1420)

No. My response demonstrates my application of the PCT model of
conflict to what looks to me like a pretty obvious example of a
conflict. The conflict is an observation. It takes the form of a
verbal disagreement.

No, Rick. A conflict only exists when the two parties want the same
perceptual variable in two different states. You can't observe a
conflict, you can only infer a conflict until you carry out the Test.
But you know that, don't you? You can observe what you _think_ is a
conflict, but the literary theory example shows that even when the
participants think there is a conflict, there may, in fact, be none. At
least from a PCT perspective.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1800)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.1742)--

Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1420)--

No. My response demonstrates my application of the PCT model of
conflict to what looks to me like a pretty obvious example of a
conflict. The conflict is an observation. It takes the form of a
verbal disagreement.

No, Rick. A conflict only exists when the two parties want the same
perceptual variable in two different states. You can't observe a
conflict, you can only infer a conflict until you carry out the Test.

I was using the term "conflict" to refer to the nature of the observed interaction between between Bill and Marc. Much of that interaction seemed to involve verbal pushing and pushing back. I'll use excerpts from Bill's last interchange with Marc as an example:

···

============================
Push:
They have found the brain secreting all the hormones you would associate
exclusively with the endocrine system.

Push back:
At this level of detail I begin to lose interest -- we're too far from
being able to settle any of those questions.

Push:
Bill, the neural signals that exist in the brain exist in the spinal cord as
well

Push back:
Of course, did you think I didn't know that? Look at the diagram of the
spinal control systems on page 91 of B:CP.

Push:
Bill, you are calling something a perception that _NO ONE_ else
anywhere does. Why?

Push back:
Let's put it the other way. Why has nobody else tumbled to the FACT that
perceptions are neural signals?...

Push:
Why not simply call it the way the biological, physiological, and
neuroscientific community call it?

Push back:
Because that community doesn't know diddly about how systems work...

Push:
This _is not_ a minor issue, nor is it a nit. How can you hope to
communicate your ideas to others when you are not talking the same language?

Push back:
Do you want me to go back to calling all actions "responses," and all
inputs "stimuli?"...

Push:
You lull people into a false sense of security in having them think that
they really know what perceptions mean in the PCT model.

Push back:
Many people bring preconceptions to PCT and manage to interpret everything
they hear and read to fit those preconceptions...

Push:
We may not have it nailed yet, but we have some pretty strong ideas about
how this does in fact work.

Push back:
You're mistaken about that...

Push:
I must be able to understand _what_ a perception actually is. Not what PCT
defines a perception as, but what 99.99% of the rest of humanity describes
it as.

Push back:
99.9% of humanity describes perceptions as the world that is out there.
They don't even know they're perceiving.

Push:
Now, Bill from time to time has said to lay aside his structure and
organization, but when he has done so, he has not replaced it with any
alternative.

Push back:
I have never said that. I have said that we can lay aside the _particular
definitions_ of levels of control that I have proposed, but not that we
can lay aside the idea that levels exist and are hierarchically related.

Push:
Thats what I meant and still say you did not come up with any alternative
solutions to your 11 levels until I mentioned the split hierarchy in LCS II
and the emotion chapter

Push back:
Hey, wait a minute. Who do you think wrote that chapter, and when?...

Push
The brain basically takes afferent
receptors convers them to perceptions and produces motor output so we may
survive in a changing environment. I just don't see how the hierarchy as
it is presently constructed can do this.

Push back:
Then you still haven't understood how a negative feedback control system
works...

Push:
If your simply saying that brain function is hierarchical in
nature, that's a lot older than your theory.

Push back:
Not the kind of hierarchy I propose... Come on.

Push:
I have never spoken of the "five senses."

Push back:
Yes you have. ..

Push push back back:
I can't help what you choose to read into my words that I didn't say..

Push:
Sorry Bill, this has shown _not_ to be true. High frequecny sounds entering
can be low freqeuncy by the time they terminate in the primary sensory
cortex.

Push back:
High frequency sounds are not reproduced blip for blip in the nervous
system... and don't bother quoting people who look for patterns in the blips.
I think they are wrong, for reasons I needn't bore you with.

Push:
However, I am proposing that the sensations we explicitly
associate with emotions are those that arise from receptors inside the
body..

Push back:
I agree with you here _except_ please don't call them 'somatic sensors'...

Push push back back:
Loosen up. "Somatic" just means "having to do with the body."...

Push:
All reflexive actions are of course controlled

Push back:
I claim that there are no purely S-R reactions. NONE AT ALL.

Push:
I don't think a functional mapping needs to be isomorphic to a physical one.
I respectfully disagree here.

Push back:
How could one control system use any other control system's comparator?

This is what I call a conflict. It is the observed verbal pushing, pushing back and pushing back against pushing back that is evident in this interaction. I suppose you could call it a disagreement or a dialog to distinguish it from more physically violent conflicts like the ones going on in the middle east. What is most easily observed in this disagreement (as in all conflicts) is the opposing output. In the case of the dialog above, the opposing outputs are the statements made by each party in opposition to the statements made by the other. In the middle east it's the suicide bombings that are done in opposition to the settlement building and house bull dozing. What is hard to see is the controlled variable that is in contention. In the dialog above, the controlled variable is the intellectual concept in dispute. In the middle east, the controlled variable its the perception of sovereignty over a particular geographical area.

But you know that, don't you?

What I _think_ I know is that you need to do the Test, not do determine that there _is_ a conflict -- you can observe a conflict, as in the case above, by looking at the opposing outputs -- but to determine the variable that is actually in contention. But I think the conflict itself is a Test to determine the variable under control. Each party is actively producing disturbances to this variable. So an observer can get a pretty good idea of the nature of the controlled variable that is at the basis of the conflict by watching to see which outputs by either party result in compensatory outputs by the other party. The observer must develop hypotheses about what variable is under control by both parties, just as in the usual Test for the Controlled Variable, and change these hypotheses as necessary, as the disturbances (outputs) applied by the parties to the conflict do and don't lead to compensatory actions (outputs) by the other party.

You can observe what you _think_ is a
conflict, but the literary theory example shows that even when the
participants think there is a conflict, there may, in fact, be none. At
least from a PCT perspective.

I'm willing to believe that this is possible -- a fake fight, for example, looks like a conflict (not to the participants but to the observers) but isn't -- but I don't see how the literary example shows this. Maybe I didn't read the article carefully enough. Could you please explain this.

Best regards

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

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.2148)]

Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1800)

I'm willing to believe that this is possible -- a fake fight, for
example, looks like a conflict (not to the participants but to the
observers) but isn't -- but I don't see how the literary example
shows this. Maybe I didn't read the article carefully enough. Could
you please explain this.

First let me give you a simple example. You are explaining Bill's
position, but I think you are explaining Marc's position. Clearly this
would lead to opposing outputs. You would say something, and I would
oppose it. I would say something and you would oppose it. But we are
both controlling different variables. If you simply declared that you
were explaining Marc's position and not Bill's, the "conflict" would
end. Each of us was defending a different perception from what we
imagined to be disturbances. when we saw that the statements were not
disturbances, we realized that the "conflict" was a misunderstanding --
we were _not_ both trying to put the same variable into different
states. (I'll grant that one could no doubt invent an imaginary
variable that we were both trying to control, but that would require
that we both relinquish attempts to control this variable when you
explained yourself. Pretty ad hoc, if you ask me.)

In the literary example, Moretti and his critics are in conflict about
what should be called "comparative literature." But in fact, they have
very different goals and both their goals are perfectly valid.
Furthermore, each can pursue their goals without interfering with the
other's ability to achieve theirs. It's a purely "academic" conflict,
unlike the Middle East which is a real conflict in the PCT sense.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Bill Williams 10 January 2004 9:1O PM CST]

Bruce said,

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.2148)]

"... Moretti and his critics are in conflict about what should be called "comparative literature." But in fact, they have very different goals and both their goals are perfectly valid. Furthermore, each can pursue their goals without interfering with the other's ability to achieve theirs. It's a purely "academic" conflict, unlike the Middle East which is a real conflict in the PCT sense."

Maybe comparative literature is different. However, when stuff like this has brewed up in economics, the parties have fairly quickly decided that the "otherside" wasn't _really_ economics. And, then things start to happen, as recently happened at South Bend, when the existing heterodox economic doctorate program was shoved out of the way and replaced by an orthodox program. It sure looked like a conflict-- and a real conflict, in a control theory sense.

Just because there isn't blood in the street, at least every day, doesn't seem to me to indicate that "academic" conflicts are real conflicts.

puzzled

Bill Williams

[From Bill Williams 10 January 2004 9:3O PM CST]

When I just said,

Just because there isn't blood in the street, at least every day, doesn't seem to me to indicate that "academic" conflicts are real conflicts.

I, of course, meant to say that, "academic" conflicts [can and frequently are] real conflicts." I should watch my double and triple negatives!

Bill Williams

from [Marc Abrams (2004.01.10.2332)]

[From Bill Williams 10 January 2003 9:OO PM CST]

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.2148)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.10.1800)]

I'm willing to believe that this is possible -- a fake fight, for
example, looks like a conflict (not to the participants but to the
observers) but isn't -- but I don't see how the literary example shows
this. Maybe I didn't read the article carefully enough. Could you
please explain this.

I'm flattered. :slight_smile: But I think Bruce G. is right on and I'll try to explain
why. A PCT conflict only exists when the two parties want the same _exact_
perceptual variable in two different states. The fact of the matter is that
Bill and Rick _imagine_ my perceptual variable is the _exact_ same one as
Bill P's, although I think Bill P, at this point realizes it isn't. When
Bruce G. said to you Rick, that you 'think' there is a conflict, that is
what Bruce was implying. You imagined my pv and Bill's pv were the exactly
same. He also said that you could only determine that by Testing both Bill
and myself. You simply made up a story and ran with it. Let me elaborate a
little here. If Bill and I wanted to stand in the same exact spot, than
there would be a conflict. The conflict would end if either one of us moved
a few feet from each other: or would it? We don't know what another persons
perceptual variables are, so either Bill or I might be controlling for an
area that extends 1 foot or 100 miles from each other. How would you as an
observer know this? How would either party know exactly what the other
intended unless it was made clear to the other party. You wouldn't and
couldn't. Bill and I _cannot_ stand on top of one another in one spot. We
_can_ stand side by side. How close we are willing to do so is another
matter and could be, and usually is arbitrarily chosen. Is there a real
difference between 1-10 feet? maybe, how about 10 miles? You bet. So the
amount of distance Bill and I _would like_ usually has nothing to do with
what we actually _need_. That is, it's imagined. Hence Bg's remark about you
'thinking' it is a conflict.

Rick, you might still insist that Bill and I have the same pv, and in that
case there is little I can do to dissuade you from your imaginings. Now
there might be a little truth that there is some overlap, that is, Bill
might be a bit more interested in the actual physiology then he is letting
on, But I just don't see it. There are two PCT applications that I am
interested and only two at the moment. One is the input function to the PCT
model. I want to try and understand, study and research how perceptions are
constructed, _physiologically_, using the PCT control model as the
_functional_ equivalent. To the extent that Bill already feels he has done
so there might be a bit of conflict but I see nothing that should prevent us
from working together on it. I am not looking to change the model. I am
looking to define the input function. If Bill has decided that the input
function is something he is attempting to do as well, then we certainly
could be in a PCT conflict, but that is not something I believe to be true
right now. The second area of interest is in feelings/emotions, or more
accurately, the physiological basis and foundation of emotions from a
control perspective. My 'theory' of emotions will stand as a PCT application
as well. Bill might also decide to do a PCT application of emotions. We can
choose to work together, with other interested third parties or we may
pursue independent paths. Both would be applications that would need to be
validated by experiment and empirical data before being considered to be
part of the PCT model. I would hope and assume that _if_ Bill and I decided
to develop independent theories of emotion, that my application would be
given the same considerations as Bill's and have the same requirements for
validity that _any_ PCT application should have. That my friend is science.
Reality may dictate different terms.

In any event, I would hope that Bill and I could have a good working
relationship no matter what happens. If at _any_ time Bill feels that I'm
intruding in his space I would hope he would tell me about so we could see
if moving in any number of different directions and or distance might ease
the conflict. _PLEASE_ don't drop hints. Say what you need too and we can
all move on.

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.01.11.0732)]

[From Bill Williams 10 January 2004 9:3O PM CST]

When I just said,

Just because there isn't blood in the street, at least every day,
doesn't seem to me to indicate that "academic" conflicts are real
conflicts.

I, of course, meant to say that, "academic" conflicts [can and
frequently are] real conflicts." I should watch my double and triple
negatives!

I'm sure you're right. As Freud observed some of the greatest conflicts
emerge over the smallest differences. We may yet see hand-to-hand
conflict in departments of comparative literature!

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
                                                                                Andre Gide

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary."

                                                                                The Talmud

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.11.0850)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.10.2148)

First let me give you a simple example. You are explaining Bill's
position, but I think you are explaining Marc's position. Clearly this
would lead to opposing outputs. You would say something, and I would
oppose it. I would say something and you would oppose it. But we are
both controlling different variables.

Not while you are in the conflict. The mutual opposition shows that
there is a conflict, even though it's based on a misunderstanding.
Once the misunderstanding is ironed out, the conflict will, indeed,
disappear.

If you simply declared that you
were explaining Marc's position and not Bill's, the "conflict" would
end.

Yes. The conflict would end in that case.

I'll give you another example of this. I'm helping my wife move a heavy
potted plant to a new position next to the table. I think she wants it
next to the glass table. She actually wants it next to the redwood
table. So at some point while we are carrying the plant, she is trying
to move the plant one way and I'm trying to move it the other way. We
are in conflict and quickly recognize this fact because the plant is
going nowhere. Once we verbally straighten it out ("I meant next to the
redwood table, darling") the conflict instantly disappears.

  Of course, this straightening out only happens because we recognize
that there _is_ a conflict. I think this is an important point.
Recognizing that one is in a conflict is the first step to _solving_
the conflict. This is a basic tenet of the MOL therapy, I believe. When
we do the MOL we sometimes find that we have incompatible wants within
ourselves. That is, we discover an internal conflict. This is the
first step in MOL therapy: recognizing that the conflict exists. Once
you recognize the conflict (as we did in the case of carrying the
plant) it's often very easy to get to the solution to it.

This is why I find it puzzling that you (and Marc, apparently) are
trying to make believe that there is no conflict between Marc and Bill.
  There is obviously a conflict and that conflict has occasionally
escalated into very intense verbal nastiness. But whether the conflict
gets nasty or remains reasonably cordial (as it seems to be doing for
the nonce), it is still a conflict. And it won't be solved by trying to
make believe that it doesn't exist. The solution may be to agree of
disagree. But at least the parties to the conflict will know there is
disagreement (conflict) and what the disagreement _is_.

I suggest that Marc and Bill try to make the basis of their conflict
clear to each other so there is some hope of resolving it. Of course,
if part of the conflict is over whether there even _is_ a conflict
then there is probably no hope.

Best regards

Rick

···

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