# Method of levels

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938>\
**Category:** CSG1995\
**Created:** [February 14, 1995, 6:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938 "1995-02-14T18:37:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 1995, 6:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/1 "1995-02-14T18:37:13Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (950214.1040)]

Lars Christian Smith (950214 12:40 CET) --

> Are you conscious of moving between levels?

Yes. There are two aspects to this process. The first aspect of moving  
between levels is simply becoming aware of something you are doing as  
"something YOU are doing"; one of many possible things you COULD be doing.  
The second is realizing "why" you are doing it; what higher level goal is  
served by doing it. The second part is generally much harder than the first,  
though the first is necessary if the second is to occur.

As I think I've said before, there is nothing mysterious about this process  
of "going up a level". It's actually pretty easy to do for simple behaviors.  
For example, when you do a tracking task your consciousness is typically  
looking at things from the point of view of the control system that is  
keeping the cursor on the target. This is what you "care" about; achieving  
the goal of keeping the cursor on target. Going up a level would just involve  
noticing that "keeping the cursor on the target" is one of many possible  
things you could be doing; you could be keeping the cursor at a different  
goal position (left of target, right of target, oscillating around target) or  
you could be doing something other than tracking entirely (like shopping).  
All you have done is become conscious of the operation of a control system IN  
YOU -- and you have become conscious of this control system from a point of  
view that is NOT that of the control system itself.

The next step in going up a level would be to figure out WHY you have a  
control system operating with the goal of keeping the cursor on the target.  
PCT suggests this is because you have a higher level control system that is  
achieving its goal by having the "tracking" control system keep a cursor on  
target. Perhaps this higher level control system is controlling for getting  
credit for a psychology experiment so that you pass the intro to psychology  
course.

One thing that should be clear now is that "going up a level" is NOT what  
most people seem to think of when they talk about "consciousness raising".  
"Going up a level" just means that you are seeing your own controlling from a  
DIFFERENT (not a more "enlightened") perspective; a perspective that  
differs from that of the system doing the controlling. In the method of  
levels, "higher" really just means "different".

It seems to be a lot easier to move our consciousness outside of some of the  
kinds of controlling we do (like keeping a cursor on a target) than  
other kinds (like keeping religious or political variables on target). People  
control for being a "catholic" or an "athiest" in the same way that they  
control for "cursor on the target" or "cursor 1 inch to left of target". But  
most people I've met are much less willing to try to move their consciousness  
outside of their controlling of religious and political variables than they  
are to move it outside of their controlling of line position variables. In  
fact, many people get quite upset when you even suggest that they can look  
at certain kinds of controlling as controlling. The annoying implication that  
creates the disturbance, of course, is that things like "being a cathlolic"  
or "being an athiest" are just arbitrary reference settings of controlled  
perceptual variables; they are arbitrary in the sense that other settings  
would have been selected if that would have achieved the goals of higher  
order systems.

> Do you say to yourself, OK, now I am going to move from the program level to  
> the principle level, and if that doen't solve it, I am going to move to the  
> systems level?

As you can see, I haven't mentioned the names of levels in this discussion  
at all. When I try to move between levels -- move my consciousness "outside"  
of some controlling I am doing -- I find that trying to name the type of  
variable controlled just makes this process difficult or impossible. The  
method of levels is most helpful as a way to solve \_conflict\_; when you do  
this, there is really no need to identifiy the TYPE of variable controlled by  
the conflicted systems. Indeed, you are well on you way to solving a conflict  
once you recognize that you are IN one. In order to notice that you are in  
conflict you have to have done the first part of the method of levels; you  
have to have gotten "outside" of the conflicted control systems to see THAT  
these systems ARE controlling and that they are controlling for incompatible  
results.

I have a little tracking demo of conflict that can be used to illustrate how  
the method of levels can be used to eliminate internal conflict. If you are  
interested, I will describe it for you.

Best

Rick

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lars-Christian\_SMITH](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/779978/32.png) [@Lars-Christian\_SMITH](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Lars-Christian_SMITH)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 1995, 10:08am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/2 "1995-02-15T10:08:00Z")

</div>

[Lars Christian Smith (950215 1115 CET)]

Re: Method of Levels

Yes, please do describe your "tracking demo of conflict, illustrating how  
the method of levels can be used to eliminate internal conflict."

Best,  
Lars

> **···**
>
> To: Rick Marken

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_Carey](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/c4cdca/32.png) [@Tim\_Carey](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tim_Carey)\
**Post date:** [July 9, 1997, 7:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/3 "1997-07-09T19:44:41Z")

</div>

[From Tim Carey (970710.0545)]

Hi Bill,

In Stephen Covey's book "The Seven Habits ...." Covey quotes Einstein as  
saying "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level  
of thinking we were at when we created them."

It would seem that you're in good company with your Method of Levels  
concept.

Cheers,

Tim

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/a9adbd/32.png) [@\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Martin_Taylor)\
**Post date:** [September 1, 1995, 4:17pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/4 "1995-09-01T16:17:00Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 950901 12:10]

> Bill Powers (950830.1025 MDT)

> And when you say "Tell me how it feels, what you're thinking  
> right now," the person will almost certainly do so. The more you ask for  
> the more you'll get, if you ask in a neutral fact-finding way.

> ...

> The astonishing thing is that a few minutes later this person will be  
> talking from an entirely different level, the pain and despair gone and  
> the tears dried up. Instead, the person might be saying "I really  
> shouldn't let it get me down so, I feel like an idiot breaking down that  
> like, I should have better control of myself ..." and you're off into a  
> rich new subject that is highly pertinent. "You ought to be in better  
> control of yourself? How?" Yet you never did a thing to comfort, cheer  
> up, or help the person. All you did, in a mildly friendly and interested  
> manner, was get the person looking at the current thoughts and actions,  
> which can't be done without being in a new viewpoint. The only thing  
> that really mattered was the shift in viewpoint.

I think this is a most important paragraph...from a very selfish point of  
view. Without knowing it, I find that this is what I often do to myself,  
not previously having realized what was happening. Very often if I am  
distressed and hopeless, and want to talk to someone about it, I imagine  
what I would say, and exactly the kind of questions Bill proposes are what  
come to mind as ones the "other" might ask. In answering them, or even in  
contemplating answers to them, I find that the reasons for distress become  
(usually) small and irrelevant. The problem doesn't go away, but it becomes  
manageable, and if I still need to talk to someone, it is not about the  
distress, but about mechanisms for solving what real problems might have  
initially led to the feelings.

Bill's hypothetical (?) quote rings absolutely true: "I really shouldn't let  
it get me down so, I feel like an idiot breaking down that like, I should  
have better control of myself ..."

Once again, thank you, Bill. And a belated Happy Birthday.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2003, 9:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/5 "2003-10-21T21:26:34Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2003.10.21.1454 MDT)]

While conducting a session with the MOL online, I had a sudden revelation  
about how to get PCT across. This came about after I had read C's (short  
for "my correspondent's") entire post and was puzzling about how to get C  
to go up a level, when all C could say was that nothing was happening and  
that further delving might be counterproductive. How could I explain what  
going up a level was like, so C could try it and see how the method works?

Well, I hope you guys out there are feeling smarter than I am right now.  
Nothing is happening? Further delving counterproductive? How much clearer  
does an up-a-level remark have to be before the poor guide gets it? People  
can't NOT go up a level. But that doesn't mean they, or any observer,  
automatically will recognize the phenomenon when it happens.

That thought led very quickly to the realization of how we have to deal  
with people who don't get, or don't want to get, PCT. Arguing about the  
merits. thinking up crystal-clear examples, putting on irrefutable  
demonstrations, writing articles in prestigious journals -- all those are  
very nice and useful things to do, but they won't help anyone understand or  
adopt PCT if he or she has a reason not to do so. And conversely,if a  
person has no reason NOT to understand PCT, I think we can all attest that  
understanding will be quick and easy, even if not perfect right away. PCT  
just isn't that hard to grasp.

I'm sure most of you see already where I'm headed. If you're having a  
problem getting someone to see how PCT works, you have to go immediately  
into the "guide" mode of MOL. This means you don't urge conclusions on  
anyone, you don't persuade or teach or argue or give advice. All you do is  
find out what the person thinks about PCT, and then look for remarks that  
will get to the next level of thinking, and so on until the person realizes  
the nature of whatever problem he's having with PCT. The problem will then  
go away.

I don't have this quite worked out yet, because obviously there has to be  
some teaching going on before the subject of PCT would even come up. I  
suppose we're still in the position of fishermen, who can put out bait but  
can't make the fish bite. The approach I'm trying to describe here would  
apply once you get into a friendly discussion of PCT with someone who  
begins raising objections. It's obviously a person-to-person approach -- it  
would be hard to do in a lecture hall, although maybe not impossible. It  
surely can't be done by writing articles for journals, where the loop may  
not be closed for years. Perhaps article-writing belongs in the category of  
putting out bait.

Interesting what comes out when you start thinking along these lines. I  
realize that I very much would like for lots of people to understand and  
approve of PCT. It's just that I don't usually waste time wishing for nice  
things that I doubt will happen.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/8dc957/32.png) [@Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Philip_Runkel)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 4:05am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/6 "2003-10-22T04:05:30Z")

</div>

This is from Phil Runkel om Tuesday 21 Oct 03 at 21:00 PST.

> **···**
>
> On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 02:26 PM, Bill Powers wrote:
> 
> > While conducting a session with the MOL online, I had a sudden  
> > revelation ... If you're having a problem getting someone to see how  
> > PCT works, you have to go immediately into the "guide" mode of MOL.
> 
> Now you're talking. --Phil R.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ray\_Merry\_Bennett](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/73ab20/32.png) [@Ray\_Merry\_Bennett](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Ray_Merry_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 4:32am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/7 "2003-10-22T04:32:52Z")

</div>

> [From Ray Bennett (2003.10.22.1400 EST Australia)]

I was wanting to contact Dag with regard to purchasing/ or getting a copy of  
the video that has Tim and Bill using MOL. Are there any other tapes explaining  
MOL?  
Regards,  
Ray

---

<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:** [October 22, 2003, 2:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/8 "2003-10-22T14:31:35Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.10.22.1015 EDT)]

\<Bill Powers (2003.10.21.1454 MDT\>

\<While conducting a session with the MOL online, I had a sudden revelation about how to get PCT across.\>

Bill, I just soar when I see you pour out your ideas like this from you fertile mind about HPCT in our everyday lives. Somehow, it edifies me when the guru is humble enough to admit some sudden revelation about something so dear to his heart and studied for so long. I guess my obvious inability to totally understand HPCT or completely grasp its implications to human nature is assuaged and my error level is reduced.

\<This came about after I had read C’s (short for “my correspondent’s”) entire post and was puzzling about how to get C to go up a level, when all C could say was that nothing was happening and that further delving might be counterproductive. How could I explain what going up a level was like, so C could try it and see how the method works?

Well, I hope you guys out there are feeling smarter than I am right now.  
Nothing is happening? Further delving counterproductive? How much clearer does an up-a-level remark have to be before the poor guide gets it? People can’t NOT go up a level. But that doesn’t mean they, or any observer, automatically will recognize the phenomenon when it happens.\>

MOL has been the most important and useful aspect of HPCT for me personally. I can’t thank you enough for expounding it. And, I totally agree that real time, people are always going up the entire hierarchy all the time. It is part of controlling perceptions; of behaving; of living.

But as surely as I am convinced we are always controlling all levels of our perceptual hierarchy, I too believe this is not always a conscious phenomena.

One example is to ask my “students” (usually clients) why they chose the specific chair or seat they are sitting in. The same would be true at the CSG Conference sessions. I have watched and observed this process of selecting a seat with some interest; and often amusement. I even thought about conducting a Conference session about this “behavior” but I chose not to (again for reasons not completely clear at the time). Now, I wish I had.

\<That thought led very quickly to the realization of how we have to deal  
with people who don’t get, or don’t want to get, PCT. Arguing about the  
merits. thinking up crystal-clear examples, putting on irrefutable  
demonstrations, writing articles in prestigious journals – all those are  
very nice and useful things to do, but they won’t help anyone understand or adopt PCT if he or she has a reason not to do so.\>

I have observed the same thing regarding theology.

\<And conversely, if a person has no reason NOT to understand PCT, I think we can all attest that understanding will be quick and easy, even if not perfect right away. PCT just isn’t that hard to grasp.\>

Ditto, theology. Although, in both PCT and theology, they can get complicated and difficult to grasp in their details.

\<I’m sure most of you see already where I’m headed. If you’re having a  
problem getting someone to see how PCT works, you have to go immediately into the “guide” mode of MOL. This means you don’t urge conclusions on anyone, you don’t persuade or teach or argue or give advice. All you do is find out what the person thinks about PCT, and then look for remarks that will get to the next level of thinking, and so on until the person realizes the nature of whatever problem he’s having with PCT. The problem will then go away.\>

Again, I have found this to be the most valuable insight from MOL, whether its PCT, theology or what a son or anyone for that matter understands about life.

\<I don’t have this quite worked out yet, because obviously there has to be some teaching going on before the subject of PCT would even come up. I suppose we’re still in the position of fishermen, who can put out bait but can’t make the fish bite.\>

I can hardly believe you used that fishermen analogy. 🕶 I have tried MOL both with and without a pre-explanation of the method. My results have not be conclusive as to its necessity or even benefit.

\<The approach I’m trying to describe here would apply once you get into a friendly discussion of PCT with someone who begins raising objections. It’s obviously a person-to-person approach – it  
would be hard to do in a lecture hall, although maybe not impossible. It  
surely can’t be done by writing articles for journals, where the loop may  
not be closed for years. Perhaps article-writing belongs in the category of putting out bait.\>

When I counsel folks in conflict and pain, it seems that a caring and listening ear sets the stage for using MOL. It does not seem that the client/patient needs to know anything about PCT or MOL to benefit from the interaction, or to even view me as a counselor. A friend you can trust seems adequate for roles. But, the counselor must understand PCT and MOL to use it in a beneficial way. And, the counselor’s facilitative role is a skill with both theory and application elements which can affect the results for the client/patient/friend/human.

\<Interesting what comes out when you start thinking along these lines. I  
realize that I very much would like for lots of people to understand and  
approve of PCT. It’s just that I don’t usually waste time wishing for nice  
things that I doubt will happen.

Best,

Bill P.\>

It seems to me that PCT/HPCT knowledge is something in the environment. Whether someone will find it purposeful in their lives is unknown, and probably unknowable, in advance.

My take is when it, including the knowledge of MOL as an interactive facilitative technique to help people solve their own conflicts, works to reduce someone’s error level, they often become inquisitive about what went on and why it was a bit unusual. That is when the fish bites on HPCT. At least I can attest that that is how it seems to have caught me. 8-))

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/9 "2003-10-22T17:48:47Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2003.10.22.1345)]

> Kenny Kitzke (2003.10.22.1015 EDT)--

> > Bill Powers (2003.10.21.1454 MDT) --

> > That thought led very quickly to the realization of how we have to deal  
> > with people who don't get, or don't want to get, PCT. Arguing about the  
> > merits. thinking up crystal-clear examples, putting on irrefutable  
> > demonstrations, writing articles in prestigious journals -- all those are  
> > very nice and useful things to do, but they won't help anyone understand or  
> > adopt PCT if he or she has a reason not to do so.\>

> I have observed the same thing regarding theology.

> > And conversely, if a person has no reason NOT to understand PCT, I think we  
> > can all attest that understanding will be quick and easy, even if not perfect  
> > right away. PCT just isn't that hard to grasp.\>

> Ditto, theology. Although, in both PCT and theology, they can get  
> complicated and difficult to grasp in their details.

I think Kenny makes a good point here. It seems to me that there is more to  
understanding and accepting PCT (or theology) than just "going up a level". I  
could go up level after level and never see any reason to understand or accept  
theology -- at least, not at the level at which theologians would agree that I  
understand and accept theology.

For me, the crystal-clear examples, the irrefutable demonstrations and the  
articles in prestigious journals were what helped me understand and accept PCT  
(and, for that matter, keep me from fully "understanding" and accepting  
theology). There was a conflict for me between my understanding of PCT and my  
understanding of conventional psychology. And this conflict was difficult,  
indeed. But as I recall, I eventually resolved this conflict by learning - in  
terms of models and observations -- exactly why the conventional understanding is  
wrong -- flat out wrong. I don't think the resolution of the conflict was a matter  
of going up a level -- at least not in my case. I think it was a matter of just  
seeing clearly what was actually going on (with respect to behavior) based on the  
scientific evidence (models and observations) and giving up control of one side of  
the conflict; I no longer control for being a conventional psychologist.

There may have been some going up levels once I realized what my understanding and  
acceptance of PCT meant with respect to what I was doing as a professor of  
psychology. But I just don't believe that the problem of lack of understanding and  
acceptance of PCT is going to be solved by doing MOL sessions with doubters. But  
I'm certainly willing to try a few and see what happens.

Best regards

Rick

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.  
> Senior Behavioral Scientist  
> The RAND Corporation  
> PO Box 2138  
> 1700 Main Street  
> Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138  
> Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971  
> Fax: 310-451-7018  
> E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/10 "2003-10-22T22:46:20Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2003.10.22.1633 MDT)]

Ray Bennett (2003.10.22.1400 EST Australia) --

> I was wanting to contact Dag with regard to purchasing/ or getting a copy of  
> the video that has Tim and Bill using MOL. Are there any other tapes  
> explaining MOL?

Dag will reply about that tape. There's a writeup in \_Making sense of  
behavior\_, but no more tapes that I know of. Tim Carey is making intensive  
(and exclusive) use of MOL in his counseling work, and is teaching it to  
others.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 10:49pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/11 "2003-10-22T22:49:20Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2003.10.22.1647 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2003.10.22.1015 EDT) --

Thanks for the supportive remarks, Kenny. I'm curious -- do you consider  
that PCT and theology both depend on faith and belief, so that the  
conclusions you would draw from each have the same relationship to  
observation and reason?

Best,

Bill P.

---

<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:** [October 23, 2003, 12:51am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/12 "2003-10-23T00:51:21Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.10.22.2036 EDT)]

\<Bill Powers (2003.10.22.1647 MDT)\>

\<I’m curious – do you consider that PCT and theology both depend on faith and belief, so that the conclusions you would draw from each have the same relationship to observation and reason?\>

No, I consider PCT to be a science issue based upon observable evidence and human reasoning. But, I think there are elements of HPCT which is only proposed based on speculative beliefs or inferences.

I consider theology to be far more based on faith by things not observable directly but none-the-less very real–like thoughts or beliefs.

I would be surprised if you thought I considered PCT and theology to be equivalents in all respects. However, they are both perceptions, aren’t they? I guess there is a difference in how the references come to be?

Best wishes,

Kenny

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![David\_Goldstein1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/58f4c7/32.png) [@David\_Goldstein1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/David_Goldstein1)\
**Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 10:48am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/13 "2003-10-23T10:48:56Z")

</div>

[From David Goldstein (2003.10.23.0636 EDT)]  
[From Bill Powers (2003.10.21.1454 MDT)]

Bill and Listmates,  
Great post!  
I no longer try to convince people about PCT at the residential center  
where I work.  
During our treatment team discussions of cases, for example, I simply  
apply PCT to the case involved. We usually have the resident whose case  
is being reviewed present at the treatment team meetings. If as a result  
of the approach I take in this group format, some new understandings and  
coping strategies emerge, then this is the best advertisement for the  
PCT approach.  
I notice that some staff have started to imitate the approach I am  
taking with the residents. It is a different way of interacting with  
them then most of the staff use. The emphasis is on listening and not  
talking.  
Best regards,  
David  
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

> **···**
>
> -----Original Message-----  
> From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)  
> [[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu](mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu)] On Behalf Of Bill Powers  
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 5:27 PM  
> To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu  
> Subject: Method of levels
> 
> While conducting a session with the MOL online, I had a sudden  
> revelation about how to get PCT across. This came about after I had read  
> C's (short for "my correspondent's") entire post and was puzzling about  
> how to get C to go up a level, when all C could say was that nothing was  
> happening and that further delving might be counterproductive. How could  
> I explain what going up a level was like, so C could try it and see how  
> the method works?
> 
> Well, I hope you guys out there are feeling smarter than I am right now.  
> Nothing is happening? Further delving counterproductive? How much  
> clearer does an up-a-level remark have to be before the poor guide gets  
> it? People can't NOT go up a level. But that doesn't mean they, or any  
> observer, automatically will recognize the phenomenon when it happens.
> 
> That thought led very quickly to the realization of how we have to deal  
> with people who don't get, or don't want to get, PCT. Arguing about the  
> merits. thinking up crystal-clear examples, putting on irrefutable  
> demonstrations, writing articles in prestigious journals -- all those  
> are very nice and useful things to do, but they won't help anyone  
> understand or adopt PCT if he or she has a reason not to do so. And  
> conversely,if a person has no reason NOT to understand PCT, I think we  
> can all attest that understanding will be quick and easy, even if not  
> perfect right away. PCT just isn't that hard to grasp.
> 
> I'm sure most of you see already where I'm headed. If you're having a  
> problem getting someone to see how PCT works, you have to go immediately  
> into the "guide" mode of MOL. This means you don't urge conclusions on  
> anyone, you don't persuade or teach or argue or give advice. All you do  
> is find out what the person thinks about PCT, and then look for remarks  
> that will get to the next level of thinking, and so on until the person  
> realizes the nature of whatever problem he's having with PCT. The  
> problem will then go away.
> 
> I don't have this quite worked out yet, because obviously there has to  
> be some teaching going on before the subject of PCT would even come up.  
> I suppose we're still in the position of fishermen, who can put out bait  
> but can't make the fish bite. The approach I'm trying to describe here  
> would apply once you get into a friendly discussion of PCT with someone  
> who begins raising objections. It's obviously a person-to-person  
> approach -- it would be hard to do in a lecture hall, although maybe not  
> impossible. It surely can't be done by writing articles for journals,  
> where the loop may not be closed for years. Perhaps article-writing  
> belongs in the category of putting out bait.
> 
> Interesting what comes out when you start thinking along these lines. I  
> realize that I very much would like for lots of people to understand and  
> approve of PCT. It's just that I don't usually waste time wishing for  
> nice things that I doubt will happen.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)\
**Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 12:59pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/14 "2003-10-23T12:59:58Z")

</div>

[From bill Powers (2003.10.23.0657 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2003.10.22.2036 EDT)--

> I consider theology to be far more based on faith by things not observable  
> directly but none-the-less very real--like thoughts or beliefs.

Now that does surprise me -- that you say thoughts and beliefs aren't  
directly observable. Can't you observe your thoughts and beliefs? If not,  
how do you know what you're thinking, or what you believe?

Best,

Bill P.

---

<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:** [October 23, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/15 "2003-10-23T16:40:37Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.10.23.1226 EDT)]

\<David Goldstein (2003.10.23.0636 EDT)\>

Hi, David. Missed you at the Conference in LA. Dick and I did get to play tennis one day and thought of you. My wife backed out of coming.

I am of like mind. In my management and leadership consulting I have largely given up on teaching PCT. I do try to use it and produce better results because of my understanding. There is enough around in my consulting and education offerings where if there is interest in why my approach is different and results better, the clients can ask and avail themselves of the “secret.” But, even with superior results, clients seem more focused on the results (and the celebrations) rather than the “how’s.” So my PCT/HPCT oriented information produces little demand.

The only interest has been from associates or peers and that is quite casual.

This relates to my last comment above. But, this interest is in copying observed techniques rather than learning why the techique works better. Is this your experience too?

Yep, especially re MOL. This is similar to my experience which I described in a post. Do you have to know how MOL works, or that it is based on PCT, to have it be successful? Does not seem so. When my car won’t start, I am happy when someone fixes the problem. I only rarely want to know how they fixed it. Seems to be similar with counseling those in pain and conflict.

---

<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:** [October 23, 2003, 5:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/16 "2003-10-23T17:14:37Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.10.23.1242 EDT)]

\<bill Powers (2003.10.23.0657 MDT)\>

> I consider theology to be far more based on faith by things not observable  
> directly but none-the-less very real–like thoughts or beliefs.

\<Now that does surprise me – that you say thoughts and beliefs aren’t  
directly observable. Can’t you observe your thoughts and beliefs? If not,  
how do you know what you’re thinking, or what you believe?\>

I was intending to express that others are not able to observe my thoughts or beliefs regarding theology. But, if I conduct the rubber band experiment, others can observe the phenomena of controlling perceptions. With the test, you may even be able to confirm the “knot on the dot” controlled variable.

I do believe I can observe (be aware of) my own thoughts and beliefs. But, part of my other post was suggesting that I am not always conscious of various high level reference perceptions when I act. I think you expressed this same point.

So, when I enter a classroom, I may avoid sitting near the front for any number of high level reference perceptions (fear of being called on, found by the instructor to be sleeping or doodling, etc.). But, they do not come to mind when I sit in the back though they may have helped set my reference for finding a seat toward the back.

In something like theology, say that Jesus was the Son of the God of the Bible, I can dearly hold this belief. Yet, if you ask, “Kenny, why do you believe that?”, I may have a hard time articulating the reason. This would not mean I could not, or have not at one time formed that reference based on available or anecdotal evidence, sound mental reasoning or inference or imagination (or even some mysterious “vision”) and probably a whole bunch of things like that.

I am curious whether you see faith having a role in science? For example, you may have faith in a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow at a certain time. This would be based on observed evidence and mathematical models, etc. But, surely, you can think of many plausible and observable phenomena that could result in no sunrise at that time tomorrow. It would be a big surprise I suppose. So, there seems to be an element of faith involved in predicting outcomes based upon scientific knowledge.

Are you aware of the greatest mistake Einstein admitted making? His early work on relativity was fudged to conform to the scientific belief of the time that the universe was static, without a beginning. It must have been quite an experience as Einstein saw with his own eyes what Hubble had discovered at Mt. Wilson (and his own theoretical equations eventually proved): that the universe was expanding and by reasoning, must have been created! Was his faith in the science of the day shaken?

---

<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:** [October 23, 2003, 5:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/17 "2003-10-23T17:20:11Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.10.23 13:20 EDT)] (Back to EST Saturday  
midnight)

Bill Powers (2003.10.21.1454 MDT)–

These thoughts emerge for me from this interesting discussion:

MOL as a help to learning PCT becomes appropriate when the process of  
learning PCT results in conflict.

Kenny Kitzke (2003.10.22.1015 EDT)–

> When I counsel folks in  
> conflict and pain  
> … these folks are already in  
> conflict. But the conflict is presumably not due to learning PCT!  
> Different subject matter. Nor is learning PCT relevant to their resolving  
> their conflicts through MOL.

As we know, MOL can also disclose conflicts that we were not aware of.  
Seems like to get started you could ask what’s behind almost anything  
they say or do – like your example, “Why did you sit in that  
chair?”

In all cases, it seems that genuinely listening is a key.

> a caring and listening  
> ear

Thanks,

```
    /Bruce

```

Nevin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)\
**Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/18 "2003-10-23T21:36:01Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2003.10.23.1507 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2003.10.23.1242 EDT)--

> I do believe I can observe (be aware of) my own thoughts and  
> beliefs. But, part of my other post was suggesting that I am not always  
> conscious of various high level reference perceptions when I act. I think  
> you expressed this same point.

Agreed, and I like your examples.

> In something like theology, say that Jesus was the Son of the God of the  
> Bible, I can dearly hold this belief. Yet, if you ask, "Kenny, why do you  
> believe that?", I may have a hard time articulating the reason. This  
> would not mean I could not, or have not at one time formed that reference  
> based on available or anecdotal evidence, sound mental reasoning or  
> inference or imagination (or even some mysterious "vision") and probably a  
> whole bunch of things like that.

I think belief itself is an important subject. What does it mean to believe  
something? I believe, for instance, that the Earth is round. When I look at  
distant things, I can just \_see\_ the roundness, it's obvious. But I know  
perfectly well that 1000 years ago I would have believed that the world is  
flat, and when I looked at distant object I would have just \_seen\_ the  
flatness, and somewhere out in the distant mists, the edge. Belief makes  
possibilities into truths, I think.

When I look at people's behavior, I see control systems controlling things,  
even though I know I can't really see that. But I believe it, and that adds  
something to what I see. I can imagine the perceptual signals and reference  
signals and output functions and so on -- funny thing, they look something  
like diagrams. However, I do try to stay aware of this imagination  
component which is part of what I experience as belief. Every now and then  
I try to return to basic principles and ask why I should go on believing in  
PCT, even imagining what it would be like to stop believing in it. And I  
also guard against wanting to believe things -- that's death for a  
scientist. There are a lot of dead scientists walking around, however.

I guess that when I introspect, I don't really "see" a belief.I just feel  
it as a kind of affirmation of an idea, like a little voice saying :"yeah,  
right on, that's it, that's right." Only -- the feeling without the voice.

I don't think that belief and truth have much to do with each other, by the  
way.

> Are you aware of the greatest mistake Einstein admitted making? His early  
> work on relativity was fudged to conform to the scientific belief of the  
> time that the universe was static, without a beginning. It must have been  
> quite an experience as Einstein saw with his own eyes what Hubble had  
> discovered at Mt. Wilson (and his own theoretical equations eventually  
> proved): that the universe was expanding and by reasoning, must have been  
> created! Was his faith in the science of the day shaken?

His fudge factor, if we're talking about the same thing, was his  
"cosmological constant," a repulsive force that grew larger as the universe  
expanded. He had to put it in to make observations fit the theory. Now,  
however, it seems that the cosmological constant is back again. New data.

However, as you say it all still adds up to an instant of creation, or if  
you insist, Creation. My own theory is that this instant was just the  
formation of a giant black hole in the next universe up, so all the matter  
in it showed up as a point in a new universe that expanded at a fantastic  
rate to form the one we're in. Maybe God was created in that instant, too,  
by the hyperGod in the parent universe. Maybe our universe will end with  
all its matter coalescing into another giant black hole, which will fall  
through into the next universe, and the next God, and the next Kenny and  
Bill arguing about physics and theology, waving our tentacles.

I used to write science fiction, you know. Long ago.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/8dc957/32.png) [@Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Philip_Runkel)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 12:29am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/19 "2003-10-24T00:29:38Z")

</div>

This is Phil Runkel replying to Bill P's of 2003.10.23.1507 MDT  
concerning hyperuniverses.

Also, it's turtles all the way down.

---

<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:** [October 24, 2003, 12:41am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938/20 "2003-10-24T00:41:57Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.10.23.2010EDT)]

\<Bruce Nevin (2003.10.23 13:20 EDT)\>

\<In all cases, it seems that genuinely listening is a key.

> a caring and listening ear

Thanks,

```
    /Bruce Nevin>

```

You are most welcome. One of the key aspects about MOL is that the therapist/facilitator does not have to know solutions and provide them to the patient to solve the patient’s conflict. This is upside down for most counseling and therapy. If, for example, we have a marriage problem/conflict, we expect the therapist to be an expert on every aspect of successful and happy marriage relationships so they can give astute advice on solving the problem.

But, beyond the idea of not “telling” the patient what the solution is, MOL seems to work best when the facilitator shows genuine interest and empathy for the patient. It seems to relax the patient and encourages them to reach deep inside their thoughts and spirit to express what is coming to awareness. There is no fear that what they reveal, or even they themselves, will be criticized by the “expert” and made to feel guilty or stupid.

So, if the MOL facilitator only asks gentle questions, without being judgmental or prescriptive, it also seems to help the patient open up, be truthful and candid. All the more likely they will go up a level to see their behavior and conflict from a different and more enlightened perspective where they can deal with the conflict successfully.

My guess is that if a MOL session produces a resolution to a long-standing conflict, one that perhaps the patient has submitted to many therapists/counselors without achieving a satisfactory resolution, they could be moved to say, “Boy this was marvelous, how did this happen when all the other attempts failed.” Now, the fish is probably ready to swallow/learn the MOL and PCT methods that support this novel MOL approach.

BTW, my most recent MOL attempts have been with a fatherless 14-year old boy whom I mentor. But, I only get to see him once a week for a few hours and twice now, he has behaved in ways where the social services have placed him in ever more restrictive facilities. The one he is in now lets him make only one five minute phone call a week.

They won’t give him my phone number and have stalled and stalled about setting up a visit for me using red tape excuses. Am I a certified psychologist? Hell no. So, what good could a friend who wants to listen to Mike without threats or rules possibly do?

Their professional service approach seems to be lay down the law with punishment clearly identified so the kid will give up his aberrant, rebelious ways. Of course, they cannot understand that their approach may only serve to encourage more conflict, despair and hate in Mike toward them and life, until there will be no hope and no reason to stay alive. It breaks my heart. I feel so useless. I wish I had the kind of experience and coaching that perhaps a Tim Carey could provide me so I could be more effective.

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/method-of-levels/6938.md?page=2)