MoL and peace work

[bnhpct]

Gah! I’m having the damnedest time successfully sending this to the list. This time, even though I’m now in a place protected from interruptions and distractions I’m not going to bother reformatting it as a new message, I’ll just let it be a forwarded message.

Reference it with this morning’s date tag:

​

[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-14_08:09:40 ET]

···

​​

[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-14_08:09:40 ET]

Rick Marken Jul 13, 2018, 8:33 PM –

You forgot to send this to CSGNet. That is, if you intended to send it there. I think it would be good to send it to CSGNet.

Thanks for catching that, Rick. So now, even more belatedly …

Bruce Nevin 2018-07-13_16:58:27 ET (just to Rick) –

So you are just send this to me?Â

​BN: Really, Rick? You’re going to dismiss this thread by redefining conflict so that only intractable conflicts are real conflicts?​ So this means that MOL is only successful with conflicts that aren’t real conflicts?

 RM: I shouldn’t have used the term “real” Of course, all conflicts are real. It’s just that little everyday conflicts are solved really quickly because the goals involved are much more easily revised for some reason. For example, I often get in conflicts where I want to do two things at once that require that I be in two different places at the same time. For example, I want to carry the dishes to the kitchen and, at the same time, put the napkins away in the dining room hutch. I’m frozen in one place for a moment (my location is the variable in conflict) but I quickly become aware of the problem and realize that the goals don’t have to be achieved simultaneously; so a higher level system flips a coin and I put the napkins away and then the dishes.Â

Â

BN: Note that I have never said that MOL resolves every conflict in this way. Maybe the parent in your case wants IMax or 3D or surround sound experiences that are not available at home. Sometimes you have to decide what’s more important. I only said that this is one way in which I have observed conflicts being resolved in myself and in others, and more obviously interpersonal conflicts (which is where this thread began).Â

RM: I don’t doubt that conflicts can be resolved by finding alternate means to control higher level variables. But I’m trying to emphasize that this actually involves a change in the goal(s) that are creating the conflict.Â

​BN: Again, I deny your redefinition of conflict. There are real conflicts that get resolved. Most conflicts are actually transient and scarcely noticed. For their duration, they are real conflicts. Do I have to search and find where Bill talked about this very thing before you will accept it?​

 RM: As you can see from what I said above, I’m well aware of the factt hat conflicts can be transient. One example was Bill’s sudden application of torque to Dag’s steering wheel. During the brief time that this force was applied there was a conflict over teh position of the wheel between Dag and Bill. The conflict went away as soon as Bill let go of the wheel.Â

​BN: This, again, is not what I just said. I did not say that person A stopped controlling goal A or that person B stopped controlling goal C. I said that one of them started controlling their higher-level goal in a way that did not require them to control variable C. Person A noticed that variable D could be controlled as part of the environmental feedback function for controlling variable A at the higher level, and as soon as she started controlling D as means of controlling A, the conflict disappeared. After that change, person A was controlling perception A (by means of D) with no conflict and person B was controlling perception B (by means of C) with no conflict. Can I say it any more plainly, clearly, and explicitly than that? This is illustrated by the example of two people in conflict over the car key.

RM: Too many letters for me;-) And you really have to stop with this environmental feedback function crap; it has nothing at all to do with conflict. But the only solution to the car location (or key location) conflict is for one (or both) parties to change their goal for using that same car (or those same keys)Â as the means of achieving their higher level goals.Â

Â

BN: As above, are you saying that by definition there are no alternative means of controlling one of the higher-level variables?

RM: No.Â

Â

​BN: It would be nice if C.a and C.b were clear and unambiguous and incapable of being misinterpreted. In fact, posts here use words that are ambiguous in ways that are not always clear​, and readers of these posts are sometime too little concerned to inquire whether what they think was said was in fact what was intended.Â

Â

​BN: No, I agree, that’s highly unlikely. What I just wrote suggests an alternative.​

RM: I do think it’s important to try to be as clear as possible but I don’t think it’s possible to be perfectly clear. And even if it were, I don’t see how this would solve the conflict. Unless you think that everyone one CSGNet has the exact same understanding of PCT and that all the conflict is just a result of verbal misunderstandings. As I said before, I don’t believe this because I had no such conflicts with Bill (nor him with me). We sometimes disagreed but we always ended up reaching agreement, usually because I saw that he was right but sometimes (I think once) because he saw I was right.Â

Â

​BN: Yes, this reduces the ambiguity, but the description and interpretation of even these results has sometimes been a matter of dispute.

RM: Of course. But, again, it worked for Bill and me so I think most of these disputes are usually just because what the data and demonstrations show conflicts with people’s agendas. Â

Â

BN: Hear, hear! ​Here’s one essential ground rule: ​"Seek first to understand, and then to be understood."​

 RM: Everyone understanding in the context of their own agendas (references for the principles and system concepts they held dear prior to coming top PCT. I think that when, in arguments, people say “you just refuse to understand me” what they are really saying is "you just refuse to see that I’m right. The best people can do is try to understand each other and be understood in the context of their own prejudices. It’s silly to tell people to seek to understand and then to be understood. What people have to learn is the best techniques we know of to communicate and gain understanding. And I believe those are the techniques of scientific interaction. This kind of interaction is very likely to be conflictive, especially when people are controlling for high gain for understandings that conflict with the ones being demonstrated. And that’s what we’ve got on CSGNet. It has always been thus. Perhaps you’ve noticed that most of the conflict on CSGNet, since its inception, has been Bill, Tom B. and myself versus everyone else. That’s because everyone else had agendas that conflicted with PCT in one way or another. There is nothing that can be done about this except wait for a few generations of the people who hold these agendas to pass away.Â

BN: The form of your responses is often “This is what you said but that’s wrong and this is what is correct.”

RM: I think you are thinking of Martin, not me. Martin does this to me all the time. I don’t believe I have ever said such a thing. I only reply to my understanding of what a person said. If I misunderstood I assume that the person will set me straight.Â

Â

BN: I invite you to consider this alternative form of responding:Â Paraphrase what you read, using your preferred words, and add “This is what I think you’re saying. Is that what you mean?”

 RM: I have done this. I think it’s a waste of time. Normal conversation worked between Bill and me, it works with many other people with whom I communicate about PCT (Henry Yin, Tim Carey). The only people I have this problem are people on CSGNet who have (and have always had) agendas that conflict with certain aspects of PCT. They fought with Bill and me when he was here and they are redoubling their efforts on me now that it’s just me. This will not be solved with “better understanding” of what we say to each other. It will happen when people abandon their goals (agendas) that are preventing them from doing PCT correctly.

BestÂ

Rick

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 3:19 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

RM: If I’m understanding you correctly, what you describe is a situation where the conflict was not a real conflict but, rather, a failure of control due to lack of knowledge. Maybe if you describe what the conflict was and how it was solved by employing a new lower level means I would understand it better.Â

RM: I think what you are proposing is that the conflict that is preventing both higher level goals from being achieved can be solved by finding new means of achieving these goals. My point is that in a real conflict there is no way to use alternative means (like driving a car instead of walking or using a beaming system a la Star Trek) to resolve the conflict, in the sense of allowing achievement of the higher level goals that are creating the conflict.

RM: If the solution to the conflict is controlling either A or B then there was a change in goals, not the means used to achieve them.

RM: The conflict exists because you want both A and B but there is no means of achieving both simultaneously.

RM: The only way I can see to resolve this conflict is for those controlling for A to stop controlling for A or to start controlling for B or for those controlling for B to stop controlling for B or to start controlling for A. If A is my perception of PCT and B is someone else’s perception of PCT then it looks to me like the only way to actually stop conflicts on CSGNet is for everyone to start controlling for my version of PCT or for everyone (including me) to start controlling for someone else’s version of PCT. And I just don’t see that happening.Â

RM: I think conflict like what we see on CSGNet is just a natural part of scientific discussion. The ideal way to resolve such conflicts is through empirical test of clearly formulated “working” models.

RM: But this ideal is rarely achieved. So I think the way to deal with conflicts on CSGNet , to the extent that empirical tests of models are not performed or are not convincing – is to try to carry them out as civilly and cordially as possible.Â

[Rick Marken 2018-07-03_12:18:47]

​[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-02_16:16:13 ET]​

RM: It sounds like you solved an internal conflict by abandoning one of the two goals.Â

BN: Well, of course, that is one obvious kind of resolution–one goal is abandoned or deferred or controlled at greatly lower gain, under the higher-level perception that it pales in importance compared to the other goal. But there is at least one other kind of resolution that for some reason it seems to be difficult for you to see. Maybe you’re controlling the invigorating experience of conflict with higher gain. In this other kind of resolution of conflict, which I have seen in several people on several occasions, one of the two higher-level goals was achieved by employing new lower-level means of controlling it in place of the means of control that was in conflict, and the other system continued to control its higher-level goal by means of controlling the original lower-level variable that now was no longer the locus of conflict.

RM: If I’m understanding you correctly, what you describe is a situation where the conflict was not a real conflict but, rather, a failure of control due to lack of knowledge. Maybe if you describe what the conflict was and how it was solved by employing a new lower level means I would understand it better.Â

RM: In what I consider a “real” conflict, the same lower level “means” must be in different reference states at the same time in order to achieve two different higher level goals. For example, the goals of going to the movies and staying home with your sick child requires that the means of achieving these goals – varying your location-- be in two different states at the same time, a physical impossibility. You can solve this conflict if you can change goals – for example, change the goal of staying home with the child to getting someone you trust to stay at home with the child – but as long as the goals require incompatible means – in this case, that you be in two places at the same time–there is no way to add new means that will solve the conflict.

RM: Real conflicts are always solved by going "up a level" – reorganizing the higher level systems that are causing the conflict. Real conflicts can’t be solved by going “down a level” to reorganize the means used to achieve the goals of the higher level systems.

RM: I don’t consider (1) seriously because I know it won’t work; conflicts simply can’t be resolved by finding new, clever means of controlling the variable in conflict.Â

BN: I agree thatÂ
conflicts can’t be resolved by finding new means of controlling the variable in conflict. But that isn’t what I said. Obviously, continuing a conflict by other means does not resolve the conflict, it continues the conflict by other means. I would be quite foolish to propose that it resolved the conflict, wouldn’t I. Was it invigorating to knock down that straw man?

RM: You are right; the way I said it sounds like a straw man. I don’t think you proposed that conflicts can be resolved by finding a new means of controlling “the variable in conflict”; that would be like finding a new way to vary your location as a way to solve the conflict resulting from having the higher level goals of going to the moves and staying home with the sick child.Â

RM: I think what you are proposing is that the conflict that is preventing both higher level goals from being achieved can be solved by finding new means of achieving these goals. My point is that in a real conflict there is no way to use alternative means (like driving a car instead of walking or using a beaming system a la Star Trek) to resolve the conflict, in the sense of allowing achievement of the higher level goals that are creating the conflict.

Â

BN: By definition of conflict, the conflicting control systems are attempting to control the same variable at different values. But these are hierarchical systems. Each is attempting to control the conflicted variable for a reason. In control system A control of the conflicted variable C is means of controlling higher-level variable(s) A, and in control system B  control of the conflicted variable C is means of controlling higher-level variable(s) B. Â

RM: Correct. Variable C is like your physical location in the conflict between going to (being located at) the movies (the goal of system A) and staying (being located at) home with the sick child (the goal of system B). Â

BN: The relation of variables A and B is unspecified here.

RM: In a conflict, the relationship between the variables controlled by systems A and B matters only in the fact that both systems must set different references for variable C to achieve their goals.Â

BN: It might be important to specify them and their relationship, and in fact I do believe that understanding what they are and how they are related is both important and useful.Â

RM: Yes, becoming aware of the higher level goals that are the cause of the conflict is a fundamental components of MOL.Â

BN: …Here, we’re just talking about the availability of alternative means of controlling A and/or of controlling B, and how conflict can disappear when one of the conflicting hierarchical systems starts using non-conflicting means to provide input that enables control at the higher level of perception A or perception B.

RM: If the solution to the conflict is controlling either A or B then there was a change in goals, not the means used to achieve them. The conflict exists because you want both A and B but there is no means of achieving both simultaneously. If getting control of either A or B is the solution to the conflict then the solution has involved a change in goals – you no longer want A and B, you just want either A or B – not the means of achieving them.

Â

BN: Applying this principle to conflicts on CSGnet doesn’t seem to me to be a simple and obvious matter, given the complexities of human motivations and means outside laboratory constraints, but it does seem to me to be worth serious consideration.

RM: The problems on CSGNet are interpersonal conflicts. The variables A and B are the perceptions of PCT controlled by different people. The variable C is the means used by the different people to control for A and B. These means involve writing posts like this, trying to communicate our ideas about various aspects of PCT. The variable C used by people to control for A can be called C.a and the variable C used by people to control for B can be called C.b. A person controlling for A says things (variable C.a) that are a disturbance to variable B and a person controlling variable B corrects this disturbance by saying things (variable C.b) that are a disturbance to variable A. That’s the conflict; the same means (C, posting on CSGNet) is used to control two slightly different perceptions of PCT (A and B), relative to different reference specifications.

RM: The only way I can see to resolve this conflict is for those controlling for A to stop controlling for A or to start controlling for B or for those controlling for B to stop controlling for B or to start controlling for A. If A is my perception of PCT and B is someone else’s perception of PCT then it looks to me like the only way to actually stop conflicts on CSGNet is for everyone to start controlling for my version of PCT or for everyone (including me) to start controlling for someone else’s version of PCT. And I just don’t see that happening.Â

RM: I think conflict like what we see on CSGNet is just a natural part of scientific discussion. The ideal way to resolve such conflicts is through empirical test of clearly formulated “working” models. But this ideal is rarely achieved. So I think the way to deal with conflicts on CSGNet , to the extent that empirical tests of models are not performed or are not convincing – is to try to carry them out as civilly and cordially as possible.Â

BestÂ

Rick

/Bruce

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 12:18 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Rick Marken 2018-07-02_09:12:46]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-01_23:39:03 ET]

BN: This is part of what I understand from your words.

BN: 1. You do not consider it possible for there to be alternative ways to present a “correct analysis of purposeful behavior on CSGNet” ("alternative means"Â that you have not considered).

RM: Of course there are alternative ways to present a correct analysis of purposeful behavior on CSGNet. I’ve used many alternative means of presenting such an analysis: verbal description, visualization via diagrams, computer demonstrations, analogies, fitting the model to existing data. I’ve got three books that are collections of my published (and a few unpublished) papers describing all kinds of different ways of presenting PCT. But when there is a conflict there is no way to vary the means that affect the state of the controlled variable that will resolve the conflict.

RM: The variable that is in conflict here on CSGNet is PCT itself. The conflict exists because people on this net either perceive PCT somewhat differently or they have somewhat different references of what constitutes the correct state of this perception. The different means used to control this perception are the different things we say in our posts. No matter how one varies these means to bring their own perception of PCT to its reference, those means (posts) are bound to be a disturbance to others who either perceive PCT differently or have a different reference for the same perceptual variable.Â

BN: You believe that any means of controlling this perception (“a correct analysis of purposeful behavior being presented on CSGNet”) will continue or renew the conflict in which you find yourself.

RM: Yes, I believe it because that is how I understand conflicts to work from a PCT perspective. The only way to eliminate such conflicts (and achieve peace) is for one or both of the parties to the conflict to revise how they perceive PCT or to revise their references (goal) for the correct state of the PCT perceptual variable. Both approaches require a willingness to learn – to reorganize their existing control systems. Varying the means of control (the content of the posts)Â

won’t work.

Â

BN: 2. You control a perception of being “invigorated” by conflict. This control may preclude and certainly conflicts with your having any interest in what might reduce or resolve conflict, so you are unlikely to consider (1) seriously. Â

RM: As I mentioned above, I don’t consider (1) seriously because I know it won’t work; conflicts simply can’t be resolved by finding new, clever means of controlling the variable in conflict. I am personally invigorated by the conflicts on CSGNet about PCT because I know that PCT is a hugely revolutionary new approach to understanding behavior and I am invigorated by being part of the resistance to attempts to present Bill’s revolutionary vision in a way that will be more acceptable to the “establishment”.Â

Â

BN: You reject out of hand the possibility of resolving conflict by using alternative means for one of the two goals. I report that I have empirically observed this as an outcome of the MoL process. When ‘going up a level’ (so called) enabled both goals to be in awareness at the same time, alternative, non-conflicting means of achieving one of the two goals became obvious, which previously had not been considered.

RM: It sounds like you solved an internal conflict by abandoning one of the two goals. This would certainly work in the case of arguments about PCT if one person were willing to give up their goal regarding what they thought was the correct state of the perception of PCT. But maybe you could describe an actual case of solving an interpersonal (not intrapersonal) conflict amicably by having one party to the conflict change the means of control. It would be great if that could be done.Â

Best

Rick

Â

/Bruce

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Rick Marken 2018-07-01_15:17:23]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-06-30_09:20:59 ET]

BN: Part of my role in the Martha’s Vineyard Peace Council is to choose among applicants for the Embarking Peacemaker Award, a tiny award from our tiny budget. Each year 20 or 30 graduating seniors write an essay on their commitment to helping make peace in the world.Â

BN: This year in the award letters, and in the regret letters to those beyond our budget, I included the following paragraph expressing a practical application of the principles behind the Method of Levels:

Falling
into conflict is as easy as closing your eyes. All it takes is not
paying attention as purposes cross, and purposes cross all the time.
To resolve conflict we have to be more alert. The place where two
purposes cross is where both try to use the same means. When we shift
attention from how to why we want to do a thing—
from
the means that we think we need to the end result that we really
want—
we can
notice the alternative means that are available.

​BN: Perhaps this way of putting it may be useful to you. Perhaps it may even have application to our conversations here.​

RM: If only it were that simple. But it’s not alternative means that solve conflicts; it’s alternative goals. And changing goals is not exactly easy. For example, I could quickly solve my conflicts with people on CSGNet is I could just change my goal of having what I think is a correct analysis of purposeful behavior presented on CSGNet to the goal of having an incorrect analysis presented. I don;t think all the MOL in the world could get me to be able to do that. Especially because I often find the conflict rather invigorating.Â

Best

Rick

​/Bruce​

Â

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[bnhpct]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-18_08:24:27 ET]

Another way to approach this occurs to me this morning. When conflict persists, there are always other variables that might influence or change the character of the conflict, but we don’t notice them or their possible relevance because our attention is focused on the apparent source of error. There are always additional variables which we may perceive or become aware of, and which we may bring under control concurrently with the conflict or may become aware of already controlling. The MoL therapist is alert for indications of ‘background thoughts’ concerning such variables. But we as individuals subject to falling into conflict, among the other ‘slings and arrows’ of life, might deliberately cultivate skill at broadening awareness.

Sometimes just doing something unexpected can be quite creative.

···

[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-11_17:42:44 ET]

Rick Marken 2018-07-10_22:39:44–

RM: You are essentially correct; the variable in conflict could be called “use of car”. But I think it’s clearer to call the variable in conflict “the location of the car”…

RM: The solution to a conflict always involves going “up a level” to reorganize the goals that are causing the conflict rather than “down a level” to reorganize the means used to control the variable in conflict…

​ would say mazel tav, glad we’re in agreement, but your capacity for snatching the appearance of argument from the paws of agreement is truly versatile.

BN: I

RM: I think of it as “clarification” rather than “argument”. And while you may see my comments as snatching argument from the paws of agreement, I see it as simply my efforts to correct a disturbance to my understanding of (in this case) the PCT model of conflict. When you said that
​​

conflicts can be solved by finding alternative means to control the variable in conflict, that just sounded wrong.

Maybe your intent was to say something that agreed with me – that conflicts can be solved only by finding alternatives to the goals that are creating the conflict – but it just didn’t sound like that to me.Â

RM: And I don’t understand why you are focusing on only me as the argumentative one. How about those, like Martin and Alex, who are arguing with me big time, even to the point of writing rebuttals to my journal article that gives the PCT explanation of the power law of movement? Why do you not see them as snatching argument from the paws of agreement?Â

RM: I also don’t understand why you seem to be uncomfortable about argument itself. I recently saw that you made a wonderfully devastating argument on Facebook against the ideas of Supreme Court justices who call themselves “originalists” by posting a brilliant quote by Alexander Hamilton from the Federalist Papers clearly explaining why it would be idiotic be an originalist. Were you snatching argument from your actual agreement with those originalist justices?Â

​

​

RM: The solution you describe involves changing the goals that are causing the conflict, not the means that are used to control the variable in conflict. One party changes his goal from “taking the car to the beach” to “taking the bike to the beach”.Â

Â

​One got to the beach and the other got to the grocery store. ​Those were their goals.Â

The location of the car key was the immediate locus of conflict, not the location of the car.

BN: Neither person changed their goal. ​

RM: The conflict was over the car; both wanted to drive it (so there was a conflict over the keys since you can’t drive the car without the keys). The solution to that conflict required that one party abandon the goal of driving that particular car. Â

BN: The car and its key are parts of the environmental feedback function that may be employed as means of controlling the ‘location of self’ variables. “Taking the car” was not the goal,

RM: Of course it was; it was the goal of both parties to the conflict to take that particular car-- same car to two different places. If they didn’t both want to take the same car there would have been no conflict.

​commented ​

BN: As Billand others have observed, we resolve myriad conflicts daily, and most of them we scarcely notice because we resolve them before they lead to prolonged loss of control.Â

 RM: Yes, indeed. And we always resolve them by changing the goals that are the cause of the conflict.Â

BN: In the example scenario, a discussion ensues, an agreement is reached, and the conflict is resolved.

RM: Right. The solution was that one party agreed to abandon his goal of taking that particular car.

RM:Â

 The solution to a conflict always involves going “up a level” to reorganize the goals that are causing the conflict rather than “down a level” to reorganize the means used to control the variable in conflict.Â

BN: Yes,

​T​

​ ​

​

 we are in agreement.Âhat is just what I said.

RM: But you keep on saying the opposite. You keep saying that the conflict was solved by one of the parties agreeing to use a different means of achieving his goal of getting to the beach. This is true from the point of view of the higher level goal of getting to the beach.

But the conflict was not at that level; the conflict was about the car. Changing the means of getting to the beach required at least one party to change his goal regarding how to get there – the goal that was creating the conflict – which was the goal of driving that particular car. This goal had to be revised or the conflict would not end. One party was able to revise his goal about taking the car, but if neither party revised this goal the conflict would remain and neither party would be able to achieve their higher level goals. And revising one’s goals like this is not necessarily an easy thing to do; that’s why therapy is difficult. If taking that particular car was essential to solve other higher level goals in the parties to the conflict – for example, if the car was a red Lamborghini and both parties to the conflict wanted to use it to impress people – then solving the conflict would have been very difficult. Conflicts persist, not because of failure to recognize alternative means of achieving higher level goals but because of the difficulty of revising the goals that are the means of achieving those higher level goals.Â

BN: IÂ

​we go ​

have not suggested thatÂdown a level to reorganize the means used to control the variable that is in conflict.
​ What I have said is that the ‘reorganizing’

​of ​

​one of ​

​s​

​

was in this scenario accomplishe

d

Âcontrollingthe higher-level goalÂÂ by
​

using alternative lower-level means of
​ control​ for which there was no conflict at the lower level

.

BN:

​[Alternative means of control]Â

become available by looking to lower levels for alternative environmental feedback functions and related alternative lower-level perceptual variables to control as means of controlling the higher-level variable.

RM: Right.
​[…]

BN: To model this would require modeling a capacity to recognize the usefulness of perceived aspects of the environment as environmental feedback functions for specific control purposes.

RM: Actually, it wouldn’t. These are irrelevant to the conflict you describe; there are no alternative ways to influence the location of the car so that it can be in two places at the same time. There are, of course, alternative ways to get to the store and the beach. If not being aware of these alternative ways is the reason for the inability of the parties to the conflict to get to the beach and grocery, then the reason these people are unable to get to the where they want to go is simply ignorance, not conflict. In that case, a counselor who explains these alternatives will have solved their problem.Â

BN: Probably better to start closer to motor control–I can’t find that special key for opening paint cans, so I reach for a screwdriver–no, not that philips screwdriver, the other one, with the flat blade. But I have to be careful not to mess up the edge of the lid or it will never seal properly when I put the paint can away again. There, that’s the way. So much easier if I could find the right tool.

RM: If your problem is just “finding the right tool” then your problem is ignorance, not conflict. What you need is a teacher, not an MOL therapist.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

​/Bruce​

​ ​

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:40 AM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Rick Marken 2018-07-10_22:39:44]

RM: I’m re-sending this because I’m not sure it got through since the apparent hack of my website seems to result in mail that mentions that website being blocked. So I’m re-sending without mentioning my site by name to see if this gets through.

RM: From my perspective the conflict is over what constitutes a correct understanding of PCT. It would be nice if people recognized that I know more about PCT than they do; it would certainly reduce the conflict over a correct understanding of PCT;-) But I don’t really care whether or not people think I know more or less about PCT than they do. I prefer that people come to what I consider a correct understanding of PCT through scientific discovery via modeling and empirical testing rather than through deference to perceived authority.Â

RM: I’m not sure anyone has ever “graduated” to colleague based on my efforts on the net. But I have had at least one person become what I would consider a colleague based at least partly on his reading of MIND READINGS. Having colleagues is certainly one purpose of teaching but it’s a tough one to achieve with PCT. There is only one requirement for “graduating” and becoming a colleague of mine and that is to come to an understanding of PCT that I can see is essentially the same as mine and, most importantly, that makes it possible for us to collaborate on research. Â

RM: You are essentially correct; the variable in conflict could be called “use of car”. But I think it’s clearer to call the variable in conflict “the location of the car”; one party wants to move the car to one location, the beach, and the other party wants to take the same car to a different location, the grocery. The car can’t be in two different locations at the same time. This conflict is not being solved by finding alternate means to control the variable in conflict; there are no alternate means that would allow the car to be taken to two different locations at once. So there is no “alternative means” solution to the conflict. The solution you describe involves changing the goals that are causing the conflict, not the means that are used to control the variable in conflict. One party changes his goal from “taking the car to the beach” to “taking the bike to the beach”. Â
RM: The solution to a conflict always involves going “up a level” to reorganize the goals that are causing the conflict rather than “down a level” to reorganize the means used to control the variable in conflict. That’s because, when a variable is in conflict, there are no alternative means of affecting this variable that will bring it back under control. When the location of the car is in conflict, for example, there is no alternative means of affecting this variable – pressing the gas pedal, pushing the car, using a maglev track, etc – that will make it possible for the car to be in two locations at the same time. As soon as the car is moved toward the beach the person with the goal of moving it to the grocery will act to keep it from being moved to the beach; and vice versa. This is illustrated in my “Cost of Conflict” demo  which shows that you will remain in a conflict as long as you maintain the goals of controlling the cursor in both the X and Y dimensions. If you change your goals to controlling the cursor in only the X or Y dimension, there is no more conflict.Â

Best

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-07_16:45:26 ET]

RM: I think conflict only exists in teaching when the students think they know more than the teacher.Â

BN: Seems to me that’s a conflict only if you are controlling a perception that they recognize that you know more than they do. If I’ve got that wrong, then what do you see as the conflicted variable there?

BN: Three follow-on questions:
Does anyone ever graduate from being student to being colleague?
Is that not the point and purpose of teaching?
What are the requirements for graduating from student to colleague, in your view?

RM: It’s possible that I misunderstood you but I don’t think I imputed a meaning to you. That is, I didn’t explicitly say “This is what you meant…”. I simply responded to what I thought you meant, which still looks to me like you are saying that a conflict can be resolved by finding appropriate alternative means of controlling the variable in conflict. If that’s not what you meant then we should try to work it out. For example, you could present a diagram of conflict and show what would be changed in the diagram that would resolve the conflict in the manner you describe verbally, which I am apparently misunderstanding.Â

BN: Consider a household with two people and one car. Person A wants to use the car to go to the beach. Person B wants to use the car to go grocery shopping. After a brief argument, person A says, “Oh, well, the beach isn’t that far. I’ll ride my bike. Could you pick up some beer for me at the store?”

BN: The variable in conflict was use of the car, coming to a focus in whose hands held the car keys. A did not find alternative means of controlling that variable. A wanted to control that variable for purpose X (going to the beach) while B wanted to control that variable for purpose Y (going grocery shopping). Purpose X and purpose Y were not in conflict. A resolved the conflict over use of the car by using alternative means to control purpose X (using the bicycle to go to the beach). Use of the car was then no longer conflicted. You can diagram that if you want, but it’s really not that hard to understand, is it?

Rick

[_Boris_Hartman]

Rick

RM: The only way I can see to resolve this conflict is for those controlling for A to stop controlling for A or to start controlling for B or for those controlling for B to stop controlling for B or to start controlling for A. If A is my perception of PCT and B is someone else’s perception of PCT then it looks to me like the only way to actually stop conflicts on CSGNet is for everyone to start controlling for my version of PCT or for everyone (including me) to start controlling for someone else’s version of PCT. And I just don’t see that happening.

HB : Those who control for A (PCT) are providing scientific and PCT evidences and “those” who control for B (RCT) are not providing evidences. They provide ONE BIG NOTHING: So the solution of the problem is that those who control B (RCT) should start to control A (PCT), because PCTÂ provides evidences. If you keep control of B and start showing evidences for RCT then we’ll think about which perception to control.Â

RM: I think conflict like what we see on CSGNet is just a natural part of scientific discussion.

HB : There is no scientific discussion. Where do you see any scientific discussion ??? Those who control B (RCT) has just full mouth of words and nothing else. No evidences…no scientific discussion…

RM : The ideal way to resolve such conflicts is through empirical test of clearly formulated “working” models.

HB : What is for you “empirical” test of clearly formulated “working model” ? Which “working model” do you use ? Is this the model you use ???

HB : You probably meant that what we need is scientific, empirical testing and experimenting how organisms function… and of course using evidences from other scientific fields. And of course form the “working model” which will be plausible to scientific evodences. That’s what Bill has already done. What you need more ??? We just have to improve his work.

RM : But this ideal is rarely achieved. So I think the way to deal with conflicts on CSGNet , to the extent that empirical tests of models are not performed or are not convincing – is to try to carry them out as civilly and cordially as possible.

HB : Which empirical tests of models are not performed or are not convincing ??? Bill Powers ??? Or yours ???

I see a better way. We all start to provide PCT and scientific evidences whether those that were already revealed by Bill Powers or offering new evidences which will show how can people achieve consistent results with “uncontroled actions”.

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 9:19 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: MoL and peace work

[Rick Marken 2018-07-03_12:18:47]

​[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-02_16:16:13 ET]​

RM: It sounds like you solved an internal conflict by abandoning one of the two goals.

BN: Well, of course, that is one obvious kind of resolution–one goal is abandoned or deferred or controlled at greatly lower gain, under the higher-level perception that it pales in importance compared to the other goal. But there is at least one other kind of resolution that for some reason it seems to be difficult for you to see. Maybe you’re controlling the invigorating experience of conflict with higher gain. In this other kind of resolution of conflict, which I have seen in several people on several occasions, one of the two higher-level goals was achieved by employing new lower-level means of controlling it in place of the means of control that was in conflict, and the other system continued to control its higher-level goal by means of controlling the original lower-level variable that now was no longer the locus of conflict.

RM: If I’m understanding you correctly, what you describe is a situation where the conflict was not a real conflict but, rather, a failure of control due to lack of knowledge. Maybe if you describe what the conflict was and how it was solved by employing a new lower level means I would understand it better.

RM: In what I consider a “real” conflict, the same lower level “means” must be in different reference states at the same time in order to achieve two different higher level goals. For example, the goals of going to the movies and staying home with your sick child requires that the means of achieving these goals – varying your location-- be in two different states at the same time, a physical impossibility. You can solve this conflict if you can change goals – for example, change the goal of staying home with the child to getting someone you trust to stay at home with the child – but as long as the goals require incompatible means – in this case, that you be in two places at the same time–there is no way to add new means that will solve the conflict.

RM: Real conflicts are always solved by going “up a level” – reorganizing the higher level systems that are causing the conflict. Real conflicts can’t be solved by going “down a level” to reorganize the means used to achieve the goals of the higher level systems.

RM: I don’t consider (1) seriously because I know it won’t work; conflicts simply can’t be resolved by finding new, clever means of controlling the variable in conflict.

BN: I agree that conflicts can’t be resolved by finding new means of controlling the variable in conflict. But that isn’t what I said. Obviously, continuing a conflict by other means does not resolve the conflict, it continues the conflict by other means. I would be quite foolish to propose that it resolved the conflict, wouldn’t I. Was it invigorating to knock down that straw man?

RM: You are right; the way I said it sounds like a straw man. I don’t think you proposed that conflicts can be resolved by finding a new means of controlling “the variable in conflict”; that would be like finding a new way to vary your location as a way to solve the conflict resulting from having the higher level goals of going to the moves and staying home with the sick child.

RM: I think what you are proposing is that the conflict that is preventing both higher level goals from being achieved can be solved by finding new means of achieving these goals. My point is that in a real conflict there is no way to use alternative means (like driving a car instead of walking or using a beaming system a la Star Trek) to resolve the conflict, in the sense of allowing achievement of the higher level goals that are creating the conflict.

BN: By definition of conflict, the conflicting control systems are attempting to control the same variable at different values. But these are hierarchical systems. Each is attempting to control the conflicted variable for a reason. In control system A control of the conflicted variable C is means of controlling higher-level variable(s) A, and in control system B control of the conflicted variable C is means of controlling higher-level variable(s) B.

RM: Correct. Variable C is like your physical location in the conflict between going to (being located at) the movies (the goal of system A) and staying (being located at) home with the sick child (the goal of system B).

BN: The relation of variables A and B is unspecified here.

RM: In a conflict, the relationship between the variables controlled by systems A and B matters only in the fact that both systems must set different references for variable C to achieve their goals.

BN: It might be important to specify them and their relationship, and in fact I do believe that understanding what they are and how they are related is both important and useful.

RM: Yes, becoming aware of the higher level goals that are the cause of the conflict is a fundamental components of MOL.

BN: …Here, we’re just talking about the availability of alternative means of controlling A and/or of controlling B, and how conflict can disappear when one of the conflicting hierarchical systems starts using non-conflicting means to provide input that enables control at the higher level of perception A or perception B.

RM: If the solution to the conflict is controlling either A or B then there was a change in goals, not the means used to achieve them. The conflict exists because you want both A and B but there is no means of achieving both simultaneously. If getting control of either A or B is the solution to the conflict then the solution has involved a change in goals – you no longer want A and B, you just want either A or B – not the means of achieving them.

BN: Applying this principle to conflicts on CSGnet doesn’t seem to me to be a simple and obvious matter, given the complexities of human motivations and means outside laboratory constraints, but it does seem to me to be worth serious consideration.

RM: The problems on CSGNet are interpersonal conflicts. The variables A and B are the perceptions of PCT controlled by different people. The variable C is the means used by the different people to control for A and B. These means involve writing posts like this, trying to communicate our ideas about various aspects of PCT. The variable C used by people to control for A can be called C.a and the variable C used by people to control for B can be called C.b. A person controlling for A says things (variable C.a) that are a disturbance to variable B and a person controlling variable B corrects this disturbance by saying things (variable C.b) that are a disturbance to variable A. That’s the conflict; the same means (C, posting on CSGNet) is used to control two slightly different perceptions of PCT (A and B), relative to different reference specifications.

RM: The only way I can see to resolve this conflict is for those controlling for A to stop controlling for A or to start controlling for B or for those controlling for B to stop controlling for B or to start controlling for A. If A is my perception of PCT and B is someone else’s perception of PCT then it looks to me like the only way to actually stop conflicts on CSGNet is for everyone to start controlling for my version of PCT or for everyone (including me) to start controlling for someone else’s version of PCT. And I just don’t see that happening.

RM: I think conflict like what we see on CSGNet is just a natural part of scientific discussion.

HB : There is no scientific discussion. Those who control for A (PCT) are providing ecoentific and PCT evidences and “those” who control for perception B (RCT) are not providing evidences. So the solution of the problem is that those who control perception B (RCT) start controlling perception A (PCT) with provided evidences or start showing evidences for perception B.Â

RM : The ideal way to resolve such conflicts is through empirical test of clearly formulated “working” models.

HB : What is for you empirical test of clearly formulated “working model” ?

RM : But this ideal is rarely achieved. So I think the way to deal with conflicts on CSGNet , to the extent that empirical tests of models are not performed or are not convincing – is to try to carry them out as civilly and cordially as possible.

HB : I see a better way. We all start to provide PCT evidences whether those that were already revealed by Bill Powers or offering new evidences which will show how can people achieve consistent results with “uncontroled actions”.

Boris

Best

Rick

/Bruce

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 12:18 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-07-02_09:12:46]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-01_23:39:03 ET]

BN: This is part of what I understand from your words.

BN: 1. You do not consider it possible for there to be alternative ways to present a “correct analysis of purposeful behavior on CSGNet” (“alternative means” that you have not considered).

RM: Of course there are alternative ways to present a correct analysis of purposeful behavior on CSGNet. I’ve used many alternative means of presenting such an analysis: verbal description, visualization via diagrams, computer demonstrations, analogies, fitting the model to existing data. I’ve got three books that are collections of my published (and a few unpublished) papers describing all kinds of different ways of presenting PCT. But when there is a conflict there is no way to vary the means that affect the state of the controlled variable that will resolve the conflict.

RM: The variable that is in conflict here on CSGNet is PCT itself. The conflict exists because people on this net either perceive PCT somewhat differently or they have somewhat different references of what constitutes the correct state of this perception. The different means used to control this perception are the different things we say in our posts. No matter how one varies these means to bring their own perception of PCT to its reference, those means (posts) are bound to be a disturbance to others who either perceive PCT differently or have a different reference for the same perceptual variable.

BN: You believe that any means of controlling this perception (“a correct analysis of purposeful behavior being presented on CSGNet”) will continue or renew the conflict in which you find yourself.

RM: Yes, I believe it because that is how I understand conflicts to work from a PCT perspective. The only way to eliminate such conflicts (and achieve peace) is for one or both of the parties to the conflict to revise how they perceive PCT or to revise their references (goal) for the correct state of the PCT perceptual variable. Both approaches require a willingness to learn – to reorganize their existing control systems. Varying the means of control (the content of the posts) won’t work.

BN: 2. You control a perception of being “invigorated” by conflict. This control may preclude and certainly conflicts with your having any interest in what might reduce or resolve conflict, so you are unlikely to consider (1) seriously.

RM: As I mentioned above, I don’t consider (1) seriously because I know it won’t work; conflicts simply can’t be resolved by finding new, clever means of controlling the variable in conflict. I am personally invigorated by the conflicts on CSGNet about PCT because I know that PCT is a hugely revolutionary new approach to understanding behavior and I am invigorated by being part of the resistance to attempts to present Bill’s revolutionary vision in a way that will be more acceptable to the “establishment”.

BN: You reject out of hand the possibility of resolving conflict by using alternative means for one of the two goals. I report that I have empirically observed this as an outcome of the MoL process. When ‘going up a level’ (so called) enabled both goals to be in awareness at the same time, alternative, non-conflicting means of achieving one of the two goals became obvious, which previously had not been considered.

RM: It sounds like you solved an internal conflict by abandoning one of the two goals. This would certainly work in the case of arguments about PCT if one person were willing to give up their goal regarding what they thought was the correct state of the perception of PCT. But maybe you could describe an actual case of solving an interpersonal (not intrapersonal) conflict amicably by having one party to the conflict change the means of control. It would be great if that could be done.

Best

Rick

/Bruce

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-07-01_15:17:23]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-06-30_09:20:59 ET]

BN: Part of my role in the Martha’s Vineyard Peace Council is to choose among applicants for the Embarking Peacemaker Award, a tiny award from our tiny budget. Each year 20 or 30 graduating seniors write an essay on their commitment to helping make peace in the world.

BN: This year in the award letters, and in the regret letters to those beyond our budget, I included the following paragraph expressing a practical application of the principles behind the Method of Levels:

Falling into conflict is as easy as closing your eyes. All it takes is not paying attention as purposes cross, and purposes cross all the time. To resolve conflict we have to be more alert. The place where two purposes cross is where both try to use the same means. When we shift attention from how to why we want to do a thing—from the means that we think we need to the end result that we really want—we can notice the altternative means that are available.

​BN: Perhaps this way of putting it may be useful to you. Perhaps it may even have application to our conversations here.​

RM: If only it were that simple. But it’s not alternative means that solve conflicts; it’s alternative goals. And changing goals is not exactly easy. For example, I could quickly solve my conflicts with people on CSGNet is I could just change my goal of having what I think is a correct analysis of purposeful behavior presented on CSGNet to the goal of having an incorrect analysis presented. I don;t think all the MOL in the world could get me to be able to do that. Especially because I often find the conflict rather invigorating.

Best

Rick

​/Bruce​

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[_Boris_Hartman]

Bruce, Rick

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 6:17 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: MoL and peace work

[Rick Marken 2018-07-02_09:12:46]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-01_23:39:03 ET]

BN: This is part of what I understand from your words.

BN: 1. You do not consider it possible for there to be alternative ways to present a “correct analysis of purposeful behavior on CSGNet” (“alternative means” that you have not considered).

RM: Of course there are alternative ways to present a correct analysis of purposeful behavior on CSGNet. I’ve used many alternative means of presenting such an analysis: verbal description, visualization via diagrams, computer demonstrations, analogies, fitting the model to existing data.

HB : This is maybe true. But you used alternative means for presenting RCT not PCT. Purposefull behavior for you has different meaning as in Bills PCT.

RM : I’ve got three books that are collections of my published (and a few unpublished) papers describing all kinds of different ways of presenting PCT.

HB : Three books presenting PCT ??? Who said that in your published work you presented PCT ??? Please send to me all your work and I’ll exactly tell you what is PCT and what is not. At least article M/S had nothing to do with PCT except some words.

RM : But when there is a conflict there is no way to vary the means that affect the state of the controlled variable that will resolve the conflict.

HB : I agree. If you vary means and keep fixed wrong references, there can’t be any progress.

But there are many ways of resolving conflict between PCT and RCT.

1. You start to beleive that PCT is right theory and thus you change higher references for PCT perception which is now fixed at RCT.

2. You start providing evidences for your RCT and keep your way of thinking about control in human organism. But as you are not providing any evidences for RCT I suppose it’s better that you start using “correct version of PCT” which shows various evidences.

3. You can start providing evidences for some new theory which will show that both RCT and PCT are wrong.

4. You could initiate your forum for RCT (Ricks Control Theory) and “Behavior is Control”…

5. Maybe there are also other solutions of conflict.

HB : It would be very odd that on forum where new theory about psychoterapy was born (MOL), nobody can’t find solution to your internal and “external” conflicts. I think it’s very easy. You have to recognize first the essence of the cause of the conflict. Then you’ll easiliy resolve it. It seems that you theoreticlly understand the mechanism of conflict and resolving the conflict but in real life situation you are weakly.

You already agreed that my version of PCT is better. I suppose it’s not because I’m from a little country and people usually support weaker against stronger, but because I provide PCT and scientific evidences. You are not providing anything. Just one BIG EMPTY talkings.

HB : If you stay on CSGnet and keep “your wrong version of PCT” conflict will continue as old and new PCT (scientific) evidences will be presented.

Why don’t you agree with PCT definitions of “control loop” and diagram LCS III :

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1. CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function< shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

1. ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : This is correct PCT. Why don’t you “calibrate” your references to PCT definitions and diagram. Â

RM: The variable that is in conflict here on CSGNet is PCT itself. The conflict exists because people on this net either perceive PCT somewhat differently or they have somewhat different references of what constitutes the correct state of this perception.

HB : This is correct PCT thinking but wrong direction of resolving the conflict. It’s not that people on this net have different (wrong) references of what constitute “the correct state” of this perception (look for definitions and diagram above).

It seems that you are lying again about who has “correct state of PCT perception”. You should just stop lying to yourself and seeking reasons of your problems outside you. Conflict exist not because people on this net perceive “uncorrect state” of PCT but you are the one who set wrong references for “correct state of PCT” and of course you are perceiving “wrong PCT” which in your case is RCT. You wrote it for yourself.

RM earlier : I’m afraid I’ll be staying here on CSGNet. But I agree that people on CSGNet seem to like your version of PCT better than mine.

HB : You are the one who has to resolve conflict inside you. You perceive PCT differently (wrong), others perceive PCT quite good. Don’t look for reasons of your lack of successfull control in environment arround. It’s not social environment “guilty” for your misunderstanding of PCT. It’s you. If you really understand MOL than you should apply Therapy to yourself or do it with others. There are probably many of them who understand MOL and can do it with you. It’s CSGnet forum where MOL should be the main psychoterapy method and we can assume that all members understand it.

RM : The different means used to control this perception are the different things we say in our posts. No matter how one varies these means to bring their own perception of PCT to its reference, those means (posts) are bound to be a disturbance to others who either perceive PCT differently or have a different reference for the same perceptual variable.

HB : This is the way to go. This is PCT talking. It’s obviously that there is only one PCT which should be the guide for setting references (Bills literature). If you will change the use of means so that perception of all of us will start being near “right PCT references”, errors will vanish. And so will the conflicts. Differences (different references) will slowly disappear. But if you’ll persist at the same references for RCT and changing means to achieve your RCT goals then conflict will continue. Bruce Nevin has the same problem. But if you both will recognize the mistake in the way you are thinking about PCT (change references) you’ll probably soon find means to conflict resolution.

BN: You believe that any means of controlling this perception (“a correct analysis of purposeful behavior being presented on CSGNet”) will continue or renew the conflict in which you find yourself.

RM: Yes, I believe it because that is how I understand conflicts to work from a PCT perspective. The only way to eliminate such conflicts (and achieve peace) is for one or both of the parties to the conflict to revise how they perceive PCT or to revise their references (goal) for the correct state of the PCT perceptual variable.

HB : Perfect. So why don’t you do it ? You sure have to revise how you perceive PCT. Now it’s RCT. We gave you so many PCT evidences what is PCT (correct state)… You want me to coopy-paste my all evidences through 5 years? I’ll make just shorter version. Again.

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1. CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents thee means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

1. ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : And of course diagram in LCS III has to be added. How many times do I have to do it, that you’ll understand the basics of PCT ???

HB : I think that everybody knows what I meant. I’m repaeating this for so long time that pigeons a nd Sparows learned. And it’s odd that you can’t Rick.

If we’ll manage to “calibrate” our thoughts (higher levels) on united PCT model and defintions it will become clear how can we minimize the cause of our conflict.

I still don’t understand why you don’t except my proposal for “united thinking” what is PCT ? It’s so clear.

What do you think is wrong with my proposal of definitions of PCT and chosen diagram ?

HB : Is it a problem to include my proposed of PCT definitions and diagram for revision of references (goals) for the correct state for the “PCT perceptual variable” ??? For Researchgate project or for

Would it be the same problem if for ex. Bruce Abbott would do it ???   Why perceiving me as “third order” member who can not equally contribute to PCT understanding. Because I’m from little country and I “don’t understand your language” like Bruce Nevin and Barb insinuated ??? In science there shoudn’t be any national or language barriers. And there shouldn’t be any special friendship on basis of national or familiy categorization. Science should be neutral in all these respects and many others. Â

RM : Both approaches require a willingness to learn – to reorganize their existing control systems. Varying the means of control (the content of the posts) won’t work.

HB : I’m sure if you will vary means of control (your writings or content of the post) so that we’ll perceive PCT approach with less as possible “errors”, it will work. We’ll become one big PCT family as Bill was dreaming about.

BN: 2. You control a perception of being “invigorated” by conflict. This control may preclude and certainly conflicts with your having any interest in what might reduce or resolve conflict, so you are unlikely to consider (1) seriously.

RM: As I mentioned above, I don’t consider (1) seriously because I know it won’t work;

HB : How do you know it will not work ? Well I have to agree here with Bruce. Serious consideration could resolve the conflict. Beside Bill Powers literature and some other good writers and thinkers of PCT are the best way for you to read them and seriously consider what is PCT.Â

I found Sara Tai. It’s my new discovery. I don’t know how I got her article but I must say it’s very good. Near the level of Henry Yin. As you can see I’m still reading from time to time good PCT writers. You could maybe start conversation with them. But not in the the way where you explain your RCT, but in the way where you should listen to them. I think you made enough damage with counseling to members of CSGnet forum. Many wrong “PCT” work is on the market. So Sara Tai’s writing is real refreshment :

Here are some Sara Tai’s thoughts :

1. However, throughout the literature, it is implied that what people seek to control is their behaviour, and in line with this, targets within therapy commonly focus on behavioral change; for example, managing aggression or increasing activity levels or improving social skills and assertiveness. Contrary to this, PCT specifies that people do not directly control their behavioral output but control their perceptual experiences (input). …The term “perceptual experienceâ€? refers to an individual’s experience of the world and in PCT, a person’s perception is his objective reality.

2. For a simple, everyday illustration, imagine driving a car to work. Even though the journey is the same each day, the driving behavior must be different each time, depending on what is going on in the roadway. If one were to control behaviors, such as turning the steering wheel in the same way, lifting a foot off the gas at precisely the same moment, and applying the brake as done the morning before, one would never reach work and would surely end up in the Emergency Department! Instead, what is controlled is the perception of how the car is travelling. For example, the sense of being the right distance from other cars, the position on the road, and how fast the care travelling. This idea is a diversion from theories utilized within CBT and psychodynamic approaches, where it is assumed that people use perception to control behavior.

3. In PCT, responses are aimed at minimizing any disturbance the environment creates on the preferred states individuals are trying to maintain. In other words, control the effect behaviours have on the way the environment is experienced, not the behavior itself…to the preferred state and then act to reduce any discrepancy between the two. Discrepancy is experienced as psychological distress. Goal achievement can be considered to have occurred when what is perceived matches the imagined goal. Within PCT, control is the process of “perceiving, comparing and acting� and is referred to as a control system, based on negative feedback (Powers, 2008; Carey, Mansell & Tai, 2014).

RM : …conflicts simply can’t be resolved byy finding new, clever means of controlling the variable in conflict.

HB : Finding new ways in resolving conflict can’t harm. But if you will not set PCT references there will be really no success. I thought that finding creative and inovative means of controlling the “correct PCT perceptual variable” are the solution to conflict. You have to find the “loop” which will not cause conflicts with others. Just start reorganizing.

RM : I am personally invigorated by the conflicts on CSGNet about PCT because I know that PCT is a hugely revolutionary new approach to understanding behavior

HB : Here you are quite wrong. It’s not only revolutionary new approach to understanding behavior but to understanding how organisms function. You participated in that conclussion.

Bill P. at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) :

Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms

RM : …and I am inviggorated by being part of the resistance to attempts to present Bill’s revolutionary vision in a way that will be more acceptable to the “establishment”.

HB : You used wrong “reference level” for your attempts to present Bills revolutionary vision.

That is sure something that Powers ladies should think about. More acceptable language for different groups of people with different understanding of the World. People usually don’t work hard on understanding of some matter if they don’t perceive progress. And I must admitt that I needed a great “internal power” to get through Bills writings. The most helpfull was Kent’s work. But today I’m glad and relived because of perceiving the “correct state of PCT”. So I think that more acceptability for “establishment” can be achieved with full understanding of “correct PCT” and presentations that are in accordance to “correct PCT”.

BN: You reject out of hand the possibility of resolving conflict by using alternative means for one of the two goals. I report that I have empirically observed this as an outcome of the MoL process. When ‘going up a level’ (so called) enabled both goals to be in awareness at the same time, alternative, non-conflicting means of achieving one of the two goals became obvious, which previously had not been considered.

RM: It sounds like you solved an internal conflict by abandoning one of the two goals. This would certainly work in the case of arguments about PCT if one person were willing to give up their goal regarding what they thought was the correct state of the perception of PCT.

HB : What could be more correct state of the PCT than PCT itself from Bills literature ??? Bruce is again right. You have to abandon RCT structure of goals.

RM : But maybe you could describe an actual case of solving an interpersonal (not intrapersonal) conflict amicably by having one party to the conflict change the means of control. It would be great if that could be done.

HB : No problem. Just switch RCT to PCT and you are done. You’ll solve intrapersonal and interpersonal conflict. I showed you many times that you are “tracing” two goals at the same time. RCT and PCT. The way organisms function can’t be explained with so different theories. You just abbandon RCT and you are a winner. There will be no conflicts anymore. At least with me.

Boris

Best

Rick

/Bruce

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-07-01_15:17:23]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-06-30_09:20:59 ET]

BN: Part of my role in the Martha’s Vineyard Peace Council is to choose among applicants for the Embarking Peacemaker Award, a tiny award from our tiny budget. Each year 20 or 30 graduating seniors write an essay on their commitment to helping make peace in the world.

BN: This year in the award letters, and in the regret letters to those beyond our budget, I included the following paragraph expressing a practical application of the principles behind the Method of Levels:

Falling into conflict is as easy as closing your eyes. All it takes is not paying attention as purposes cross, and purposes cross all the time. To resolve conflict we have to be more alert. The place where two purposes cross is where both try to use the same means. When we shift attention from how to why we want to do a thing—from the means that we think we need to the end result that we really want—we can notice the alternative means that are available…

​BN: Perhaps this way of putting it may be useful to you. Perhaps it may even have application to our conversations here.​

RM: If only it were that simple. But it’s not alternative means that solve conflicts; it’s alternative goals. And changing goals is not exactly easy. For example, I could quickly solve my conflicts with people on CSGNet is I could just change my goal of having what I think is a correct analysis of purposeful behavior presented on CSGNet to the goal of having an incorrect analysis presented. I don;t think all the MOL in the world could get me to be able to do that. Especially because I often find the conflict rather invigorating.

Best

Rick

​/Bruce​

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[_Boris_Hartman]

Down….

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 12:18 AM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: MoL and peace work

[Rick Marken 2018-07-01_15:17:23]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-06-30_09:20:59 ET]

BN: Part of my role in the Martha’s Vineyard Peace Council is to choose among applicants for the Embarking Peacemaker Award, a tiny award from our tiny budget. Each year 20 or 30 graduating seniors write an essay on their commitment to helping make peace in the world.

BN: This year in the award letters, and in the regret letters to those beyond our budget, I included the following paragraph expressing a practical application of the principles behind the Method of Levels:

Falling into conflict is as easy as closing your eyes. All it takes is not paying attention as purposes cross, and purposes cross all the time. To resolve conflict we have to be more alert. The place where two purposes cross is where both try to use the same means.

HB : It seems it is a little bit wrong explanation of conflict. Or maybe I didn’t understand something well.

When we shift attention from how to why we want to do a thing—from the means that we think we need to thhe end result that we really want—we can notice the alternative meanns that are available.

​BN: Perhaps this way of putting it may be useful to you. Perhaps it may even have application to our conversations here.​

RM: If only it were that simple. But it’s not alternative means that solve conflicts; it’s alternative goals. And changing goals is not exactly easy. For example, I could quickly solve my conflicts with people on CSGNet is I could just change my goal of having what I think is a correct analysis of purposeful behavior presented on CSGNet to the goal of having an incorrect analysis presented.

HB : You mean it’s vica verse. You should change the incorrect RCT analysis of purposeful behavior to correct PCT analysis. How many times do I have to prove to you that you are all the way wrong with your RCT analysis.Â

RM : I don;t think all the MOL in the world could get me to be able to do that. Especially because I often find the conflict rather invigorating.

HB : He, he… you’ll not beleivve. I enjoy our conflicts because I can do something about PCT, at least refreshing my memory. Otherwise I’d probably stay away from CSGnet.

Boris

Best

Rick

​/Bruce​

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[_Boris_Hartman]

Rick…

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 2:49 AM
To: csgnet
Subject: Re: MoL and peace work

[Rick Marken 2018-07-27_17:49:12]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:17 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

RM: Reasoning and evidence behind it: PCT is the state of a perceptual variable that, like all perceptual variables, is a function of environmental variables.

HB : What kind of nonsense is this ? PCT is general theory about how organsisms function. About how you function…

Bill P. at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) :

Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms

HB : Do you understand what he meant by that…You are a long way from understanding the »coorrect« PCT…

RM: If PCT is not the state of a perceptual variable then how do you know that I have it wrong?

HB : Well I admitt that I got a little bit wrong your initial statement, but anyway it’s wrong what you are saying.

PCT can be the state of perceptual variable. But it’s not necessary. In you case sure it’s not.

The reason why you don’t understand PCT is probably right in the way you are perceiving wrongly »environmental variables«, because for some reason your perceptions are wrongly integrating on higher levels. You must find the reason why.

You obvioulsy think that PCT can be perceived as it is (objectivelly, as »function of environmental variables«). Letters, words, statements, pages of Bill’s literature can represent PCT if you control them in that way. But as we perceive it before from your text you are not. You perceive in the way of RCT (Ricks Control Theory).

One way we can find out why you are wrong is with confirming identity to PCT – general theory aboutt how orgsnisms function. With repeating perceptions that are »functions of environmental variables« which can represent PCT via transformation through perceptual (input) function and other levels of control. In your case we can’t confirm it.

For example :

1.   Transformation on »input function« show us that Bill wrote about control :
   

Bill P :

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

HB : You transformation of these »environmental variables« is :

Richard Marken :

CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.

HB : How can somebody so wrongly perceive the »same« environmental variables. The only explanation I can get is that he doesn’t know to read or his integration of perceptions on higher levels is having serious »distortions« with imagination.

2.   Bill wrote :
   

Bill P (B:CP):

•      OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
  

Bill P (LCS III):…thhe output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

HB : You »transformed it into :

Richard Marken :

OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

HB : How that is possible ??? When will you prove that “Behavior can be controlled” ?

3.   Bill wrote :
   

Bill P :

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

HB : You wrote :

Rick Marken :

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.

HB : Bill wrote :

Bill P (B:CP) :

INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli

HB : You wrote :

Rick Marken :

INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«

COMPARATOR : ???

ERROR SIGNAL : ???

HB : So you see why you are wrong. You are wrongly transforming Bills’ literature (environmental variables).

When will this wrong »perceiving« of PCT stop ??? When will your perceptual variables as functions of »environmental variables« become write ??? Did you ask yourself why are you perceiving mostly everything wrong, and sometimes you perceive it right ???

Boris

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2018-08-09_17:07:50]

···

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:01 AM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

RM: If PCT is not the state of a perceptual variable then how do you know that I have it wrong?Â

HB : Well I admitt that I got a little bit wrong your initial statement, but anyway it’s wrong what you are saying.

RM: If PCT were not a perceptual variable then there would be no way to evaluate its rightness or wrongness. In PCT, rightness or wrongness is evaluated in terms of the distance of of a perceptual variable from the reference for that variable. If the perceptual variable is at your reference for the state of that variable, then you experience that variable as being in the “right” state; if the variable is some distance from your reference for the state of that variable, then you experience that variable as being in the “wrong” state, the degree of “wrongness” being proportional to the distance of the variable from your reference for it. This is true of simple perceptual variables, such as the position of a cursor, and complex perceptual variable, such as the position of a person regarding what constitutes PCT.Â

RM: You are able to say that I am wrong about PCT because your perception of my position regarding what constitutes PCT is quite a distance from your reference for the “right” state of that perceptual variable; so distant that the error drives you to rather aggressive outputs that are made in an effort to bring the state of that perceptual variable closer to your reference for what its state should be. But it’s a rather hopeless task since it is clear that your reference for what constitutes PCT is quite different than mine. So we have a conflict; we want the same variable (PCT) to be in two different states.

RM: The way such conflicts can be settled is by presenting evidence that will encourage one or another of the parties involved in the conflict to align their reference for PCT with that of the other. But unfortunately, we don’t even agree on what would constitute such evidence. For you, the evidence is quotes from Powers works; for me, it’s that as well as empirical tests and working models.Â

RM: So there we jolly well are, aren’t we.

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[_Boris_Hartman]

Rick,

you are even more ignorant then I thought before.

The only reference for PCT is PCT which was constructed by Bill Powers. And quotes about PCT are the only evidences what is PCT.

Bur if we are talking about how organisms function then we could present also evidences from other sciences (physiological, neurophysiological, etc.) which you don’t have.

Down are answers to your phylosophy…. Again no evidences…

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 2:08 AM
To: csgnet
Subject: Re: MoL and peace work

[Rick Marken 2018-08-09_17:07:50]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:01 AM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

RM: If PCT is not the state of a perceptual variable then how do you know that I have it wrong?

HB : Well I admitt that I got a little bit wrong your initial statement, but anyway it’s wrong what you are saying.

RM: If PCT were not a perceptual variable then there would be no way to evaluate its rightness or wrongness.

HB : Again Rick. It seems that you don’t know to read. PCT is perceptual variable when we can confirm by repeating perception that what we perceive right what is really in accordance to what the author of PCT Bill Powers produced. You are reading his literature as you want to and it’s pure wrong interpretation of PCT perceptual variable. Obviously what you are perceiving is not PCT… Here are the references for PCT. Do you see it in the same way as I do…

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1. CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’'s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

1. ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : And of course diagram in LCS III has to be added. How many times do I have to do it, that you’ll understand the basics of PCT ???

RM : In PCT, rightness or wrongness is evaluated in terms of the distance of of a perceptual variable from the reference for that variable.

HB : Right. And the reference are Bills’ books and articles about PCT. And the abstract is above. Do you agree with these references for PCT ?

RM : If the perceptual variable is at your reference for the state of that variable, then you experience that variable as being in the “right” state;

HB : PCT as perceptual variable is in reference state at my reference because I proved it that it is in PCT reference state with repeating perceptions from Bills literature. And your repeated perceptions are showing that you have for references something else. It’s RCT. Stop phylosophing Rick. Start showing ecidences.

RM : …if the variable is some distance from your referencce for the state of that variable, then you experience that variable as being in the “wrong” state, the degree of “wrongness” being proportional to the distance of the variable from your reference for it.

HB : There is no distance of my reference state from Powers RCT. But your perception are far away from PCT. It’s RCT.

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

1.   CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
   

2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

3.  FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
   

4.  INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
   

5.  COMPARATOR : ????
   

6.  ERROR SIGNAL : ???
   

RM : This is true of simple perceptual variables, such as the position of a cursor, and complex perceptual variable, such as the position of a person regarding what constitutes PCT.

HB : It’s not the position of cursor but perception of the position of the cursor. You are controlling perception of environment, not environment itself. If you think that you can control environment than give as a proof that you can control behavior. Where is that proof ?

RM: You are able to say that I am wrong about PCT because your perception of my position regarding what constitutes PCT is quite a distance from your reference for the “right” state of that perceptual variable;

HB : Stop physlosophing Rick.  I’m able to say that you are wrong from PCT because it’s obviously that you RCT is far from Bills’ PCT. You didn’t prove yet that behavior can be controlled and that exists some »CPV« - controlled perceptual variable. So your perceptions are wrong not mine. There is no such things in PCT as you are inventing with your imagjnation. They exist only in RCT.

RM : …so distant that the error drives you to rather aggressive outputs that are made in an effort to bring the state of that perceptual variable closer to your reference for what its state should be.

HB : Ha,ha … watch that you’ll not brake your toungue. My perceptual state of PCT is O.K. Here are my references for PCT :

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1. CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box reprresents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

1. ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : There is no »error«. You can find it in Bills Literature. These are right references for PCT. Where can we find your RCT perceptions being aligned wit PCT references ??? In your literature ??? It’s sure that we can’t get RCT perceptions in Bills’ literature. Â

RM : But it’s a rather hopeless task since it is clear that your reference for what constitutes PCT is quite different than mine.

HB : Of course. See why we have differences in references above.

RM : So we have a conflict; we want the same variable (PCT) to be in two different states.

HB : Of course. You want perception to be in RCT state and I want that perceptions to be in PCT state. It’s clear from evidences we are showing. Yours RCT is not in accordance to PCT references….

RM: The way such conflicts can be settled is by presenting evidence that will encourage one or another of the parties involved in the conflict to align their reference for PCT with that of the other.

HB : Of course. Here are my evidences about aligment with PCT and your wrong alignment with PCT.

1.   Transformation on »input function« show us that Bill wrote about control :
   

Bill P :

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

HB : You transformation of these »environmental variables« is :

Richard Marken :

CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.

HB : How can somebody so wrongly perceive the »same« environmental variables. The only explanation I can get is that he doesn’t know to read or his integration of perceptions on higher levels is having serious »distortions« with imagination.

2.   Bill wrote :
   

Bill P (B:CP):

•      OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
  

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shhown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

HB : You »transformed it into :

Richard Marken :OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

HB : How that is possible ??? When will you prove that “Behavior can be controlled” ?

3.   Bill wrote :
   

Bill P :

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

HB : You wrote :

Rick Marken :

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.

HB : Bill wrote :

Bill P (B:CP) : INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli

HB : You wrote :

Rick Marken :

INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«

COMPARATOR : ???

ERROR SIGNAL : ???

RM : But unfortunately, we don’t even agree on what would constitute such evidence.

HB : Of course we don’t agree because you are wrongly reading Bills literature. But above I presented evidences what can constitute references for PCT. Â

RM : For you, the evidence is quotes from Powers works; for me, it’s that as well as empirical tests and working models.

HB : What is for you evindence that we are talking about PCT ? What an unscientific manipulator you are. We know that quotes from Powers work are well supported with physiological and neurophysiological evidences which your »empirical tests and working models« don’t have. Start reading his books. We know anyway that you are reading them wrong. And beside that your »empirical tests« and models are working wrong. They mostly can’t be confirmed in nature the final arbiter. But Bills’ can. Although some of your empirical models can be confirmed.

RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.

HB : This is one of your rare PCT satement that can be scientifically proved and is in alignment with PCT references.

You are simply inventing tests and models to confirm that you RCT is right. Where is the analysis of »baseball catch« you promised to me and Bill ? I’ve been waiting for it 5 years.

RM: So there we jolly well are, aren’t we.

HB : We are not anything but opponents in right understanding of PCT. You understand RCT and I understand PCT. It’s opposite view of the »same perceptual variables«.

So again. Do yo agree with right version of PCT presented by Powers in B:CP and LCS III :

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1. CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

1. ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : And of course diagram in LCS III has to be added. How many times do I have to do it, that you’ll understand the basics of PCT ???

Boris

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[bnhpct]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-08-16_13:04:48 ET]

Ed Heidicker 2018-08-14_09:20:59 ET --Â

[This was addressed just to me, but clearly intended for the net.]

Ed, lots of possibilities.Â

For example, Bill said that what turned talk into decision was realizing that the perceived pleasure of smoking was actually no more than the temporary cessation of the pain caused by smoking.Â

Or you may be asking rather about the controlled perceptions in the addiction itself. That same insight applies.

···

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:01 PM Ed Heidicker heidicker@gmail.com wrote:

[Ed Heidicker 2018-08-14_09:20:59 ET] Â

Not sure where to fit this in but what would be anyone’s guess at what the controlled variables would be if someone were decided to learn how to stop smoking.

Ed

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 9:24 AM Bruce Nevin csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-06-30_09:20:59 ET]

Part of my role in the Martha’s Vineyard Peace Council is to choose among applicants for the Embarking Peacemaker Award, a tiny award from our tiny budget. Each year 20 or 30 graduating seniors write an essay on their commitment to helping make peace in the world.Â

This year in the award letters, and in the regret letters to those beyond our budget, I included the following paragraph expressing a practical application of the principles behind the Method of Levels:

Falling
into conflict is as easy as closing your eyes. All it takes is not
paying attention as purposes cross, and purposes cross all the time.
To resolve conflict we have to be more alert. The place where two
purposes cross is where both try to use the same means. When we shift
attention from how to why we want to do a thing—
from
the means that we think we need to the end result that we really
want—
we can
notice the alternative means that are available.

​Perhaps this way of putting it may be useful to you. Perhaps it may even have application to our conversations here.​

​/Bruce​

Â

–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929