MOL PCT Therapists/Counselors/Life Coaches

[dmg]

[From David Goldstein (2008.04.20.0818 EDT)]

[From Keith Daniels (2008.04.19.2311 PDT)]

Dear Keith and listmates:

I have put on the net two case studies which used MOL Therapy and which you may find interesting.

Take a look at:

http://moltherapists.com/

This website contains the case study, some videos featuring Bill Powers and my colleagues who are
learning about MOL Therapy, and some descriptions of MOL Therapy which may help
you learn about it in addition to reading Tim Carey's book.

The second case study will be presented at the annual CSG Conference this summer. You can read it at:

http://csg-annual-conference.ihoststudio.com/Untitled_7.html

Hopefully, as the conference comes closer to the start date of July 16, you will see more presentations there
which will help you understand PCT and MOL Therapy.

Best regards,
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D
Licensed Psychologist (NJ/PA)
Current President of the CSG

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "L. Keith Daniels" <keith@BOOKBLOG.COM>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: MOL PCT Therapists/Counselors/Life Coaches

[From Keith Daniels (2008.04.19.2311 PDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2008i.04.12.0252 MDT)]

Notice the above: MDT, CDT. Local time. We can figure it out

Thanks for the clarification.

All these references to different nuances, flavors, and techniques of
therapy ought to be making you wonder. When you read Tim Carey's book
you'll see his slant on this. What is it that helps people get
better?

Actually, it doesn't really make me wonder at all. Despite my "perception"
that there is a determination to use PCT to describe/explain all behavior, I
am personally not fully signed on yet and believe that humans are too
complex organisms to believe that any one explanation is the absolute
be-all, end-all. I feel the same way about religion/s as well.

I have to admit that I've just read a few chapters in Method of Levels, but
I can't say that the first case example of the guy who couldn't decide
whether to let his girlfriend stay in his house for a year or move her to an
apartment was earth-shattering. Primarily because it was what I'd consider
a menial or trivial problem. I'm hoping I'll come across case histories of
tougher clients/issues further in the book, before rendering any further
judgment.

Where I do agree with you is that I don't believe it is the particular
nuance, practitioner, or style of therapy that is responsible for a client
improving (how to measure improvement is another matter). But I do think
some are more likely to help than others and perhaps MOL is of that sort.
from my experience, insight is frequently the key component to change. And
it is the ability to view the problem from a different perspective/level
that produces that insight. It seems to me that whether you use those words
or not, that is what MOL is doing also.

is it possible that all the other things the practitioner does that
are unique to that approach are irrelevant, or even a wee bit
counterproductive?

Yes. Not only possible, but likely.

In PCT, what causes change in a person is reorganization.
Reorganization is driven in proportion to intrinsic error, and
intrinsic error is a deep sense of wrongness stemming from basic
malfunctions in the organism.

This sounds like good theory, but I don't yet have a clue whether it's true
or not.

In other words, what causes change in a
person is internal, and no outside agency can do it for the person.

This I agree with 100% Except to add, that I believe it is possible that
external inputs (possibly including metaphysical inputs, God, etc) can
stimulate internal change. Whitehead's Process Philosophy/Theology of a god
that nudges humans but gives them free will to make their choice is an
example of that sort of consideration. Of course, I realize that PCT is a
science-based theory, so something so ephemeral as that might not be up the
PCT alley.

If there are no hitches in this process, it will result in a sort of
random walk up the levels to an interesting state of mind which we
term the "observer self." It's been called a lot of names through
history. It's a state of serenity, of pure awareness, of awareness
without involvement in thought. I'm sure the idea is familiar to you,
Gavin and Keith, as well as others in CSGnet.

I actually think there may be a step beyond the Observer Self into a
non-dual "pure awareness"... but I'm with you on this.

There are almost always hitches. The one most often encountered is
internal conflict. You find not one higher-level thought, but two (or
more) and they are mutually contradictory. In fact, this is where we
find most people when they come in for help: they are stuck in a
conflict, or a whole network of conflicts, and are reorganizing like
mad but at the wrong level.

I know that you believe other therapies might accidentally be helpful, but I
think this hitch pretty much describes the exact method or purpose in at
least one therapy that I'm aware of, Depth-Oriented Brief Psychotherapy or
Coherence Therapy. As I said early on, I'm somewhat guru aversive and I
should add "Truth" aversive as well. When someone tells me or implies that
their beliefs are the one and only Truth, I tend to be rather doubtful and
somewhat dismissive. I know I'm treading on thin water hear, but I am not
so much a believer of faith as a believer in action. Which is why Buddha's
"be the light unto yourself (prove it to your own satisfaction) statement
had me wanting to know more. With PCT, I understand I can test and prove
and maybe I'll come to a "truth" conclusion of my own with it.

I think that if you look at various forms of therapy, you will find
in them interactions between therapist and client that very often
accomplish the same things I have described above. Bringing
background thoughts to the foreground. Examining them for a while;
then noticing a new batch of background thoughts and repeating the
process. Or exploring conflicts: I want this, but if I get it then I
can't have that, which I also intensely want.

Yes, which may render some of my earlier comments either inappropriate or moot.

So while you folks are bandying about all the latest fashions in Zen
and Shrinkdom, consider this: maybe they're all doing the same things
that work, and a lot of different things that don't have any effect,
or maybe work the wrong way. If you can figure out what the parts are
that work, then you don't need the rest, do you? Except socially, I mean.

It took me a while to respond to this because I perceived it as fairly
dismissive comments and I wanted to respond after careful/calm
consideration, not in haste. I still need to say that I find a lot I like
about what I've learned of PCT and MOL so far and will continue to explore.

Thanks again and best regards,

Keith

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2008.04.20.1000)]

Keith Daniels (2008.04.19.2311 PDT)--

I have to admit that I've just read a few chapters in Method of Levels, but
I can't say that the first case example of the guy who couldn't decide
whether to let his girlfriend stay in his house for a year or move her to an
apartment was earth-shattering. Primarily because it was what I'd consider
a menial or trivial problem.

Who do you think is the person best able to judge the triviality (or
seriousness) of a problem; you or the person with the problem? Can you
give an example of what you would consider a non-trivial problem?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[Keith_Daniels]

[From Keith Daniels (2008.04.20.1307)]

[From Rick Marken (2008.04.20.1000)]

Who do you think is the person best able to judge the triviality (or
seriousness) of a problem; you or the person with the problem? Can you
give an example of what you would consider a non-trivial problem?

Surely, you're not suggesting that the seriousness of any psychological
issue is determined by the clent? That's a pretty scary thought and it
implies that not only is there no heirarchy of seriousness but that
something as serious as homicidal ideation could be considered a menial
issue if the client didn't recognize it as a problem.

I wasn't saying that PCT/MOL couldn't be used to treat serious issues, I
just said that the first case example was not what I considered to be an
earth-shattering issue and I'll stand by that.

But yes..

I'd give the following as being examples of issues that I would count as
more serious than the issue I was describing:

major depression
suicidial ideation
homicidal ideation
post-traumatic stress
child abuse
domestic abuse
uncontrolled violence
addiction or substance abuse

This isn't a complete list and is definitely not listed in order of any
"seriousness" heirarchy... but I do believe almost any of them would be
considered by any therapist to be larger, more serious problems than a
decision to sell or not sell a house.

Are you arguing that the client is the sole determinant of the seriousness
of a presenting issue?

Best regards

Keith

[Keith_Daniels]

[From Keith Daniels (2008.04.20.1339 PDT)]

[From David Goldstein (2008.04.20.0818 EDT)]

I have put on the net two case studies which used MOL Therapy and which you
may find interesting.

Thank you very much. I had read the case study for the CSG conference
already, but appreciated the link back to moltherapists.com and its case study.

Thanks again,

Keith

[Tracy_Harms1]

[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-04-20 21:02 Pacific)]

L. Keith Daniels (2008.04.19.2311 PDT), in reply to
Bill Powers (2008i.04.12.0252 MDT, wrote:

...
Despite my "perception" that there is a
determination to use PCT to describe/explain
all behavior, I am personally not fully signed
on yet and believe that humans are too
complex organisms to believe that any one
explanation is the absolute be-all, end-all.
I feel the same way about religion/s as well.

One thing deserving emphasis is that PCT explains
behavior "by definition", in the sense that in PCT
behavior is defined to be what a control-system does.
Advocates of PCT are confident, and indeed excited,
that this maps very nicely onto the stuff we see going
on with organisms, including people. Is it
comprehensive? That is hard to say, particularly given
the complexity you mentioned.

Some advocates of PCT are inclined to argue that PCT,
or some hierarchic extension of it, is enough to
provide good explanation on any level where we'll be
looking for explanations as to what people do. Others,
perhaps a minority, demur in some manner at some
threshold. The common core of agreement is that
insofar as what is going on is best explained in terms
of control systems, PCT is the applicable theory.

Another thing I'd like to say is that even where
eagerness to explain things via PCT may be excessive,
it often arises out of an appreciation for the way PCT
provides serious explanation, and in reaction to what
is seen as a paucity of explanatory power in the
proposed alternative of the hour. PCT stands out with
regard to scientific rigor, so when other ideas are
set out as competitors it is natural to compare what
they offer along those lines. So, even if we may agree
that PCT is not the be-all and end-all of explanatory
theories, that does not imply that it makes sense to
supplement it by drawing from a grab-bag of notions.

I feel the same way about religion, as well. That
concern has kept me aloof from Unitarianism, for
example.

So while you folks are bandying about all the
latest fashions in Zen and Shrinkdom, consider
this: maybe they're all doing the same things
that work, and a lot of different things that
don't have any effect, or maybe work the wrong
way. If you can figure out what the parts are
that work, then you don't need the rest, do
you? Except socially, I mean.

It took me a while to respond to this because I
perceived it as fairly dismissive comments and
I wanted to respond after careful/calm
consideration, not in haste. I still need to say
that I find a lot I like about what I've learned
of PCT and MOL so far and will continue to
explore.

It struck me as rather dismissive, too. What
particularly stuck out to me was the phrase "the
latest fashions in Zen". I suppose attention to Zen
in America may be something that could be rightly
examined in terms of fashion, Zen Buddhism itself is
as remote from fashion as anything I have ever
encountered.

Tracy Harms

···

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. Home | Yahoo Mobile

[Keith_Daniels]

[from Keith Daniels (2008.04.21.0001 PDT]

[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-04-20 21:02 Pacific)]

So, even if we may agree that PCT is not the be-all and end-all of

explanatory theories, that does not imply that it makes sense to

supplement it by drawing from a grab-bag of notions.

I feel the same way about religion, as well. That
concern has kept me aloof from Unitarianism, for
example.

Tracy, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I absolutely agree with you re the
grab bag and even on Unitarianism. While not a cynic, I suppose I have
become a bit of an open-minded skeptic if that's a possibility. I'm willing
to look at a variety of theories, techniques, (psychological, spiritual,
political, economic, etc) without writing them off upfront and without
accepting them on blind faith or the latest fad or fashion as Bill Powers
might say.

I'm also not a big believer in creating patchwork quilts by taking things I
like from different areas and creating my own "whole." But.... I do think
that looking for and seeing consilience can add to or improve a theory or
area of knowledge. It's the example of the ancient East Indian story of
three blind men who came upon an elephant. One touched his tail and said the
elephant was like a rope. Another touched his ear and said the elephant was
like a rug. Another touched a leg and said the elephant was like a pillar.
Since none of them saw the whole elephant, they didn't have the joy of
knowing the magnificence of the animal.

There is so much that I see as spot on with PCT and MOL, yet I don't yet
feel that I've been shown the entire elephant. Given Carey's definition of
"psychological problems" as only those which present "distress" to the
client, I'm a bit taken aback... To me its as if we've just solved a lot of
problems by changing the definition. Like solving poverty by lowering the
poverty line. Only the client can define a problem? OMG. Then I guess we
no longer have a child sex or pedophila problem since I've rarely met a
pedophile who thought his attraction to children was a problem to anyone but
"society." The idea of problems only existing if the presenter sees it as
a problem is something that will be difficult for me to get my head around.

Anyway, back to consilience. I see things like attachment theory being
potentially related to the reasons people might have inaccurate perceptions.
  Is there a consilience here? Not sure. PCT doesn't explain the how's of
perception only the why's of behavior as far as I've seen so far (And
admittedly, I am only just now learning or possibly mis-learning the basics)

It struck me as rather dismissive, too. What
particularly stuck out to me was the phrase "the
latest fashions in Zen". I suppose attention to Zen
in America may be something that could be rightly
examined in terms of fashion, Zen Buddhism itself is
as remote from fashion as anything I have ever
encountered.

I'm glad it wasn't just me that found the comment dismissive. I find it
somewhat curious that Bill would say something that's even perceived as
dismissive about Zen since I see many connections and potential correlations
between Buddhism and PCT. I know a bit about Bill's background as
engineer/scientist but nothing about his knowledge of Zen. Perhaps, it's
just a subject that is of no interest. In Zen/Buddhist thought there is
nothing that is permanent or real.... everything is simply perception...
It's how we attach to or think about these perceptions that cause suffering
(dukka) or distress in our lives. I know that's my own take on potential
Zen/PCT connections but I think it might be somewhat accurate. I think
there may be some consilience there too.

Thanks again,

Keith

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.21.0718 MDT)]

Keith Daniels (2008.04.21.0001 PDT)

Given Carey’s definition of
“psychological problems” as only those which present
“distress” to the client, I’m a bit taken aback… To me
its as if we’ve just solved a lot of problems by changing the
definition.

I think Tim’s meaning has got rather lost. His point is that not all
problems are the sort that can be solved with psychotherapy.
Psychological problems are the problems a person sees in his own life,
his own way of being. So depression, which I haven’t seen anyone liking,
is that sort of problem. But child abuse isn’t, unless the abuser
recognizes it as a problem and wants to get over it. If the abuser is
perfectly happy to go on abusing, then the abuse is a social problem, not
a psychological problem: it’s other people who have a problem, not the
abuser. The usual solution is to provide some consequence of the behavior
that makes the offender sorry he did it, even if he never sees anything
wrong with what he did.
Sometimes that would mean that the other people are the ones who need
therapy (if not jail) but it could also mean that their freedom is being
infringed upon and their lives spoiled or endangered, so they feel
justified in taking action to remove the danger. Where to draws the line
is an issue that a society has to work out for itself, and all societies
I know of have done so. I wouldn’t, however, award any of them any prizes
for the brilliance of their solutions.
There is also a set of ambiguous problems, such as “suicidal
ideation.” Is this a psychological problem, a social problem, or
neither, or both? Actually, it’s not a problem at all, but a proposed
solution to some problem (it may be a psychological problem for others).
A suicidal person decides, quite correctly, that committing suicide will
put an end to intolerable suffering. But suicide is only a means, and if
we want to know what the problem is we have to look at what the means is
supposed to accomplish. A terminal cancer patient may simply wish to stop
enduring extreme pain. I see nothing wrong with asking the person if that
is why suicide seems attractive, and if it is, proposing that there are
drugs which can also stop the experiencing of extreme pain, perhaps at
the cost of consciousness, to buy some time on the chance that a cure
might be discovered.
Suicide is also an actual solution to the problem of intolerable
psychological distress, and again I see nothing wrong with offering the
alterative of a course of psychotherapy that might remove the distress by
different and less destructive means. In any case, since one person’s
death has only limited social effects (and will happen anyway
eventually), I think that once the offer of an alternative has been made
and rejected, society has no rational reason to oppose suicide.

The same goes for many social or other problems that are treated as if
they are psychological. The only real solution for many of them (like the
problem of a black person’s wanting to move into your neighborhood) is
for the other people to get over it. They won’t like hearing that and
probably won’t do it, but getting over it is still the only real solution
when there is no actual harm to others. Psychotherapy might help the ones
who can’t get over it but want to.
MOL is not even about solving psyschological problems. It’s about helping
people to get into a position from which they can, by reorganizing more
effectively, find solutions for themselves that fit into their lives
without creating more conflict than they cure. An MOL therapist has no
idea what side-effects there might be from any solutions proposed by the
therapist; if the therapist is paying attention, he or she will realize
that most suggestions are rejected immediately, or if they are not
rejected, are not carried out even if the client says they were. Once in
a while a therapist gets lucky and a suggestion is accepted and it works,
but the encouragement obtained from that is false. It’s the same sort of
encouragement that leads to compulsive gambling, which depends on
ignoring net losses and remembering only the few big wins.
Most conventional psychotherapies, it seems to me, are organized around
the idea that the therapist is there to think up solutions to the
client’s problems, to cure the illness, to provide the critical insight.
However, it also seems to me that all the successful therapies, in
addition to these futile aims, manage to do things that are effective,
like calling attention to background thoughts and bringing them to the
foreground, or helping the client grasp a whole conflict in awareness
instead of only one side. MOL is simply an attempt to eliminate what
doesn’t work and retain what does work. Of course we also have PCT to
give us some idea of how all this works.

Best,

Bill P.

···

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.21.0822 MDT)]

Tracy B. Harms (2008-04-20 21:02 Pacific)--\

What particularly stuck out to me was the phrase "the
latest fashions in Zen". I suppose attention to Zen
in America may be something that could be rightly
examined in terms of fashion, Zen Buddhism itself is
as remote from fashion as anything I have ever
encountered.

In 1945 I was passing through Los Angeles on my way to Illinois from Japan, and thought I'd like to see a Buddhist church meeting. So I dropped in on one (A cocky kid in dress blues and a squashed sailor hat could go anywhere, then). What I found was a big room full of people sitting in pews and holding hymn books, praying aloud from a prayer book to their "Dear Lord Buddha" while the priest in (if I remember right) a saffron robe stood at the pulpit leading them. Looked just like my own Union Church in Republican Hinsdale, Illinois.

As to "Zen Buddhism itself", I'm not sure how one would recognize that if it bit you. I've met and known of many people who claimed to follow Zen and the Noble Eightfold Way, including one or two who seemed wholly admirable. Some were awful drunks and libertines, like the guy who founded the Naropa Institute and probably didn't know any more about Zen than I did. Others, like Krishnamurti, said things I thought were profoundly right and inspiring -- he wasn't a Zen Buddhist, I guess, but he might as well have been. And of course I love the writings about those clever Zen masters and their koans, some of which seem designed to mock those who think there must be deep meaning in any nonsense uttered by a guy wearing a dress. It's fun to try to make sense out of nonsense, but it's better to learn to tell the difference -- that's what I learned from the koans, anyway.

So yes, I stoutly defend my observation about "fashions in Zen."

Best,

Bill P.

[Susan_McCormack]

love it!!!Quoting Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>:

···

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.21.0822 MDT)]

Tracy B. Harms (2008-04-20 21:02 Pacific)--\

What particularly stuck out to me was the phrase "the
latest fashions in Zen". I suppose attention to Zen
in America may be something that could be rightly
examined in terms of fashion, Zen Buddhism itself is
as remote from fashion as anything I have ever
encountered.

In 1945 I was passing through Los Angeles on my way to Illinois from
Japan, and thought I'd like to see a Buddhist church meeting. So I
dropped in on one (A cocky kid in dress blues and a squashed sailor hat
could go anywhere, then). What I found was a big room full of people
sitting in pews and holding hymn books, praying aloud from a prayer
book to their "Dear Lord Buddha" while the priest in (if I remember
right) a saffron robe stood at the pulpit leading them. Looked just
like my own Union Church in Republican Hinsdale, Illinois.

As to "Zen Buddhism itself", I'm not sure how one would recognize that
if it bit you. I've met and known of many people who claimed to follow
Zen and the Noble Eightfold Way, including one or two who seemed wholly
admirable. Some were awful drunks and libertines, like the guy who
founded the Naropa Institute and probably didn't know any more about
Zen than I did. Others, like Krishnamurti, said things I thought were
profoundly right and inspiring -- he wasn't a Zen Buddhist, I guess,
but he might as well have been. And of course I love the writings about
those clever Zen masters and their koans, some of which seem designed
to mock those who think there must be deep meaning in any nonsense
uttered by a guy wearing a dress. It's fun to try to make sense out of
nonsense, but it's better to learn to tell the difference -- that's
what I learned from the koans, anyway.

So yes, I stoutly defend my observation about "fashions in Zen."

Best,

Bill P.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2008.04.21.0945)]

Keith Daniels (2008.04.20.1307)--

Surely, you're not suggesting that the seriousness of any psychological
issue is determined by the clent?

I was suggesting that the seriousness of any psychological issue to
the client is determined by the client while it's seriousness to
others is determined by others. I think Bill answered this for me in
his post of (2008.04.21.0718 MDT).

You had said that Tim Carey's example of the guy whose problem was
that he couldn't decide whether to let his girlfriend stay in his
house for a year or move her to an apartment had only a trivial
problem. That just misses the point of Tim's example completely. Tim
is illustrating a conflict, which, according to PCT is the basis of
all problems, trivial and serious. The seriousness of the problem for
the client depends on the relative gains of the two systems involved
in the conflict and how how the conflict persists. So what seems like
a trivial problem to you might be a huge problem to the client. As
Bill noted, the same person may also like to do things, like attempt
suicide, that might create problems for you. If the person has no
conflict about it, however, then the person has no problem (trivial or
serious), only you do.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[Tracy_Harms1]

[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-04-21 11:42 Pacific)]

A lovely post, Rick. I just want to bring out one
implication that has not yet been given explicit
attention.

[From Rick Marken (2008.04.21.0945)]

> Keith Daniels (2008.04.20.1307)--

> Surely, you're not suggesting that the
> seriousness of any psychological
> issue is determined by the clent?

I was suggesting that the seriousness of any
psychological issue to
the client is determined by the client while
it's seriousness to
others is determined by others.

It is worth emphasis that insofar as "the client" is,
in fact, a client, it is their sense of problem that
is key. Yes, they may turn to somebody else for help
with clarifying or identifying problems that are vague
or mysterious to them, and a therapist may attempt to
serve in that role. But insofar as the "therapist"
imposes a claim that there is a problem, and the
"client" disagrees, the relationship ceases to be one
that may be accurately characterized in therapeutic
terms. The conveniences of hiding impositions behind a
fa�ade of helpfulness can make this very appealing,
and the entire institution of psychiatry has long been
warped by exactly this sort of dishonesty.

Tracy Harms

···

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. Home | Yahoo Mobile

[Keith_Daniels]

[From Keith Daniels (2008.04.21.1549 PDT)]

In 1945 I was passing through Los Angeles on my way to Illinois from
Japan, and thought I'd like to see a Buddhist church meeting. So I
dropped in on one (A cocky kid in dress blues and a squashed sailor
hat could go anywhere, then). What I found was a big room full of
people sitting in pews and holding hymn books, praying aloud from a
prayer book to their "Dear Lord Buddha" while the priest in (if I
remember right) a saffron robe stood at the pulpit leading them.
Looked just like my own Union Church in Republican Hinsdale, Illinois.

First, let me acknowledge that this thread has gone a bit off-topic and off
of the PCT subject matter it was designed for. But, I need to reply before
continuing on with the relevant topic.

Mr. Powers, I'm not of Japanese origin, but I can't imagine that a "cocky"
white kid was well-received at what sounds like a Pure Land Amida Buddha
Church/Temple in 1945. Many Japanese-American's were still interned until
the end of 1945 though some of the camps began closing in 1944. I'm still
sure there wasn't a lot of good will toward the American government or its
representatives at that time. I'm not aware of any other Buddhist
"churches" other than Pure Land and no sect of Buddhism I've ever seen
besides that, had "preachers or pulpits." You may not be aware that Pure
Land or Jodo Shinshu is quite different than either traditional Theravadan
or Chinese Ch'an or Japanese Zen. If you had a little more knowledge in this
area, you would definitely be able to recognize it if it "bit" you.

As to "Zen Buddhism itself", I'm not sure how one would recognize
that if it bit you. I've met and known of many people who claimed to
follow Zen and the Noble Eightfold Way, including one or two who
seemed wholly admirable. Some were awful drunks and libertines, like
the guy who founded the Naropa Institute and probably didn't know any
more about Zen than I did. Others, like Krishnamurti, said things I
thought were profoundly right and inspiring -- he wasn't a Zen
Buddhist, I guess, but he might as well have been. And of course I
love the writings about those clever Zen masters and their koans,
some of which seem designed to mock those who think there must be
deep meaning in any nonsense uttered by a guy wearing a dress. It's
fun to try to make sense out of nonsense, but it's better to learn to
tell the difference -- that's what I learned from the koans, anyway.

I really don't want to go into a defense of Zen or Buddhism as philosophy,
but I must point out that your bringing up of the presence of hypocrites and
hypocritical behavior from those who espouse Buddhism is just as prevalent
in every other religion, including Christianity. Denigrating a philosophy
based on the behavior of someone who says they are an adherent is neither
appropriate or logical unless the philosophy advocates and promotes the
behavior you object to. I know I'm verging on the borders of persona
non-grata here, but I have to say that it sounds to me that while you aren't
the young sailor anymore, you haven't really lost all the cockiness.

It seems to me, that your reference point/signal is that any perception of a
questioning of PCT or a comparison of it or offshoots of it (MOL) is seen as
an attack or denigration of something you've dedicated much of your life
too. So my posts must have triggered a perception that when compared to your
reference signal indicated I was criticizing PCT/MOL. I am sorry it came
across that way to you.

I was merely using this forum to discuss and question my understanding of
the PCT/MOL theories and occasionally referenced my own comparisons to
things I was more familiar with when I saw similarities or consiliencies.

I was going to reply to a few more posts, but I think for now, I'll make
this one my last for a while since I don't feel that this forum is a place I
can question any aspect of PCT without offending those who have bought in
already. I can actually see one of the factors that has kept PCT from
becoming more accepted in play here and it has little to do with the
institution of psychiatry/psychotherapy, the medical model or people
defending their life's work. While the PCT model has done a good job of
describing/predicting simple behaviors...it hasn't explained or predicted
more complex behaviors sufficiently that you or those who adhere to PCT
should be defending it as if it were a universal or law of physics, to be
defended at all costs against any criticism or comparison. (Then again, all
the above is just my perception)

A Couple Things about PCT that I have issues with that prevent me from
thinking I've found the one and only truth of behavior.

To the best of my knowledge:

1.) PCT does not address the issue of inaccurate perception or errors in
perception. Thus, someone who doesn't believe they have a problem doesn't
have a problem in PCT. Or Someone may believe they have a problem because
they aren't perceiving accurately.

2.) PCT doesn't appear to address the issue of relationships in behavior.
from Parental, Peer, Romantic, Work, etc... PCT might be the perfect
explanation for behavior for someone living on a deserted island, but may be
less explanatory for someone in relations with others.

3.) I"m not at all sure that a person is a closed loop system. From a
quantum physic or metaphysical standpoint, I believe it would be almost
impossible to determine where my atoms end and yours begin. Thus, I believe
that inter-relatedness and interpenetration have some effect on behavior.
Of course, we can discuss things from a relative or absolute point of view.

4.) I'm not yet sure who other systems fit into PCT. Family Systems, Social
Systems, etc.... and I believe that these systems control for their own
behavior as well.

That's just a few of the thoughts that have kept me from converting.

At the same time, I find a whole lot of great ideas, concepts and
explanatory information within PCT... and to a certain level, I agree with
much of the ideas here...

My apologies for intruding into your space, though I am glad to have come
across these ideas...

Best wishes,

Keith

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.21.1827 MDT)]

Keith Daniels (2008.04.21.1549 PDT) --

Mr. Powers, I'm not of Japanese origin, but I can't imagine that a "cocky"
white kid was well-received at what sounds like a Pure Land Amida Buddha
Church/Temple in 1945.

On second thought it was 1946. I don't recall seeing any Japanese people there, though there might have been some -- I just looked for a while from the back of the church and then left. I don't think anyone even saw me, so I don't think I offended anyone. The extent of my cockiness was to walk in an open door.

I'm afraid I don't have a very reverent attitude toward religion in general, or any particular one. I do, however, have respect for competent observation of phenomena, and with respect to phenomena of consciousness I would rate Eastern philosophers higher as observers than Western scientists. I think the Western scientists, however, have a better approach to finding explanations and making predictions, at least in fields outside psychology. The flowery metaphors in writings about Eastern religions leave me uninformed (I thought of several other words to put at the end and picked the least offensive that left the sentence true).

But that's just me -- it has nothing to do with you.

Best,

Bill P.

[Keith_Daniels]

[From Keith Daniels (2008.04.21.1951 PDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.21.1827 MDT)]

I'm afraid I don't have a very reverent attitude toward religion in
general, or any particular one. I do, however, have respect for
competent observation of phenomena, and with respect to phenomena of
consciousness I would rate Eastern philosophers higher as observers
than Western scientists. I think the Western scientists, however,
have a better approach to finding explanations and making
predictions, at least in fields outside psychology. The flowery
metaphors in writings about Eastern religions leave me uninformed (I
thought of several other words to put at the end and picked the least
offensive that left the sentence true).

Bill,

Just to clarify. I wasn't offended by anything you said. And the flowery
language that accompanies most Buddhist scriptures, especially zen or
mahayana scriptures (I'm currently slogging through something called the
Avatamsaka (Flower Garland) sutra. Talk about "flowery language." I'd
love a straightforward, non-metaphorical translation but those are
exceedingly rare. As to your experience of the Buddhist service in LA in
1946, I would have loved to have been there. I know a bit about the history
of Buddhism in America and my understanding is that there were few
non-Japanese or non-Chinese Buddhist services at that time. So I would have
loved to have known exactly what it was you came across.

And to be more clear... I also am less than reverent about most things,
including religion. I'm not prone to take anything on faith or say so of
others, including religion, philosophy, baseball, etc... This lack of
reverence on my part, might be part of why I could walk into your online
house here and question PCT... But believe me, it was all in an attempt to
understand it and its implications...and to see where it fit in my own
personal perceptions/belief systems.

Best,

Keith.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.22.0232 MDT)]

Keith Daniels (2008.04.21.1951 PDT) --

Just to clarify. I wasn't offended by anything you said. ... I'd
love a straightforward, non-metaphorical translation but those are
exceedingly rare.

Good. I was hoping for the same things but also failed to find them.

But this is all good for me because I listen to what I'm saying and realize that most of it's irrelevant. Religion, like many other things people turn to, is a form of psychotherapy because it addresses mainly psychological problems of being human and living together. I shouldn't speak against something that people find helpful, that makes them feel better. The question is not what behaviors they produce to get help, but just what it is they need help with.

In religions of the West, what they need help with is cast mostly in the form of "sins." We do, and want to do, things we know we should not do. We fall into despair, depression, self-loathing, helplessness, confusion. We know our duties and can't bring ourselves to carry them out. We are consumed with hatred even toward those we want to love. We find ourselves aspiring to the highest ideals while seeking the vilest self-indulgences and self-destruction.

In the East, I expect that it's much the same, except that the emphasis is more on seeking the good rather than avoiding the evil. That still amounts to taking one side of a conflict and trying to suppress the other. And the head-on approach doesn't work any better over there than it does over here (though meditation is much less coercive than threats of Hell or promises of Heaven).

Yet despite the general failures to address the real issues clearly and directly, as with most other forms of psychotherapy there is a substantial success rate -- various estimates say about 30% of people get better no matter what form of therapy they accept, including none. That sounds like a reasonable estimate for the religious forms, too. Everyone has the capacity to reorganize; it's bound to work some of the time.

And we mustn't forget the 70% who stick with whatever form of therapy they have chosen (including none) even if it's not doing much for them. They are still hoping that it will work with a little more persistence. And there's also the group who, still looking for something that will fix what's wrong, thumb through the Yellow Pages hoping to come across the particular variant of this or that approach -- or pill -- that will finally do it for them.

None of these groups of people take it kindly when someone tells them the method they're relying on for salvation is hogwash. They don't want to hear the Buddha's last words: Seek out your own salvation with diligence. They're still sure that someone else can give it to them. Well, someone else can, I think, but not in the way that most people expect.

The method of levels expresses what I think that way is. Because of the way we're constructed (I think), we can act very skillfully to make multiple experiences become the way we want them to be, all at the same time. But that same ability has what Tim Carey calls an Achilles' Heel. Since more than one control system can be active at the same time, and because we do not arrive in the world fully equipped to handle everything, but must learn how to control, it is possible for control systems inside the same person to come into conflict with each other. We want one thing for one set of reasons, and another thing for a different set of reasons, and then we find that getting either one means we can't have the other. Being made of control systems that are very sensitive to small errors and very good at correcting them, we then find that we are locked in a desperate struggle with ourselves which manifests itself as paralysis of the will. If this doesn't result in an immediate reorganization that changes the opposing systems in some fundamental way, we are stuck. The best we can do is for other control systems in us to throw their weight into the conflict and try to unbalance the conflict enough in one direction or the other to permit at least some crippled form of action, or simply avoid altogether the situations that require the use of either of the conflicted systems. That can be a pretty severe limitation.

What the method of levels does is to point reorganization toward the control systems that are causing the problems instead of toward the symptoms, the consequences of having the problems. The mobility of awareness, which I learned about first through reading the literature of the East, is the key to the puzzle. We can move attention around inside the hierarchy of control, and when we do, apparently we also move the locus of reorganization (or at least the most intense focus of reorganization). So if someone is hung up on the effects of a conflict, such as an apparent inability to step outside one's front door, it is possible for awareness to be enticed away from that problem to the conflict that is causing it: wanting to leave the house, and at the same time, equally strongly but for different reasons, not wanting to leave the house. Each side is the result of a different higher-order control process (obviously not working very well at the moment), and it is those processes that need attention, not the lower-level processes where the inability to act is felt. Reorganizing the lower-level processes is not going to remove the conflict.

Just how one entices awareness toward the source of the problem remains to be worked out in more detail, but apparently verbal communication can help a great deal. Simply by mentioning things, can can call other people's attention to them. We may not know exactly what the other person is now attending to, but it's probably different from what was in attention before. And through interaction we can reach a pretty good, or at least sufficient, understanding and go on from there. The person's own distress has turned reorganization on; now the problem is to direct the reorganization where it will improve matters instead of just trading one problem for another just like it.

What is of the most help is to listen for hints from the person who needs help. The hints come in the form of disruptions of the flow of conversation, comments or actions that are not on topic but are about the person or the process. Those, I think, are effects of higher-order systems, and hints that can lead awareness to them. This requires alert self-examination by the helpee, and equally alert sensitivity on the part of the guide to those hints from higher systems. This cooperation of alertnesses is what distinguishes the MOL from other approaches -- that, and all the other things that other approaches do that are simply omitted from the method of levels, such as analysis, diagnosis, and treatment.

I think all successful therapies, including religions, accomplish the same objectives we try for in MOL. People also do it by themselves, sometimes, with no help, because of course it's their own capacity to reorganize that makes it work.

  As to your experience of the Buddhist service in LA in
1946, I would have loved to have been there. I know a bit about the history
of Buddhism in America and my understanding is that there were few
non-Japanese or non-Chinese Buddhist services at that time. So I would have
loved to have known exactly what it was you came across.

Well, I would too, but that was over 60 years ago. Any memory that old is pretty suspect. I just don't recall whether the congregation was Oriental or paleface, now that you mention it. Maybe I was focusing more on getting some answers to problems that troubled me a lot. One of them was that I was now going to go to college to become a physicist, and physicists, the year before, had come to my rescue as I waited on Treasure Island to join the invasion of Japan, where my job was to have been the planting of radio beacons on the beaches prior to the assault. The physicists saved my neck by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, thereby tainting the profession I loved and creating a huge conflict. Maybe I went to that church to say I was sorry. Or maybe that's what I wish was the reason.

Don't worry about not being reverent about PCT. Just be accurate.

Best,

Bill P.

[Keith_Daniels]

[From Keith Daniels (2008.04.22.0917 PDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2008.04.22.0232 MDT)]

Don't worry about not being reverent about PCT. Just be accurate.

Bill,

Thank you for the very thoughtful and thorough response. It was very
helpful. I am positive that you understand I am a PCT neophyte and my
understanding of the basic theory, MOL, and all the ramifications of it is
minimal or extremely limited. With that in mind, please know that anything
I say about PCT or MOL (or for that matter any subject) is simply my current
understanding of it and could very well be inaccurate or incorrect. That's
the beauty of having a community such as this and access to the founder and
expert proponents of the subject matter. Please feel free to correct any
inaccuracies or misunderstandings that my lack of experience with PCT brings
to the surface.

Reading, digesting and then putting my understanding out there for feedback
is one of the ways I learn best and I am never never offended or have my
feelings hurt to be told my understanding is not quite there yet.

I'm somewhat pleased that my questions/comments have generated other threads
and off shoot discussions. It's been a pleasure to see those discussions
proceed as well. As for me, I'll do my best to enhance my understanding of
PCT/MOL before pronouncing myself an expert... (That'll likely never
happen.)

Best wishes,

Keith

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2008.04.22.1020)]

Keith Daniels (2008.04.21.1549 PDT) to Bill Powers –

It seems to me, that your reference point/signal is that any perception of a

questioning of PCT or a comparison of it or offshoots of it (MOL) is seen as

an attack or denigration of something you’ve dedicated much of your life

too.

I want to assure you that questioning of PCT (by you or anyone else) is more than welcome in this forum as well as anywhere else. I wish people would spend more time questioning PCT using rigorous scientific methods. I want to see informed criticism of PCT. I think what you might perceive as defensiveness is just an effort to correct some of what seem to be misunderstandings of PCT. I think it’s important to understand PCT before one can make really useful criticisms of it. I think you still have a ways to go on understanding PCT as evidenced by some of your statements about it. For example, you say:

A Couple Things about PCT that I have issues with that prevent me from

thinking I’ve found the one and only truth of behavior.

PCT does not claim to be the one and only truth of behavior. It claims only to be a model that explains the facts of behavior better than other current theories. I myself expect that there will be changes to PCT as more behavioral data – data relevant to testing PCT – is collected.

You go on so say:

To the best of my knowledge:

1.) PCT does not address the issue of inaccurate perception or errors in

perception. Thus, someone who doesn’t believe they have a problem doesn’t

have a problem in PCT. Or Someone may believe they have a problem because

they aren’t perceiving accurately.

PCT certainly does address this phenomenon. An example would be what happens when a tidal wave occurs. One person perceives the receding tide as evidence of a tidal wave; this person correctly perceives that they have a problem (if they don’t want to get killed by a tidal wave, anyway). Another person perceives the receding tide as evidence of nothing at all; this person perceives that they have no problem when they actually do (again, if they, too, don’t want to get killed by a tidal wave). Note that a “problem” in PCT is determined not just by how you perceive things but by what you want those perceptions to be. If the first person, who correctly perceives the receding tide as evidence of a tidal wave, is suicidal, then the person correctly perceived that they have no problem at all; they will get what they want. Similarly, the second person, who incorrectly perceives the receding tide as evidence of nothing, if he is suicidal, actually may perceive that he has a problem (the tide is not going to kill him) when he actually has no problem at all (it will).

2.) PCT doesn’t appear to address the issue of relationships in behavior.

from Parental, Peer, Romantic, Work, etc…

Actually, it does. PCT says a lot about how control systems interact (how they relate to one another) and some of the predictions PCT makes about social interactions have been tested and confirmed.

3.) I"m not at all sure that a person is a closed loop system. From a

I think it’s possible to see that all living organisms are closed loop systems by inspection. Because sensory systems are located on the surface of a mobile organism, what the organism does affects what is being sensed. We know from physiology and many experiments that what is sensed affects what the organism does. So living organisms seem to live in a closed loop relationship with respect to their sensory inputs. And the feedback in the loop seems to be negative because organism behavior is generally stable.

4.) I’m not yet sure who other systems fit into PCT. Family Systems, Social

Systems, etc… and I believe that these systems control for their own

behavior as well.

These other “systems” (they are actually just vague theories or perspectives) usually don’t fit into PCT; PCT, however, usually can explain why these theories say what they say about behavior.

That’s just a few of the thoughts that have kept me from converting.

That’s good. As Bill has often said, a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. We don’t really need converts, anyway. What we need are skeptical, competent inquirers.

My apologies for intruding into your space, though I am glad to have come

across these ideas…

There is no intrusion. We’re glad you’re here. We just want to help you understand what you’ve found so that your criticisms can become more incisive.

Best regards

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[Keith_Daniels]

[From Keith Daniels (2008.04.22.1056 PDT)]

[From Rick Marken (2008.04.22.1020)]

There is no intrusion. We're glad you're here. We just want to help you
understand what you've found so that your criticisms can become more
incisive.

Rick... thank you for your reply. I am absolutely certain that many if not
most or all of my "concerns" are rooted in a lack of understanding of PCT
and hope to remedy that so they can be more accurate, incisive, or resolved
in my own head.

Unfortunately, I don't have a scientific/engineering/research background
that allows me to adequately test the theories... so insight from those who
do and have is absolutely welcome. Besides... I think I do need a more basic
understanding before attempting any test of misunderstood ideas...

Thanks for the welcome and the comments.

Best wishes,

Keith