[From Bruce Gregory 92005.0117.1317)]
I would think that an HPCT model of MOL would have to involve
exacerbating conflict in order to make reorganization more likely. The
success of this process would also reduce error in the HPCT system that
constitutes the therapist.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.17,22:10 EST)]
[From Bruce Gregory 92005.0117.1317)]
I would think that an HPCT model of MOL would have to involve
exacerbating conflict in order to make reorganization more likely.
Are you questioning if grown up people have succeed in reorganizing when
they have a conflict and control some of their perceptions?
I don't think there is a gauge for how great the conflict must be to succeed
in reorganizing. Some people succeed and some people don't.
(Maybe a dendrite in a neighbour neurone is adhered by an active neurone in
a control loop that is part of the conflict? Maybe a dendrite in a neighbour
neurone is _not_ adhered because of ?)
Bjorn
[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1735)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.17,22:10 EST)
Are you questioning if grown up people have succeed in reorganizing
when
they have a conflict and control some of their perceptions?
I am saying that if you believe that conflict leads to reorganization,
a failure to reorganize implies the need for more conflict. Evidently,
to the extent that it is successful, MOL leads to a increase in
conflict and subsequent reorganization.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Bill Powers (2005.01.20.0918 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1735)–
I am saying that if you believe
that conflict leads to reorganization,a failure to reorganize implies the need for more conflict.
Evidently,to the extent that it is successful, MOL leads to a increase in
conflict and subsequent reorganization.
Since reorganization is supposedly the means by which intrinsic error is
corrected, wouldn’t it be a little strange to have a goal of
reorganizing? That would be like deliberately breaking a leg so as to put
the healing process into motion.
The MOL is a process that leads to increasing mobility of awareness at
higher and higher levels in the existing hierarchy, or so I have
proposed. If there are no conflicts it simply proceeds as far as
possible, and is then terminated. The experience is pleasant and possibly
useful. But most often, some conflict is encountered during this process,
and the main up-a-level thrust has to be put on hold while the conflict
is examined. After the conflict resolves, the progress up the levels
might be resumed, but (I am coming to realize) it’s more likely that this
is a good point to terminate the session and let the person digest
whatever changes have been started.
At the recent IAACT meeting, I found that only the rank beginners wanted
to hear about PCT from me. The real curiousity was about the MOL, which I
had sketched in over several previous years. So this year I put on quite
a few demonstrations, all of which went undeservedly well. I learned a
lot about when to quit a demo – one of them lasted only 5 minutes, and
the next day the person said she was still having residual insights from
it. All but one session resulted in encountering a conflict, some of
which the person knew about and some of which were identified for the
first time (that is, the other side of the conflict was identified). In
the one that didn’t involve a conflict, the person appeared to live all
the time in the Observer state – or was conning me (not really likely,
but I can’t read minds). In every instance, some considerable benefit was
said to be obtained by the “victim.” There is really no way to
“role-play” the MOL – you always end up doing it for real, as
a couple of people who thought they were role-playing found.
By the way, the theory is not that conflict leads to reorganization. It’s
that intrinsic error (however caused) leads to reorganization. A conflict
can result indirectly in reorganization by disrupting control and
allowing large errors to occur. Unusually large errors in the hierarchy,
it has been proposed, qualify as intrinsic errors, because it doesn’t
matter what the error is about: large error signifies something
wrong in the system just as excessive hunger, pain, and illness (etc) do.
Therefore the remedy can be through an inherited rather than a learned
process, one of the requirements I assumed for a reorganizing
system.
Conflict is only one of many causes of error, but in no case does the
cause of an error drive reorganization. To say conflict causes
reorganization is to leave out some essential steps in the
reasoning.
I’m not going to try to catch up with the other interesting subjects
discussed during my absence.
Best,
Bill P.
From Jason Gosnell (2005.01.20.05)
Bill Powers (2005.01.20.0918 MST)
At the recent IAACT meeting, I found that only the rank beginners wanted to hear about PCT from me. The real curiousity >was about the MOL, which I had sketched in over several previous years. So this year I put on quite a few demonstrations, >all of which went undeservedly well. I learned a lot about when to quit a demo – one of them lasted only 5 minutes, and the >next day the person said she was still having residual insights from it. All but one session resulted in encountering a conflict, >some of which the person knew about and some of which were identified for the first time (that is, the other side of the >conflict was identified). In the one that didn’t involve a conflict, the person appeared to live all the time in the Observer state ->or was conning me (not really likely, but I can’t read minds). In every instance, some considerable benefit was said to be >obtained by the “victim.” There is really no way to “role-play” the MOL – you always end up doing it for real, as a couple of >people who thought they were role-playing found.
I got the opinions of some other PCTers on clinical issues related to this–if you have the time, would you be willing to express your understanding on an issue such as this? And any else who can provide light on this please…Taking guilt as a target here: Does awareness-MOL allow a person, in therapy for example, to differentiate between neurotic guilt and a sense of healthy guilt? For example, can one learn to notice neurotic policies or understandings which are unrealistic, too idealistic, meant to support a sense of false pride–perhaps understandably–by using MOL? And, can one also learn to recognize a more natural sense of guilt related to harming others, etc? I suspect that many people in therapy, and many average or so-called “normals” may try to cut-off guilt altogether, dumping their pathological guilt or avoiding it along with more appropriate guilt. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So distancing from the feeling altogether. Then, I suspect that others just swim in guilt, going around apologizing for all kinds of things, imperfections, etc. I am wondering if understanding PCT, awareness, MOL can help a person in the differentiation of these two–from your perspective.
Jason Gosnell
All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and delete or destroy all copies of this message.
[From Bill Powers (2005.01.20.1040 MST)]
Jason Gosnell (2005.01.20.05) --
>Bill Powers (2005.01.20.0918 MST)
Taking guilt as a target here: Does awareness-MOL allow a person, in
therapy for example, to differentiate between neurotic guilt and a sense
of healthy guilt?
No, I don't think so, though I suppose it could happen. Who decides what is
neurotic and healthy? In the MOL there is no analysis or advice given, so
it's not likely that labels like "guilt" or "neurotic" would come up,
unless they were part of what the client was already concerned about. The
only concern of the "guide" (we don't have good words for the roles in MOL)
is to grasp where the client or explorer or customer or victim (same
comment) is coming from, and do whatever will bring the background
viewpoint to the foreground. People who use more traditional approaches to
therapy often complain that the MOL doesn't give them anything to do.
That's pretty much right, except for the basic theme of helping the other
person go up a level -- and then another.
Best.
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0120.1335)]
Bill Powers (2005.01.20.0918 MST)
Bruce Gregory (2005.0117.1735)--
I am saying that if you believe that conflict leads to reorganization,
a failure to reorganize implies the need for more conflict. Evidently,
to the extent that it is successful, MOL leads to a increase in
conflict and subsequent reorganization.
Since reorganization is supposedly the means by which intrinsic error is corrected, wouldn't it be a little strange to have a goal of reorganizing? That would be like deliberately breaking a leg so as to put the healing process into motion.
The student does not want reorganize. The teacher wants the student to reorganize.
The MOL is a process that leads to increasing mobility of awareness at higher and higher levels in the existing hierarchy, or so I have proposed. If there are no conflicts it simply proceeds as far as possible, and is then terminated.
I've always thought of MOL as free association for control theorists. I know of no evidence that it proceed in any direction as far as any hierarchy of control is concerned.
The experience is pleasant and possibly useful. But most often, some conflict is encountered during this process, and the main up-a-level thrust has to be put on hold while the conflict is examined.
In a strict HCT model, there is no one to analyze the conflict at least as far as the system undergoing MOL is concerned.
After the conflict resolves, the progress up the levels might be resumed, but (I am coming to realize) it's more likely that this is a good point to terminate the session and let the person digest whatever changes have been started.
Again, in a strict HCT model conflict only resolves as a result of reorganization. "Thinking about the process" is probably harmless, but not productive.
By the way, the theory is not that conflict leads to reorganization. It's that intrinsic error (however caused) leads to reorganization. A conflict can result indirectly in reorganization by disrupting control and allowing large errors to occur. Unusually large errors in the hierarchy, it has been proposed, qualify as intrinsic errors, because it doesn't matter what the error is about: large error signifies something wrong in the system just as excessive hunger, pain, and illness (etc) do. Therefore the remedy can be through an inherited rather than a learned process, one of the requirements I assumed for a reorganizing system.
Conflict is only one of many causes of error, but in no case does the cause of an error drive reorganization. To say conflict causes reorganization is to leave out some essential steps in the reasoning.
I spoke too loosely. Persistent error drives reorganization and only reorganization can eliminate conflict.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Dick Robertson,2005.01.20.1325CST]
Bill, did you make tapes of your sessions? And if so
is there permission to distribute them to CSG
members, or play them at annual meetings?
I think it would be great to have a MOL archive for CSG
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:27 am
Subject: Re: MOL
[From Bill Powers (2005.01.20.0918 MST)]
At the recent IAACT meeting, I found that only the
rank beginners
wanted to
hear about PCT from me. The real curiousity was
about the MOL,
which I had
sketched in over several previous years. So this
year I put on
quite a few
demonstrations, all of which went undeservedly
well. I learned a
lot about
when to quit a demo -- one of them lasted only 5
minutes, and the
next day
the person said she was still having residual
insights from it.
All but one
session resulted in encountering a conflict, some
of which the
person knew
about and some of which were identified for the
first time (that
is, the
other side of the conflict was identified). In the
one that didn't
involvea conflict, the person appeared to live all
the time in the
Observer state
-- or was conning me (not really likely, but I
can't read minds).
In every
instance, some considerable benefit was said to be
obtained by the
"victim." There is really no way to "role-play"
the MOL -- you
always end
up doing it for real, as a couple of people who
thought they were
role-playing found.
Bill P.
Best,
Dick R
[From Bill Powers (2005.01.20.1435 MST)] --
Bruce Gregory (2005.0120.1335)--
Since reorganization is supposedly the means by which intrinsic error is
corrected, wouldn't it be a little strange to have a goal of
reorganizing? That would be like deliberately breaking a leg so as to put
the healing process into motion.The student does not want reorganize. The teacher wants the student to
reorganize.
All right, wouldn't it be a little strange for the teacher to tell the
student to break a leg so as to exercise the healing process?
The MOL is a process that leads to increasing mobility of awareness at
higher and higher levels in the existing hierarchy, or so I have proposed.
If there are no conflicts it simply proceeds as far as possible, and is
then terminated.I've always thought of MOL as free association for control theorists. I
know of no evidence that it proceed in any direction as far as any
hierarchy of control is concerned.
How would you know anything about it? Have you observed it in action, tried
it yourself, or practiced it with someone else? From your comments I would
guess you haven't done any of those things.
The experience is pleasant and possibly useful. But most often, some
conflict is encountered during this process, and the main up-a-level
thrust has to be put on hold while the conflict is examined.In a strict HCT model, there is no one to analyze the conflict at least as
far as the system undergoing MOL is concerned.
You always forget about levels of organization, and speak as if the person
were just one single control system. This is an example of that
forgetfulness. Of course if you reject the organization of the HPCT model,
it's not "forgetting," but the result is the same.
Again, in a strict HCT model conflict only resolves as a result of
reorganization. "Thinking about the process" is probably harmless, but not
productive.
You don't know that. Isn't thinking something the hierarchy does? What if
you reorganize what you think? Wouldn't that affect the reference signals
sent to lower systems?
I spoke too loosely. Persistent error drives reorganization and only
reorganization can eliminate conflict.
Yes. And there is some evidence that reorganization follows attention: that
is, it applies where there is a problem to which attention turns and leaves
alone systems that are working properly. The resolution of a conflict often
hinges on reorganization of the same higher systems that produced the
conflict by setting incompatible goals for lower systems. This process
seems to be facilitated greatly by having attention called to the higher
level perceptions and so forth that are responsible for the conflict. I'm
simply reporting an appearance; I can't explain how this works.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
Yes, and you appear to be quite certain that consciousness can have no
causal role in behavior. I think you're mistaken.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2005.01.20.1450 MST)]
Dick Robertson,2005.01.20.1325CST --
Bill, did you make tapes of your sessions? And if so
is there permission to distribute them to CSG
members, or play them at annual meetings?
Lloyd Klinedinst taped all my sessions, following me from group to group
with his camera. I hope he will comment about availability, cost, and so forth.
I think it would be great to have a MOL archive for CSG
I do too, and I sincerely hope that the cast of characters includes more
than me. Dag Forssell has tapes of the Vancouver workshop on MOL, and I
believe Tim Carey (who, with several colleagues in Scotland, now uses
nothing else) is organizing to produce more.
The MOL seems to be the most useful adjunct to control theory to come out
of PCT yet.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0120.2022)]
Bill Powers (2005.01.20.1435 MST)
Bruce Gregory (2005.0120.1335)--
Since reorganization is supposedly the means by which intrinsic
error is
corrected, wouldn't it be a little strange to have a goal of
reorganizing? That would be like deliberately breaking a leg so as
to put
the healing process into motion.The student does not want reorganize. The teacher wants the student to
reorganize.All right, wouldn't it be a little strange for the teacher to tell the
student to break a leg so as to exercise the healing process?
I believe the expression is, you can't make an omelet without breaking
eggs. You can't produce reorganization without creating error.
The MOL is a process that leads to increasing mobility of awareness at
higher and higher levels in the existing hierarchy, or so I have
proposed.
If there are no conflicts it simply proceeds as far as possible, and
is
then terminated.I've always thought of MOL as free association for control theorists.
I
know of no evidence that it proceed in any direction as far as any
hierarchy of control is concerned.How would you know anything about it? Have you observed it in action,
tried
it yourself, or practiced it with someone else? From your comments I
would
guess you haven't done any of those things.
Are you suggesting that MOL is simply something you have to experience?
I have never experienced the hierarchy does that mean I can't talk
about it?
The experience is pleasant and possibly useful. But most often, some
conflict is encountered during this process, and the main up-a-level
thrust has to be put on hold while the conflict is examined.In a strict HCT model, there is no one to analyze the conflict at
least as
far as the system undergoing MOL is concerned.You always forget about levels of organization, and speak as if the
person
were just one single control system. This is an example of that
forgetfulness. Of course if you reject the organization of the HPCT
model,
it's not "forgetting," but the result is the same.
The individual _is_ one system, at least in the model I propose. I
suppose I could consider a model in which autonomous control systems
are at war, but I'd like to try a simpler version to start.
Again, in a strict HCT model conflict only resolves as a result of
reorganization. "Thinking about the process" is probably harmless,
but not
productive.You don't know that. Isn't thinking something the hierarchy does? What
if
you reorganize what you think? Wouldn't that affect the reference
signals
sent to lower systems?
The hierarchy doesn't think, it controls. At least that is my proposal.
When I get that system to work, I'll worry about thinking.
I spoke too loosely. Persistent error drives reorganization and only
reorganization can eliminate conflict.Yes. And there is some evidence that reorganization follows attention:
that
is, it applies where there is a problem to which attention turns and
leaves
alone systems that are working properly. The resolution of a conflict
often
hinges on reorganization of the same higher systems that produced the
conflict by setting incompatible goals for lower systems. This process
seems to be facilitated greatly by having attention called to the
higher
level perceptions and so forth that are responsible for the conflict.
I'm
simply reporting an appearance; I can't explain how this works.
Well that's what I'm trying to do. Do we need to include attention in
the model to get it to work? We won't know until we try to build a
model without it. Rick's models do not included attention. That's where
I am starting.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
Yes, and you appear to be quite certain that consciousness can have no
causal role in behavior. I think you're mistaken.
No, I'm simply trying to build a model consisting of hierarchically
organized ECU's.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Bill Powers (2005.01.20.1830 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2005.0120.2022)–
All
right, wouldn’t it be a little strange for the teacher to tell thestudent to break a leg so as to exercise the healing
process?I believe the expression is, you can’t make an omelet without
breakingeggs. You can’t produce reorganization without creating
error.
But why reorganize if there is no error? If you’re speaking of a teacher
causing intrinsic error in a student in order to get the student to
reorganize, I think that would probably be illegal. Intrinsic error is
not something to be handed out lightly.
Are you suggesting that MOL is
simply something you have to experience?I have never experienced the hierarchy does that mean I can’t talk
about it?
Of course you can talk about it. But you won’t know what you’re talking
about.
MOL, like most phenomena, is something you have to observe and experiment
with before you can say anything interesting about it.
You
always forget about levels of organization, and speak as if theperson were just one single control system. This is an example of
thatforgetfulness. Of course if you reject the organization of the HPCT
model, it’s not “forgetting,” but the result is the
same.The individual is one system, at least in the model I propose. I
suppose I could consider a model in which autonomous control
systemsare at war, but I’d like to try a simpler version to
start.
Sorry, that doesn’t cut it for me. Waving your arms and saying,
“It’s just like, the whole thing, man” does not explain
anything. How you get autonomous control systems at war out of HPCT is
pretty hard to understand.
Again,
in a strict HCT model conflict only resolves as a result ofreorganization. “Thinking about the process” is probably
harmless,but not productive.
You don’t know that. Isn’t thinking something the hierarchy does?
Whatif you reorganize what you think? Wouldn’t that affect the
referencesignals sent to lower systems?
The hierarchy doesn’t think, it controls. At least that is my
proposal.When I get that system to work, I’ll worry about
thinking.
I advise you to start thinking first.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory 92005.0120.2107)]
Bill Powers (2005.01.20.1830 MST)
Bruce Gregory (2005.0120.2022)--
All right, wouldn't it be a little strange for the teacher to tell the
student to break a leg so as to exercise the healing process?
I believe the expression is, you can't make an omelet without breaking
eggs. You can't produce reorganization without creating error.
But why reorganize if there is no error? If you're speaking of a teacher causing intrinsic error in a student in order to get the student to reorganize, I think that would probably be illegal. Intrinsic error is not something to be handed out lightly.
If the student wants to remain in the classroom and the teacher sends the student to the RTC, is not the teacher causing the student to "experience" error? Must the error be intrinsic to lead to reorganization?
Are you suggesting that MOL is simply something you have to experience?
I have never experienced the hierarchy does that mean I can't talk
about it?
Of course you can talk about it. But you won't know what you're talking about.
MOL, like most phenomena, is something you have to observe and experiment with before you can say anything interesting about it.
Fine. I'll shut up about MOL and leave it to the experts.
You always forget about levels of organization, and speak as if the
person were just one single control system. This is an example of that
forgetfulness. Of course if you reject the organization of the HPCT
model, it's not "forgetting," but the result is the same.
The individual _is_ one system, at least in the model I propose. I
suppose I could consider a model in which autonomous control systems
are at war, but I'd like to try a simpler version to start.
Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. Waving your arms and saying, "It's just like, the whole thing, man" does not explain anything. How you get autonomous control systems at war out of HPCT is pretty hard to understand.
I'm not suggesting that we have autonomous control systems at war, I thought you were. I am working with a system in which conflict can arise, but it can only be solved by reorganization. I'm not sure what you are proposing.
I advise you to start thinking first.
Is it necessary to think in order to control? Obviously not. Thinking is a luxury, not a necessity.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0120.2125)]
Bill is quite correct, my views of MOL are irrelevant. I want to make a
distinction between HPCT and HCT. The latter deals with a hierarchical
system of ECU's. The former includes HCT but is embellished with
additional features such as awareness described in B:CP. MOL is an
application of HPCT, but not of HCT. In the future, I will try to
confine my remarks to HCT and leave HPCT to the experts.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Erling Jorgensen (2005.01.20 2200 EST)]
(This post just launches off from the discussion of
MOL, & is more about how control systems are related.)
Bruce Gregory (2005.0120.2022)
The individual _is_ one system, at least in the model
I propose. I suppose I could consider a model in which
autonomous control systems are at war, but I'd like to
try a simpler version to start.
In my opinion, the task is tremendously simplified by
considering a hierarchical arrangement of "autonomous
control systems" (i.e., ECU's). To partition the tasks
of control this way seems much easier than bringing
on-line all-at-once one massive control system that
does everything.
I don't mean to overstate the ease, here, because
obviously we are having difficulty modeling complex
layers of controlled perceptions. But the control
task for any given layer is greatly simplified if it
can delegate the implementing details of control to
lower levels controlling their own (semi-)"autonomous"
perceptions. I also think that builds in a great deal
of robustness in terms of available degrees of freedom.
It is also my guess that this is the way evolution
stumbled on the amazing complexity we see in almost
any organism you'd want to pick. More complex ways of
controlling were built (blindly, or so we postulate
with E-coli reorganization) out of existing forms of
control. Why reinvent something when you can just
feed off the results?
I suspect that we have yet to fully appreciate the
implications of this way of linking control loops.
Once any kind of stable, negative feedback control
arises, extraordinarily complex chains of control
can emerge, stabilizing new types of collective
variables with new types of emergent properties.
Maybe this is a stretch, but I think the following
(admittedly diverse) situations exemplify this
process --
1) Isn't this the mechanism behind symbiosis between
different life forms?
2) Isn't something like this what we see with the
Krebs cycle of the body's metabolism?
3) And isn't this the feature that Jay Forrester &
the Systems Dynamics folks have built upon, when they
undertake to simulate comlex macro-phenomena, despite
not knowing many of the underlying details?
The point is, if you get a stable result from some
form of negative feedback, you can _use_ the result,
without having to know anything about the details of
where it came from. Whole ecosystems are constructed
out of that dynamic, aren't they?
I admit, that is not quite the same as constructing
a precise "hierarchy" of control, complete with setting
reference standards for those other levels of control.
And I do see by your final remarks that your interests
lie there --
No, I'm simply trying to build a model consisting
of hierarchically organized ECU's.
But couldn't a hierarchy of tightly integrated control
systems be the _special case_, of this same dynamic of
utilizing the (unknown) fruits of other control systems,
without having to care how the stabilized results of
those systems arose?
To me, this seems the key for understanding complexity,
not as "design", but as "emergence".
Does anyone else see these dynamics this way? Or am I
off in my own little eddy here?
Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to splash around in
the water...
All the best,
Erling
NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the "reply" feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.
<<<<RCMH>>>>
[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0121.0713)]
Erling Jorgensen (2005.01.20 2200 EST)
To me, this seems the key for understanding complexity,
not as "design", but as "emergence".Does anyone else see these dynamics this way? Or am I
off in my own little eddy here?
I share your approach.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Rick Marken (2011.06.08.1810)]
Bill and I started the session off line so I’m bringing it online:
RM: As you have noticed, I despise right wing, free market, tax cutting, financial regulation reducing, education, Medicare and Social Security privatizing, union busting, egregious wealth disparity liking types. And I presume they despise me. Is there a way for me to stop despising
them? I know that you don’t care for most right wing system concepts either. What do you do about it?Maybe you could do a method of levels with me.
BP: OK. Do you want to stop despising them?
RM: Yes. So can we move this to CSGNet?
BP: OK, yes, but I’ll be asking more questions and there’s no
telling what might come up. It would be better if you didn’t have any
reason to edit your replies.My next questions will start with, “What would be better for you if
you stopped despising them?” and continue from there.
What would be better? Hmmm. Not much, actually. I guess I don’t feel good about despising any human being. I think people should be valued, in principle, anyway. But then there are people who have done things to hurt other people, either intentionally or, possibly, as an unintentional side effect of selfishness or greed, that makes then suddenly appear to have no value at all. People who advocate lowering taxes on the wealthy while advocating for the end of Medicare seem pretty valueless to me, even if they are good in other ways.
Over to you, moderatador.
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2011.06.08.2020 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2011.06.08.1810) --
My next questions will start with, "What would be better for you if you stopped despising them?" and continue from there.
What would be better? Hmmm. Not much, actually. I guess I don't feel good about despising any human being. I think people should be valued, in principle, anyway.
If you don't want to despise people, what keeps you from stopping? I don't mean theoretically or hypothetically, I mean actually, when you ask yourself that question. When you think of not despising anyone any more, ever again, do you experience some reluctance to do that?
Bill
[From Rick Marken (2011.06.08.2100)]
Bill Powers (2011.06.08.2020 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2011.06.08.1810) –
My next questions will start with, “What would be better for you if you stopped despising them?” and continue from there.
What would be better? Hmmm. Not much, actually. I guess I don’t feel good about despising any human being. I think people should be valued, in principle, anyway.
If you don’t want to despise people, what keeps you from stopping?
The fact that I keep experiencing the people as despicable.
I don’t mean theoretically or hypothetically, I mean actually, when you ask yourself that question. When you think of not despising anyone any more, ever again, do you experience some reluctance to do that?
Not at all.
Bill
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2001.06.09.0810 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2011.06.08.2100) –
BP earlier: If you don’t want to despise people, what keeps you from
stopping?
RM: The fact that I keep
experiencing the people as despicable.
BP: Can you describe what you think and feel that tells you someone is
being despicable?
BP earlier: I don’t mean theoretically or hypothetically, I mean
actually, when you ask yourself that question. When you think of
not despising anyone any more, ever again, do you experience some
reluctance to do that?RM: Not at all.
If you’re not at all reluctant to stop despising people who are being
despicable, what prevents you from stopping? Is it their quality of
despicableness that prevents it? Is there some reason not to stop? Have
you changed your mind about wanting not to despise them?
Over,
Bill P