[Jim Dundon 2006.04.03.0200EDST]
Rick, you said;
“Bill Powers found that behavior is… neither a caused nor an emitted output. It is a control process.”
I have no problem with that when I understand that you mean motor actions by someone resulting in an alteration in conditions in the environment to satisfy a human want or desire. The difficulty I face is in altering all of my previously learned applications of the name behavior. That is why I asked for clarification and although there are very definite statements made by various people there still seems to be some inconsistency in opinion. Some things which I consider behavior, PCT excludes from that classification and I will get into that more below. First:
When I asked if it meant purposeful normal balanced behavior or all behavior including catatonic, I was told all behavior by
Bjorn Simonsen who said “all behavior”
and
Martin Taylor who said “all behavior”
and
Rick who said “mainly about what would be called normal behavior… except where conflict interferes with controlling”, “I think it’s fair to say all behaviors.”, “yes… though some would surely involve failures of control due to internal conflicts”
Bjorn and Martin agree that catatonic behavior is included in the B:CP. Unless Bill Powers or someone who can speak for him tells me that is not what he intended I would say that is the case. I would leave no behavior out. But that does not seem to me to be what Bill Powers is talking about. It seems to me that he is talking more about what Rick describes as behavior where relatively successful controlling or action on the environment is taking place. So there surely seems to be different positions among PCTers as to what is meant. Rick clearly indicates that conflict would mean a failure of control. And since conflict results in paralysis it is clear that Rick does not consider the catatonic behavior as control of perception. To me the catatonic is clearly not engaging his environment at least not the one outside the body, but I consider the behavior purposeful nonetheless. It provides some measure of safety for that individual. It is certainly not what most of us would refer to when we say purposeful behavior. Would you say the catatonic represents zero control or maximum control or controlling for zero control? I admit that I am begging these questions in order to see just how well thought out the application of the terming is.
You said also Rick, that you have a friend who counsels and that his experience tells him that people come to him hoping to get control back. This is a further indication that when you use the word control you are talking about satisfying purposeful behavior in the way that most of us use that word. So this would mean that you do not see the catatonic as controlling. Would it not be safe to assume that people seek help in changing reference signals as a way to improve the way they see life?
So far I have absolutely no problem in calling actions which alter the environment “controlling for perception” I like “controlling for” better than “control of” because it sounds a little more active. The catatonic, I would say if I would venture a guess, is controlling for zero perception.
Martin, you said:
“B:CSP would not be reasonable because it puts the emphasis on the someness of the perceptions” To me it would represent emphasis on the need for accurate and efficient communication of all the concept addresses. At least in a “PCT for Dummies” handbook. I could later graduate to more sophisticated terming.
Somewhere along the way I became accustomed to believing, accepted the naming, the phonetic parsings, of certain things about my body/mind as behaviors. I have no problem calling them behaviors. Even though they don’t seem to fit the exclusive employment of the word behavior in PCT which I think refers only to motor action on the environment.
My ability to imagine> to reason> to think> to have opinions> to feel> to attitude, I consider potential behaviors.
I also consider certain ‘facts of my body’s needs’ as the behavior of this particular organism and organisms of its type. The fact that it needs air, water, food, a certain temperature range, light, interaction, change, and the fact that it will die, as behavior. I’m speaking not only of my participation in the use of these things thru action but the fact that the needs and the fact that I will die exist as behaviors characteristic of the class of organism to which I belong. This is very important. The needs. as facts, not just their satisfaction, are behavior. The needing of air is a characteristic behavior of humans. It is dictated by my evolutionary history. This does not make me an automaton. I am very much a product of my environment. Considering these facts as behaviors and accepting them as products of my evolutionary history, enables me to love myself, It helps me to like myself, to liken myself and to know, through words, what I can do. It gives me more control. It is probable, in the history of these namings, that they were produced with love, before I ever heard them; some of them were here waiting for me. They were a gift I did not control for. This would be the Allism of behavior to me. When I act, I must consider it all that matters, but it doesn’t mean that upon reflection I cannot see all these other things as behaviors.
When I think as I do between sentences here in this post, I utilize the English language and all of those phonetic formings are being silently formed but not vocalized. The muscles in my jaw and face which normally form those phonetic utterances when I vocalize are also being utilized to some degree when I think. If I prevented that from happening I would be Zenning. To me this is behavior. I’m not sure what PCT considers it. Perhaps it considers the minute pressures and sensations in my face as behavior. I very much consider it behavior even though I’m not acting on my environment. I think born and Martin would agree with me I’m not sure about Bill Powers or Rick Marken
Yesterday I turned a corner while driving and entered a street I had not been on in several weeks. As I did so, I was filled, for only a second or two, with a sensation that I’m not sure I have a word for. It was a surge of pleasure. The street was lined with white blossoms. It lasted only a second or two. It was not “oh look at the blossoms”. There was no recognition of trees, or street with trees, It was not sought, it was not controlled for, it had not been anticipated, but it sure did feel good. For that second and a half I did not know who I was or what I was. My cares were displaced completely. I could not maintain it. It lasted only long enough for me to discern it. If I could’ve gone around the block and repeated the experience I would’ve done so but I knew that would not work. Had I controlled for that perception and gone around the block I would’ve been disappointed. I can only hope that it happens again, but even a conscious hope probably precludes it doing so. To me, that experience was a behavior of me as an organism. It is a behavior of this organism, the human body. Other human bodies have experienced a similar thing. I have no problem calling that behavior. In fact I like calling it our/my kind of behavior, it makes me feel good. I want to capture it, hold onto it, talk about it, label it as having happened for me, having it happen for us. It happened in, to, with, by, of and for my nervous system, i see it as a behavior of this organism, unless I reserve the name behavior for a perception achieved by using motor muscular action using a reference signal etc… Bill has spoken many times of his belief in closed loop negative feedback phenomenon as appearing throughout an organism at many levels including the molecular and chemical so why could this not be viewed as behavior in the PCT sense, as something controlled for at some level in my body? What does PCT call it?
I like reading about PCT and increasing my understanding of it. I enjoy the stimulating, rewarding effect of the promise of more control. When I read of how much more I can be autonomous than automaton my ears perk up. But I am reminded when I read some passages from Bill’s book that get into the details of neural currents and redundant fibers and continuous average summation effects that we are looking at things which have been dictated by our evolutionary history, and I realize how subordinated we are to this fact, and I wonder just who is having the last word, a scientist or nature? .
When I consider the form, the nature of the observable changes of my existence as having been produced by many forces including my environment I can understand why I’m glad there is air and gravity and sunlight and warmth and cool breezes. These and many many many other things have produced me and my body. Anything that I sense shares in the production of me if it doesn’t kill me immediately, but if it kills me slowly it also will share in the production of me. It is easy to see that I am encouraged to exist by my environment; that an environment in conjunction with whatever DNA has produced will continue to encourage that kind of behavior. It is reasonable to see that the interaction between an organism and its environment has been one in which the environment encourages certain behavior, satisfaction of the needs it has helped produce. It is recognition of this interaction which has led to the stimulus response theory, as seeing the environment as an encourager of action. Depending on gravity from one step to the next encourages me to take one more if doing so serves my purpose. It does not demand that I do this indefinitely. But I can pretty much count on it when I wanna walk. If we lived in an environment which did not satisfy or reward any of our actions we would not exist; conversely if we didn’t act at all on our environment we would not exist. It would be a mistake to give the environment all the credit and consequently all the power. But we should not deny the fact that it does encourage certain action. My evolutionary history pretty much dictates a lot of my behavior. I may not like that. Some children hate it so much that they hold their breath to the point of unconsciousness. But it is a fact.
I like the idea of being autonomous but I I’m not sure it’s possible and somehow I don’t think that’s the major issue. Actions as controllings in the service of a perception, dictated by my evolutionary history, it really turns me on for now. Maybe I’ll do better later.
I thank you all for your patience,
Jim D
.