Greetings,
I am new to PCT and new to this list. As I work my way through the literature, questions come up. Would it be okay to post them here?
Thanks!
Blake Ashley
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.17.1430 PDT)]
···
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov wrote:
Greetings,
BA: I am new to PCT and new to this list. As I work my way through the literature, questions come up. Would it be okay to post them here?
Hi Blake
RM: Yes, absolutely!! Feel free to ask anything you like. I would be interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about PCT, what you have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
RM: This list started back in 1990, way before all the snazzy social media that now exist, and we still maintain some old (and probably unnecessary) customs, like starting posts as I did about, with name and date at the top. Also, we do what I’m doing here: we put initials in front of the paragraphs to indicate who said it. All this certainly isn’t required but it helps keep track of who said what when these conversations get many participants.
RM: Anyway, welcome to CSGNet and PCT.
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
[From Fred Good (2015.09.17.]
Hi Blake. While I follow the CSGNet, and am committed to spreading the word, particularly as it relates to practical applications in therapy and K-12 education, I’m just a student of PCT. I’m interested in the process you are engaging in with the list. Welcome. Fred Good
···
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov wrote:
Greetings,
I am new to PCT and new to this list. As I work my way through the literature, questions come up. Would it be okay to post them here?
Thanks!
Blake Ashley
[From Blake Ashley(2015.09.17.1459 Arizona Time)]
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the reply.
RM: I would be interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
BA: At the risk of being tedious, the story of how I found out about PCT began long ago. Way back when I was in junior high school, I got caught shoplifting a roll of solder from K-mart. My parents were not pleased and grounded me. I chose to run away from home (a PCT lesson in there I think) and stay with friends. One of the friends I stayed with introduced me to another one of his friends. That other friend became one of my closest friends in high school. His name was Denny Powers. This was Northbrook in the early 1970s.
I spent many hours in Bill Powers' home goofing off with Denny. I didn't have much direct contact with Bill, but got tours of his workshop (first home computer I ever saw) and reports of things he was doing. I remember once Denny described an experiment Bill did with Denny that I now know was a Method of Levels exercise. And then there was the Triples factory in the basement. Anyway, I really had no idea at the time what Bill was up to, I went away to school, years went by, and Denny and I lost touch.
Fast forward to the recent past and Facebook. Through social media I reconnected with Barb Powers only to learn that Bill had recently passed away. Partly out of curiosity and partly out of respect I decided I should make some effort to find out what Bill had been doing. So I read "Making Sense of Behavior". I was fascinated and also quickly realized that PCT had the potential to explain an important interest in my life: mindfulness.
I realized that I needed to know more, so I read "Behavior: the Control of Perception, Living Control Systems I & II, and am now in the middle of Mr. Runkel's "People as Living Things." All of this has been with an eye to using PCT as a model for understanding what is happening in mindfulness practice.
I have been a dedicated mindfulness practitioner for 15 years, teach it in various venues, and am interested in bringing science to the practice. I see promise in PCT for that purpose.
I think at this point I know enough to start asking some questions of the experts to clarify my understanding.
I hope you find this story of serendipity amusing!
Blake
Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> 9/17/2015 2:28 PM >>>
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.17.1430 PDT)]
Greetings,
BA: I am new to PCT and new to this list. As I work my way through the
literature, questions come up. Would it be okay to post them here?
Hi Blake
RM: Yes, absolutely!! Feel free to ask anything you like. I would be
interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
RM: This list started back in 1990, way before all the snazzy social media
that now exist, and we still maintain some old (and probably unnecessary)
customs, like starting posts as I did about, with name and date at the top.
Also, we do what I'm doing here: we put initials in front of the paragraphs
to indicate who said it. All this certainly isn't required but it helps
keep track of who said what when these conversations get many participants.
RM: Anyway, welcome to CSGNet and PCT.
Best regards
Rick
···
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Blake Ashley <Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose
<http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose>
*.*
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
[From Blake Ashley (2015.09.17)]
FG:Hi Blake. While I follow the CSGNet, and am committed to spreading the
word, particularly as it relates to practical applications in therapy and
K-12 education, I'm just a student of PCT. I'm interested in the process
you are engaging in with the list. Welcome.
BA:Thanks Fred!
Fred Good <fredgood66@gmail.com> 9/17/2015 3:22 PM >>>
[From Fred Good (2015.09.17.]
Hi Blake. While I follow the CSGNet, and am committed to spreading the
word, particularly as it relates to practical applications in therapy and
K-12 education, I'm just a student of PCT. I'm interested in the process
you are engaging in with the list. Welcome. Fred Good
···
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Blake Ashley <Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov> wrote:
Greetings,
I am new to PCT and new to this list. As I work my way through the
literature, questions come up. Would it be okay to post them here?Thanks!
Blake Ashley
[Bruce Nevin (20150917:17:10 PT)]
Fascinating story, Blake. Well done, pulling through.
One approach to mindfulness is the vipassana (vipasyana) meditation technique taught by S.N. Goenka. That hinayana practice amounts to directing attention to the lowest level of the hierarchy, intensity perceptions, in one part of the body at a time. Initially, restricting attention to perceptions on the upper lip and nostrils due to movement of breath; progressively restricting the area, until focus can be maintained protractedly at the aperture of the nostrils. (This focus is called ‘anapana’.) Then systematically moving attention through small zones beginning in one quadrant of the scalp and moving slowly step by step from one side to the other and down through the body, then returning to the top and continuing. Naturally, attention shifts to higher-level perceptions, including perceptions controlled in imagination. Anapana (see above) is an anchor to resume focus at the Intensity level after such interruptions, and after that one can resume shifting the locus of attention. This enhances skill in attending to environmental input and to sensations in the body, with many ramifications that can be called mindfulness.
Attention is somewhat of a mystery in the PCT model. It’s instrumental in the Method of Levels, and there’s an hypothesis that attention goes to the locus of error in the hierarchy (unless directed elsewhere, obviously), but SFAIK we don’t know how to model attention itself. Like the process of categorizing (which I doubt belongs to a Category level) and like the cross-connections to those perceptions that constitute language, it can go anywhere in the hierarchy. It is obviously not a prerequisite for control; the vast majority of our controlled perceptions at any given time are not objects of attention, but attention can go to a great many of them, though perhaps not all. (A deeply experienced practitioner of meditation might say “all”, but could not demonstrate that to others, given the nature of attention, unless they, too, developed that level of skill.)
You’re probably familiar with the old metaphor of the ‘rider in the chariot’. Attention seems to belong to the rider. PCT is a good account of the chariot. A PCT perspective clarifies the arena and processes of mindfulness.
···
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov wrote:
[From Blake Ashley(2015.09.17.1459 Arizona Time)]
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the reply.
RM: I would be interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
BA: At the risk of being tedious, the story of how I found out about PCT began long ago. Way back when I was in junior high school, I got caught shoplifting a roll of solder from K-mart. My parents were not pleased and grounded me. I chose to run away from home (a PCT lesson in there I think) and stay with friends. One of the friends I stayed with introduced me to another one of his friends. That other friend became one of my closest friends in high school. His name was Denny Powers. This was Northbrook in the early 1970s.
I spent many hours in Bill Powers’ home goofing off with Denny. I didn’t have much direct contact with Bill, but got tours of his workshop (first home computer I ever saw) and reports of things he was doing. I remember once Denny described an experiment Bill did with Denny that I now know was a Method of Levels exercise. And then there was the Triples factory in the basement. Anyway, I really had no idea at the time what Bill was up to, I went away to school, years went by, and Denny and I lost touch.
Fast forward to the recent past and Facebook. Through social media I reconnected with Barb Powers only to learn that Bill had recently passed away. Partly out of curiosity and partly out of respect I decided I should make some effort to find out what Bill had been doing. So I read “Making Sense of Behavior”. I was fascinated and also quickly realized that PCT had the potential to explain an important interest in my life: mindfulness.
I realized that I needed to know more, so I read "Behavior: the Control of Perception, Living Control Systems I & II, and am now in the middle of Mr. Runkel’s “People as Living Things.” All of this has been with an eye to using PCT as a model for understanding what is happening in mindfulness practice.
I have been a dedicated mindfulness practitioner for 15 years, teach it in various venues, and am interested in bringing science to the practice. I see promise in PCT for that purpose.
I think at this point I know enough to start asking some questions of the experts to clarify my understanding.
I hope you find this story of serendipity amusing!
Blake
Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com 9/17/2015 2:28 PM >>>
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.17.1430 PDT)]
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov
wrote:
Greetings,
BA: I am new to PCT and new to this list. As I work my way through the
literature, questions come up. Would it be okay to post them here?
Hi Blake
RM: Yes, absolutely!! Feel free to ask anything you like. I would be
interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
RM: This list started back in 1990, way before all the snazzy social media
that now exist, and we still maintain some old (and probably unnecessary)
customs, like starting posts as I did about, with name and date at the top.
Also, we do what I’m doing here: we put initials in front of the paragraphs
to indicate who said it. All this certainly isn’t required but it helps
keep track of who said what when these conversations get many participants.
RM: Anyway, welcome to CSGNet and PCT.
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
Author of Doing Research on Purpose
.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
[Blake Ashley (2015.9.18:7:10 Arizona time)]
BA: Bruce, the manner in which consciousness moves through the hierarchy, the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness of error signals, and the role of consciousness in reorganization are some of the questions I hope to eventually ask on this list.
I am familiar with Mr. Goenka's techniques and teach variations of them (although I have never been to any of his retreats). And I am VERY interested in your views on mindfulness and PCT. But there is so much to it, I don't want to get ahead of myself. Please forgive me for plodding ahead one step at a time.
Please permit me to relate my understanding of certain aspects and implications of PCT so that I can be corrected or confirmed:
The perceptual input into the lowest level of the hierarchy of control loops comes directly from the sensory nerves.
The perceptual input into all higher levels comes from the lower levels such that at any given level (above the lowest) the perceptual input is an aggregate of perceptions as processed by lower levels. It isn't raw sensory data entering the higher loops, but processed data (is there a better PCT term for this?). So in addition to each loop producing an output downward to control perceptual input at its level, it also produces a processed perception upward that serves as part of the perceptual input for a higher level.
For example, as you read these words, the level at which you compare your perception of the meaning of these words to your reference perception of your understanding of PCT receives the perception of the meaning of these words in a form that contains previously processed perceptual input in terms of intensity, sensation, configuration (of letters), transitions (between letters), events (words) and so on.
More succinctly: perception at each level of the hierarchy above the lowest consists, in part, of an aggregate of the processed outputs of lower levels.
Does this sound correct?
Thanks for your patience!
Blake
Bruce Nevin <bnhpct@gmail.com> 9/17/2015 5:36 PM >>>
[Bruce Nevin (20150917:17:10 PT)]
Fascinating story, Blake. Well done, pulling through.
One approach to mindfulness is the vipassana (vipasyana) meditation
technique taught by S.N. Goenka. That hinayana practice amounts to
directing attention to the lowest level of the hierarchy, intensity
perceptions, in one part of the body at a time. Initially, restricting
attention to perceptions on the upper lip and nostrils due to movement of
breath; progressively restricting the area, until focus can be maintained
protractedly at the aperture of the nostrils. (This focus is called
'anapana'.) Then systematically moving attention through small zones
beginning in one quadrant of the scalp and moving slowly step by step from
one side to the other and down through the body, then returning to the top
and continuing. Naturally, attention shifts to higher-level perceptions,
including perceptions controlled in imagination. Anapana (see above) is an
anchor to resume focus at the Intensity level after such interruptions, and
after that one can resume shifting the locus of attention. This enhances
skill in attending to environmental input and to sensations in the body,
with many ramifications that can be called mindfulness.
Attention is somewhat of a mystery in the PCT model. It's instrumental in
the Method of Levels, and there's an hypothesis that attention goes to the
locus of error in the hierarchy (unless directed elsewhere, obviously), but
SFAIK we don't know how to model attention itself. Like the process of
categorizing (which I doubt belongs to a Category level) and like the
cross-connections to those perceptions that constitute language, it can go
anywhere in the hierarchy. It is obviously not a prerequisite for control;
the vast majority of our controlled perceptions at any given time are not
objects of attention, but attention can go to a great many of them, though
perhaps not all. (A deeply experienced practitioner of meditation might say
"all", but could not demonstrate that to others, given the nature of
attention, unless they, too, developed that level of skill.)
You're probably familiar with the old metaphor of the 'rider in the
chariot'. Attention seems to belong to the rider. PCT is a good account of
the chariot. A PCT perspective clarifies the arena and processes of
mindfulness.
/BN
···
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Blake Ashley <Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov> wrote:
[From Blake Ashley(2015.09.17.1459 Arizona Time)]
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the reply.
RM: I would be interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about
PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.BA: At the risk of being tedious, the story of how I found out about PCT
began long ago. Way back when I was in junior high school, I got caught
shoplifting a roll of solder from K-mart. My parents were not pleased and
grounded me. I chose to run away from home (a PCT lesson in there I think)
and stay with friends. One of the friends I stayed with introduced me to
another one of his friends. That other friend became one of my closest
friends in high school. His name was Denny Powers. This was Northbrook in
the early 1970s.I spent many hours in Bill Powers' home goofing off with Denny. I didn't
have much direct contact with Bill, but got tours of his workshop (first
home computer I ever saw) and reports of things he was doing. I remember
once Denny described an experiment Bill did with Denny that I now know was
a Method of Levels exercise. And then there was the Triples factory in the
basement. Anyway, I really had no idea at the time what Bill was up to,
I went away to school, years went by, and Denny and I lost touch.Fast forward to the recent past and Facebook. Through social media I
reconnected with Barb Powers only to learn that Bill had recently passed
away. Partly out of curiosity and partly out of respect I decided I should
make some effort to find out what Bill had been doing. So I read "Making
Sense of Behavior". I was fascinated and also quickly realized that PCT
had the potential to explain an important interest in my life: mindfulness.I realized that I needed to know more, so I read "Behavior: the Control of
Perception, Living Control Systems I & II, and am now in the middle of Mr.
Runkel's "People as Living Things." All of this has been with an eye to
using PCT as a model for understanding what is happening in mindfulness
practice.I have been a dedicated mindfulness practitioner for 15 years, teach it in
various venues, and am interested in bringing science to the practice. I
see promise in PCT for that purpose.I think at this point I know enough to start asking some questions of the
experts to clarify my understanding.I hope you find this story of serendipity amusing!
Blake
>>> Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> 9/17/2015 2:28 PM >>>
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.17.1430 PDT)]On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Blake Ashley <Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov> > wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> BA: I am new to PCT and new to this list. As I work my way through the
> literature, questions come up. Would it be okay to post them here?Hi Blake
RM: Yes, absolutely!! Feel free to ask anything you like. I would be
interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.RM: This list started back in 1990, way before all the snazzy social media
that now exist, and we still maintain some old (and probably unnecessary)
customs, like starting posts as I did about, with name and date at the top.
Also, we do what I'm doing here: we put initials in front of the paragraphs
to indicate who said it. All this certainly isn't required but it helps
keep track of who said what when these conversations get many participants.RM: Anyway, welcome to CSGNet and PCT.
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose
<
http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose
>
*.*
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
BA: For example, as you read these words, the level at which you compare your perception of the meaning of these words to your reference perception of your understanding of PCT receives the perception of the meaning of these words in a form that contains previously processed perceptual input in terms of intensity, sensation, configuration (of letters), transitions (between letters), events (words) and so on.
PY: Maybe you’ve seen something like this?
PY: I don’t think the hierarchy is well enumerated. Here’s David Center’s example, with all the levels involved :
- Systems Level: Be a responsible person
- Principles Level: Meet commitments
- Program Level: Drive to Bill’s to return his stuff
- Sequence Level: Starting the car
- Category Level: Motor skills
- Relationship Level: Driving
- Events Level: Steering car
- Transition Level: Turning wheel to right
- Configuration Level: Fingers
- Sensation Level: Gripping
- Intensity Level: Muscle tension in fingers
PY: Not to be brash, but in my opinion the hierarchy is highly contrived. Furthermore, I don’t think there’s any semantic import from the names of the levels. For instance, there is no correspondence between what a transition or event is in PCT and what an event or transition is in another scientific discipline (e.g. chemistry). Are we supposed to say that a transition between electron configuration states causes a radiative event? Moreover, a category is only a recently developed mathematical concept, while sequences are centuries, even millenia old. How could the category emerge before the sequence? The relationship level is also a mathematical thing. When A controls B, this is a relationship. Detecting this relationship is what PCT and the TCV are all about.
PY: Maybe I don’t know how to express my sentiment. There’s something real and substantial keeping PCT from entering the millionaire’s club…PCT doesn’t express the correct adhesion molecules, if you know what I mean. If you’re trying to do away with mainstream psychology, you need to call in the lymphcytes. But there’s inadequate addressing going on here, and so lymphocytes going round and round in the blood don’t know where to stop and exit the circulation.
···
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov wrote:
[Blake Ashley (2015.9.18:7:10 Arizona time)]
BA: Bruce, the manner in which consciousness moves through the hierarchy, the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness of error signals, and the role of consciousness in reorganization are some of the questions I hope to eventually ask on this list.
I am familiar with Mr. Goenka’s techniques and teach variations of them (although I have never been to any of his retreats). And I am VERY interested in your views on mindfulness and PCT. But there is so much to it, I don’t want to get ahead of myself. Please forgive me for plodding ahead one step at a time.
Please permit me to relate my understanding of certain aspects and implications of PCT so that I can be corrected or confirmed:
The perceptual input into the lowest level of the hierarchy of control loops comes directly from the sensory nerves.
The perceptual input into all higher levels comes from the lower levels such that at any given level (above the lowest) the perceptual input is an aggregate of perceptions as processed by lower levels. It isn’t raw sensory data entering the higher loops, but processed data (is there a better PCT term for this?). So in addition to each loop producing an output downward to control perceptual input at its level, it also produces a processed perception upward that serves as part of the perceptual input for a higher level.
For example, as you read these words, the level at which you compare your perception of the meaning of these words to your reference perception of your understanding of PCT receives the perception of the meaning of these words in a form that contains previously processed perceptual input in terms of intensity, sensation, configuration (of letters), transitions (between letters), events (words) and so on.
More succinctly: perception at each level of the hierarchy above the lowest consists, in part, of an aggregate of the processed outputs of lower levels.
Does this sound correct?
Thanks for your patience!
Blake
Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com 9/17/2015 5:36 PM >>>
[Bruce Nevin (20150917:17:10 PT)]Fascinating story, Blake. Well done, pulling through.
One approach to mindfulness is the vipassana (vipasyana) meditation
technique taught by S.N. Goenka. That hinayana practice amounts to
directing attention to the lowest level of the hierarchy, intensity
perceptions, in one part of the body at a time. Initially, restricting
attention to perceptions on the upper lip and nostrils due to movement of
breath; progressively restricting the area, until focus can be maintained
protractedly at the aperture of the nostrils. (This focus is called
‘anapana’.) Then systematically moving attention through small zones
beginning in one quadrant of the scalp and moving slowly step by step from
one side to the other and down through the body, then returning to the top
and continuing. Naturally, attention shifts to higher-level perceptions,
including perceptions controlled in imagination. Anapana (see above) is an
anchor to resume focus at the Intensity level after such interruptions, and
after that one can resume shifting the locus of attention. This enhances
skill in attending to environmental input and to sensations in the body,
with many ramifications that can be called mindfulness.
Attention is somewhat of a mystery in the PCT model. It’s instrumental in
the Method of Levels, and there’s an hypothesis that attention goes to the
locus of error in the hierarchy (unless directed elsewhere, obviously), but
SFAIK we don’t know how to model attention itself. Like the process of
categorizing (which I doubt belongs to a Category level) and like the
cross-connections to those perceptions that constitute language, it can go
anywhere in the hierarchy. It is obviously not a prerequisite for control;
the vast majority of our controlled perceptions at any given time are not
objects of attention, but attention can go to a great many of them, though
perhaps not all. (A deeply experienced practitioner of meditation might say
“all”, but could not demonstrate that to others, given the nature of
attention, unless they, too, developed that level of skill.)
You’re probably familiar with the old metaphor of the 'rider in the
chariot’. Attention seems to belong to the rider. PCT is a good account of
the chariot. A PCT perspective clarifies the arena and processes of
mindfulness.
/BN
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov
wrote:
[From Blake Ashley(2015.09.17.1459 Arizona Time)]
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the reply.
RM: I would be interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about
PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
BA: At the risk of being tedious, the story of how I found out about PCT
began long ago. Way back when I was in junior high school, I got caught
shoplifting a roll of solder from K-mart. My parents were not pleased and
grounded me. I chose to run away from home (a PCT lesson in there I think)
and stay with friends. One of the friends I stayed with introduced me to
another one of his friends. That other friend became one of my closest
friends in high school. His name was Denny Powers. This was Northbrook in
the early 1970s.
I spent many hours in Bill Powers’ home goofing off with Denny. I didn’t
have much direct contact with Bill, but got tours of his workshop (first
home computer I ever saw) and reports of things he was doing. I remember
once Denny described an experiment Bill did with Denny that I now know was
a Method of Levels exercise. And then there was the Triples factory in the
basement. Anyway, I really had no idea at the time what Bill was up to,
I went away to school, years went by, and Denny and I lost touch.
Fast forward to the recent past and Facebook. Through social media I
reconnected with Barb Powers only to learn that Bill had recently passed
away. Partly out of curiosity and partly out of respect I decided I should
make some effort to find out what Bill had been doing. So I read "Making
Sense of Behavior". I was fascinated and also quickly realized that PCT
had the potential to explain an important interest in my life: mindfulness.
I realized that I needed to know more, so I read "Behavior: the Control of
Perception, Living Control Systems I & II, and am now in the middle of Mr.
Runkel’s “People as Living Things.” All of this has been with an eye to
using PCT as a model for understanding what is happening in mindfulness
practice.
I have been a dedicated mindfulness practitioner for 15 years, teach it in
various venues, and am interested in bringing science to the practice. I
see promise in PCT for that purpose.
I think at this point I know enough to start asking some questions of the
experts to clarify my understanding.
I hope you find this story of serendipity amusing!
Blake
Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com 9/17/2015 2:28 PM >>>
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.17.1430 PDT)]
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov
wrote:
Greetings,
BA: I am new to PCT and new to this list. As I work my way through the
literature, questions come up. Would it be okay to post them here?
Hi Blake
RM: Yes, absolutely!! Feel free to ask anything you like. I would be
interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
RM: This list started back in 1990, way before all the snazzy social media
that now exist, and we still maintain some old (and probably unnecessary)
customs, like starting posts as I did about, with name and date at the top.
Also, we do what I’m doing here: we put initials in front of the paragraphs
to indicate who said it. All this certainly isn’t required but it helps
keep track of who said what when these conversations get many participants.
RM: Anyway, welcome to CSGNet and PCT.
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
Author of Doing Research on Purpose
<
.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.18.1215)]
···
Blake Ashley(2015.09.17.1459 Arizona Time)
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the reply.
RM: I would be interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
BA: At the risk of being tedious, the story of how I found out about PCT began long ago. Way back when I was in junior high school, I got caught shoplifting a roll of solder from K-mart. My parents were not pleased and grounded me. I chose to run away from home (a PCT lesson in there I think) and stay with friends. One of the friends I stayed with introduced me to another one of his friends. That other friend became one of my closest friends in high school. His name was Denny Powers. This was Northbrook in the early 1970s.
RM: I see your story and raise you one;-)
RM: First of all, my shoplifting career started much earlier than yours. I was in grammar school when I got caught stealing a model boat kit from a 5 and 10 cent store. The experience ended my career as a thief but my interest in building models has continued , though now I build them mainly with computer programs.
RM: There is also a rather amazing coincidence associated with my own involvement with PCT. It turns out that the two most important (and beloved) people in my life – my wife and Bill Powers – were both from Northbrook and were living there at the same same, no more than a few blocks apart, before I met either of them.
RM: I met my wife first – in 1969. Then I met PCT (in 1974, right after getting my PhD). Then I started doing research on PCT and communicating with Powers (in 1978) and then I arranged to drive out and meet him (I was living in Minnesota at the time) ) and I was amazed when he told me his address and it was in Northbrook. So I went to meet Bill (and Mary) in 1979 in my wife’s home town. A remarkable coincidence that surprises me to this day. I wonder what it is about that part of the world – the north side of Chicago – that it had such a profound (and wonderful) influence on the life of a native Californian
RM: As far as the relevance of PCT to mindfulness and clinical practice, I submit for your consideration the only piece I have ever written that might be relevant:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tc1wyrfdk375iee/SolvingPsychProbs.pdf?dl=0
RM: Hope this is of some use to you. I’m not a clinician myself; I just play one on CSGNet. Actually, I can barely solve my own problems (which, now that I think of it, mainly come from being on CSGNet;-)
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
[From Blake Ashley (2015.9.18:12:38 Arizona time]
Thanks for the story. You took the opportunity to form a relationship with Bill. It is a matter of regret for me, since reading some of his writing, that I did not. But perhaps I can put my straw to the stack in terms of supporting his work.
And thank you for the article!
Blake
Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> 9/18/2015 12:14 PM >>>
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.18.1215)]
Blake Ashley(2015.09.17.1459 Arizona Time)
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the reply.
RM: I would be interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about
PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.BA: At the risk of being tedious, the story of how I found out about PCT
began long ago. Way back when I was in junior high school, I got caught
shoplifting a roll of solder from K-mart. My parents were not pleased and
grounded me. I chose to run away from home (a PCT lesson in there I think)
and stay with friends. One of the friends I stayed with introduced me to
another one of his friends. That other friend became one of my closest
friends in high school. His name was Denny Powers. This was Northbrook in
the early 1970s.
RM: I see your story and raise you one;-)
RM: First of all, my shoplifting career started much earlier than yours. I
was in grammar school when I got caught stealing a model boat kit from a 5
and 10 cent store. The experience ended my career as a thief but my
interest in building models has continued , though now I build them mainly
with computer programs.
RM: There is also a rather amazing coincidence associated with my own
involvement with PCT. It turns out that the two most important (and
beloved) people in my life -- my wife and Bill Powers -- were both from
Northbrook and were living there at the same same, no more than a few
blocks apart, before I met either of them.
RM: I met my wife first -- in 1969. Then I met PCT (in 1974, right after
getting my PhD). Then I started doing research on PCT and communicating
with Powers (in 1978) and then I arranged to drive out and meet him (I was
living in Minnesota at the time) ) and I was amazed when he told me his
address and it was in Northbrook. So I went to meet Bill (and Mary) in 1979
in my wife's home town. A remarkable coincidence that surprises me to this
day. I wonder what it is about that part of the world -- the north side of
Chicago -- that it had such a profound (and wonderful) influence on the
life of a native Californian
RM: As far as the relevance of PCT to mindfulness and clinical practice, I
submit for your consideration the only piece I have ever written that might
be relevant:
RM: Hope this is of some use to you. I'm not a clinician myself; I just
play one on CSGNet. Actually, I can barely solve my own problems (which,
now that I think of it, mainly come from being on CSGNet;-)
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose
<http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose>
*.*
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
[Bruce Nevin (20150920:21:56 PT)]
Yes.
The general idea is that a perception recognizer/constructor/controller at level n lives in a universe of perceptions constructed at level n-1. Those at the lowest level live in a universe of intensities generated by interaction of sensory organs with whatever is ‘Really’ going on in the environment.
The brain is a multitudinously complicated place. It is possible there are exceptions to this generalization in detail here and there, but the generalization is good to go with.
The 11 levels generally posited in PCT are provisional, with a subjective, phenomenological origin, but a certain amount of empirical verification. An excellent source of empirical support is in the wonderful research Frans and Hettij Plooij investigating predictable regression periods in developing infants, first primates, then humans. These align beautifully with the emergence of each successive level, and (as I have shown in a forthcoming book chapter and a paper) also with the stages in which a child learns or ‘acquires’ language.
Bill introduced the Category level on the supposition that the Sequence and Program levels manipulate symbols. I think the regression period that the Plooijs associate with a ‘Category’ level actually is due to emergence of more complex sorts of relationship perceptions. Quoting from the English version of the paper to be published in French:
A more subtle and crucially important capability emerges at 9 months: the capacity to imagine perceptions from another’s point of view. It is this which enables humans to cooperate, and to learn from one another not just the goal and means of an activity but the manner of executing it. The ability to replicate successful technique has the effect of a ‘rachet’ of incremental improvements which, over generations, has enabled the complexity of human cultures (Tomasello 1999, 2014; Herrmann 2007; summarized in Stix 2014). Separation anxiety begins as the child becomes aware that caregivers have other things on their minds and are capable of abandoning them.
Categorizing is a control activity at every level of the hierarchy. That’s very different from any other of those 11 kinds of perception. Control of language perceptions facilitates it. There’s a great deal more to be figured out and said about this, but that’s the bones of it.
···
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov wrote:
[Blake Ashley (2015.9.18:7:10 Arizona time)]
BA: Bruce, the manner in which consciousness moves through the hierarchy, the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness of error signals, and the role of consciousness in reorganization are some of the questions I hope to eventually ask on this list.
I am familiar with Mr. Goenka’s techniques and teach variations of them (although I have never been to any of his retreats). And I am VERY interested in your views on mindfulness and PCT. But there is so much to it, I don’t want to get ahead of myself. Please forgive me for plodding ahead one step at a time.
Please permit me to relate my understanding of certain aspects and implications of PCT so that I can be corrected or confirmed:
The perceptual input into the lowest level of the hierarchy of control loops comes directly from the sensory nerves.
The perceptual input into all higher levels comes from the lower levels such that at any given level (above the lowest) the perceptual input is an aggregate of perceptions as processed by lower levels. It isn’t raw sensory data entering the higher loops, but processed data (is there a better PCT term for this?). So in addition to each loop producing an output downward to control perceptual input at its level, it also produces a processed perception upward that serves as part of the perceptual input for a higher level.
For example, as you read these words, the level at which you compare your perception of the meaning of these words to your reference perception of your understanding of PCT receives the perception of the meaning of these words in a form that contains previously processed perceptual input in terms of intensity, sensation, configuration (of letters), transitions (between letters), events (words) and so on.
More succinctly: perception at each level of the hierarchy above the lowest consists, in part, of an aggregate of the processed outputs of lower levels.
Does this sound correct?
Thanks for your patience!
Blake
Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com 9/17/2015 5:36 PM >>>
[Bruce Nevin (20150917:17:10 PT)]Fascinating story, Blake. Well done, pulling through.
One approach to mindfulness is the vipassana (vipasyana) meditation
technique taught by S.N. Goenka. That hinayana practice amounts to
directing attention to the lowest level of the hierarchy, intensity
perceptions, in one part of the body at a time. Initially, restricting
attention to perceptions on the upper lip and nostrils due to movement of
breath; progressively restricting the area, until focus can be maintained
protractedly at the aperture of the nostrils. (This focus is called
‘anapana’.) Then systematically moving attention through small zones
beginning in one quadrant of the scalp and moving slowly step by step from
one side to the other and down through the body, then returning to the top
and continuing. Naturally, attention shifts to higher-level perceptions,
including perceptions controlled in imagination. Anapana (see above) is an
anchor to resume focus at the Intensity level after such interruptions, and
after that one can resume shifting the locus of attention. This enhances
skill in attending to environmental input and to sensations in the body,
with many ramifications that can be called mindfulness.
Attention is somewhat of a mystery in the PCT model. It’s instrumental in
the Method of Levels, and there’s an hypothesis that attention goes to the
locus of error in the hierarchy (unless directed elsewhere, obviously), but
SFAIK we don’t know how to model attention itself. Like the process of
categorizing (which I doubt belongs to a Category level) and like the
cross-connections to those perceptions that constitute language, it can go
anywhere in the hierarchy. It is obviously not a prerequisite for control;
the vast majority of our controlled perceptions at any given time are not
objects of attention, but attention can go to a great many of them, though
perhaps not all. (A deeply experienced practitioner of meditation might say
“all”, but could not demonstrate that to others, given the nature of
attention, unless they, too, developed that level of skill.)
You’re probably familiar with the old metaphor of the 'rider in the
chariot’. Attention seems to belong to the rider. PCT is a good account of
the chariot. A PCT perspective clarifies the arena and processes of
mindfulness.
/BN
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov
wrote:
[From Blake Ashley(2015.09.17.1459 Arizona Time)]
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the reply.
RM: I would be interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about
PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
BA: At the risk of being tedious, the story of how I found out about PCT
began long ago. Way back when I was in junior high school, I got caught
shoplifting a roll of solder from K-mart. My parents were not pleased and
grounded me. I chose to run away from home (a PCT lesson in there I think)
and stay with friends. One of the friends I stayed with introduced me to
another one of his friends. That other friend became one of my closest
friends in high school. His name was Denny Powers. This was Northbrook in
the early 1970s.
I spent many hours in Bill Powers’ home goofing off with Denny. I didn’t
have much direct contact with Bill, but got tours of his workshop (first
home computer I ever saw) and reports of things he was doing. I remember
once Denny described an experiment Bill did with Denny that I now know was
a Method of Levels exercise. And then there was the Triples factory in the
basement. Anyway, I really had no idea at the time what Bill was up to,
I went away to school, years went by, and Denny and I lost touch.
Fast forward to the recent past and Facebook. Through social media I
reconnected with Barb Powers only to learn that Bill had recently passed
away. Partly out of curiosity and partly out of respect I decided I should
make some effort to find out what Bill had been doing. So I read "Making
Sense of Behavior". I was fascinated and also quickly realized that PCT
had the potential to explain an important interest in my life: mindfulness.
I realized that I needed to know more, so I read "Behavior: the Control of
Perception, Living Control Systems I & II, and am now in the middle of Mr.
Runkel’s “People as Living Things.” All of this has been with an eye to
using PCT as a model for understanding what is happening in mindfulness
practice.
I have been a dedicated mindfulness practitioner for 15 years, teach it in
various venues, and am interested in bringing science to the practice. I
see promise in PCT for that purpose.
I think at this point I know enough to start asking some questions of the
experts to clarify my understanding.
I hope you find this story of serendipity amusing!
Blake
Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com 9/17/2015 2:28 PM >>>
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.17.1430 PDT)]
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov
wrote:
Greetings,
BA: I am new to PCT and new to this list. As I work my way through the
literature, questions come up. Would it be okay to post them here?
Hi Blake
RM: Yes, absolutely!! Feel free to ask anything you like. I would be
interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about PCT, what you
have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
RM: This list started back in 1990, way before all the snazzy social media
that now exist, and we still maintain some old (and probably unnecessary)
customs, like starting posts as I did about, with name and date at the top.
Also, we do what I’m doing here: we put initials in front of the paragraphs
to indicate who said it. All this certainly isn’t required but it helps
keep track of who said what when these conversations get many participants.
RM: Anyway, welcome to CSGNet and PCT.
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
Author of Doing Research on Purpose
<
.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
[Blake Ashley (2015.9.21:8:13 Arizona time)]
BN: Yes
BA: Thanks Bruce. I have more questions but I have realized that I
need to finish Mr. Runkel's book before I venture more.
Bruce Nevin <bnhpct@gmail.com> 9/20/2015 9:56 PM >>>
[Bruce Nevin (20150920:21:56 PT)]
Yes.
The general idea is that a perception recognizer/constructor/controller
at
level *n* lives in a universe of perceptions constructed at level
*n*-1.
Those at the lowest level live in a universe of intensities generated
by
interaction of sensory organs with whatever is 'Really' going on in
the
environment.
The brain is a multitudinously complicated place. It is possible there
are
exceptions to this generalization in detail here and there, but the
generalization is good to go with.
The 11 levels generally posited in PCT are provisional, with a
subjective,
phenomenological origin, but a certain amount of empirical
verification. An
excellent source of empirical support is in the wonderful research
Frans
and Hettij Plooij investigating predictable regression periods in
developing infants, first primates, then humans. These align
beautifully
with the emergence of each successive level, and (as I have shown in a
forthcoming book chapter and a paper) also with the stages in which a
child
learns or 'acquires' language.
Bill introduced the Category level on the supposition that the Sequence
and
Program levels manipulate symbols. I think the regression period that
the
Plooijs associate with a 'Category' level actually is due to emergence
of
more complex sorts of relationship perceptions. Quoting from the
English
version of the paper to be published in French:
A more subtle and crucially important capability emerges at 9 months:
the
capacity to imagine perceptions from another’s point of view. It is
this
which enables humans to cooperate, and to learn from one another not
just
the goal and means of an activity but the manner of executing it. The
ability to replicate successful technique has the effect of a
‘rachet’ of
incremental improvements which, over generations, has enabled the
complexity of human cultures (Tomasello 1999, 2014; Herrmann 2007;
summarized in Stix 2014). Separation anxiety begins as the child
becomes
aware that caregivers have other things on their minds and are capable
of
abandoning them.
Categorizing is a control activity at every level of the hierarchy.
That's
very different from any other of those 11 kinds of perception. Control
of
language perceptions facilitates it. There's a great deal more to be
figured out and said about this, but that's the bones of it.
/B
[Blake Ashley (2015.9.18:7:10 Arizona time)]
BA: Bruce, the manner in which consciousness moves through the
hierarchy,
the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness of error
signals,
and the role of consciousness in reorganization are some of the
questions I
hope to eventually ask on this list.
I am familiar with Mr. Goenka's techniques and teach variations of
them
(although I have never been to any of his retreats). And I am VERY
interested in your views on mindfulness and PCT. But there is so
much to
it, I don't want to get ahead of myself. Please forgive me for
plodding
ahead one step at a time.
Please permit me to relate my understanding of certain aspects and
implications of PCT so that I can be corrected or confirmed:The perceptual input into the lowest level of the hierarchy of
control
loops comes directly from the sensory nerves.
The perceptual input into all higher levels comes from the lower
levels
such that at any given level (above the lowest) the perceptual input
is an
aggregate of perceptions as processed by lower levels. It isn't raw
sensory data entering the higher loops, but processed data (is there
a
better PCT term for this?). So in addition to each loop producing
an
output downward to control perceptual input at its level, it also
produces
a processed perception upward that serves as part of the perceptual
input
for a higher level.
For example, as you read these words, the level at which you compare
your
perception of the meaning of these words to your reference perception
of
your understanding of PCT receives the perception of the meaning of
these
words in a form that contains previously processed perceptual input
in
terms of intensity, sensation, configuration (of letters),
transitions
(between letters), events (words) and so on.
More succinctly: perception at each level of the hierarchy above the
lowest consists, in part, of an aggregate of the processed outputs of
lower
levels.
Does this sound correct?
Thanks for your patience!
Blake
>>> Bruce Nevin <bnhpct@gmail.com> 9/17/2015 5:36 PM >>>
[Bruce Nevin (20150917:17:10 PT)]Fascinating story, Blake. Well done, pulling through.
One approach to mindfulness is the vipassana (vipasyana) meditation
technique taught by S.N. Goenka. That hinayana practice amounts to
directing attention to the lowest level of the hierarchy, intensity
perceptions, in one part of the body at a time. Initially,
restricting
attention to perceptions on the upper lip and nostrils due to
movement of
breath; progressively restricting the area, until focus can be
maintained
protractedly at the aperture of the nostrils. (This focus is called
'anapana'.) Then systematically moving attention through small zones
beginning in one quadrant of the scalp and moving slowly step by step
from
one side to the other and down through the body, then returning to
the top
and continuing. Naturally, attention shifts to higher-level
perceptions,
including perceptions controlled in imagination. Anapana (see above)
is an
anchor to resume focus at the Intensity level after such
interruptions, and
after that one can resume shifting the locus of attention. This
enhances
skill in attending to environmental input and to sensations in the
body,
with many ramifications that can be called mindfulness.
Attention is somewhat of a mystery in the PCT model. It's
instrumental in
the Method of Levels, and there's an hypothesis that attention goes
to the
locus of error in the hierarchy (unless directed elsewhere,
obviously), but
SFAIK we don't know how to model attention itself. Like the process
of
categorizing (which I doubt belongs to a Category level) and like
the
cross-connections to those perceptions that constitute language, it
can go
anywhere in the hierarchy. It is obviously not a prerequisite for
control;
the vast majority of our controlled perceptions at any given time are
not
objects of attention, but attention can go to a great many of them,
though
perhaps not all. (A deeply experienced practitioner of meditation
might say
"all", but could not demonstrate that to others, given the nature of
attention, unless they, too, developed that level of skill.)You're probably familiar with the old metaphor of the 'rider in the
chariot'. Attention seems to belong to the rider. PCT is a good
account of
the chariot. A PCT perspective clarifies the arena and processes of
mindfulness./BN
> [From Blake Ashley(2015.09.17.1459 Arizona Time)]
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> RM: I would be interested in knowing a bit about how you found out
about
> PCT, what you
> have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
>
> BA: At the risk of being tedious, the story of how I found out
about PCT
> began long ago. Way back when I was in junior high school, I got
caught
> shoplifting a roll of solder from K-mart. My parents were not
pleased
and
> grounded me. I chose to run away from home (a PCT lesson in there
I
think)
> and stay with friends. One of the friends I stayed with introduced
me to
> another one of his friends. That other friend became one of my
closest
> friends in high school. His name was Denny Powers. This was
Northbrook
in
> the early 1970s.
>
> I spent many hours in Bill Powers' home goofing off with Denny. I
didn't
> have much direct contact with Bill, but got tours of his workshop
(first
> home computer I ever saw) and reports of things he was doing. I
remember
> once Denny described an experiment Bill did with Denny that I now
know
was
> a Method of Levels exercise. And then there was the Triples
factory in
the
> basement. Anyway, I really had no idea at the time what Bill was
up
to,
> I went away to school, years went by, and Denny and I lost touch.
>
> Fast forward to the recent past and Facebook. Through social media
I
> reconnected with Barb Powers only to learn that Bill had recently
passed
> away. Partly out of curiosity and partly out of respect I decided
I
should
> make some effort to find out what Bill had been doing. So I read
"Making
> Sense of Behavior". I was fascinated and also quickly realized
that PCT
> had the potential to explain an important interest in my life:
mindfulness.
>
> I realized that I needed to know more, so I read "Behavior: the
Control
of
> Perception, Living Control Systems I & II, and am now in the middle
of
Mr.
> Runkel's "People as Living Things." All of this has been with an
eye to
> using PCT as a model for understanding what is happening in
mindfulness
> practice.
>
> I have been a dedicated mindfulness practitioner for 15 years,
teach it
in
> various venues, and am interested in bringing science to the
practice. I
> see promise in PCT for that purpose.
>
> I think at this point I know enough to start asking some questions
of the
> experts to clarify my understanding.
>
> I hope you find this story of serendipity amusing!
>
> Blake
>
>
> >>> Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> 9/17/2015 2:28 PM >>>
> [From Rick Marken (2015.09.17.1430 PDT)]
>
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > BA: I am new to PCT and new to this list. As I work my way
through the
> > literature, questions come up. Would it be okay to post them
here?
>
>
> Hi Blake
>
> RM: Yes, absolutely!! Feel free to ask anything you like. I would
be
> interested in knowing a bit about how you found out about PCT,
what you
> have read about it and, maybe, and why you are interested in it.
>
> RM: This list started back in 1990, way before all the snazzy
social
media
> that now exist, and we still maintain some old (and probably
unnecessary)
> customs, like starting posts as I did about, with name and date at
the
top.
> Also, we do what I'm doing here: we put initials in front of the
paragraphs
> to indicate who said it. All this certainly isn't required but it
helps
> keep track of who said what when these conversations get many
participants.
>
> RM: Anyway, welcome to CSGNet and PCT.
>
> Best regards
>
> Rick
> --
> Richard S. Marken
> www.mindreadings.com
> Author of Doing Research on Purpose
> <
>
···
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Blake Ashley <Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Blake Ashley <Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov> > wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Blake Ashley <Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov > > > > wrote:
> >
> *.*
> Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
>
>