# nutshells

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435>\
**Category:** CSG2001\
**Created:** [November 12, 2001, 4:14am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435 "2001-11-12T04:14:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 19\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 4:14am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/1 "2001-11-12T04:14:19Z")

</div>

[from Mary Powers 2001.11.11]

Something odd here. Dag said, referring to things Kenny has written, "I  
cannot remember that you have discussed religion in terms of PCT. You  
prefer to discuss PCT in terms of religion".

And I said "Yay, Dag. The whole thing in a nutshell".

At which point Kenny said, "I hope the net can stop putting Kenny's  
behavior in their nutshells for a while..." and followed that in a later  
post with a sign-off to Bill, "Best to you and Mrs. Nutshell". Both remarks  
suggesting that he was rather pissed off. But why at me rather than Dag?

I get the feeling that "putting something in a nutshell" means something to  
Kenny other than the conventional meaning that it was very concise, taking,  
in this case, two short sentences to say what could have taken several  
pages. Rest assured, Kenny, what I was saying was in that nutshell was  
Dag's statement, not you - you are much too large 😉 - nor was there any  
suggestion that your behavior belongs in a nutshell (because it is nutty?).

If Dag had said PCT keeps getting discussed in terms of Topic X, Y, or Z,  
rather than Topic X, Y, or Z being discussed in terms of PCT, I would still  
have congratulated him on putting it in a nutshell. This is the entire  
issue of people coming to PCT with their own agendas, looking at it through  
their own glasses, as Rick has described it, instead of looking at their  
field from the PCT point of view, with PCT glasses. There are the various  
perspectives and agendas of conventional psychology, of "modern" control  
theory, of people whose idea of control theory has been filtered through  
William Glasser, etc., etc., and a religious point of view is just like all  
the others \_in that respect\_.

I did not think "Mrs. Nutshell" was particularly funny, mainly because that  
and your previous nutshell remark suggests to me that (if you did  
understand it) you prefer to laugh off my endorsement of Dag's comment, and  
also to ignore the content of what he said. Anything rather than taking us  
seriously, it seems.

Mary P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 4:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/2 "2001-11-12T16:18:14Z")

</div>

[Rick Marken (2001.11.12.0815)]

Mary Powers (2001.11.11) --

> Something odd here. Dag said, referring to things Kenny has written,

"I

> cannot remember that you have discussed religion in terms of PCT. You  
> prefer to discuss PCT in terms of religion".

Not only odd but deeply ironic, for reasons that will be apparent to  
those whose only agenda is PCT.

Best regards

Rick

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.  
> The RAND Corporation  
> PO Box 2138  
> 1700 Main Street  
> Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138  
> Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971  
> Fax: 310-451-7018  
> E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 4:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/3 "2001-11-12T16:48:21Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1112.1146)]

> [Rick Marken (2001.11.12.0815)]
> 
> Not only odd but deeply ironic, for reasons that will be apparent to  
> those whose only agenda is PCT.

Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.  
He lives with the American  
poet and painter Gray Jacobik  
and their canine and feline familiars in  
Pomfret, Connecticut.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 5:41pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/4 "2001-11-12T17:41:11Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.12.0940)]

> Bruce Gregory (2001.1112.1146)

> Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.

Sounds sort of nonsensical. If it's true, it's false.

Best regards

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.  
> The RAND Corporation  
> PO Box 2138  
> 1700 Main Street  
> Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138  
> Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971  
> Fax: 310-451-7018  
> E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams\_UMKC](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/48db29/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams\_UMKC](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams_UMKC)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 1:50am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/5 "2001-11-13T01:50:10Z")

</div>

[From Bill Williams 12 November 2001 8:00 CST]

> [From Rick Marken (2001.11.12.0940)]
> 
> \> Bruce Gregory (2001.1112.1146) says :
> 
> \> Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.

Rick Marken says :

> Sounds sort of nonsensical. If it's true, it's false.

Not neccesarily. There's no contradiction involved. And, since you've  
spoken we know what category you belong in.

Best  
&nbsp;&nbsp;Bill Williams

> **···**
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
> Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at [http://www.email.ro/](http://www.email.ro/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 3:42am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/6 "2001-11-13T03:42:42Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.12.1940)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1112.1146) says :

> Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.

Me:

> Sounds sort of nonsensical. If it's true, it's false.

Bill Williams (12 November 2001 8:00 CST) --

> Not neccesarily. There's no contradiction involved.

Sure there is. It's a self contradiction like "This statement is false".  
Bruce spoke as follows "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do  
not know" If those words are true then they cannot be true because they  
were spoken by Bruce and those who speak do not know. But, if they are  
not true then they might be true because it's not true that people who  
speak do not know. I said it sounded like nonsense because Lewis Carroll  
loved logic paradoxes like this.

> And, since you've spoken we know what category you belong in.

And now you see that we don't because the statement is neither true nor  
false (or it is both true and false, whichever you prefer).

Best regards

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> marken@mindreadings.com  
> 310 474-0313

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Kenneth_Kitzke_Value)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 4:50am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/7 "2001-11-13T04:50:59Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.12)]

\<from Mary Powers 2001.11.11]\>

Nice to see you are feeling well enough to post again, Mary.

\<At which point Kenny said, "I hope the net can stop putting Kenny's  
behavior in their nutshells for a while..." and followed that in a later  
post with a sign-off to Bill, "Best to you and Mrs. Nutshell". Both remarks  
suggesting that he was rather pissed off. But why at me rather than Dag?\>

I wish to confirm how utterly wrong your interpretation truly is. I was not  
angry at you or Dag. In fact, had you presented the whole context, instead  
of a selected snippet, I actually said just the opposite and also included a  
"big smile" as the record shows:

Kenny said:  
I hope the net can stop putting Kenny's behavior in their nutshells for a  
while and return to the normal "model" and "science" format dealing with PCT  
while I take another hiatus. That is what should be on this net anyway.  
Right? I can't understand why Rick keeps going off on tangents about the  
Bible or how he perceives people on the net and their weaknesses. But, I  
could guess. 8-))

Best to all and I am not angry with anyone, just concerned about helping my  
son right now.\>

\<I get the feeling that "putting something in a nutshell" means something to  
Kenny other than the conventional meaning that it was very concise, taking,  
in this case, two short sentences to say what could have taken several  
pages. Rest assured, Kenny, what I was saying was in that nutshell was  
Dag's statement, not you - you are much too large 😉 - nor was there any  
suggestion that your behavior belongs in a nutshell (because it is nutty?).\>

Wrong again, Mary. I thought you meant it seemed like a concise statement  
and that you agreed with what Dag wrote. Why do you as a PCTer insist on  
guessing for what purposes others are controlling? Why not ask rather than  
declare? Actually, had your comment suggested my behavior was nutty, it  
would have been funnier and understandable, but I did not make that  
connection.

\<And I said "Yay, Dag. The whole thing in a nutshell".\>

I did take you to mean "Yeah, Dag," as when a sophomore cheerleader cheers  
for her senior football fullback when her hero scores a touchdown. Just what  
was "Yay, Dag" supposed to convey, Mary?

Now, let's look at Dag's nutshell that so swooped you off your chair.

\<Dag said, referring to things Kenny has written, "I  
cannot remember that you have discussed religion in terms of PCT. You  
prefer to discuss PCT in terms of religion".

Note that "I cannot remember." Dag has no facts. It is a cute quip or dig  
though. I did not take it seriously and did not respond. I already noted in  
a post to Bill Powers (Mr. Nutshell to you, it's a joke Mary, even if it  
seems like satire) that if there was a way to discuss my religion in terms of  
PCT, I would do it on a religious forum with people who profess my religion.  
But, I don't even know quite what Dag means anyway. Perhaps he could discuss  
his religion in terms of PCT and enlighten us with more expanded nutshells?

If you or Dag want to stick to what I have actually written and make comments  
on that, it might be worthwhile to discuss it. I have compared in a written  
study paper two explanations of human nature to see how they are similar or  
dissimilar: the one presented by A, Bill Powers and B, the one presented in  
the Bible. Is that the same or different from discussing A in terms of B and  
vice-versa? I don't have a clue what Dag actually means in his nutshell.  
And, for Dag to tell me what I "prefer" is preposterous and seems contrary to  
what I have been able to understand about PCT as a proposed superior life  
science.

\<If Dag had said PCT keeps getting discussed in terms of Topic X, Y, or Z,  
rather than Topic X, Y, or Z being discussed in terms of PCT, I would still  
have congratulated him on putting it in a nutshell. This is the entire  
issue of people coming to PCT with their own agendas, looking at it through  
their own glasses, as Rick has described it, instead of looking at their  
field from the PCT point of view, with PCT glasses. There are the various  
perspectives and agendas of conventional psychology, of "modern" control  
theory, of people whose idea of control theory has been filtered through  
William Glasser, etc., etc., and a religious point of view is just like all  
the others \_in that respect\_.\>

This helps me understand your Yay, but I found the "own agenda" remarks by  
Bill at the conference shocking. I could not believe my ears. Bill Glasser,  
or conventional psychologists, were not at the conference and may publicly  
mention Bill and PCT in non-endearing terms. I am not aware of anyone at the  
conference who does not respect both. Nor is it a crime or sin or sign of  
insincerity to have something other than PCT as a higher goal in your life  
(even if Bill doesn't) and no matter how much Bill wishes everyone had his  
goal at the top of their agenda for life to still enjoy the people and  
presentations at the conference. Bill Williams was worth the trip alone.

\<I did not think "Mrs. Nutshell" was particularly funny, mainly because that  
and your previous nutshell remark suggests to me that (if you did  
understand it) you prefer to laugh off my endorsement of Dag's comment, and  
also to ignore the content of what he said. Anything rather than taking us  
seriously, it seems.\>

Since the joke may seem to have been on you, I can understand that, but it  
was not mean spirited. I was mostly trying to let you know that I saw your  
endorsement, even though I did not respond to it. And, I did not respond  
because you did not ask for a response from me.

If you or Dag would like to expand on the "content" using things I have  
written, rather than on things not remembered or on what you think I prefer  
to do without ever asking, I'll do my best to take your input seriously and  
respond. But, if my Christian beliefs are the issue that so concerns you,  
why not lighten up, or dialogue privately?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams\_UMKC](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/48db29/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams\_UMKC](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams_UMKC)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 7:23pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/8 "2001-11-13T19:23:45Z")

</div>

[From Bill Williams 12 November 2001 1:00 CST]

> [From Rick Marken (2001.11.12.1940)]
> 
> Bruce Gregory (2001.1112.1146) says :
> 
> \> Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.
> 
> Rick:
> 
> \> Sounds sort of nonsensical. If it's true, it's false.
> 
> Bill Williams (12 November 2001 8:00 CST) --
> 
> \> Not neccesarily. There's no contradiction involved.
> 
> Rick:
> 
> Sure there is.

Depends upon what sort of knowledge claims you wish to make. If  
as the early modern religionists who made absolute claims for  
their own beliefs, you as secularist wish to retain a conception  
of knowledge and logic of the "Sure there is." type when speaking  
as a "scientist" then you have retained an absolutist world view.

Bruce's "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know."  
is, as I read it, intended to suggest a skepticism concerning all  
claims to knowledge. To interpret Bruce's statement as an exercise  
in formal logic is to borrow from the religious fundamentalist a  
severely literalist approach to reading. Aside from computer  
programs most statements will not make sense when read in this way.  
Consider, a statement you made later in the same email.

Rick:

> I said it sounded like nonsense because Lewis Carroll loved  
> logic paradoxes like this.

I think you are making some unwarrented assumptions: 1) that  
paradoxes are nonsense, 2) I can't see how it follows that  
Bruce's statement is nonsense from "because Lewis CArrol loved  
logic paradoxes like this." 3) It might make more sense to  
interprete Bruces statement as an empirical claim. "Those who  
speak don't know." which can be tested. And, "Those who know  
don't speak." which may be difficult to test. So, the statement  
as a testable claim may be faulty on epistomological grounds.  
But, there's also the possiblity that I'm just not getting it.  
Perhaps I might get it if you explained your sentence above or  
perhaps Bruce can explain it to both of us.

Best  
&nbsp;&nbsp;Bill Williams

> **···**
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
> Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at [http://www.email.ro/](http://www.email.ro/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 8:15pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/9 "2001-11-13T20:15:31Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1220)]

Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.12)--

> ...I found the "own agenda" remarks by Bill at the conference shocking.  
> I could not believe my ears. ...I am not aware of anyone at the  
> conference who does not respect both. Nor is it a crime or sin or sign of  
> insincerity to have something other than PCT as a higher goal in your life.

I don't think the "agenda" problem is a problem of respect or loyalty. The  
problem with agendas, from my perspective, is that they act like procrustean  
beds into which one tries to fit ideas, such as ideas about PCT. I think this is  
what Dag meant when he said that you prefer to discuss PCT in terms of religion.  
You seem to be more interested in trying to see how PCT can fit into your  
religious perspective rather than in trying to see how your religious  
perspective can fit into PCT. And you are certainly not the only one who comes  
to PCT with another agenda. Many others have come to PCT with many other agendas  
besides religion. Indeed, other agendas have often brought people to PCT. My  
impression is that most people have come to PCT thinking that PCT supports (fits  
nicely into) their existing agenda (their procrustean bed).

There is certainly nothing wrong with having an agenda other than PCT. But  
these agendas can make things frustrating for those of us whose main agenda is  
PCT. Non-PCT agendas are frustrating because they cut down on the number of  
colleagues one has who are interested in exploring the possibilities of PCT as  
an explanation of all aspects of human behavior. Non-PCT agendas also lead to  
unpleasant interpersonal conflicts (when the implications of PCT conflict with  
an existing agenda).

I think Bill 's "agenda" comments at the conference were the result of  
frustration over the lack of people who come to PCT out of an interest in PCT  
sui generis. I think Bill was also frustrated because he sees (correctly, in my  
view) non-PCT "agendas" as the root cause of much of the ugliness that has  
occurred on CSGNet.

I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else give up their non-PCT agendas. But  
CSGNet was developed for people with one specific agenda: PCT. I think everyone  
who reads or contributes to CSGNet would be a lot calmer and happier if they  
just took it for granted that their agenda, if discussed, will be discussed in  
terms of PCT, not vice versa.

Best regards

Rick

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.  
> The RAND Corporation  
> PO Box 2138  
> 1700 Main Street  
> Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138  
> Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971  
> Fax: 310-451-7018  
> E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 8:28pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/10 "2001-11-13T20:28:14Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1113.1528)]

> Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1220)
> 
> And you are certainly not the only one who comes  
> to PCT with another agenda. Many others have come to PCT with many other  
> agendas  
> besides religion. Indeed, other agendas have often brought people to PCT. My  
> impression is that most people have come to PCT thinking that PCT supports  
> (fits  
> nicely into) their existing agenda (their procrustean bed).

If you believe I have some agenda, I would greatly appreciate it if you  
would tell me what it is. I may have one, but I am unaware of it. Thanks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 8:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/11 "2001-11-13T20:30:34Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1230)]

> Bill Williams (12 November 2001 1:00 CST ) --
> 
> \> Bruce Gregory (2001.1112.1146) says :  
> \>  
> \> \> Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.  
> \>  
> \> Rick:  
> \>  
> \> \> Sounds sort of nonsensical. If it's true, it's false.  
> \>  
> \> Bill Williams (12 November 2001 8:00 CST) --  
> \>  
> \> \> Not neccesarily. There's no contradiction involved.  
> \>  
> \> Rick:  
> \>  
> \> Sure there is.
> 
> Depends upon what sort of knowledge claims you wish to make.

No. It simply depends on the fact that someone spoke the words "Those who  
know do not speak. Those who speak do not know." It's like the man who  
says "All men are liars". Do you see the paradox now?

Best regards

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.  
> The RAND Corporation  
> PO Box 2138  
> 1700 Main Street  
> Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138  
> Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971  
> Fax: 310-451-7018  
> E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams\_UMKC](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/48db29/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams\_UMKC](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams_UMKC)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 10:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/12 "2001-11-13T22:30:59Z")

</div>

> [From Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1230)]
> 
> \> Bill Williams (12 November 2001 1:00 CST ) --  
> \>  
> \> \> Bruce Gregory (2001.1112.1146) says :  
> \> \>  
> \> \> \> Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.  
> \> \>  
> \> \> Rick:  
> \> \>  
> \> \> \> Sounds sort of nonsensical. If it's true, it's false.  
> \> \>  
> \> \> Bill Williams (12 November 2001 8:00 CST) --  
> \> \>  
> \> \> \> Not neccesarily. There's no contradiction involved.  
> \> \>  
> \> \> Rick:  
> \> \>  
> \> \> Sure there is.  
> \>  
> \> Depends upon what sort of knowledge claims you wish to make.
> 
> No. It simply depends on the fact that someone spoke the words "Those who  
> know do not speak. Those who speak do not know." It's like the man who  
> says "All men are liars". Do you see the paradox now?
> 
> --

The two assertions are not alike. So the comparison is not instructive.

I've seen a paradox for quite some time, but its a paradox in which  
an absolutist version of religion is contending with an absolutist  
version of scientism. That's the paradox that drives much of the  
conflict. When the absolutist conceptions dominated religion the  
result was the era of religious wars. The left-over results of such  
absolutism in regard to knowlege and other claims can still be seen  
in Ireland, and to a lesser extent in the United States where a  
particular kind of religious impluse remains powerful. So does the  
Sinclair Lewis inpluse to stand in the church pulpit and dare god  
to strike one dead.

A lot in your thinking depends upon the use of the adjective "simply"  
in the above passage. Absolutists are characteristically simplists.  
There are now better ways to think about such issues. One of the  
problems is that you are apparently not aware of such alternatives.  
As a consequence when an alternative is suggested you, consistent  
with your absolutist approach to questions, either fail to percieve  
it, or perceive it and ignore it and reject it. But, You prefer the  
logic of "Sure it is." You could take a look at the 25th chapter  
of John Dewey's \_Logic: the THeory of Inquiry\_ for a concise  
discussion of a non-absolutist approach to logic. The logic was  
written 60 some years ago. Now, I doubt outside of some theological  
institutes many people familiar with contemporary logic would be  
satisfied with your "Sure it is." approach.

Best  
&nbsp;&nbsp;Bill Williams

> **···**
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
> Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at [http://www.email.ro/](http://www.email.ro/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 12:49am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/13 "2001-11-14T00:49:52Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1650)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1113.1528)

> If you believe I have some agenda, I would greatly appreciate it if you  
> would tell me what it is. I may have one, but I am unaware of it. Thanks.

I can't tell you but I know it's not mine.

Me:

> No. It simply depends on the fact that someone spoke the words "Those who  
> know do not speak. Those who speak do not know." It's like the man who  
> says "All men are liars". Do you see the paradox now?

Bill Williams:

> The two assertions are not alike. So the comparison is not instructive.

OK. That looks like a QED to me. I give.

Best regards

Rick

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> marken@mindreadings.com  
> 310 474-0313

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Cherpas](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Chris\_Cherpas](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Chris_Cherpas)\
**Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 1:00am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/14 "2001-11-14T01:00:21Z")

</div>

[From Chris Cherpas (2001.11.13.1640)]

Bill Williams (12 November 2001 8:00 CST) --

> Bruce's "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know."  
> is, as I read it, intended to suggest a skepticism concerning all  
> claims to knowledge. To interpret Bruce's statement as an exercise  
> in formal logic is to borrow from the religious fundamentalist a  
> severely literalist approach to reading. Aside from computer  
> programs most statements will not make sense when read in this way.

The "skepticism concerning all claims to knowledge" statement,  
then, is not to be taken literally either. For example, how  
skeptical do you want to be about a claim that the Earth is  
not flat (even though it was believed flat before an abundance  
of knowledge made it practically a trivial question)? Of course,  
we can easily claim that Earth is not flat today, can't we? Are  
we therefore not being skeptical enough? I think not.

As far as I'm concerned, the same goes for the existence of gods...  
I don't plan on being skeptical about the non-existence of gods unless  
f-ing Jesus Christ walks up and shakes my hand. (The same goes for  
Santa Claus and the easter bunny.) As stated before, I think a scientific  
psychology is the antedote for theism in all its forms, with PCT far  
and away the front runner for achieving it. Theists have the most  
to fear from PCT, since it transforms their supposedly "objective"  
gods from the most important things in all the universe to the  
merely imagined and controlled perceptions of individual brains.

Now for the quote, "Those who know do not speak. Those who  
speak do not know." and concerns over its literal interpretation:  
In the present context, the quote appears to have been invoked  
as a simple "cheap shot" (if not a complete non sequitur) by one,  
Bruce Gregory. I see little in the use of this quote that even remotely  
raises interesting philosophical issues. At least Rick Marken was  
clever enough to notice a little logical contradiction and have some  
fun with it. But for you, Bill Williams, to raise this kind of comment  
to yet another cycle of argumentation strikes me as pedantic, if not  
ingenuous. Worse, one wonders, how flaccid and dormant must  
a brain become to perceive anything of relevance in such quibbling  
with quotes? Oh, repartee gone cliche! Bring back the arguments  
over input signals versus perceptual signals versus controlled variables!

Now, in general, I would agree that skepticism is particularly relevant  
to PCT, not only because knowledge claims are, indeed, "all  
perception" anyway, but because the history of psychology is  
so repleat with bogus, fanciful knowledge claims about human  
behavior. But, again (and unfortunately), the context in which the  
quote about knowledge was raised had nothing to do with seriously  
considering how knowledge claims are interpreted in PCT. If you  
can find such a connection, please let me know.

Actually, another quote regarding knowledge is more germane  
to this situation: "Temet Nosce" -- Know Thyself. While my  
"axe grinding" motivation must be transparent to all, and may be  
viewed as the blunt arguments of a "true believer" (in atheism),  
I can, at best, only wonder why others post the nit-picking drivel  
with which we are presently concerned. If you know why, do tell.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 1:40am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/15 "2001-11-14T01:40:16Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1740)]

Chris Cherpas (2001.11.13.1640)--

> Now for the quote, "Those who know do not speak. Those who  
> speak do not know." and concerns over its literal interpretation:  
> In the present context, the quote appears to have been invoked  
> as a simple "cheap shot" (if not a complete non sequitur) by one,  
> Bruce Gregory.

That's what I thought. I just had (and have) no idea what Bruce might be  
shooting at.

> Oh, repartee gone cliche! Bring back the arguments over input signals  
> versus perceptual signals versus controlled variables!

Those were the days, my friend.

Best regards

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> marken@mindreadings.com  
> 310 474-0313

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 1:48am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/16 "2001-11-14T01:48:21Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.11132047)]

> Rick Marken (2001.11.13.1650)
> 
> Bruce Gregory (2001.1113.1528)
> 
> \> If you believe I have some agenda, I would greatly appreciate it if you  
> \> would tell me what it is. I may have one, but I am unaware of it. Thanks.
> 
> I can't tell you but I know it's not mine.

Of course not. Only Bill shares your agenda. But I'm glad that mine is not  
obvious to you.

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.  
He lives with the American  
poet and painter Gray Jacobik  
and their canine and feline familiars in  
Pomfret, Connecticut.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 9:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/17 "2001-11-14T21:14:29Z")

</div>

[From Mary Powers 2001.11.14]

> [From Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.12)]

> I wish to confirm how utterly wrong your interpretation truly is. \>

and later

> Wrong again, Mary.

And so on. Long lecture about my deficient understanding.

One point of clarification:

> \< MP: And I said "Yay, Dag. The whole thing in a nutshell".\>
> 
> KK: I did take you to mean "Yeah, Dag," as when a sophomore cheerleader

cheers

> for her senior football fullback when her hero scores a touchdown. Just what  
> was "Yay, Dag" supposed to convey, Mary?

"Yeah, Dag" would have meant to me and many people "Oh, sure" very  
sarcastically. Depends on whether you pronounce it yeh or yay. "Yay" is  
short for "hurray", a relatively recent spelling of "hurrah". The language  
evolves.

> KK: I found the "own agenda" remarks by Bill at the conference shocking.

I could not believe my ears. ... Nor is it a crime or sin or sign of

> insincerity to have something other than PCT as a higher goal in your life

I think this shows a total misunderstanding of what it means to have an  
agenda. It in no way means to place one subject, such as PCT, \_higher\_ than  
another subject, such as religion. It means to address one topic in terms  
of the other, rather than the other way around. I do't think you would  
object to the wish that at our meetings and on the net we would like to  
discuss cognitive psychology in terms of PCT, rather than PCT in terms of  
cognitive psychology. Ditto religion.

> ...why not ... dialogue privately?

I don't dialogue with anybody, privately or publicly. I'll talk with them,  
have a conversation or discussion or argument, but dialogue? No way. Again,  
the language evolves. But in this case I'm not going along.

Mary P.

> **···**
>
> At 11:50 PM 11/12/2001 EST, you wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ray\_Merry\_Bennett](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/73ab20/32.png) [@Ray\_Merry\_Bennett](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Ray_Merry_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 2:27am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/18 "2001-11-15T02:27:25Z")

</div>

William Williams wrote:

> [From Bill Williams 12 November 2001 8:00 CST]
> 
> \> [From Rick Marken (2001.11.12.0940)]  
> \>  
> \> \> Bruce Gregory (2001.1112.1146) says :  
> \>  
> \> \> Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.  
> \>
> 
> Rick Marken says :
> 
> \> Sounds sort of nonsensical. If it's true, it's false.  
> \>  
> Not neccesarily. There's no contradiction involved. And, since you've  
> spoken we know what category you belong in.
> 
> (From Ray Bennett 2001.11.15.1200CST Aust)  
> An educator and writer from down under, John Smyth, said,

> "We don't know what we know until we either say it or write it."

I don't think others know either. I would add...or do it.

And to add to this diversion; are there only two categories, the speakers  
and the non speakers? Or the knowers and the don't know?  
Is moving from level to level another way of categorizing how we do  
things? Does this mean that there are eleven or is it twelve levels?  
I would expect that one of Bill or Rick's or Bryan's papers will have  
covered this ground but I am still on the the journey through, so I don't  
know.

Onto another thing that puzzles me. Copernicus (correct me if I am wrong  
please) helped the world to realise that the earth was moving and that the  
sun didn't rise and set. Lots of 6 and 7 year olds that I know know this.  
So do lots more older folk and yet most of them persist with talking about  
sunsets and sunrises. What is more the few I have asked why they keep  
saying sunrise and sunset don't care to change, they like referring to  
this happening this way. I think Bryan visited this sometime back.What is  
it that has us wanting to use language that is inaccurate? Is the variable  
being controlled something that doesn't require presise and accurate  
description? Is it an attitude that we are socialised into in our early  
years at school and home? Does it help us to control being happy  
....Ignorance being bliss and so on?  
Unfortunately my questions are the hard ones and not the easy ones like  
working out a model for catching a ball. And I know that I have trouble  
explaining that one in a PCT way to others.  
I feel like erasing most of this as it reveals a lot of ignorance on my  
part. Howver I won't. I'll leave them on and see which direction or/and  
diversion will follow.  
Regards,  
Ray

> **···**
>
> > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
> > Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at [http://www.email.ro/](http://www.email.ro/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken2)\
**Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 4:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nutshells/14435/19 "2001-11-15T16:30:33Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.15.0830)]

Ray &Merry Bennett wrote:

> What is more the few I have asked why they keep saying  
> sunrise and sunset don't care to change, they like referring to  
> this happening this way. ...What is it that has us wanting to use  
> language that is inaccurate?

"Sunrise" and "sunset" are words that accurately describe what we see; they  
are an inaccurate description of the underlying model of the system that  
produces this perception. I don't think new models necessarily require new  
ways of \_talking\_ about familiar phenomena; new models just require new ways  
of \_thinking\_ about these phenomena. I think that my "Glasses.." paper (to  
appear in \_Review of General Psychology\_ in 2002) speaks to this issue to  
some extent. For example, we can still say that a dog "reacts" to the sight  
of food by salivating even when we know from the PCT model that the dog is  
salivating to protect various controlled variables, such as the texture of  
the food in the mouth , from disturbances, such as the actual texture of the  
food going into the mouth. Astronomers still talk about the beauty of the  
sunset even though they know that what's really happening is that the earth  
is rotating them out of sight of the sun.

I think the value of a model like PCT is that it helps us \_understand\_ (and  
not necessarily talk about) behavioral phenomena in new (and, hopefully, more  
correct) ways. But I do think it is important to try to talk about behavioral  
phenomena correctly (with respect to the PCT model) in our discussions on  
CSGNet. It's OK to talk about Fido salivating in reaction to food when you  
are talking with friends at home. But when talking on CSGNet, saying that  
Fido "reacted by salivating" is likely to result in some apparent "nit  
picking" from people who understand behavior in PCT terms. The same would  
happen if an astronomer came back to his office after talking about the  
beauty of the sunset with his wife and told his colleagues that the sun had  
actually moved.

> Unfortunately my questions are the hard ones and not the easy ones like  
> working out a model for catching a ball.

My attempt to answer the question "how does a fielder catch a fly ball? was  
pushing my intellectual envelop. I'm glad you are working on the really hard  
questions.

Best regards

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.  
> The RAND Corporation  
> PO Box 2138  
> 1700 Main Street  
> Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138  
> Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971  
> Fax: 310-451-7018  
> E-mail: rmarken@rand.org