Maybe this is off-base, but it
seems to me that the only words on which we can develop an agreement are
words for things that are accessible to the Observer in all the parties
concerned. There’s no need for words in the actual process of control
(though I have no doubt they can often be a component of some control
systems), so there’s no theoretical reason why there should not be
control systems for perceptions that are inaccessible to the Observer. It
seems reasonable that such perceptions could not have words to describe
them in ways that would mean anything to another
person.
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.26.0930 MST)]
I am copying this to Elizabeth Huang at the University of Manchester, UK
– a friend who is professionally interested in these things.
Martin Taylor 2008.01.26.10.26 –
In my experience (a phrase that is exceedingly important in all that I
have to say), perceptions for which we have no words are quite accessible
to observation, or Observation. The way a fork-full of spaghetti looks,
for example, on its way to your mouth. All I can do it allude to it;
there is no word for it. If you had never seen it, you would have no idea
what I mean.
Since this is a
subjective matter, the question has to be personal: Bill, does your
Observer actually observe the varying current states of your controlled
system-level perceptions, or is your belief in their existence derived
from your logic-level understanding of HPCT, with their states
unObervable?
In every case, the Observer is aware of the current perceptions (and
sometimes the beliefs concerning them, since the beliefs are other
perceptions).
This is understandable if you consider how such things come to be
Observed. I start out thinking that this sentence I’m writing right now
doesn’t seem to have – ah, here it is – an object. Then I notice what I
just thought, and indeed still seem to be thinking. Before I noticed it,
it was as if I were the thought, or as if I were looking through the
thought at the sentence without being aware that the thought was
modifying the experience. Then, somehow, I stepped back, and there in my
field of awareness was the thought. I can recreate the thought now, this
time without identifying with it, seeing it as an object of awareness
separate from me.
If anything, it’s the Observer that is hard to observe; the Observed
thought is easy, once you notice it. The Observer does not perceive
itself in the usual meaning of perception. The best I can do is to select
words that seem to reflect my experience of Observing, of being in a
point of view at the center of everything, of being that into which all
information comes, of being Here, not There. The Observer is simply me,
stripped of all observable attributes including selfhood. The attributes
are what I Observe, once I notice them as having separate
existence.
My Observer does
not see my top-level perceptions, so far as I know (though would I
know?). But I can, I think,
That penultimate “I” is the one to which you refer when you say
“my” Observer. The next one is a report that a thought
(concerning the words, “I can”) is going on. “The
Observer,” in that case, is a lower-level symbol used to indicate
the previous “I”. It is very hard to refer to the Observer, to
the real “I”, because all the reference-terms are of lower
levels. At some point, all we can do is turn to the other person and ask
“Do you recognize what I’m talking about?” This is the top of
the layered protocols, isn’t it?
Observe what
some of the reference values may be, perhaps by inference from the
actions I do to maintain those perceptions at appropriate levels, or by
Observing what seems to be “good” and what seems to be
“bad” behaviour in myself and in
others.
Yes, you can Observe those perceptions, and you can also Observe the
thought, “Those are perceptions.” And so is that, and that, and
that … And then the principle comes into view, which you can find
words to indicate: “Aha,” you say, referring to the experience
of going up a level, “Infinite regress!” referring to the
principle also called recursion. Once you see that thoughts can be
recursive, you collapse the series and see that they are ONLY thoughts,
means of manipulating symbols any way you please. For example, “My
name is not Martin Taylor,” a thought that either of us can think,
but with different meanings. “The statement on the other side of
this card is true” — “The statement on the other side of this
card is false.” That’s a paradox at the program level, but not at
the principle level. If your Observer is (if You are) mobile enough, and
your program level contains knowledge about the levels and the Observer,
such paradoxes are no problem at all, Douglas Hofstadter notwithstanding.
Or maybe he knew that.
If your Observer
does perceive the ongoing state of system-level perceptions, perhaps it
might be possible by some training technique (using examples such as Zen
training as a possible model) to help others to do the same. If that
could be done, maybe it would be possible to develop words for the
different possible states of those perceptions.
I’m working on it. So were/are other people, no doubt, past and present.
Since the object of description is above the level of words, there is no
one right way to refer to system concepts, not even “system
concepts.” Communication about system concepts can be established
only between people who have Observed system concepts
(“government” or “religion” or “physics”).
Layered protocols again. Anyone can do so, I maintain, through the method
of levels. But it can’t be done using words alone. And it’s hard to do
without someone else helping.
Best,
Bill P.
P.S. Onlookers may Google the search term “Taylor layered
protocols” to see what that is about. Martin developed this idea
before hearing of PCT.