PCT and Politics

Rick Marken (940902.1030) --

In an interesting post, most of which (I think!) I understand, and do not
disagree with, Rick does make at least one comment which I might clarify
:-).

One thing we do know from PCT is we cannot escape from our own reference
signals. We can't help feeling that some perceptions are "right" and others
"wrong". PCT can tell us how we produce the "right" perceptions (the ones
that are right for us; the reference states of perceptions); but it can't
tell us which perceptions are "really" right. In PCT, the same explanation
applies to controlling for satanic ritual abuse as to controlling for the
pictures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. PCT is value neutral; it
doesn't what people should want; it, hopefully, says how they achieve what
they want.

While PCT as a theory may be value neutral, in my understanding it would be
a function of the hierarchy of perceptual control and the higher levels to
apply the results of value assesments as these have evolved and found
useful in the past - i.e. how people have learned to try to achieve what
they want.

In accordance with this, the behaviors of individuals or groups might be
expected to be consistent with their own stated purposes/values,and with a
reponsible approach to the collection and analysis of data, etc. They can
then subject feelings of right and wrong to more evidence and analysis. Of
course we will never know what is "really" right, but we may be able to
correct some errors.

Obviously this does not always happen. Yet feedback of the perceptions of
others as well as additional information can be helpful in enabling anyone
to reassess goals and activities. In any case, I know of no other way to
make progress, or to avoid a moral relativism which borders on solipsism.

I do not expect that you will disagree very much with this! :slight_smile:

Cheers!

Bruce B.

Bill Leach (940903.1104) writes:

In the second place, I don't believe that having everyone in a state of
"comfort" is indeed a "good" situation society anyway. I know that
personally, it is when I am NOT comfortable that I tend to be creative
and productive. "Comfortable" is when I want to sit in an easychair
and just let the rest of the world "go by".

I can understand this as an man-on-the-street expression of a point of
view. But I think it also reflects an over-generalization from personal
experience and meanings, and a lack of objective analysis at the levels of
man and society.

To be more specific, let me make three points. One concerns Maslow's
hierarchy of needs. It seems incontrovertible that primary needs for
physical and emotional security must be met before more civilizing insights
and self-actualizing behavior can occur. Creativity comes from very
specifically localized disconfort(s) within a framework of general security
and lack of serious conflict. (Perhaps there has been some work done
relating Maslow's hierarchy to HPCT? There may be instructive
commonalities.)

My second point is that it is not appropriate for any of us as individuals
to make decisions about whether or not others should be allowed to be
comfortable.
At best, that seems to me to suggest a kind of paternalism which is
unlikely to be helpful or constructive for anybody, and which has a very
bad record historically.

Third, the work of Eccles on brain physiology clearly shows that creative
insights tend to occur only when there is a considerable reserve of
uncommitted neurons (combined with a fairly high level of general CNS
activation). If neurons are to be uncomitted there must be no undue
conflict and stress imposed by outside forces, i.e. not resolvable or
subject to control. Otherwise normal or existential anxieties, not to speak
of excessive or pathological levels of anxiety, will make attention to
improved organization at higher levels of the control hierarchy quite
impossible.

Cheers!

Bruce B.

<[Bill Leach 940904.18:45 EST(EDT)]

Message: 51204 on Sun, 04 Sep 1994 12:34:22 -0500
Author : Bruce Buchanan <buchanan@TOR.HOOKUP.NET>

Creativity comes from very specifically localized disconfort(s) within a
framework of general security and lack of serious conflict.

I don't have any problem with this at all and indeed such is a much
better presentation of what I was trying to say with respect to
"comfort".

My second point is that it is not appropriate for any of us as
individuals to make decisions about whether or not others should be
allowed to be comfortable.

WELL, you sure won't get any arguement on that one from me! However, it
is a statement that is "steeped" in systems concepts or value judgements.

Eccles

I'm am sure that Bill P. has referenced his work but the "uncommitted
neurons" comment presents interesting thoughts to me. I am still in
quite a "turmoil" about how reorganization may function and particularly
the rate and frequency (frequency as in how often or possibly
continuous). I believe that it has been suggested that possibly
reorganization is a continous process and that some non-zero level of
"intrinsic error" exists at all times. Of course other suggestions are
that reorganization does not occur until some non-zero threshold of
intrinsic error (ignoring the exacting idea that all control requires
some non-zero error for any change in control action to occur for that is
not the sort of threshold of which I refer).

-bill