[From Bill Powers (2006.08.05.1210 MDT)]
Jim Dundon 08.05.2006.1205edst--
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.08.04.1325 CDT)]
In all sincerity, the
outcomes of this represent an arms race, a positive feedback loop that
is already exploding.
I'M CONFUSED. I THOUGHT CONFLICT [WAR] WAS THE RESULT OF ACTION TO CORRECT NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. IN THIS CASE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ONE'S ENEMY'S. PERHAPS YOU SEE THE DEMISE OF THE ENEMY AS POSITIVE FEEDBACK, THE END OF NEED TO CONTROL?
I don't know what you mean by "correct negative feedback." Are you thinking that positive feedback means good feedback and negative feedback means bad feedback? That is a popular misunderstanding and has nothing to do with the concept of negative feedback (the only good kind) in PCT.
Negative feedback is feedback that results in making error smaller; positive feedback makes error larger. So if the action you take to reduce an error actually makes the error larger, you are in a positive feedback situation, and it is likely that the error will grow until you hit some limit, like the fastest rate at which you can make and drop bombs.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.08.05.1345 CDT)]
Jim,
Seems to me that war can be a lot of things.
It may be thought of as action to correct an error (negative feedback loop), and many people think of fighting, battles and war as that. They think that they can remove the disturbance and then that is that. They are making a mistake.
With two or more opposing control systems, war can be and is usually a positive feedback loop or an arms race, and first one, then the other tries to destroy the other. But proxies arise, friends help out, and what was thought to be simple gets complex very quickly. I would say that what I described is right. That the Israel thing will spiral out of control until attempts to reduce the antagonistic feedback are made (negative feedback).
I think that battle increases disturbances where diplomacy seeks and often achieves a cessation of disturbances. Battle arises from a tribal perception that there is an US and THEM, whereas diplomacy suggests there is really only an all-inclusive US.
But when one's self image contains tribe membership as an important principle, then the above diplomacy seems to be a kind of treason. It is a delusion as seen by humanists, but tribalists only see themselves as a member of their group. Leaders who use tribal feelings to gain power over the governed create a mass hysteria that can lead to murder. When the weapons are big, then that murderous tendency can lead to one's own demise, too.
--Bry
Jim Dundon wrote:
···
[Jim Dundon 08.05.2006.1205edst]
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.08.04.1325 CDT)]
In all sincerity, the
outcomes of this represent an arms race, a positive feedback loop that
is already exploding.
I'M CONFUSED. I THOUGHT CONFLICT [WAR] WAS THE RESULT OF ACTION TO CORRECT NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. IN THIS CASE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ONE'S ENEMY'S. PERHAPS YOU SEE THE DEMISE OF THE ENEMY AS POSITIVE FEEDBACK, THE END OF NEED TO CONTROL?
[From Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1220)]
Changing what you want was basically Kubrick's solution to cold war
worries about nuclear holocaust as described in the subtitle to Dr.
-- How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. All you have to
do is change your wants: from wanting to avoid the end of the world to
wanting to have the world end (like the evangelicals who are apparently
happy to see what's happening in the Middle East as the beginning of
Armageddon; hallelujah;-))
I THINK THE GREEKS AND ROMANS UNDERSTOOD PURPOSE AND CAUSE A LITTLE BETTER THAN SOME AS REVEALED IN THEIR MANY NAMES FOR MANY GODS, PURPOSES. THEY CALLED WAR WAR AND SAID WAR [DESTRUCTION AND ANNIHILATION OF ONES ENEMYS] WAS THE PURPOSE OF WAR.
WAR IS THE REFERENCE SIGNAL "AND" THE PERCEPTION.
LET'S KEEP IT SIMPLE.
[From Bill Powers (2006.08.05.1406 MDT)]
Bryan Thalhammer (2006.08.05.1345 CDT) --
I think that battle increases disturbances where diplomacy seeks and often achieves a cessation of disturbances. Battle arises from a tribal perception that there is an US and THEM, whereas diplomacy suggests there is really only an all-inclusive US.
But when one's self image contains tribe membership as an important principle, then the above diplomacy seems to be a kind of treason. It is a delusion as seen by humanists, but tribalists only see themselves as a member of their group. Leaders who use tribal feelings to gain power over the governed create a mass hysteria that can lead to murder. When the weapons are big, then that murderous tendency can lead to one's own demise, too.
I've never seen it said so well. Of course the all-inclusive US is a system concept, which conflicts with the system concept of My Tribe, Your Tribe. This problem can't be solved by going up a level, at least in my way of defining levels, because that's the top one. Of course Kenny Kitzke may be right, that there's a "spiritual" level left -- but in fact we have a conflict here and until it's somehow resolved it will be difficult to get to a higher level. Maybe the reorganization really does occur at the next level up, whatever it is. But normally attention, carrying reorganization with it, goes to the level where the problem is acted out, so we reorganize at the wrong level, and just get a new version of the same old conflict. By looking at the two kinds of system concepts at the same time, we can see that there is a choice. According to MOL, seeing that forces us into a higher-level viewpoint, so the new reorganization will be different. Maybe even better.
Best,
Bill P.