# Phenomenology

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/phenomenology/8833>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [November 24, 1999, 1:08am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/phenomenology/8833 "1999-11-24T01:08:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/8dc957/32.png) [@Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Philip_Runkel)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 1999, 1:08am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/phenomenology/8833/1 "1999-11-24T01:08:52Z")

</div>

from Phil Runkel on Nov 1999 about experiencing:

As an exercise with which to entertain myself, I wondered what a  
list would look like of the experiencing of error at the several  
levels of the neural hierarchy, if each item on the list were  
kept very brief -- maybe you could say aphoristic. Put it this  
way: how might I answer in very few words at each level if  
someone asked me, "What's the matter?" Here is what I came up  
with in a few minutes:

System concept: That's not the way things work.

Principle: That's not proper.

Program: That's not logical.

Sequence: That's not next.

Category: That's not this kind of thing.

Relationship: That's not where I want it.

Event: That isn't finished.

Transition: That's not going in the direction I had in mind.

Configuration: Where is the edge?

Sensation: That's not the flavor I had in mind.

Intensity That's too much.

If you want to offer an alternative answer to "What's the  
matter?" at any level, I'd be glad to hear it. I realize that so  
few words are not going to convey all the kinds of discrepancies  
that anyone can think of in connection with a level in the  
hierarchy, and though I choose one word (maybe "flavor" or  
"where") to convey my feeling of the essence, you may choose  
another. But it would help me to think about levels if you care  
to say, "Hey, how about ...?" I am looking for variety, not  
agreement.

Thanks. --PJR

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 1999, 2:28pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/phenomenology/8833/2 "1999-11-24T14:28:23Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (991124.0730)]

Phil Runkel (991123) --

> how might I answer in very few words at each level if  
> someone asked me, "What's the matter?" Here is what I  
> came up with in a few minutes:
> 
> System concept: That's not the way things work.
> 
> Principle: That's not proper.
> 
> Program: That's not logical.
> 
> Sequence: That's not next.
> 
> Category: That's not this kind of thing.
> 
> Relationship: That's not where I want it.
> 
> Event: That isn't finished.
> 
> Transition: That's not going in the direction I had in mind.
> 
> Configuration: Where is the edge?
> 
> Sensation: That's not the flavor I had in mind.
> 
> Intensity That's too much.

This is wonderful, Phil. A great way to illustrate what  
the hierarchy is about. Maybe the program level could  
be something like "That's not the plan". I think Logical  
perceptions might be a level of their own -- maybe right  
below Program. And when things go wrong at the logical  
level I agree with your Spockean "That's not logical".  
For Relationship I might suggest "That's irrelevant", and  
for event how about "That's not what happened". For  
Transition how about "We're going too fast"? For  
Configuration I suggest "That's not a circle".

I think this is a very cool way for armchair researchers  
to start investigating their own perceptual hierarchies.  
Really nice, Phil. What a breath of fresh air.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Norman\_T\_Hovda1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/bb73d2/32.png) [@Norman\_T\_Hovda1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Norman_T_Hovda1)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 1999, 7:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/phenomenology/8833/3 "1999-11-24T19:04:13Z")

</div>

[Norman Hovda (991124.1125 MST)]

free associating as I read...

> Phil Runkel (991123) --

> \> System concept: That's not the way things work.

wishful thinking and unrealistic expectations

> \> Principle: That's not proper.

inappropriate

> \> Program: That's not logical.

doesn't compute

> \> Sequence: That's not next.

not \_that\_ way; am I missing something?

> \> Category: That's not this kind of thing.

context dropping

> \> Relationship: That's not where I want it.

disconnected

> \> Event: That isn't finished.

nothing's changed

> \> Transition: That's not going in the direction I had in mind.

fat lady's singing

> \> Configuration: Where is the edge?

How is it shaped?

> \> Sensation: That's not the flavor I had in mind.

I'm not sure

> \> Intensity That's too much.

ouch and ooooh

> **···**
>
> +++++++++
> 
> Outstanding contribution sir.
> 
> Thanks,  
> nth

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tim_Carey1)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 1999, 7:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/phenomenology/8833/4 "1999-11-24T19:26:13Z")

</div>

[From Tim Carey (991125.0555)]

> > From Phil Runkel on Nov 1999 about experiencing:

Thanks hugely for this post Phil. It was a gem.

> System concept: That's not the way things work.

That's not how things are.

> Relationship: That's not where I want it.

They don't go together.

> Transition: That's not going in the direction I had in mind.

That's not the right movement.

> Configuration: Where is the edge?

That's not the right shape.

Cheers,

Tim

---

<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:** [December 1, 1999, 4:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/phenomenology/8833/5 "1999-12-01T16:01:53Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (991130.1700EST)]

\<Phil Runkel on Nov. 23 1999\>

\<I wondered what a list would look like of the experiencing of error at the  
several  
levels of the neural hierarchy,\>

I am obviously quite far behind in reading mail, but I wish you would post  
more about this idea and the responses you received. It seems to expose a  
weakness in PCT and in potential applications.

For example, the RTP-type question, "What are you doing?" by a teacher to a  
student who is kicking a classmate carries a "you got to be kidding!" flavor.  
Isn't it a rather superfluous question for student A, the teacher and the  
rest of the class when A is obviously kicking student B as hard as possible?  
It seems like a rather dumb or at least rhetorical question, even if it is  
part of some controlled sequence (process).

My point is that if the question was "A, what is the matter?" or "Why are you  
kicking B?", wouldn't that be a more honest and relevant PCT question and  
show more sincere interest by the teacher in what A is controlling for while  
kicking B?

Same way with MOL. "What does that feel like?" "Tell me more about that?"  
These questions are probing the background behind an obvious statement of a  
problem. That seems really helpful to the person in conflict. Saying, "I  
see you have chosen to go to a quiet place and work out a plan because you  
are obviously upset about what your brother is doing about mother's estate."  
might not be very helpful.

What I am trying (unsuccessfully, as usual) to convey is that internal error  
being experienced is very real to people. A person would seem to be much  
more aware of the error than what they specifically want, what precisely they  
are perceiving or what they are doing (observable actions). IOW, a focus on  
experienced error would acknowledge that PCT deals with something more  
readily experienced by people in everyday life than their rather illusive  
neural hierarchy of perceptual values of input and reference variables.

"What's the matter?" also shows empathy toward the person experiencing error.  
I am wondering if more people would be interested in PCT if it better  
explained what is going on when something is the matter with them?

There was a psychologist (David Viscott?, who I think has since passed away)  
on talk radio some years ago who dealt with what people were feeling (mostly  
emotions like anger, sorrow, low self-esteem, disappointment etc.) He seemed  
to produce amazing resolutions for people rather easily and in a short time  
by telephone just by asking questions and probing the background of these  
feelings (errors) the caller was experiencing.

I sense you have put your finger on an untapped opportunity for PCT to  
explore and find methods where PCT could readily help people when something  
feels wrong for them. That would get attention in the psychology field,  
wouldn't it?

I see others have made helpful comments to your inquiry about the description  
of the typical error at various levels of perceptual hierarchy. My main  
adder would be this one:

Level 12: Self-concept: I don't like the way I am.

This fits well with your idea of error. Lastly, I had talked to a man who  
claimed to be a Phenomenologist a few years ago. He ridiculed the  
behaviorist and cognitive psychologist approaches to human behavior as much  
as PCTers. I gave him some PCT reference information but never followed up  
with him. I have hardly ever seen anyone use that term on CSGNet. What do  
you know about Phenomenology?

What you do to entertain yourself has also entertained me. Thanks.

Kenny

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/8dc957/32.png) [@Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Philip_Runkel)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 1999, 10:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/phenomenology/8833/6 "1999-12-01T22:20:39Z")

</div>

from Phil Runkel on 1 Dec 99 in reply to Kenny Kitzke (991130):

Glad you found some interest in my list of possible answers to "What's the  
matter?" But I didn't mean anything deep about my little list. And I  
didn't mean to be hunting for probes to be used in therapy, organizational  
consulting, etc. I meant merely that if someone was feeling frustrated  
while perceiving the frustration at the level of \_\_\_\_, and a passerby  
asked "What's the matter?" then the person might be more likely to reply  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ than he would if he were perceiving a frustration at some  
other level. I was merely trying to think of a brief method of giving the  
flavor of the levels. And your own contribution, "I don't like the way I  
am," seems to me a very likely illustration of a frustration at the level  
of system concept. Thanks.

As to phenomenology. I don't know your academic background, so excuse me  
if I am telling you what you already know. Also, I apologize  
to expert historians of psychology who might have better  
memories about this than I. Phenomenology, as well as I remember whatv  
little I ever knew, was the name for the view that it was important, in  
the study of psychology, to pay attention to what people (the subjects)  
paid attention to. That you should not expect a person to deal with what  
is "really" out there, but rather with what he perceives to be out there.  
I have not heard anybody mention the word in years. I always thought it  
was a reasonable demand. And of course the idea has returned several  
times under different names -- a common happening among psychologists.

Hope you are well and as happy as the state of the world allows. --PJR