The only problem I have with your therapy suggestion Rick is that
it is not always easy or necessary or a good idea to thinking in
terms of levels when you are working with a person.
One of the ways you know you are confronting a conflict is when the
person is not able to go up a level. The method of levels is taking
you no place.
As Bill Powers has suggested to me when doing the method of levels,
don't be so concerned with the levels as outlined in the formal
theory. Be sensitive to the background perceptions based on what the
person is saying and the person's own reactions to what is being said.
A related point to what is being said has to do with a difference
I've noticed between Ed Ford and myself in applying HPCT. Ed starts
at the systems level and works downward. I start at a lower level
and work upward. One advantage of the bottom-to-top strategy is that
it avoids what Rick is talking about, namely, directing a person's
awareness to levels which "are not broken."
David
goldstein@saturn.glassboro.edu
···
To: Rick, Bruce, interested others
From: David Goldstein
Subject: conflict
Date: 05/21/92
[From Rick Marken (920521 11:00)]
David Goldstein says:
The only problem I have with your therapy suggestion Rick is that
it is not always easy or necessary or a good idea to thinking in
terms of levels when you are working with a person.
I AGREE!! I only used specific PCT levels words because there was
talk about the importance of "standards" where "standards" were
alleged to be principles (in PCT hierarchy terms). In real life, I
would not even try for a second to relate a person's conflicts to
the proposed PCT levels. All I suggest is that conflicts can occur at
at any percpetual level (in theory and in practice) so there is no
reason to single out standards (principles) as an important place
to look. In fact, the more I think about it the more convinced I
become that real conflict have to do with pretty low level percepts,
whatever you want to call them; and the resolution to most
conflicts just involves seeing that things can be done in
sequence or that X does not need to be categorized as a Y or
whatever. I think it is rarely necessary to change principles or
system concepts (or any high level perceptual reference) to solve
most personal problems. I think this is consistent with the
fact that people who hold tranparently idiotic system concepts (from
my perspective) can still get along just great in the world. One
exquisite example of this is the fellow who wrote my 2 part intentions;
J S Bach lived a wonderful life and produced the greatest sequences
and configurations of sound ever produced -- and he did it all for
the god of martin luther. Silly system concept; great, non-conflicted
control system.
Regards
Rick
···
**************************************************************
Richard S. Marken USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)