[From Bob Summer (2001.10.21.1430 EST)]
Reply to Rick Marken (2001.10.18)
In your post you referred to a control level above the systems level. "The
level that defines what system concepts are for... It's the level that can
perceive _personal fulfillment_ and _social order_ as goals."
Would you please tell me more of your thoughts about this level? What other
kinds of concepts would you anticipate being controlled at this level? Can
you give me an explanation of your possible name for this level as "place in
the world"?
Thanks,
Bob Summer
Since this is my first post to the CSGNET, I'll give a little information
about myself.
I am a clinical social worker and have been doing counseling in a private
practice in Cincinnati, Ohio for 14 years. Prior to that I was a chemist and
manager in industry.
I first encountered PCT in 1997 and have been excited about it ever since. I
have been lurking on the CSGNET since late 1997 and attended the last 4
annual conferences. My interest is in the PCT Method of Levels and applying
it to counseling.
[From Rick Marken (2001.10.22.0900)]
Bob Summer (2001.10.21.1430 EST)--
Reply to Rick Marken (2001.10.18)
In your post you referred to a control level above the systems level. "The
level that defines what system concepts are for... It's the level that can
perceive _personal fulfillment_ and _social order_ as goals."
Would you please tell me more of your thoughts about this level? What other
kinds of concepts would you anticipate being controlled at this level? Can
you give me an explanation of your possible name for this level as "place in
the world"?
Hi Bob. Great to hear from you.
Actually, I'm not completely convinced that there _is_ a level above system
concepts. But if there is, it would be evident, I think, in the different
attitudes of different individuals (and cultures) toward system concepts like
religion and democracy. A level of control above system concepts would _vary_
the references for system concepts as the means of controlling its perceptions.
I'm not really sure that this happens. People do change religious references --
they have religious conversions -- but this is so rare (once in a lifetime at
most, usually) that it seems more likely that such changes are the result of
reorganization.
Before naming a higher level I would want to see some evidence that people do
control system concepts _as the means_ of controlling these higher level
perceptions. It's pretty easy to see that people control system concepts. Just
watch what happens when you introduce a disturbance (by criticizing the
concept). It's also easy to see that people control principles, programs,
sequences and so on. But it's hard to think of examples where people
_systematically_ vary system concepts (their religio/political/social beliefs)
as the means of controlling some higher level perception.
Best regards
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1022.1223)]
Rick Marken (2001.10.22.0900)
Before naming a higher level I would want to see some evidence that people do
control system concepts _as the means_ of controlling these higher level
perceptions. It's pretty easy to see that people control system concepts.
Just
watch what happens when you introduce a disturbance (by criticizing the
concept). It's also easy to see that people control principles, programs,
sequences and so on. But it's hard to think of examples where people
_systematically_ vary system concepts (their religio/political/social beliefs)
as the means of controlling some higher level perception.
I share your reservations.
[From Bob Summer (2001.10.22.1730EST)]
Reply to Rick Marconi (2001.10.22.0900)
"Actually, I'm not completely convinced that there _is_ a level above system
concepts. But if there is, it would be evident, I think, in the different
attitudes of different individuals (and cultures) toward system concepts like
religion and democracy. A level of control above system concepts would
_vary_
the references for system concepts as the means of controlling its
perceptions.
I'm not really sure that this happens. People do change religious references
···
--
they have religious conversions -- but this is so rare (once in a lifetime at
most, usually) that it seems more likely that such changes are the result of
reorganization."
"Before naming a higher level I would want to see some evidence that people
do
control system concepts _as the means_ of controlling these higher level
perceptions. It's pretty easy to see that people control system concepts.
Just
watch what happens when you introduce a disturbance (by criticizing the
concept). It's also easy to see that people control principles, programs,
sequences and so on. But it's hard to think of examples where people
_systematically_ vary system concepts (their religio/political/social
beliefs)
as the means of controlling some higher level perception."
Rick, in my psychotherapy practice, I have seen people who appear to
_systematically_ switch system concepts as a means of controlling some higher
level concept.
Would you consider switching to a different state of mind complete with a
different religion, eye prescription, moral code, ability to drive, age, sex,
intelligence level, and a perception of oneself as being totally different
from the person who was just using that same body a few minutes earlier, as
evidence of switching one's system concepts?
Speculation alert!
It appears to me that these people are controlling a higher level perception
(perhaps their ability to be OK or cope in their world) by controlling for
not feeling horrible/re-traumatized. They appear to do this by deciding which
"self" will be in charge to handle the current situation. When they first
arrive at my office they are switching "selves" without conscious awareness,
often with disastrous results. After a while they begin to control, more
consciously, which "self" will be present at appropriate times. For example,
they no longer let themselves drive a car while in a child "self" because
they have wrecked cars that way in the past. I know this is speculative, but
it seems like the very complex selves are being dictated from a higher level.
Your thoughts?
Regards,
Bob Summer
[From Bob Summer (2001.10.22.18000]
To Rick Marken.
Please excuse my error of calling you Rick Marconi in the last post. I don't
know which "self" did it (just joking).
Best Regards,
Bob Summer
[From Rick Marconi (2001.10.22.1520)]
Bob Summer (2001.10.22.1730EST)--
Reply to Rick Marconi (2001.10.22.0900)
Bon giorno, Roberto.
Rick, in my psychotherapy practice, I have seen people who appear to
_systematically_ switch system concepts as a means of controlling some higher
level concept.
Would you consider switching to a different state of mind complete with a
different religion, eye prescription, moral code, ability to drive, age, sex,
intelligence level, and a perception of oneself as being totally different
from the person who was just using that same body a few minutes earlier, as
evidence of switching one's system concepts?
It sounds like the switching is occurring _above_ the system concept level.
Maybe there is a "self" level above system concepts. Maybe that 's one thing we
mean by self: a perception of a particular collection of system concepts. The
people you are dealing with seem to have a problem sticking with one reference
for this self perception. Do the different selves really control for different
religions? It might be fun to test it; see if the Jewish self gets appalled on
hearing that the Catholic self is planning to marry a nice Jewish boy who
intends to convert;-)
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Kenny Kitzke(2001.10.23.2200EST)]
<Bob Summer (2001.10.22.1730EST)>
Hi Bob, good to see you posting. Hope you will summer-ize (pun intended)
where you and my tennis buddy, David Goldstein, are on your MOL project.
As you may recall, I brought a paper titled "The Twelfth Level" of human
perception to the 1999 CSG Conference in Vancouver, BC as I struggled with
gaps in HPCT that did not satisfy my own existence. You urged me to present
it though I had no strong desire to do so and made no such request. I also
think Bill Powers was not in favor of having it presented and it was not.
This twelfth level was one of personal purpose, composed of perceptual
variables of being valuable or meaningful in some way that only the human
spirit can comprehend. Mature humans not only switch among system concept
references to feel personally valuable in particular perceived circumstances,
but could even vary their own system concept references for "religion" to
feel valued in their perception of what other humans perceive about them.
All humans have a spirit nature that allows us to look down on ourselves, our
behavior including our principle and system level perceptions and assemble
them in ways that protect our higher level spirit reference for our merit.
And, the reference variables are as individualistic as our bodies and minds.
None other has the same ones. It makes for a fascinating world of
incomprehensible complexity. For me, I like the idea of not knowing what
reflects all or what defines good and evil. I guess the idea makes others
uncomfortable.
This is all speculative, of course. But, so are the eleven levels of HPCT
and the mysterious reorganization system which can structure them. What you
observe in patients also suggests to me a higher level of perception or a
human system beyond mere mental manipulation.
I think we need more research, experimentation and application to find some
convincing and reproducible answers that add value to humanity.
Best wishes,
Kenny
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1024.0507)]
Kenny Kitzke(2001.10.23.2200EST)
This twelfth level was one of personal purpose, composed of perceptual
variables of being valuable or meaningful in some way that only the human
spirit can comprehend. Mature humans not only switch among system concept
references to feel personally valuable in particular perceived circumstances,
but could even vary their own system concept references for "religion" to
feel valued in their perception of what other humans perceive about them.
I agree that the notion that one's life is given "meaning" by the following
the plans of a "higher power" is uniquely human. (I've always been troubled
by the question, "What gives meaning to the life of God?" But let's not
worry about that right now.) The notion can only arise if one uses
language, wherein, as far as I can see, the topic of meaning arises. I
agree with Rick that varying one's reference for religion occurs so
infrequently that it suggests reorganization. You may know people who vary
their references for religion more frequently. Perhaps they are only
religious on Sunday. Would Sunday-Christians exemplify the workings of your
conjectured twelfth level? That would seem to me to be an example of an
effort to "feel valued in their perception of what others think about them."
This is all speculative, of course. But, so are the eleven levels of HPCT
and the mysterious reorganization system which can structure them.
I am not sure what you find so mysterious about reorganization. At the
simplest level, it seems to me to be part of the e-coli model.
Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1024.0704)]
I think that there is abundant evidence in the Old Testament that God is a
perceptual control system as well as some of the perceptions he is
controlling (the smell of burning flesh, the Israelites not worshiping
other gods, etc.). The existence of the highest level in God's perceptual
organization poses a challenge: how did it get there? If it was not the
result of reorganization, was it put there by yet a higher-order God? Is
this not the beginning of an infinite regress (is it "Gods all the way
up")? Something to think about if you haven't yet gotten a life.
Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.
[From Bob Summer (2001.10.24.1350)]
[From Kenny Kitzke(2001.10.23.2200EST)]]
Hi Bob, good to see you posting. Hope you will summer-ize (pun intended)
where you and my tennis buddy, David Goldstein, are on your MOL project.
Speaking only for my self, I would say the MOL project is moving ahead. I
think I'm slowing the team down as
I try to get my skills and the method of actually doing it, to feel OK,
before trying it out on the public.
All humans have a spirit nature that allows us to look down on ourselves, our
behavior including our principle and system level perceptions and assemble
them in ways that protect our higher level spirit reference for our merit.
And, the reference variables are as individualistic as our bodies and minds.
None other has the same ones. It makes for a fascinating world of
incomprehensible complexity. For me, I like the idea of not knowing what
reflects all or what defines good and evil. I guess the idea makes others
uncomfortable.
Kenny, I respect your right to propose a "spirit nature" at level 12 but so
far, I don't personally see it that way. I think one's religion starts at the
systems level.
What I am wondering about is a possible level, in the perceptual hierarchy,
above the systems level. My wonder is whether there is a level 12 where a
controlled perception, of unknown name, signals one "self system" to be in
charge while another parallel "self system" recedes into the background.
Perhaps the purpose of level 12 is to control for coping of the organism
(keeping it's intrinsic standards met). It appears that this control is done
unconsciously in many people, and with mixed results. It also appears that
one can get better at this level of control.
Regards,
Bob Summer