It’s a very high probability that you are controlling your own moral standards which you claim to be collectively controlled. Usually leaders hide behind these words. It happens rare that people would think the same.
I’m probably really angry because I think that you try to manipulate with me or in PCT you try to control me and my writings. That’s what moving from CSGnet to Discourse was about. But you obviously changed you mind because you saw through my presentation on Cybernetics Society that you missed something in your imagined “picture” of PCT. Although you try to keep PCT as a whole personal understanding of organisms functioning, you have no chance against science and I feel you feel that. You are very intelligent what I simply missed on CSGnet forum and insulted you. And I appologized to you for that because I really think I made a mistake.
Whatever… I’d just like that our conversation is clearly presented on Discourse because it’s about democracy in presenting different opinions and civilized discussion as you are repeating all the time. And I think you try to prevent that, because you probably try to present that Ricks side of PCT is correct. That was the problem on CSGnet and it is problem here. So if you are asking what I think I imagine that you might be controlling (which perception not CV in your sence, because complex perceptions can be rarely matched to something exactly outside like CV in your and Ricks sense) I think that you are controlling for your BNCT and Ricks RCT theory to be correct. Others in process of collective control should adopt yours and his understanding of PCT and probably the World view (system concept).
It’s no doubt that you probably as Ricks friend try to “protect” Rick’s RCT, but believe me Bruce this game is lost. Rick has exactly zero scientific evidences what he is talking about and friendship shouldn’t be measure of scientific discovery. I understand that you are so many years together and that special bonds appeared between you but as I said before, if you want to keep your word of civil and democratic discoussion you’ll have to keep my posts in public on actual time of origin as non of them are abuse.
You imagine them as abuse as they are unfavourable; unpleasant, disagreeablw, annoying, unwelcome, uncomfortable, inconvenient, awkward; troublesome; uneasy; harmful TO YOU. But that is just your way of controlling perception of my statements. Others would control it differently if you would let them have their oppinion. But you don’t, because you try to filter what they can see that is not in accordance to your references. This keeps your control of perception intact or or IN PCT words everything has to be aligned with your “system concept” (references).
You can take my warning that I’ll talk to founders of Discourse as you like, It will be always your subjective control and the problem is that I feel that you are misusing your power. Obviously there is no other way but we’ll have to check to which level you are missusing social powers (probably being main moderator). And that is by social control standards punishable.
Usually normal people reaction is that they will “defend” with back accusations of being like you said threatened that uncivil discousing is going on and so on. That’s normal control of ALMOST ALL PEOPLE ON THE WORLD - TRYING TO KEEP PERCEPTION AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THEIR REFERENCES. Look what Trump did just to keep his warm sit on president chair. I think you try to do the same . Stopping civil and democratic discsussion to keep your perception in line with your references is not allowed by social standards on such a discourse forum.
I don’t care how you felt my “threat” that is on founders of Discourse to find out. And warning that you should do your job as you should I’m sure they will not take as a threat. More they will lake of YOUR OBLIGATION TO RESPECT social rules. You know rules of democratic discousion !!! You are tresspaing them by filtering and directing conversation into your direction (near your references). But problem is that your references are quite far from understanding how organisms function although you think that you understand PCT but you don’t.
Threat is your “control” because you maybe feel that you could loose control over Discourse. There is no secret that you are pulling the commnands. And the most probable is that you will try to keep discussions on Discourse aligned with your references of what you know about PCT and organisms functioning.
But understanding of organisms functioning is not a matter of individual to understand as he wants, but it has to respect “collective control” in scientific research work as the way of integrating knowledge of many people to come to “objective” truth. Not “collective control” which is a reflection of individual who managed to “control” others. You tried to get rid of me once (exactly here was discussion) and Rick was estonished that there is so low number of members who wanted to “dump” me. I think there were only 4 of you.
So you see that collective control if you really want to know what it is about, you have to expose problem to people’s collective control and then you can talk what collective control is. It will be collection of usually very different opinions among there will be also scientific researche results…
Whatever. Your interpertation of my posts has nothing to do with collective control you are hiding behind. Just do your job of keeping democratic discousion and everything will be O.K…
Our new start was like a dream. Why don’t we keep it that way. You can beleive me or not that no individual can win against science (milions of people having aproximatelly the same perceptual “CEP” in their minds). CEP is something that should be “mirrored” into mind of Living beings if we take Martin’s CEV as standard for mirroring. Martin is using different perceptions for “mirrored” and I think he is wrong.
I personally think it’s true that it’s very hard to persuade people and try to form “collective CEP” in their minds, although I think it’s civil that you let people to determine which CEP they will form in their minds without trying to use your power and direct course of their forming of CEP in your or Ricks direction of control. You already described such an attempt as “crippling”.
V V sre., 27. okt. 2021 ob 22:03 je oseba Bruce E. Nevin via IAPCT <email@example.com> napisala: