[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.11.20)]
Rick Marken had said:
Remember that the only way to actually solve a conflict (according to PCT)
is to change what you want (change the reference for one or all of the
systems in conflict). To do this you have to be able to do this mysterious
thing called “going up a level”, so that you see things from the point of
view of the systems that are in a position to change the references for the
conflicted systems. But the sex and food input control systems are
presumably intrinsic systems, with references set ultimately by the genes.
As I suggested in my Are You Hungry? post, I would concur that there is an inherent feedback control system loop for food/hunger in humans. When the need for food by our body is sensed by our mind, it is our mind that controls our behavior/action/output on how to satisfy this need.
There seems to be a link between the body and mind control systems that work together to resolve hunger in humans. It seems evident to me that the body control system for hunger (an inherent part of human nature) IS NOT a PCT/HPCT system working by comparing nuron firings/signals. It is primarily a chemical based system.
If so, it becomes apparent that PCT DOES NOT describe all human behavior if you include feeling hungry within the pale of behavior (beyond observable actions).
I perceive this is important in understanding that there may be a non-PCT system in humans that continually interacts with our mind/nervous system but IS NOT based on nuron firings any more than our body’s hunger control system.
Bill Powers has posited a Reorganization System that has the ability to reorganize his posited perceptual hierarchy in our mind/nervous system. I have referred to this human capability in a non-PCT term in a common vernacular called the spirit or heart of man: something that is above the systems level, something that can establish or change the highest system level variables and their references. Until PCT can more convincingly describe this human capablity and how it works and how it affects our behavior, I am afraid that other theories which do (even if wrong) will always be preferred by people—people who are very aware of feelings, emotions and longings that affect their behavior.
I am not convinced that feeling a need for sex is an inherent function of control of the human body like feeling a need for food. They cannot be compared or work the same in human behavior analysis. Can anyone enlighten me?
I would be quite sure that a young boy left on an abandoned island would feel hunger every day he lives and would seek food. Without a girl to see, I am not sure he would get any signals from his body that he needs sex, or would die if he found no person for sex. In other words, it seems the desire for sex is brought on by experience and is not inherent in our genes. What do you think?
It seems that this has been said before (but in fewer words :)-
“Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.”
- Albert Einstein
(before Rick’s ego gets any bigger, or anyone gets offended, let me just say I am not comparing Marken to Einstein)
I am glad you clarified this. It could lead to a crisis for someone. 
Seriously, I do not think a week goes by that I see or read something someone has observed about human behavior/nature that is consistent with PCT without knowing anything about PCT.
OTOH, I see many observations each week about human behavior and nature that are inconsistent with PCT but are passed off as psychology; as science. This is disturbing and frustrating.
For those who do not know me and what I do - let me explain. I have been a crisis counselor for the past 10 years. One of many things I noticed is … crisis is forced reorganization, the system has crashed, what you are doing IS not working, right wrong or indifferent a change must happen.
I would hope you would expand on this. Would you agree that when our hierarchal perceptual control of the mind has crashed, and no idea or action it generates resolves large error, that then reorganization HAS TO occur (or what, the person dies, goes crazy, commits suicide, etc.)? And, what is this reorganization system and how does it work? Is it inherent in every human? Does is develop over time, change over time? Can it be affected by knowledge acquisition or sensitized by say meditation?
Everyone goes up – not just a level – but to the top level. You hear a lot of “I can not …”, “I will not…”, “I must…” “I will…” you do not hear much of “It can not …”, “It will not…”, “It must…” “It will…”
I think you make a great and perhaps profound point here. All action or output from a control system loop at any level must be consistent with the highest level variables and references to be successfully in control of one’s behavior (minimized error?).
When a person is in crisis,
99% of the time, the person’s problem is …they don’t have any friends or family or
they do. (once you determined which, the next is…) They did not get something they wanted or they got something they definitely did not want.
Excellent. Practical. I am not sure of the 99%, but I suspect it is a high percent. I think you can have a crisis internally where neither having or not having friends is not the issue. How about getting a speeding ticket, or having an auto accident when you were driving too fast for the fun of it?
The second part probably is definitive. But, can you describe how you picture the difference between error (in PCT terms), conflict (in PCT and common terms) and crises (in common terms)? Are you claiming that whenever “reorganization” occurs in PCt, we call that a crisis? So, we could have severe conflicts that do not require either reorganization or could be vernacularly called crises?
It is not just what happens to the person, but what happened compared to what they expected to have happen which determines the extent of the crisis.
This is important and is the key in MOL. You can’t change what you perceive, you can only change what you expect to perceive. I am not sure this requires reorganization, especially if the expectation is not at the top of the hierarchy. But, if you make this trnasition, a difficult and/or long established crisis/conflict can seem to simply melt away in seconds. Amazing.
This is a quote I like on the subject - Reorganization
Any transition serious enough
to alter your definition of self
will require not just small adjustments
in your way of living and thinking
but a full-on metamorphosis.
-Martha Beck
Here is a particularly troubling idea for me. Where does ones self definition reside? Is it in our perceptual hierarchy of the logical, thinking mind? Or, is it something deeper, found in an inherent, gene or some other entity driven aspect of our human spirit, human nature or a desire for ourselves? And, since you like this quote, can you please explain what a full-on metamorphosis is? What precisely is morphed? You do know what the root of meta is, right?
Thanks for posting, Mark. May you next crisis case quickly evaporate.
