Respect and more

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2006.02.13,21:00 EST)]

In Denmark and Norway and other places around
the world there has been an acute situation between secular people and Muslims.
The background for the situation was caricatures representing the Prophet
Mohammed.

I will not go thoroughly into that situation
here, but I am working with something where I analyse the concepts Respect,
cause/stimuli and holy and the actions insult and hurt relative to
behavioristic, cognitive and PCT theories.

I will not translate the article this time,
but I will present some thoughts and hope some of you will warn me if you think
I write something wrong.

I explain how people control their
perceptions and I define precisely that our perceptions are the nearest we can
come the world out there, and that our perceptions are our representation for
the world out there. Therefore we call our perceptions for the real world

I explain that human beings have their
references representing what they wish to perceive. They are also able to
perceive and to action. I explain how people action to perceive what they wish
to perceive.

Cause is stimuli.

I use this definition for the concepts:
Respect is to sense or show appreciative, often deferential regard.

Holy is exalted or
worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness.

Hurt/Insult is to inflict
with physical pain or to cause emotional pain or anguish

I write what PCT tells us about control of perceptions.
We don’t talk about cause/stimuli as they do in behavioristic theory (I
remember that the errors cause actions and in time perceptions and references cause
the error etc. Martin). And we don’t talk about stimuli (cognitions, faith,
thoughts, brain commands and attitudes) as they do in cognitive psychology.

It is wrong to say that the Mohammed drawings
were the cause of the embassy firers. In PCT people control their experiences and drawings of Mohammed
may be the result. Other people have a not approval reference for Mohammed
drawings. If they watch the actions from the drawer, there is a conflict. The
conflict may be solved in a HPCT way.

I write that PCT tells us how environmental
variables from a person are perceived as a perception. PCT tells us that the perception
of the configuration of a human being is the representation of a person in the
world out there. That is the way it is, therefore we appreciate the perception
as a person. PCT explains how we respect a person as a person.

In the same way we perceive that other human
have faiths and meanings. And therefore we appreciate the perception that other
human have faiths and meanings.

If different people have different (opposite)
faiths and meanings they may experience external conflicts. These conflicts may
be solved in a HPCT way. If embassy fires lead the editor to regret the
publication of the Mohammed drawings, it may lead to internal conflict next
time he wish to publish such drawings. He wishes and he wishes not to publish.
Therefore it is not correct to force meanings on other people, if it is
possible. Advisors ought not to express advises. If the advice become a new
reference, it may lead to interior conflict.

PCT tells us that it happens that a person
hurt (causes emotional pain or anguish to)
another person when he controls his perceptions. The hurt is also caused by the
references in the other person.

It is wrong to demand that the person who
hurts the other person or the other person shal abandon his control. They have
to solve the conflict in a HPCT way. This may of course lead the one person to
reorganize.

At last. Many people say that something is
holy. Other people shall respect their holy faiths.

I think to say that something is holy is a
meaning or a faith. We shall respect that they have a meaning, but we don’t
need to respect the meaning. The people saying something is holy should be
respected in their certain group and othe people should not need to respect the
meaning.

bjorn

···

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.02.13.1455 CST)]

Bjorn,

Seems to me that various individuals are controlling perceptions that are at odds. Something similar to some of the fights on CSGnet. These are not exactly opposites, but I bet you there are conflicts within a person when s/he tries to satisfy both (note some of the biases):

Freedom - Restraint (create negative feedback loop)
Democracy - Authority
My group - "Them"
My words - What they always say...
Individualism - Cooperation
...

Not only can one expect a bit of conflict in maintaining discordant pairings of perceptions (Authority - Democracy and Individualism), but when artifacts are placed in the social/print environment, there can be expected to be control behavior that seeks to negate, erradicate, and nullify the effects of that counter-message.

I don't see it as a cause, but as a disturbance of what formerly was a social/print environment close to "what the hearer/reader wanted to see."

I don't make a big diff between "what is out there" and the perception of it, but perhaps I ought to. The thing is, if you see a blasphemous depiction (2 wrongs) of the Prophet (disturbance-> perception input), then you are going to oppose it (control that perception to reference setting), since you don't want to see (reference setting). Someone "out there" might put an article (another damned disturbance) that criticizes the high gain of the corrector, and there is a positive feedback loop of control. Where it ends? Explosion by definition of a positive feedback loop. QED.

It's just like the CSGnet. I don't like posters to make ad hominems or bring up ideas as scientific that are functionally not science, except as to scientifically discuss how those beliefs, actions and outcomes function (PCT or no). So, I will push back by typing these keys. Likewise, the response of those seeing their Prophet dissed is not surprising. It is unfortunate they are in the situation they are (oppressed and marginalized), behaving in a social/print environment they way they are (with violence and destruction), and so on... But that is the control of perception, and how it functions.

--Bryan

···

[Bjorn Simonsen (2006.02.13,21:00 EST)]

In Denmark and Norway and other places around the world there has been an acute situation between secular people and Muslims. The background for the situation was caricatures representing the Prophet Mohammed.

I will not go thoroughly into that situation here, but I am working with something where I analyse the concepts Respect, cause/stimuli and holy and the actions insult and hurt relative to behavioristic, cognitive and PCT theories.

I will not translate the article this time, but I will present some thoughts and hope some of you will warn me if you think I write something wrong.

I explain how people control their perceptions and I define precisely that our perceptions are the nearest we can come the world out there, and that our perceptions are our representation for the world out there. Therefore we call our perceptions for the real world

I explain that human beings have their references representing what they wish to perceive. They are also able to perceive and to action. I explain how people action to perceive what they wish to perceive.

Cause is stimuli.

I use this definition for the concepts: Respect is to sense or show appreciative, often deferential regard.

Holy is exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness.

Hurt/Insult is to inflict with physical pain or to cause emotional pain or anguish

I write what PCT tells us about control of perceptions. We don�t talk about cause/stimuli as they do in behavioristic theory (I remember that the errors cause actions and in time perceptions and references cause the error etc. Martin). And we don�t talk about stimuli (cognitions, faith, thoughts, brain commands and attitudes) as they do in cognitive psychology.

It is wrong to say that the Mohammed drawings were the cause of the embassy firers. In PCT people control their experiences and drawings of Mohammed may be the result. Other people have a not approval reference for Mohammed drawings. If they watch the actions from the drawer, there is a conflict. The conflict may be solved in a HPCT way.

I write that PCT tells us how environmental variables from a person are perceived as a perception. PCT tells us that the perception of the configuration of a human being is the representation of a person in the world out there. That is the way it is, therefore we appreciate the perception as a person. PCT explains how we respect a person as a person.

In the same way we perceive that other human have faiths and meanings. And therefore we appreciate the perception that other human have faiths and meanings.

If different people have different (opposite) faiths and meanings they may experience external conflicts. These conflicts may be solved in a HPCT way. If embassy fires lead the editor to regret the publication of the Mohammed drawings, it may lead to internal conflict next time he wish to publish such drawings. He wishes and he wishes not to publish. Therefore it is not correct to force meanings on other people, if it is possible. Advisors ought not to express advises. If the advice become a new reference, it may lead to interior conflict.

PCT tells us that it happens that a person hurt (causes emotional pain or anguish to) another person when he controls his perceptions. The hurt is also caused by the references in the other person.

It is wrong to demand that the person who hurts the other person or the other person shal abandon his control. They have to solve the conflict in a HPCT way. This may of course lead the one person to reorganize.

At last. Many people say that something is holy. Other people shall respect their holy faiths.

I think to say that something is holy is a meaning or a faith. We shall respect that they have a meaning, but we don�t need to respect the meaning. The people saying something is holy should be respected in their certain group and othe people should not need to respect the meaning.

bjorn

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2006.02.14,10:00 EST)]

From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.02.13.1455 CST)

Nice to hear from you Bryan.

PCT leads me continuous to understand my perceptions
in a new way. When you mentioned the
odd perceptions “Individualism
– Cooperation”, I reflected on situation where I taught or participated in “Team
work”. Maybe PCT and MOL should find a place in new textbooks that deal with
Team Work?

I don’t make a big diff between “what is out
there” and the perception

of it, but perhaps I ought to.

I do. It reminds me that my real world, my
perceptions, is the best and only real world I know. And it reminds me that my
real world maybe is something else than the world out there. These thoughts are
part of my references when I take part in social situations.

bjorn

Bjorn,

Living in central Europe, I’m very much aware of the cartoon drawings
of the prophet. My area of research is that of risk management so my way of
thinking may differ from yours. What I missed in your article is what motivated
the cartoonist to make the drawing. Certainly he will have evaluated the
possibility of the Muslim population responding the way the do. If he disregard
this (possible) feedback causing a possible mismatch he would have been branded
a racist or anarchist. Perhaps he did not envisage that people would respond
the way they did and therefore not pick up the possible negative feedback. It
could however also be the case that his personal belief that freedom of speech
is more important prevailed. My focus area is trying to determine if these embassy
fires could have been prevented, perhaps that explains my focus on the author.

Another thing that I pick
up on was the apparent group cohesion. It is understandable that Muslims are
offended by these drawings, you describe in great detail what motivated them to
act the way they did. The question that I have is if group cohesion played in
role in escalating and how that relates to PCT. Is there a negative feedback
loop for not belonging to the group if you don’t participate or is the
reference signal emphasised if more people pick up on it simultaneously?

Rgrds,

Marco Plas

···

Van:
Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] Namens Bjørn Simonsen
Verzonden: maandag 13 februari
2006 21:25
Aan: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Onderwerp: Respect and more

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2006.02.13,21:00 EST)]

In Denmark
and Norway
and other places around the world there has been an acute situation between
secular people and Muslims. The background for the situation was caricatures
representing the Prophet Mohammed.

I will not go thoroughly into that situation here, but I am
working with something where I analyse the concepts Respect, cause/stimuli and
holy and the actions insult and hurt relative to behavioristic, cognitive and
PCT theories.

I will not translate the article this time, but I will
present some thoughts and hope some of you will warn me if you think I write
something wrong.

I explain how people control their perceptions and I define
precisely that our perceptions are the nearest we can come the world out there,
and that our perceptions are our representation for the world out there.
Therefore we call our perceptions for the real world

I explain that human beings have their references
representing what they wish to perceive. They are also able to perceive and to
action. I explain how people action to perceive what they wish to perceive.

Cause is stimuli.

I use this definition for the concepts: Respect is to sense
or show appreciative, often deferential regard.

Holy is exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one
perfect in goodness and righteousness.

Hurt/Insult is to inflict with physical pain or to cause
emotional pain or anguish

I write what PCT tells us about control of perceptions. We
don’t talk about cause/stimuli as they do in behavioristic theory (I
remember that the errors cause actions and in time perceptions and references
cause the error etc. Martin). And we don’t talk about stimuli
(cognitions, faith, thoughts, brain commands and attitudes) as they do in cognitive
psychology.

It is wrong to say that the Mohammed drawings were the cause
of the embassy firers. In PCT people control their experiences and drawings of
Mohammed may be the result. Other people have a not approval reference for
Mohammed drawings. If they watch the actions from the drawer, there is a
conflict. The conflict may be solved in a HPCT way.

I write that PCT tells us how environmental variables from a
person are perceived as a perception. PCT tells us that the perception of the
configuration of a human being is the representation of a person in the world
out there. That is the way it is, therefore we appreciate the perception as a
person. PCT explains how we respect a person as a person.

In the same way we perceive that other human have faiths and
meanings. And therefore we appreciate the perception that other human have
faiths and meanings.

If different people have different (opposite) faiths and
meanings they may experience external conflicts. These conflicts may be solved
in a HPCT way. If embassy fires lead the editor to regret the publication of
the Mohammed drawings, it may lead to internal conflict next time he wish to
publish such drawings. He wishes and he wishes not to publish. Therefore it is
not correct to force meanings on other people, if it is possible. Advisors
ought not to express advises. If the advice become a new reference, it may lead
to interior conflict.

PCT tells us that it happens that a person hurt (causes emotional pain or anguish
to) another person when he controls his perceptions. The hurt is also caused by
the references in the other person.

It is wrong to demand that the
person who hurts the other person or the other person shal abandon his control.
They have to solve the conflict in a HPCT way. This may of course lead the one
person to reorganize.

At last. Many people say that
something is holy. Other people shall respect their holy faiths.

I think to say that something is
holy is a meaning or a faith. We shall respect that they have a meaning, but we
don’t need to respect the meaning. The people saying something is holy
should be respected in their certain group and othe people should not need to
respect the meaning.

bjorn

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2206.02.14,17:15 EST)]

Marco Plas

Living in central Europe,
I’m very much aware of the

cartoon drawings of the prophet. My area of research

is that of risk management so my way of thinking may

differ from yours.

You represent an interesting area, Marco. The
way I understand your work is that you are able to measure and assess risks
when you plan something to happen in the future. EG, wishing 10 tons oranges
arrive Norway from Spain. Maybe Bill’s Econ005 could give you some ideas if you
are going to simulate control of certain perceptions? I think the PCT loop is
wonderful in your work (?).

What I missed in your article is what
motivated the

cartoonist to make the drawing.

That is what everybody says when they watch
the actions of other people. I think
the editor controlled his perceptions and at one moment his consciousness
became aware of the reference representing his wish to publish drawings of
Mohammed, and he started to control these perceptions. I guess he got
references from higher levels than the level he controlled. I don’t know his
higher levels references. I neither think many know. But he behaved as he
behaved. We all have our matrix of references and none of them are more correct
than other.

Certainly he will have evaluated the
possibility of the

Muslim population responding the way the do. If he

disregarded this (possible) feedback causing a possible

mismatch he would have been branded a racist or anarchist.

I would not use the word feedback in your
connection. Maybe I would have used the concept “imagined perception”.

Is it correct to brand somebody a racist
before are convicted?

Perhaps he did not envisage that people
would respond the

way they did and therefore not pick up the possible negative

feedback. It could however also be the
case that his personal

belief that freedom of speech is more important prevailed.

Yes, as you say he could have had a lot of
references. My point is that everybody controls the perceptions they control. What
happens afterwards is not a result. In PCT we may call it a conflict. And HPCT
has a good way to handle conflicts.

My focus area is trying to determine if
these embassy fires

could have been prevented, perhaps that explains my focus

on the author.

It looks as you think as you works. And
that is OK. Is there a chance for wisdom after the event in your text?

Another thing that I pick up on was the
apparent group

cohesion. It is understandable that Muslims are offended

by these drawings, you describe in great detail what

motivated them to act the way they did. The question

that I have is if group cohesion played in role in escalating

and how that relates to PCT. Is there a negative feedback

loop for not belonging to the group if you don’t

participate or is the reference signal emphasised if more

people pick up on it simultaneously?

Yes, I think there is a top-level reference
in some (many) people like “I wish to be a good Muslim according to what I have
experienced a good Muslim is”. Different
people control their perceptions at this level in a way where lower levels
activated may be different. In some systems a reference like “I wish to bur a
flag” becomes activated in other systems a reference like “I will not do anything
criminal”. Those two person would have practiced different actions. People are
different. We don’t read about everybody in the news papers.

bjorn

···

[From Rick Marken (2006.02.14.0940)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2006.02.13.1455 CST)

Seems to me that various individuals are controlling perceptions that are at odds.

I think what we have here is a nice clear conflict, where we have two groups of people who want the same perception (of the cartoon) in two different states. One group (Western journalists) wants a cartoon depiction of Mohammed in the state "printed"; the other group (Muslims) wants the same cartoon in the state "not printed". Simple as that. Since the cartoon has already been printed in some papers, the group with the "not printed" reference is acting to prevent any further publication of the cartoon (by burning and threatening and whatnot) and the group with the "printed" reference (those with enough courage or foolishness) are publishing the cartoon or versions of it.

The conflict (wanting the cartoon in two different states) is created by higher order references in the conflicted parties. The question is what are the higher level systems that are setting the conflicted references for the cartoon. Two possibilities (that I can think of) for the group who wants the cartoon printed are "freedom of expression" and "dissing Muslims". Both are probably involved to some extent. Two possibilities for the group that does not want the cartoon printed are "blasphemy avoidance" and "wanting respect from Western society". Again, both are probably involved to some extent.

There is really no way to solve this conflict except for one or both parties to the conflict to go up a level and revise their conflict creating goals. I think this has already happened on the Western side. I think statements by Western governments criticizing publication of the cartoon are basically a result of going up a level and changing their "freedom expression" goal in favor of not getting themselves or their cartoonists killed. I think it's highly unlikely that the Muslim side will be going up a level like that for a few hundred years. It took at least that long for Western societies to develop a tolerance for "blasphemy" (which is what "freedom of expression" is really about). But I think Western societies developed this principle in order to live in a conflict free society. It's the Western system concept of a conflict and stress free society that leads to the principle of free speech. If the principle itself leads to conflict and stress (as it does when you have an intolerant minority living in your midst) than the principle will be adjusted (as per PCT) to reduce the conflict. And that's what's happening when people like the Danish Prime Minister criticize publication of the cartoons.

The problem I see is that the intolerant minority will eventually have an effect on the prevailing tolerant system concept in Europe, making Europe less tolerant. I have no idea how to solve this problem. But it's the one thing that does make me happy about living in the US, where the intolerant minority exists but is far smaller than it is in Europe.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

I guess I am just
contemplating the idea that if more people experience a mismatch between
controlled variables and the reference signal simultaneously, is there a chance
that the reference signal is magnified as it is perceived because your
environment stimulates that? And further to that, if the reference signal is
magnified, is the mismatch perhaps greater, or is it simply the case that these
Muslims, while being together, experiencing this mismatch, strengthened or
reinforced their internal value for religious belief and therefore perceived a
greater mismatch?

Perhaps cause and effect
comes into play… if the perceived mismatch is greater, is the act
greater? As Runkel indicates, one needs to find the means in their environment
to carry out the act.

In your example of the Muslim
population, one Muslim will have perceived the drawings as a mismatch in his perception
of his religious beliefs compared to what he saw. Perhaps this individual alone
will not set an embassy on fire. A group of people with a similar perceived
disturbance may carry out an act that is greater then the imagined act of a
single human.

Risk management certainly
is an interesting field and I’m trying to incorporate human behaviour. Bill
mentioned that we can not plan our actions only results as we perceive them. This
will obviously change the way we address risk and disaster planning.

···

Van:
Control Systems Group Network
(CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] NamensBjørn Simonsen
Verzonden: dinsdag 14 februari
2006 17:10
Aan: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: Respect and more

[From Bjorn Simonsen
(2206.02.14,17:15 EST)]

Marco Plas

Living in central Europe, I’m very much aware of the

cartoon drawings of the prophet. My area of research

is that of risk management so my way of thinking may

differ from yours.

You represent an interesting
area, Marco. The way I understand your work is that you are able to measure and
assess risks when you plan something to happen in the future. EG, wishing 10
tons oranges arrive Norway
from Spain.
Maybe Bill’s Econ005 could give you some ideas if you are going to
simulate control of certain perceptions? I think the PCT loop is wonderful in
your work (?).

What I missed in your
article is what motivated the

cartoonist to make the drawing.

That is what everybody says when
they watch the actions of other people. I think the editor controlled his
perceptions and at one moment his consciousness became aware of the reference
representing his wish to publish drawings of Mohammed, and he started to
control these perceptions. I guess he got references from higher levels than
the level he controlled. I don’t know his higher levels references. I
neither think many know. But he behaved as he behaved. We all have our matrix
of references and none of them are more correct than other.

Certainly he will have
evaluated the possibility of the

Muslim population responding the way the do. If he

disregarded this (possible) feedback causing a possible

mismatch he would have been branded a racist or anarchist.

I would not use the word feedback
in your connection. Maybe I would have used the concept “imagined
perception”.

Is it correct to brand somebody
a racist before are convicted?

Perhaps he did not envisage
that people would respond the

way they did and therefore not pick up the possible negative

feedback. It could however
also be the case that his personal

belief that freedom of speech is more important prevailed.

Yes, as you say he could have
had a lot of references. My point is that everybody controls the perceptions
they control. What happens afterwards is not a result. In PCT we may call it a
conflict. And HPCT has a good way to handle conflicts.

My focus area is trying to
determine if these embassy fires

could have been prevented, perhaps that explains my focus

on the author.

It looks as you think as
you works. And that is OK. Is there a chance for wisdom after the event in your
text?

Another thing that I pick up
on was the apparent group

cohesion. It is understandable that Muslims are offended

by these drawings, you describe in great detail what

motivated them to act the way they did. The question

that I have is if group cohesion played in role in escalating

and how that relates to PCT. Is there a negative feedback

loop for not belonging to the group if you don’t

participate or is the reference signal emphasised if more

people pick up on it simultaneously?

Yes, I think there is a
top-level reference in some (many) people like “I wish to be a good
Muslim according to what I have experienced a good Muslim is”. Different
people control their perceptions at this level in a way where lower levels
activated may be different. In some systems a reference like “I wish to
bur a flag” becomes activated in other systems a reference like “I
will not do anything criminal”. Those two person would have practiced
different actions. People are different. We don’t read about everybody in
the news papers.

bjorn

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2006.02.14,21:50 EST)]

Marco Plas

I guess I am just contemplating the idea
that if more

people experience a mismatch between controlled

variables and the reference signal simultaneously, is

there a chance that the reference signal is magnified

as it is perceived because your environment

stimulates that?

I don’t think so. Remember, the reference
signal at the level you control comes from a level or levels above. And
normally you are not conscious the levels above that level you control. What
may happen at the level you control, and the levels below, is that the gain may
be influenced.

I am studying reorganization at the moment
and your last subordinate clause led me into the thought that E.G. too little
oxygen in the air result in less than normal oxygen in the blood. When the brain
perceives that there is too little oxygen in the blood some nerves will behave
different and this will result in reorganization. Maybe I am on the wrong
ground. If this could be correct, the environment may stimulate, not the
reference, but the gain.

And further to that, if the reference
signal is magnified,

is the mismatch perhaps greater, or is it
simply the case

that these Muslims, while being together,
experiencing

this mismatch, strengthened or reinforced their internal

value for religious belief and therefore
perceived a

greater mismatch?

Again, I don’t think the reference is
magnified. I guess we as observers on TV perceive a greater mismatch when we
watch many people engaged. I think each of the participators just control their
perceptions. But of course their perceptual signals are different if the group
consist of two guys and if the group consist of 100 guys. The input quantity is
different, the perceptual signal is different and of course the error is
different. Different errors lead to different actions.

Perhaps cause and effect comes into play…
if the

perceived mismatch is greater, is the act greater?

No. Well that is the way I think.

AS Runkel indicates, one needs to find the means in

their environment to carry out the act.

I have to go back to Runkel to morrow. When the environment changes, the perceptual
signal also changes. They may be more like the reference signal and they may be
more different from the perceptual signal. You know what happens.

But the perceptual signals also go to higher
levels. And maybe greater perceptual signals make errors with other reference
signals where the error earlier was zero. Then something may happen.

In your example of the Muslim population,
one

Muslim will have perceived the drawings as a

mismatch in his perception of his religious beliefs

compared to what he saw. Perhaps this individual

alone will not set an embassy on fire. A
group of

people with a similar perceived
disturbance may

carry out an act that is greater then the
imagined

act of a single human.

Interesting thought. I think the group first
consisted in one person perceiving something. He told it to one or two other
person. And so on. Some people joined the group because the had the same
reference. Other people didn’t join the group for one or another reason. They
didn’t have the same reference. In the end the group consisted of 70 person.

Risk management certainly is an
interesting field

and I’m trying to incorporate human
behaviour.

Bill mentioned that we can not plan our
actions

only results as we perceive them. This
will obviously

change the way we address risk and
disaster planning.

Yes, maybe you can give Risk Management a new
dimension.

bjorn

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.02.15.2030 CST)]

Bjorn,

Certainly what is "out there" and my perceptions are categorically different. No question, you are right about that. But that is an observer notion. I was being a combination of flip and truly not wanting to go into that level of the standard argument. But no question, you are right. However, in my role as living control system, I really don't make a diff between my perception and what I must be perceiving. All I can control is the perception, and not what is out there. Maybe I will wind up controlling what is out there, but like Winston Smith, hahaha, maybe I am not really changing anything but my perception. So...

The deal is that like the position of a candelabra on a table in dining room, so are the cartoons in the press or the email on the CSGnet.

We see it in a place we don't like it, and we move it and leave the room. A bit later, someone sees it's "out of place" and jerks it back into where it "was." Later again, we come in, and bang, we shove it where we wanted it, looking back at it as we leave (send mail).

Likewise, the cartoons become evident in the press, and well, you cant move them back (turn back time) so you push a lot of words, actions, and yes, violence to nullify (in your mind) and destroy the cartoons. Let's face it, you throw ca-ca at the cartoons and so on to desecrate the apparent desecration.

On the CSGnet, we are controlling for words and the display of words in both our own emails and the emails that come in afterwards. And if the words do not match our reference setting, we send some more, rearranged, emphasized, and in some cases we both do violence to previous words and the ideas they represent, and yes, we even throw ca-ca at the words.

Control of Perception, but maybe not really the candelabra, cartoons, or words.

Controlling for Perceptions such as Individualism or Cooperation? What things do you do to assure that your perceptions of these principles or system images match your reference levels? Do you smile, grunt, nod, give/accept handshakes, buy drinks, engage in face-saving, overtalk/listen, try to win/accept defeat, etc.?

What of those actions maintains close to zero error in one but increases error in the other? What of those actions may increase error in both? Decrease error in both? What actions are benign (not good or bad) for the principles?

What kind of gain (how fast and hard is the output signal) is appropriate for a balanced environment of control systems so that maintenance of one does not upset the other? Must there be a waiting period after restoring one to close to zero error before working on the other? Will there be a see-saw effect? Must one be always more in error than the other to still have a close to zero system image (Self-Image?).

Those are things I wonder about when you maintain two oddly matched perceptions.

--Bry

···

[Bjorn Simonsen (2006.02.14,10:00 EST)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2006.02.13.1455 CST)

Nice to hear from you Bryan.

PCT leads me continuous to understand my perceptions in a new way. When you mentioned the odd perceptions �Individualism � Cooperation�, I reflected on situation where I taught or participated in �Team work�. Maybe PCT and MOL should find a place in new textbooks that deal with Team Work?

I don't make a big diff between "what is out there" and the perception

of it, but perhaps I ought to.

I do. It reminds me that my real world, my perceptions, is the best and only real world I know. And it reminds me that my real world maybe is something else than the world out there. These thoughts are part of my references when I take part in social situations.

bjorn

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.02.15.2050)]

Hi Rick!

Absolutely. The same general perception, maintained by individuals of two groups in two distinct distributions of reference settings. One is arranged around a mode of visible and freely distributed, and the other is arranged around NULL and completely destroyed (by literally going back in time if need be). And the cartoons are perceptually yanked in conversations, newsgroups, streets, and fights. It's horrible. Two groups each with two completely different goals, mutually unrealizable. Both groups members exerting force at high gain.

As you note, members of each group sees the actions and results as emblematic of their individual system images.

The only thing that can resolve this is mutual annihilation or hiding behind a wall (can't see/perceive, can't control) or Reorganization. In this world? Hah!!

Tolerance is more complex than intolerance. Tolerance requires so many many adjustments, allowing many control systems to be at a high error, and perhaps the individual experiences chronic error for a long time, in other words, stress. Intolerance is much simpler. Strike out, destroy, or withdraw behind the hill so you can't see the b-----ds. Political tolerance means that a group has to live with its intolerant minorities at great stress, since the leaders mean to keep peace with the others as well as the internal opposition. It's a heck of a mess.

Cheers,

--Bry

Rick Marken wrote:

···

[From Rick Marken (2006.02.14.0940)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2006.02.13.1455 CST)

Seems to me that various individuals are controlling perceptions that are at odds.

I think what we have here is a nice clear conflict, where we have two groups of people who want the same perception (of the cartoon) in two different states. One group (Western journalists) wants a cartoon depiction of Mohammed in the state "printed"; the other group (Muslims) wants the same cartoon in the state "not printed". Simple as that. Since the cartoon has already been printed in some papers, the group with the "not printed" reference is acting to prevent any further publication of the cartoon (by burning and threatening and whatnot) and the group with the "printed" reference (those with enough courage or foolishness) are publishing the cartoon or versions of it.

The conflict (wanting the cartoon in two different states) is created by higher order references in the conflicted parties. The question is what are the higher level systems that are setting the conflicted references for the cartoon. Two possibilities (that I can think of) for the group who wants the cartoon printed are "freedom of expression" and "dissing Muslims". Both are probably involved to some extent. Two possibilities for the group that does not want the cartoon printed are "blasphemy avoidance" and "wanting respect from Western society". Again, both are probably involved to some extent.

There is really no way to solve this conflict except for one or both parties to the conflict to go up a level and revise their conflict creating goals. I think this has already happened on the Western side. I think statements by Western governments criticizing publication of the cartoon are basically a result of going up a level and changing their "freedom expression" goal in favor of not getting themselves or their cartoonists killed. I think it's highly unlikely that the Muslim side will be going up a level like that for a few hundred years. It took at least that long for Western societies to develop a tolerance for "blasphemy" (which is what "freedom of expression" is really about). But I think Western societies developed this principle in order to live in a conflict free society. It's the Western system concept of a conflict and stress free society that leads to the principle of free speech. If the principle itself leads to conflict and stress (as it does when you have an intolerant minority living in your midst) than the principle will be adjusted (as per PCT) to reduce the conflict. And that's what's happening when people like the Danish Prime Minister criticize publication of the cartoons.

The problem I see is that the intolerant minority will eventually have an effect on the prevailing tolerant system concept in Europe, making Europe less tolerant. I have no idea how to solve this problem. But it's the one thing that does make me happy about living in the US, where the intolerant minority exists but is far smaller than it is in Europe.

Best regards

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400