Robertson's Science and Faith

CSGnet Archive CSG2007
21

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.04.0812EST

You mention that I would have alot less misery if I read books on PCT. I know you put a smiley face at the end of that statement, but I think we say that frequently to people who do not understand PCT. I hear people in NC state that if only we could get the others to understand how PCT works, then my school would be a better place to work at. I don’t think telling people to read a book on it is going to be the end all be all. OSAMA would laugh in our face.

Alfie Kohn, in his book, Punished by Rewards says that you will not be able to walk into a classroom and take away all the external rewards on the first day of implementing internal control. It will have to be a gradual shift. There will have to be some conversation between the student and teacher, and you will have to let the students tell you what they want. It’s a process.

I think PCT as a theory is good, but the process of implementing will take time (i.e. seeing positive things happen like the elimination of standardized testing and new approach to foreign policy). Talking theory and actually implementing it are two different things. Having someone read a book is one step in that process, but it is not the end. Seeing it lived out helps me to better understand it than just reading a book.

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/03/2007 08:36PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.03.1740)

So, are you saying that we should let the Nazis and the Islamic Fascists
decide who to wipe out?

Actually, no. I wasn’t saying that at all – though it’s true that
only the Nazi’s and Islamo-fascists (whatever the hell that is; I
suppose you mean Islamic religious fundamentalists who are willing to
use terror to advance their cause) can decide who they wipe out.
What I was saying is that evil exists as a perception, not something
“out there” in the real world.

Both groups are evil.

You perceive them as evil. Actually, you perceive them as groups of
behaving individuals and judge their behavior to be evil because they
don’t match your references for the way people should behave. At
least, that’s the way I see it through control theory glasses.

We may not understand it fully, but we know it does exist. I.e. 9/11. etc.

It exists as a perception. And I think we do understand it pretty
well. What we are seeing is conflict between systems controlling for
getting the same or equivalent environmental variables into different
states. When you favor one side of such a conflict, you see the other
side as evil.

IN targeting the Nazis
and Islamic Fascists we are not randomly targeting people.

Why target people at all? You never really get rid of the “evil” by
killing all the “evil” people. There are always more that will come
back and try to make trouble again.

We are eliminating a group that would interfere with us having the freedom to
control ourselves.

Does that apply to everyone or just the “we” to whom you refer? Do the
Palestinians, for example, get to eliminate groups that are
interfering with their ability to control themselves? Hopefully, in
pondering that you will see that “evil” is a relative term – relative
to the person judging that the other person is “evil”. Didn’t someone
once recognize this problem and say something like “Judge not lest ye
be judged”. Probably someone who didn’t speak English very well;-)

Can’t we agree that we want the freedom to control ourselves?

No, I can’t agree with you on that. First of all, I think we control
perceptions, not ourselves. And I notice that we do this controlling
in the context of other control systems, whose controlling we often
affect by our own. Our “freedom” to exert control is, therefore,
constrained by our own references for how we want to live with others
(I’m not free to steal because it violates a goal I have to “do unto
others”) and physical law (I can’t jump over my house because I can’t
generate sufficient life force).

Or, should we let them decide to wipe us out.

So it’s them or us? I think we should definitely defend ourselves as
best as we can from terrorist attacks. But I think you do that with 1)
intelligence work and 2) diplomacy and policies that are perceived to
be unjust and unfair. The wrong way to deal with it is to try to “wipe
them out” before they wipe us out. That was Hitler’s approach and it
just doesn’t work that well.

You may claim that saying that
it exists is cause for alot of misery, but saying that it does not exist
creates a greater misery for me.

I think you’ve been listening to way too much right wing talk radio.
You will have a lot less misery of you start reading books on
perceptual control theory;-)

Perhaps we may disagree on how to resolve
the conflict, but I think eliminating the Nazis and eliminating Islamic
Fascists is the right thing to do, so that we can continue to enjoy the
freedom to control ourselves.

Yes, we disagree profoundly. My disagreement is based on my
understanding of the problem in terms of control theory. I think your
approach is based on the old causal model of human nature. You seem to
assume that some people emit evil behavior like manure emits bad
odors. You seem to think that the way to fix the problem of evil
people is the same way you would fix the problem of smelly manure: get
rid of it. I am hoping that the PCT approach eventually replaces that
view but I see no evidence that that is going to happen soon. Ah,
well.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

···

On Dec 3, 2007 12:49 PM, Jim Wuwert JDWuwert@wsfcs.k12.nc.us wrote:

22

I think PCT as a theory is good,
but the process of implementing will take time (i.e. seeing positive
things happen like the elimination of standardized testing and new
approach to foreign policy). Talking theory and actually implementing it
are two different things. Having someone read a book is one step in that
process, but it is not the end. Seeing it lived out helps me to better
understand it than just reading a book.
[From Bill Powers (2007.12.04.0839 MST)]

Jim Wuwert 2007.12.04.0812EST

···

–

Yes, I agree for the most part. In the meantime, we (as a
nation) will do the only things we know how to do. Even if that isn’t
very intelligent, or doesn’t work very well, or can’t possibly achieve
its objective of wiping out terrorists to the last person, it’s all we
have and obviously we are going to go on doing it until we think of
something better. After we have eliminated all the possible approaches
that will not work, we can then start looking for new ones, until we find
one that promises better results. As they say in AA and other
support-group gatherings, we haven’t hit bottom yet. Until then, we’ll
just keep on trying the things that don’t work or make matters worse.
When they get bad enough, we’ll reorganize.

Best,

Bill P.

23

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.04.1315)]

Bill Powers (2007.12.04.0839 MST) to Jim Wuwert (2007.12.04.0812EST) --

Yes, I agree for the most part. In the meantime, we (as a nation) will do
the only things we know how to do. Even if that isn't very intelligent, or
doesn't work very well, or can't possibly achieve its objective of wiping
out terrorists to the last person, it's all we have and obviously we are
going to go on doing it until we think of something better. After we have
eliminated all the possible approaches that will not work, we can then start
looking for new ones, until we find one that promises better results. As
they say in AA and other support-group gatherings, we haven't hit bottom
yet. Until then, we'll just keep on trying the things that don't work or
make matters worse. When they get bad enough, we'll reorganize.

You are a very patient person! Too bad all those people suffering and
dying as a result of these counterproductive approaches will have to
continue suffering and dying. You'd think a good theory of human
behavior would help;-) But, no. We have to continue with the stupid
approaches until things gets "bad enough". Apparently that's pretty
darn bad.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

24

Until then, we’ll just keep on
trying the things that don’t work or

make matters worse. When they get bad enough, we’ll
reorganize.

You are a very patient person! Too bad all those people suffering
and

dying as a result of these counterproductive approaches will have to

continue suffering and dying.
[From Bill Powers (2007.12.04.1535 MST)]

Rick Marken (2007.12.04.1315) –

What’s the alternative? Swing into another action that’s not going to
work?

Best,

Bill P.

25

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.04.1755)]

Bill Powers (2007.12.04.1535 MST)

>Rick Marken (2007.12.04.1315) --

Until then, we'll just keep on trying the things that don't work or
make matters worse. When they get bad enough, we'll reorganize.

> You are a very patient person! Too bad all those people suffering and
> dying as a result of these counterproductive approaches will have to

continue suffering and dying.

What's the alternative? Swing into another action that's not going to work?

It seems to me that a scientifically valid understanding of human
nature might suggest the kinds of actions that are most likely to work
and/or explain why current actions are not working. You've made some
nice suggestions about the kinds of things people might do to make
things better, such as developing better system concepts. A way to do
this might be to include "system concept development" courses in
schools at the time when kids are starting to develop such concepts.
Indeed, education about the nature of human nature itself might be a
helpful action to take. If PCT can help people help themselves solve
their intra-personal conflict, maybe it can also help groups of people
solve their interpersonal conflicts. Conflict is the basic problem in
both cases -- or so I think PCT would say -- and I would imagine the
approach to solving conflict is similar in both cases. A national MOL
session, anyone?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

26

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.05.0824EST

How you teach the course is more important than the content of what you teach. If the teacher/professor does not model it, then all is lost. Perhaps we need to reorganize the way we teach and educate children/adults. A book or a lecture is not going to cut it with most students. Watching someone live it out even when things get tough would be the best teaching experience. A course/class will only scratch the surface.

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/04/2007 08:52PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.04.1755)]

Bill Powers (2007.12.04.1535 MST)

Rick Marken (2007.12.04.1315) –

Until then, we’ll just keep on trying the things that don’t work or
make matters worse. When they get bad enough, we’ll reorganize.

You are a very patient person! Too bad all those people suffering and
dying as a result of these counterproductive approaches will have to
continue suffering and dying.

What’s the alternative? Swing into another action that’s not going to work?

It seems to me that a scientifically valid understanding of human
nature might suggest the kinds of actions that are most likely to work
and/or explain why current actions are not working. You’ve made some
nice suggestions about the kinds of things people might do to make
things better, such as developing better system concepts. A way to do
this might be to include “system concept development” courses in
schools at the time when kids are starting to develop such concepts.
Indeed, education about the nature of human nature itself might be a
helpful action to take. If PCT can help people help themselves solve
their intra-personal conflict, maybe it can also help groups of people
solve their interpersonal conflicts. Conflict is the basic problem in
both cases – or so I think PCT would say – and I would imagine the
approach to solving conflict is similar in both cases. A national MOL
session, anyone?

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

27

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.0915)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.12.05.0824EST)

Just for your information, Jim, you seem to have found a way to post
to CSGNet so that the contents of your posts are invisible when read
from the archive. To see what I mean, check out the archived version
of the post to which I am now responding, which is at:

http://listserv.uiuc.edu/wa.cgi?A2=ind0712a&L=csgnet&T=0&O=D&P=3613

The contents of your posts come through when they are distributed by
the CSGNet server but they don't show up on in the archive on the
server itself. It's probably a bunch of liberal computer hackers who
are depriving you of your freedom to post your stuff on the web. Why
do they hate freedom so much? :wink:

How you teach the course is more important than the content of what you
teach. If the teacher/professor does not model it, then all is lost. Perhaps
we need to reorganize the way we teach and educate children/adults. A book
or a lecture is not going to cut it with most students. Watching someone
live it out even when things get tough would be the best teaching
experience. A course/class will only scratch the surface.

Yes, I think Rambo movies would make excellent teaching materials for
a PCT based course on improving civilization. Talk about exterminating
evil! And being in control! And being conflict free! Now there's a
model controller;-)

I know how much you love freedom, Jim, but I certainly hope you are
not in favor of allowing women the freedom to control their own
bodies. We men have to be free to protect our embryos, after all. I
know what freedom means as well as you do; it's the freedom to own a
gun and shoot any guy who feels free to flirt with me;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

28

[From Richard Kennaway (2007.12.05.1719)]

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.0915)]
I know how much you love freedom, Jim, but I certainly hope you are
not in favor of allowing women the freedom to control their own
bodies. We men have to be free to protect our embryos, after all. I
know what freedom means as well as you do; it's the freedom to own a
gun and shoot any guy who feels free to flirt with me;-)

Rick, what purpose is served by posting these rhetorical lies?

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

29

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.1040)]

Richard Kennaway (2007.12.05.1719)--

> Rick Marken (2007.12.05.0915)--

>I know how much you love freedom, Jim, but I certainly hope you are
>not in favor of allowing women the freedom to control their own
>bodies. We men have to be free to protect our embryos, after all. I
>know what freedom means as well as you do; it's the freedom to own a
>gun and shoot any guy who feels free to flirt with me;-)

Rick, what purpose is served by posting these rhetorical lies?

First, I don't think these are actually lies (though I'll give you
"rhetorical"). The fact is that, in the US anyway, the people who crow
loudest about "freedom" and the importance of keeping "the terrorists"
from taking it away from us are often the people who would deny people
certain freedoms that they cherish, like the freedom to make the awful
choice of what to do about an embryo growing in one's own body, the
freedom to marry the consenting mate of one's choice, the freedom to
get healthcare when its needed, the freedom from religious
proselytizing in public schools, and so on.

So what is my purpose in posting these rhetorical statements? It was
to try to show that you can't consider freedoms in isolation. One
person's freedom (to control a particular variable) is another
person's disturbance (to a variable they are trying to freely
control). Control systems that live together have to think about
freedom in the context of the freedom of the other control systems
amongst which they live (control). So talk about "freedom" (which is
the freedom to control) has to be more nuanced, or you're just talking
about conflicts without acknowledging their existence. My purpose was
to help jog people up a level to from the point of view that says "I
can control whatever the hell I want and I'll fight anyone who tries
to stop me" to "let's try to figure how we can all individually
control best by taking into account the fact that we might be getting
in each others way when we do it. Let's try to control cooperatively
so that we can _all_ control as best as possible. Let's try to be
civilized".

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

30

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.05.1343EST

I am not sure how to unmask my posts from the archives. If you have any suggestions on how to improve it, please let me know. To my understanding once you log into the CSG website you can see them. If I am mistaken, please let me know.

See the rest below.

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/05/2007 12:15PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.0915)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.12.05.0824EST)

Just for your information, Jim, you seem to have found a way to post
to CSGNet so that the contents of your posts are invisible when read
from the archive. To see what I mean, check out the archived version
of the post to which I am now responding, which is at:

http://listserv.uiuc.edu/wa.cgi?A2=ind0712a&L=csgnet&T=0&O=D&P=3613

The contents of your posts come through when they are distributed by
the CSGNet server but they don’t show up on in the archive on the
server itself. It’s probably a bunch of liberal computer hackers who
are depriving you of your freedom to post your stuff on the web. Why
do they hate freedom so much? :wink:

How you teach the course is more important than the content of what you
teach. If the teacher/professor does not model it, then all is lost. Perhaps
we need to reorganize the way we teach and educate children/adults. A book
or a lecture is not going to cut it with most students. Watching someone
live it out even when things get tough would be the best teaching
experience. A course/class will only scratch the surface.

Yes, I think Rambo movies would make excellent teaching materials for
a PCT based course on improving civilization. Talk about exterminating
evil! And being in control! And being conflict free! Now there’s a
model controller;-)

I am not sure what you are getting at here other than an attempt at sarcasm which I can appreciate. One has to consider cultural differences in trying to communicate and teach new conflict resolution skills. Some people who live on the streets would not understand our lingo, but I don’t think they need a PhD, masters, BA, or an associates degree to live out PCT. The challenge is meeting them where they are. I guess that would be the challenge of academia meeting the real world. Life comes at us like a story-a million pieces of information at once, not as a classroom lecture or even like an experiment. Although I value and appreciate the research and theories that are developed. They make a significant contribution to our world.

I know how much you love freedom, Jim, but I certainly hope you are
not in favor of allowing women the freedom to control their own
bodies. We men have to be free to protect our embryos, after all. I
know what freedom means as well as you do; it’s the freedom to own a
gun and shoot any guy who feels free to flirt with me;-)

I am trying to figure out what made you think I was pro-choice. Perhaps you are leading me down a slippery slope, but I will go there. I am very much pro-life and anti-abortion. We should protect the lives of unborn children. I think there is a big difference between a guy flirting with me–I can walk away from that-versus a guy who breaks into my house and wants to hurt me. Each story is different. What’s wrong with a person’s desire to live as long as he is not physically harming someone else. If someone makes an attempt at harming another individual, then all bets are off. That is my perception.

How can I change that perception to not hurt the guy, if he is holding a loaded gun to my head? My reorganizing will tell me to get him before he gets me. It’s either me or him. What other choice do you have in that situation? Perhaps in the future I could install a security system and hire security. What do I do in that moment to resolve the internal conflict?

The shift to PCT is not mechanical but rather a process of reorganization. In the short term I would try to hurt the guy, but long term I would reorganize to prevent the intruder from ever stepping into my house.

*My earlier post about OSAMA is that I think it is too far gone. We may improve every part of our diplomacy with the necessary countries and OSAMA may still choose to wipe us out or the guy from IRAN may still choose to do the same. What do we do then? You and I can choose to share our philosophy with how we think it should be, but in the world away from this computer we have to make split second decisions. Violence and conflict is inevitable unless we both internally agree to be at peace. *

But if we all agreed to be at peace, what would we talk about on this discussion group. How we have maintained peace? Keep in mind I am a a basketball referee, so I enjoy being in the middle of conflict most of the time. I get paid to do that. Perhaps that needs to be considered when looking at this conflict. Some people may be doing this because it is fun. Just a thought.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

31

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.05.1441EST

The government should be out of the business of marriage. Leave it to the church.

Health care is not a freedom, but anyone can go to an emergency room. That is covered by all of us. Tax dollars cover that. I should not be held responsible for your neglect of your body, unless you need medical attention that would help prevent me from getting sick–ie. a contagious disease. All others, please go to the emergency room. Nobody is refused health care in this country with the emergency room.

If you don’t want someone prosleytizing you about anything, then stay home. The media prosleytizes garbage all the time, but I am not trying to put them out of business or shut them down. Prosleytizing in schools should be permitted. It’s not freedom from religion. It’s freedom to express your beliefs as long as you respect others. If you don’t like it, then you now have the choice to go to a different school. Too much is watered down in the schools, so that we can not be real about anything. My beliefs and faith drive who I am, why shouldn’t I be allowed to share that in a respectful way?

Good post.

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/05/2007 01:44PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.1040)]

Richard Kennaway (2007.12.05.1719)–

Rick Marken (2007.12.05.0915)–

I know how much you love freedom, Jim, but I certainly hope you are
not in favor of allowing women the freedom to control their own
bodies. We men have to be free to protect our embryos, after all. I
know what freedom means as well as you do; it’s the freedom to own a
gun and shoot any guy who feels free to flirt with me;-)

Rick, what purpose is served by posting these rhetorical lies?

First, I don’t think these are actually lies (though I’ll give you
“rhetorical”). The fact is that, in the US anyway, the people who crow
loudest about “freedom” and the importance of keeping “the terrorists”
from taking it away from us are often the people who would deny people
certain freedoms that they cherish, like the freedom to make the awful
choice of what to do about an embryo growing in one’s own body, the
freedom to marry the consenting mate of one’s choice, the freedom to
get healthcare when its needed, the freedom from religious
proselytizing in public schools, and so on.

So what is my purpose in posting these rhetorical statements? It was
to try to show that you can’t consider freedoms in isolation. One
person’s freedom (to control a particular variable) is another
person’s disturbance (to a variable they are trying to freely
control). Control systems that live together have to think about
freedom in the context of the freedom of the other control systems
amongst which they live (control). So talk about “freedom” (which is
the freedom to control) has to be more nuanced, or you’re just talking
about conflicts without acknowledging their existence. My purpose was
to help jog people up a level to from the point of view that says “I
can control whatever the hell I want and I’ll fight anyone who tries
to stop me” to “let’s try to figure how we can all individually
control best by taking into account the fact that we might be getting
in each others way when we do it. Let’s try to control cooperatively
so that we can all control as best as possible. Let’s try to be
civilized”.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

32

[From Dick Robertson, 2007, 12.05.1615CST]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.05.1441EST

The government should be out of the business of marriage. Leave it to the church.

Health care is not a freedom, but anyone can go to an emergency room. That is covered by all of us. Tax dollars cover that. I should not be held responsible for your neglect of your body,

I think that is overlooking the fact that something like 25% of the American population sometimes has to choose between eating and seeking medical help. I’m one of those who thinks that we’d all be better off if health care were a “freedom,” like – say – the services of the fire department in most municipalities. As for the emergency room, i have read–several times–administrative physicians deploring the substitution of going to the emergency room in place of getting regular medical care. It often defeats the purpose of “emergency” in emergency rooms, and is inefficient in other ways as well, they said.

unless you need medical attention that would help prevent me from getting sick–ie. a contagious disease. All others, please go to the emergency room. Nobody is refused health care in this country with the emergency room.

You seem not to have heard of the practice of “patient dumping” that goes on in various hospitals in this country. I have read of several instances where waiting for transport of a seriously ill patient to another treatment center resulted in the patient’s death during the wait, or the runaround.

If you don’t want someone prosleytizing (sic) you about anything, then stay home.

In my community that could get your parents arrested for contributing to truancy, in you are under 17. Also proselytizing has been experienced as bullying by children of various minorities in places where cultural diversity was not as cherished as in some other places in this country.

The media prosleytizes garbage all the time, but I am not trying to put them out of business or shut them down. Prosleytizing in schools should be permitted. It’s not freedom from religion. It’s freedom to express your beliefs as long as you respect others. If you don’t like it, then you now have the choice to go to a different school. Too much is watered down in the schools, so that we can not be real about anything. My beliefs and faith drive who I am, why shouldn’t I be allowed to share that in a respectful way?

Good post.

Well, as I said.

Best,

Dick R

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU

From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/05/2007 01:44PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.1040)]

Richard Kennaway (2007.12.05.1719)–

Rick Marken (2007.12.05.0915)–

I know how much you love freedom, Jim, but I certainly hope you are
not in favor of allowing women the freedom to control their own
bodies. We men have to be free to protect our embryos, after all. I
know what freedom means as well as you do; it’s the freedom to own a
gun and shoot any guy who feels free to flirt with me;-)

Rick, what purpose is served by posting these rhetorical lies?

First, I don’t think these are actually lies (though I’ll give you
“rhetorical”). The fact is that, in the US anyway, the people who crow
loudest about “freedom” and the importance of keeping “the terrorists”
from taking it away from us are often the people who would deny people
certain freedoms that they cherish, like the freedom to make the awful
choice of what to do about an embryo growing in one’s own body, the
freedom to marry the consenting mate of one’s choice, the freedom to
get healthcare when its needed, the freedom from religious
proselytizing in public schools, and so on.

So what is my purpose in posting these rhetorical statements? It was
to try to show that you can’t consider freedoms in isolation. One
person’s freedom (to control a particular variable) is another
person’s disturbance (to a variable they are trying to freely
control). Control systems that live together have to think about
freedom in the context of the freedom of the other control systems
amongst which they live (control). So talk about “freedom” (which is
the freedom to control) has to be more nuanced, or you’re just talking
about conflicts without acknowledging their existence. My purpose was
to help jog people up a level to from the point of view that says “I
can control whatever the hell I want and I’ll fight anyone who tries
to stop me” to “let’s try to figure how we can all individually
control best by taking into account the fact that we might be getting
in each others way when we do it. Let’s try to control cooperatively
so that we can all control as best as possible. Let’s try to be
civilized”.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

33

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.1730)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.12.05.1343EST) --

Rick Marken (2007.12.05.0915)]

I know how much you love freedom, Jim, but I certainly hope you are
not in favor of allowing women the freedom to control their own
bodies.

I am trying to figure out what made you think I was pro-choice.

I didn't. I was pretty sure you were anti-abortion, which means you
are in favor of depriving a human being of one of her freedoms (her
ability to control her pregnancy).

Perhaps you are leading me down a slippery slope, but I will go there. I am very much
pro-life and anti-abortion.

Well, actually, you just went down the slope;-) I just wanted you to
notice that you want to deprive people of freedoms as much as the
terrorists do. You just like to have the freedom to deprive people of
the freedoms you think are the wrong freedoms to have. And I feel the
same way. I want the freedom to deprive people of the freedoms I think
are the wrong freedoms to have, too. But I know that not everyone
agrees on which freedoms we should and should not have. So I am trying
to persuade people to select their freedoms (and their restrictions on
freedoms) based on what's best for the community while minimizing the
cost of the individual.

We should protect the lives of unborn children.

Sure. But there's a potential conflict there because the unborn are
living in someone who is already born. If you evaluate the problem in
terms of what's best for the community you find that making abortion
legal while providing access to birth control information accomplishes
the goals of both sides of the conflict; it reduces the abortion rate
(protecting the unborn) and gives women control of their bodies. The
data show clearly that making abortion illegal increases the abortion
rate and increases the death rate among mothers seeking abortions. So
in that case, freedom to choose is actually the best solution, at the
community level.

My earlier post about OSAMA is that I think it is too far gone.

I think you're right about that. What _should_ have happened is that
after 9/11 we should have gone after Osama and taken out him and his
gang. At the same time we should have started a diplomatic initiative
in the Middle East and acted as though we had no favorites in that
area.

Instead, we abandoned the search for the only criminal who perpetrated
9/11, invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, killed the
vehemently anti-Osama leader of that country, created a violent civil
was that is killing thousands of civilians and costing trillions of
dollars all to provide a recruitment poster for Osama's group and cost
my children something like $40,000 a piece, and counting (so much for
lower taxes). And all this because the right wing noise machine
managed to convince 60% of the people in this country that if we
didn't do all this Osama was going to come over and take over the US,
a scenario even more implausible that imagining the Chumash Indians
reconquering Santa Barbara.

I don't think it's possible to imagine a worse -- less PCT informed --
response to 9/11 than what Bush did. The man is beyond stupid; maybe
the only explanation is that he is just pure evil;-)

We may
improve every part of our diplomacy with the necessary countries and OSAMA
may still choose to wipe us out or the guy from IRAN may still choose to do
the same.

Please describe how in the world you think Osama is going to wipe us out?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

34

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.1740)]

Dick Robertson (2007, 12.05.1615CST) --

I'm one of those who thinks that we'd all be better off if health care were
a "freedom," like -- say -- the services of the fire department in most
municipalities.

Also proselytizing has been experienced as
bullying by children of various minorities in places where cultural
diversity was not as cherished as in some other places in this country.

Nice post. You obviously control for a system concept that is similar
to mine. Great minds have great system concepts;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

35

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.05.2248EST

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/05/2007 08:31PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.1730)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.12.05.1343EST) –

Rick Marken (2007.12.05.0915)]

I know how much you love freedom, Jim, but I certainly hope you are
not in favor of allowing women the freedom to control their own
bodies.

I am trying to figure out what made you think I was pro-choice.

I didn’t. I was pretty sure you were anti-abortion, which means you
are in favor of depriving a human being of one of her freedoms (her
ability to control her pregnancy).

Actually, I don’t think the woman legal owns the baby entirely for herself. The father has rights. The woman is holding the baby and obviously contributing the egg. She does not nor does the father have the right to harm the child i.e. killing the baby. That would be a bottom line for me. You cannot physically harm people for the sake of convenience. Adoption is always an option.

Perhaps you are leading me down a slippery slope, but I will go there. I am very much
pro-life and anti-abortion.

Well, actually, you just went down the slope;-) I just wanted you to
notice that you want to deprive people of freedoms as much as the
terrorists do. You just like to have the freedom to deprive people of
the freedoms you think are the wrong freedoms to have. And I feel the
same way. I want the freedom to deprive people of the freedoms I think
are the wrong freedoms to have, too. But I know that not everyone
agrees on which freedoms we should and should not have. So I am trying
to persuade people to select their freedoms (and their restrictions on
freedoms) based on what’s best for the community while minimizing the
cost of the individual.

Yes, I did go down it. I am all for community but I also operate from a moral compass. As I said about marriage, I think the government needs to get out of licensing marriages. Let people be with who they want to be. In order for man to survive he/se will need a heterosexual relationship. That is straight biology.

We should protect the lives of unborn children.

Sure. But there’s a potential conflict there because the unborn are
living in someone who is already born. If you evaluate the problem in
terms of what’s best for the community you find that making abortion
legal while providing access to birth control information accomplishes
the goals of both sides of the conflict; it reduces the abortion rate
(protecting the unborn) and gives women control of their bodies. The
data show clearly that making abortion illegal increases the abortion
rate and increases the death rate among mothers seeking abortions. So
in that case, freedom to choose is actually the best solution, at the
community level.

My moral compass would disagree with this based on what I said above. It is a life and the parents always have adoption as a choice. That is perfectly reasonable.

My earlier post about OSAMA is that I think it is too far gone.

I think you’re right about that. What should have happened is that
after 9/11 we should have gone after Osama and taken out him and his
gang. At the same time we should have started a diplomatic initiative
in the Middle East and acted as though we had no favorites in that
area.

I agree, but hindsight is 20/20.

Instead, we abandoned the search for the only criminal who perpetrated
9/11, invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, killed the
vehemently anti-Osama leader of that country, created a violent civil
was that is killing thousands of civilians and costing trillions of
dollars all to provide a recruitment poster for Osama’s group and cost
my children something like $40,000 a piece, and counting (so much for
lower taxes). And all this because the right wing noise machine
managed to convince 60% of the people in this country that if we
didn’t do all this Osama was going to come over and take over the US,
a scenario even more implausible that imagining the Chumash Indians
reconquering Santa Barbara.

I don’t think it’s possible to imagine a worse – less PCT informed –
response to 9/11 than what Bush did. The man is beyond stupid; maybe
the only explanation is that he is just pure evil;-)

Yeah, there really is no good solution over there.

We may
improve every part of our diplomacy with the necessary countries and OSAMA
may still choose to wipe us out or the guy from IRAN may still choose to do
the same.

Please describe how in the world you think Osama is going to wipe us out?

Actually I am more concerned about the guy in Iran. We need to exercise some PCT with him and quickly.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

36

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.05.2258EST

Just because one guy bullies another person with prosleytizing does not mean all others will. Your making the whole community suffer because of one idiot’s nonsense. Religion and values drive who the individual is. You cannot separate the two of them, so why should we suppress the right of the individual to express and share his faith. Because we might offend someone in the group? This is the problem with schools. You can’t have a real conversation about religion and faith because you might hurt someone’s feelings. We have developed a policy/right that I have the freedom not to be offended. YOu do not have that freedom. You have two feet, so you can always walk away.

Students can choose schools in most cities due to No Child Left Behind (which by the way is not a good law). In our area they have at least 4 schools they can go to. I have no problem with school being all one race. It is not what I would choose foor my children, but if that is what a community wants to do, let them have at it. Just make sure they pass a basic reading and math test before graduation.

If one does not want to be offended, they might as well stay home and turn off the t.v. walk away or don’t engage in a conversation. It’s just information. If someone is physically bullying another student over religion and faith, then that is not religion or faith. THat is crossing the line and the appropriate people should be disciplined or removed from the school. This garbage about not being able to pray in schools or share your faith is BS. My son’s teacher is a Hindi and she brings in all her hindi stuff and tellls the children about it. I disagree with her faith, and I am not raising my son in that faith. But, I have no problem with her sharing about her faith and what she believes in. I am comfortable with how I am impacting his spiritual development. I think it is a good thing for my son to be exposed to her. Let them proselytize. If you don’t like it, then go to a school that is like your faith. Why squash my freedom for the sake of one bad apple.

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.05.1441EST

The government should be out of the business of marriage. Leave it to the church.

Health care is not a freedom, but anyone can go to an emergency room. That is covered by all of us. Tax dollars cover that. I should not be held responsible for your neglect of your body,

I think that is overlooking the fact that something like 25% of the American population sometimes has to choose between eating and seeking medical help. I’m one of those who thinks that we’d all be better off if health care were a “freedom,” like – say – the services of the fire department in most municipalities. As for the emergency room, i have read–several times–administrative physicians deploring the substitution of going to the emergency room in place of getting regular medical care. It often defeats the purpose of “emergency” in emergency rooms, and is inefficient in other ways as well, they said.

unless you need medical attention that would help prevent me from getting sick–ie. a contagious disease. All others, please go to the emergency room. Nobody is refused health care in this country with the emergency room.

You seem not to have heard of the practice of “patient dumping” that goes on in various hospitals in this country. I have read of several instances where waiting for transport of a seriously ill patient to another treatment center resulted in the patient’s death during the wait, or the runaround.

If you don’t want someone prosleytizing (sic) you about anything, then stay home.

In my community that could get your parents arrested for contributing to truancy, in you are under 17. Also proselytizing has been experienced as bullying by children of various minorities in places where cultural diversity was not as cherished as in some other places in this country.

The media prosleytizes garbage all the time, but I am not trying to put them out of business or shut them down. Prosleytizing in schools should be permitted. It’s not freedom from religion. It’s freedom to express your beliefs as long as you respect others. If you don’t like it, then you now have the choice to go to a different school. Too much is watered down in the schools, so that we can not be real about anything. My beliefs and faith drive who I am, why shouldn’t I be allowed to share that in a respectful way?

Good post.

Well, as I said.

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU

From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/05/2007 01:44PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.1040)]

Richard Kennaway (2007.12.05.1719)–

Rick Marken (2007.12.05.0915)–

I know how much you love freedom, Jim, but I certainly hope you are
not in favor of allowing women the freedom to control their own
bodies. We men have to be free to protect our embryos, after all. I
know what freedom means as well as you do; it’s the freedom to own a
gun and shoot any guy who feels free to flirt with me;-)

Rick, what purpose is served by posting these rhetorical lies?

First, I don’t think these are actually lies (though I’ll give you
“rhetorical”). The fact is that, in the US anyway, the people who crow
loudest about “freedom” and the importance of keeping “the terrorists”
from taking it away from us are often the people who would deny people
certain freedoms that they cherish, like the freedom to make the awful
choice of what to do about an embryo growing in one’s own body, the
freedom to marry the consenting mate of one’s choice, the freedom to
get healthcare when its needed, the freedom from religious
proselytizing in public schools, and so on.

So what is my purpose in posting these rhetorical statements? It was
to try to show that you can’t consider freedoms in isolation. One
person’s freedom (to control a particular variable) is another
person’s disturbance (to a variable they are trying to freely
control). Control systems that live together have to think about
freedom in the context of the freedom of the other control systems
amongst which they live (control). So talk about “freedom” (which is
the freedom to control) has to be more nuanced, or you’re just talking
about conflicts without acknowledging their existence. My purpose was
to help jog people up a level to from the point of view that says “I
can control whatever the hell I want and I’ll fight anyone who tries
to stop me” to “let’s try to figure how we can all individually
control best by taking into account the fact that we might be getting
in each others way when we do it. Let’s try to control cooperatively
so that we can all control as best as possible. Let’s try to be
civilized”.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Robertson Richard R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/05/2007 05:28PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Dick Robertson, 2007, 12.05.1615CST]

Best,

Dick R
All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

37

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.2140)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.12.05.2248EST)--

> My earlier post about OSAMA is that I think it is too far gone.

I think you're right about that. What _should_ have happened is that
after 9/11 we should have gone after Osama and taken out him and his
gang. At the same time we should have started a diplomatic initiative
in the Middle East and acted as though we had no favorites in that
area.

I agree, but hindsight is 20/20.

Actually, I knew this well before we went into Iraq. The only
hindsight involved is the sight of our baboon President's behind
mooning us as he throws our money hand over fist to his war profiteer
friends.

Please describe how in the world you think Osama is going to wipe us out?

Actually I am more concerned about the guy in Iran. We need to exercise some
PCT with him and quickly.

Now you think Iran is going to wipe us out? I can't keep up.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

38

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.2200)]

Jim Wuwert 2007.12.05.2258EST

I'm curious. What attracted you to Perceptual Control Theory, Jim?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

39

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.06.0944EST

That is a very good question. I studied Glasser in graduate school and I have done the ACT training with IAACT. Right now, I am trying to process my personal beliefs with PCT. As you can tell by my writing on here that I am experiencing some error with what is being sad. I will say that the discussion we have been having here has helped me personally to clarify where I stand. It has helped me look more closely at my thinking and my beliefs. I get more out of writing and thinking about my post than anything.

Based on your question, it seems as though you may be wondering why I am even interested in PCT. It was the theory I liked the most out of all the counseling theories in grad school. I still have not found one better. Are you suggesting that I may need to look elsewhere? I appreciate all of you taking the time to engage me in a discussion. I feel that I have gained incredible insight by being involved with the discussion.

Bill suggested that he hopes I find a place in the middle of all of this. I hope so too, but I have to be honest about where I am before I can find a place. Perhaps the place will be here somewhere or perhaps somewhere else. I don’t know right now. The research that many of you have done seems to be different than the mainstream stuff that is going on at other universities in the U.S. It seems to be outside of the box–which is a draw for me. I did not realize that research was so political in the U.S. Most universities in the U.S. don’t even know what PCT is, at least from the reviews that I have done via the internet and interacting with professors.

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/06/2007 12:52AM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.05.2200)]

Jim Wuwert 2007.12.05.2258EST

I’m curious. What attracted you to Perceptual Control Theory, Jim?

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to
third parties, including law enforcement.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

40

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.06.0910)]

From Jim Wuwert (2007.12.06.0944EST)--

Thanks for this Jim. Don't mind me. I'm just an old lefty who has been
puzzled by the rightward drift of this country since the late 1970s
and by the fact that PCT has been so attractive to so many people
whose political/religious views I find abominable. I guess we see a
theory through our own biases, just like everything else. When I
started doing research on PCT the theory seemed to me to be not only
scientifically accurate and elegant but to also reflect my secular
humanistic/ communitarian view of life: man is the measure of all
things, love thy neighbor and such.

While I was mainly into the details of doing modeling and testing I
just assumed that the only people who would be attracted to PCT would
be like-minded folk. So I have been somewhat surprised to find that so
many of those who are attracted to PCT approach it from a religious
and/or every man for himself point of view. But I think I now know why
this is true. After all, PCT is all about personal autonomy -- people
control and are not controlled by the environment. So I guess this
translates into some kind of justification for having no government
regulation and having everyone be free to do what they want, except as
specified in ancient texts. That's not where I end up from an
understanding of PCT but I certainly can't control where others end
up. But these right wing views create a rather massive error signal
for me when people espouse them on the net and I'm afraid that error
sometimes leads to actions (saying things on the net) that I regret.

So I am very sorry for being rude to you. You sound like a very nice
young fellow. And some of my best friends are right wingers. Well,
actually, not many. But my racquetball partner is a complete right
wing, free market, MIiton Friedman economics, neocon type, but a very
nice guy (I beat him regularly, by the way, proving the superiority of
my position;-). In fact, I would say that, in person, the right
wingers I know are a lot nicer than the left wingers (like me).

So, again, I'm sorry I was rude. I think right wing ideology is
destroying what I used to love most about my country but getting nasty
to right wingers is sure not going to turn things around. I think Bill
Powers is, once again, right (I wonder if he ever gets tired of
it;-)). Change will come only when things get bad enough. I just hope
I'm living somewhere else by that time; but it will have to be
somewhere with the climate of California. It is gorgeous out today!:wink:

Best regards

Rick

···

That is a very good question. I studied Glasser in graduate school and I
have done the ACT training with IAACT. Right now, I am trying to process my
personal beliefs with PCT. As you can tell by my writing on here that I am
experiencing some error with what is being sad. I will say that the
discussion we have been having here has helped me personally to clarify
where I stand. It has helped me look more closely at my thinking and my
beliefs. I get more out of writing and thinking about my post than anything.

Based on your question, it seems as though you may be wondering why I am
even interested in PCT. It was the theory I liked the most out of all the
counseling theories in grad school. I still have not found one better. Are
you suggesting that I may need to look elsewhere? I appreciate all of you
taking the time to engage me in a discussion. I feel that I have gained
incredible insight by being involved with the discussion.

Bill suggested that he hopes I find a place in the middle of all of this. I
hope so too, but I have to be honest about where I am before I can find a
place. Perhaps the place will be here somewhere or perhaps somewhere else. I
don't know right now. The research that many of you have done seems to be
different than the mainstream stuff that is going on at other universities
in the U.S. It seems to be outside of the box--which is a draw for me. I did
not realize that research was so political in the U.S. Most universities in
the U.S. don't even know what PCT is, at least from the reviews that I have
done via the internet and interacting with professors.

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com