Robertson's Science and Faith

[Richard_Kennaway]

[From Richard Kennaway (2007.12.06.1804 GMT)]

[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.

This is irrelevant. The people that you are talking about are not on CSGNET. Your bizarre rant that I quoted is addressed to voices inside your head. I called it lies, because you're making this stuff up out of thin air instead of addressing what people in the discussion are actually saying. You do it again here:

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"

Can you cite a single post here expressing that point of view?

···

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

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.06.1100)]

Richard Kennaway (2007.12.06.1804 GMT)--

>> > Rick Marken (2007.12.05.0915)--

>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.

This is irrelevant. The people that you are talking about are not on
CSGNET. Your bizarre rant that I quoted is addressed to voices
inside your head. I called it lies, because you're making this stuff
up out of thin air instead of addressing what people in the
discussion are actually saying.

OK. I'm a liar. Sorry. Maybe if you could tell me what people in the
discussion were actually saying I could address it better. I admit
that it was rude for me to reply to Jim sarcastically. But I think he
has agreed that he is in favor fighting the terrorists in order to
preserve freedom and at the same time he favors denying people most of
the freedoms I enumerated above in my bizarre rant.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.06.1614EST

Apology accepted. Your statement about how you think right wingers are destroying America is funny because sometimes I feel the same about left wingers. I guess I just trust that if the government gives up control, an individual will step up and fill the void (i.e. build a hospital where people who have a great need can get medical attention, help the poor find a place to live, help a child learn how to read and write). I think groups of individuals will do a better job solving these problems than the government ever will. On the flip side, some right wingers have been and continue to be very selfish and greedy. That is not good either. I would rather see an individual choose to help someone as opposed to being forced into doing it by the government or someone else.

You mentioned that you think alot of left wingers are not as nice as right wingers. Why is that? Is it because they have a heart for a particular social problem and they think the only solution lies with the gov’t? Thus, when the right wingers vote it down, do they develop a bitterness and anger towards the country? Because they don’t get their way? What if the left were to explore solutions that involve private individuals instead of gov’t? I think they would win alot of right wingers over and then also get what they want: social justice.

I can apppreciate your left wing perspective, even if I disagree. It kind of confirms my stereotype of those in academia: that most are left wingers:) I value the perspective of the left. It keeps us right wingers honest and it helps us check ourselves to make sure we are not being greedy or selfish at the expense of the community. As I said earlier, this has been a good discussion.–very real.

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 12:09PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[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!

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

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

[Martin_Taylor7]

[Martin Taylor 2007.12.06.16.55 – sending from an alternate address]

[This message may be a little outdated by now, but I have reason to believe, that this, its fourth sending, may actually get to CSGnet.]

[Martin Taylor 2007.12.03.16.50]

{to Jim Wuert, no date stamp, apparently Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:49:52 -0500]

So, are you saying that we should let the Nazis and the Islamic
Fascists decide who to wipe out? Both groups are evil. We may
not understand it fully, but we know it does exist. I.e. 9/11. etc.
IN targeting the Nazis and Islamic Fascists we are not randomly
targeting people. We are eliminating a group that would interfere with
us having the freedom to control ourselves. Can’t we agree that we want
the freedom to control ourselves?

In a PCT discussion group, this is a very poor
choice of words … the law of the Wild West, using the principle:
“Eliminate anyone with whom you have a conflict”. Interfereing with
another control system’s ability to control is just what conflict is,
in PCT. Killing the other person wanting to go through a door is a
rather substantial escalation when you could easily have said “After
you, Claude” and then gone through the door.

Islamic Fascists, as you call them, presumably think YOU are
evil. Who is to say whether you are right or they are? What is the
absolute definition of “evil” – by “absolute” I mean “independent of
one’s upbringing, biases, and experience”? You and I may agree that
Nazis and religious fundamentalists who prefer to kill their opposition
than to live with them are people with whom we might be in conflict.
But who is the arbiter that decides it is they and not we who are
“evil”?

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.

Yep. The rule of the Wild West. My freedom is sacred; yours is a nuisance.

Martin

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.07.2039EST

I am not stating that I think I should be able to wipe out anyone who I have conflict with. I am saying that I should be able to wipe out anyone that is going to take the life of someone else arbitrarily without justifiable cause. The justifiable cause in my mind is anyone who, after I attempt to talk with and resolve the conflict through respectful communication, says that he/she is going to harm my country. My intensity increases a notch if they follow through with the threat. In my mind, the Islamc extremists and the guy from Iran are long gone. They want us. I am not aware of any policy that the U.S. has to build a nuclear weapon for the sole purpose of eliminating an entire nation. Nor are we implementing a policy that ridiculous. I think it is silly for the U.S. to ignore the threats made by Iran and by Osama.

The arbiter in my mind is the creator which is where we may part ways. Unfortunately, in the situation with Osama/Iran it’s either him or us. It is too far gone, I think. What would your choice be? Talk it through? Eliminate him?

Iran’s and Osama’s freedom is a nuisance because it involves eliminating me. If that is his picture of freedom, then that is where I have a major problem with that. I think that would be obvious to all of mankind. It’s innate in us to want to live, wouldn’'t you agree? Are you telling me that if you were president you would just talk it out with Iran and OSAMA, meanwhile they are both building a nuke and planning on using it on you. How do you explain that to the rest of the country? "Well, we had several good discussions and all parties signed this document that says we will not hurt each other. " Who cares about the document–there is a mad man running loose that wants to eliminate your country? They are beyond negotiating.

Or, what about the guy in Nebraska? From what I know he is like the guy at Va Tech. Nobody is taking these people serious. We say, let’s talk it out. Meanwhile these people are buying guns, writing good-bye notes and then walking in a building and killing random people. I guess our mental health system in this country is top-notch?? We are terrible in the U.S. at recognizing and helping those that have mentally checked out and

see that killing random people is the only solution.

So, the rest of us should sit back and just take it? I disagree. When they are too far gone, we should have the power to take them in, in the case of the guy in NE and VA. When we have evidence (i.e. a written note) of a detailed threat–it’s automatic in jail. These people have no respect for others. They have taken advantage of our weakness–nonsense in the mental health system.

I think we as a country could develop a picture/policy for what is evil and what is not. I feel that allowing people as much freedom as possible should be a guide in that. But, when you have video tape of the guy from IRan and OSAMA making threats and then notes from the guy at VA Tech, it’s obvious and should be automatic in jail. That is to protect the community which is what some on this list serv are about, correct? Wouldn’t you want these people to respect who we are? There is little respect for the U.S. around the world because we don’t respect ourself nor do we know what we stand for. I would agree that Bush has agitated this problem rather than help us to define who we are.

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Martin Taylor mmtaylor@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/06/2007 04:56PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[Martin Taylor 2007.12.06.16.55 – sending from an alternate address]

[This message may be a little outdated by now, but I have reason to believe, that this, its fourth sending, may actually get to CSGnet.]

[Martin Taylor 2007.12.03.16.50]

{to Jim Wuert, no date stamp, apparently Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:49:52 -0500]

So, are you saying that we should let the Nazis and the Islamic Fascists decide who to wipe out? Both groups are evil. We may not understand it fully, but we know it does exist. I.e. 9/11. etc. IN targeting the Nazis and Islamic Fascists we are not randomly targeting people. We are eliminating a group that would interfere with us having the freedom to control ourselves. Can’t we agree that we want the freedom to control ourselves?

In a PCT discussion group, this is a very poor choice of words … the law of the Wild West, using the principle: “Eliminate anyone with whom you have a conflict”. Interfereing with another control system’s ability to control is just what conflict is, in PCT. Killing the other person wanting to go through a door is a rather substantial escalation when you could easily have said “After you, Claude” and then gone through the door.

Islamic Fascists, as you call them, presumably think YOU are evil. Who is to say whether you are right or they are? What is the absolute definition of “evil” – by “absolute” I mean “independent of one’s upbringing, biases, and experience”? You and I may agree that Nazis and religious fundamentalists who prefer to kill their opposition than to live with them are people with whom we might be in conflict. But who is the arbiter that decides it is they and not we who are “evil”?

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.

Yep. The rule of the Wild West. My freedom is sacred; yours is a nuisance.

Martin

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

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.06.1855)]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.06.1614EST

Apology accepted.

Thanks. I'll talk more about the conflict thing that Bill mentioned in
a bit. I'll just reply to you here quickly.

Your statement about how you think right wingers are
destroying America is funny because sometimes I feel the
same about left wingers.

Yes. I think it has to do with what variables we're controlling, and
with what gain. I think one of the main variables I control for is a
"middle class society", one where all families can make a comfortable
living and there are no huge wealth disparities. I get depressed when
I go tp places like Mexico and see a few huge mansions surrounded by
shanty town squalor. The US isn't that bad yet but it seems to be
moving in that direction.

I guess I just trust that if the government gives up control, an
individual will step up and fill the void (i.e. build a hospital where
people who have a great need can get medical attention, help the
poor find a place to live, help a child learn how to read and write).

I think this is, indeed, a big difference between the right and the
left, at least my version of the left. The right seems to go on faith;
the left -- my left -- goes on data. The data on healthcare, for
example, is overwhelming. Single payer, government run healthcare,
like our own Medicare, costs less and produces equal or better
outcomes relative to our current free market system. Maybe it's not
supposed to work that way but that's what the data say.

I think groups of individuals will do a better job solving these
problems than the government ever will.

And, again, the data suggest that that's not the case. Individuals are
better at solving their own individual problems, true, but government
guidance more effectively solves problems at the group level. The
government is just individuals getting together to solve their
problems anyway, isn't it? Government works great if you use it
properly (as in the New Deal) and it works lousy if you use it lousily
(as in the Soviet Union and the current US administration).

You mentioned that you think alot of left wingers are not as nice
as right wingers.

Actually, I think that may be just based on my expectations
(reference) for the way people "should" be. I think right wingers
should be nasty and greedy. When, in person, they are not, they seem
really great. I expect lefties to be open minded, interesting and
kind. When they are not they seem like jerks.

Also, I lived in the midwest for a long time so I am kind of a
midwestern liberal, a la Garrison Keillor. I like humanity in general
but no one in particular;-)

I can apppreciate your left wing perspective, even if I disagree.

And I'll try to appreciate yours. I'm actually surrounded by right
wingers these days because my ethnic background is Jewish and lots of
my old friends and relatives have gone over to the neocon dark side
because of Israel. I'm trying to learn to love the person while
disliking the behavior. Obviously I have a ways to go;-)

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2007.12.06.23.03]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.07.2039EST

I asked who is the arbiter when A thinks B is evil and should morally be eliminated, and B thinks A is evil and should morally be eliminated. Jim responded:

The arbiter in my mind is the creator which is where we may part ways.

I don't know your beliefs, but I would assume that you believe the same creator created both A and B. Presumably if He/She/It is to act as arbiter, He/She/It has a mechanism for making the correct decision known to both parties. What is that mechanism? And how is the arbiter's decision made known to both parties so that each can act appropriately?

Martin

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.06.2030)]

Martin Taylor (2007.12.06.23.03)

>From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.07.2039EST

>The arbiter in my mind is the creator which is where we may part ways.

I don't know your beliefs, but I would assume that you believe the
same creator created both A and B. Presumably if He/She/It is to act
as arbiter, He/She/It has a mechanism for making the correct decision
known to both parties. What is that mechanism? And how is the
arbiter's decision made known to both parties so that each can act
appropriately?

Beautifully asked. This was basically what I was meaning to ask Jim
but my error signal was so large it came out as sarcasm and anger.
Thanks for taking over;-)

Best

Rick

···

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

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.07.1034EST

[Martin Taylor 2007.12.06.23.03]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.07.2039EST

I asked who is the arbiter when A thinks B is evil and should morally
be eliminated, and B thinks A is evil and should morally be
eliminated. Jim responded:

The arbiter in my mind is the creator which is where we may part ways.

I don’t know your beliefs, but I would assume that you believe the
same creator created both A and B. Presumably if He/She/It is to act
as arbiter, He/She/It has a mechanism for making the correct decision
known to both parties. What is that mechanism? And how is the
arbiter’s decision made known to both parties so that each can act
appropriately?

Martin
Yes, I agree that the creator created both A and B. You ask a loaded question because what I think is the mechanism for me may be different for you. I can share with you what I believe my mechanisms are–prayer, reflection, and meditation. It has helped me greatly in my life. I can only describe what the mechanism is for me. I do not know the full anatomy of my mechanism. If I did, then I would be trying to be my creator, which I am not. The same would hold true if I tried to describe the full anatomy of your mechanism. I would be trying to be your creator, which I am not. Too many people fall into this trap in churches and in relationships. They look to people as their creator instead of The Creator as their creator. I believe that is the reason why we have people trying to control other people and manipulate them into things that are not good for them. That is why I like MOL. It gives people a nudge back towards the creator. They have to look inwardly. My hope is that they will decide to communicate with the creator, but they have to make that choice internally.

I believe we may both get the message we need to make the “correct” decision to resolve the conflict, but each with a different mechanism. And, the same mechanism may not be used 100% of the time for a person.

Now, if you say your mechanism told you to randomly wipe out people at a mall, then I would consider that as a misinterpretation from the creator. I would have a problem with that.

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

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.07.0820)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.12.07.1034EST) --

Now, if you say your mechanism told you to randomly wipe out people at a
mall, then I would consider that as a misinterpretation from the creator. I
would have a problem with that.

God said to Abraham "Kill me a son". Do you think Abe was
misinterpreting the creator? If so, why is Abraham remembered as a
great prophet rather than a psychopath, like the Mall murderer? If
not, why isn't the creator remembered that way? I'll tell you that if
God had told me to kill my son I would have told him (God to go to
hell.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.07.1151EST

You are only telling half of the story of Abraham. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham intended to obey and God spared his son. God knew that Abraham put the Him, the creator, above people. I don’t think Abraham was misinterpreting God. My example was based on someone walking into a mall to randomly kill people without a message from the creator. I have a difficult time connecting your example with my example. I think the story of Abraham is a good example of how much the creator does love us (he spared Issac, Abraham’s son) and all he wants is a relationship with us. He just wants to be first.

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/07/2007 11:21AM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.07.0820)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.12.07.1034EST) –

Now, if you say your mechanism told you to randomly wipe out people at a
mall, then I would consider that as a misinterpretation from the creator. I
would have a problem with that.

God said to Abraham “Kill me a son”. Do you think Abe was
misinterpreting the creator? If so, why is Abraham remembered as a
great prophet rather than a psychopath, like the Mall murderer? If
not, why isn’t the creator remembered that way? I’ll tell you that if
God had told me to kill my son I would have told him (God to go to
hell.

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

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.07.0930)]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.07.1151EST

You are only telling half of the story of Abraham.

That's correct. The only relevant half.

God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham intended to obey and God
spared his son.

But Abraham didn't know this was going to happen. Neither God nor
Abraham get off the moral hook with me because God said "fooled ya"
just as Abe was plunging in the knife.

God knew that Abraham put the Him, the creator, above people. I don't think Abraham
was misinterpreting God.

I don't think so either. This is not the kind of God I admire, one
that wants you to prove how much you respect him by your willingness
to commit a heinous crime at his behest. How could you respect a god
like that?

My example was based on someone walking into a mall to randomly kill people without a
message from the creator.

Your assuming that he didn't have a message from the creator. What if
he did (many murderers do what they do based on messages from the
creator)? Does that make the murders OK in that case? Or is it only
good to follow the creator's orders when he ends up calling things
off?

> I have a difficult time connecting your example with my example.

Suppose you were camped out with Abraham and one day he said "Jim, I'm
taking Issac here up to that hill to slit his throat. Don't worry,
though, God told me to do it. I'll be back in an hour. Please don't go
to the cops". Not all mall shooters tell their friends what they are
going to do but suppose that the Mall shooter had said something
similar: "Jim, I'm going over to Macy's to kill a few people. Don't
worry. The creator told me to do it". How would you know in which case
it was actually the creator telling the person what to do? And how do
you know in which case God was going to call it off?

Oh, and by the way, God asked people to do some very awful things that
he didn't call off. In one case God told the Hebrews to kill all the
Amalakites, every man, woman and child. The Hebrews got cold feet
about killing the women and children and god got pissed and told them
to listen to him next time or suffer some awful consequence.

I think the story of
Abraham is a good example of how much the creator does love us (he spared
Issac, Abraham's son) and all he wants is a relationship with us. He just
wants to be first.

And I think it's an example of a story that is found in many
mythologies (look up Agamemnon's sacrifice of his daughter
Iphigeneia). It's a great story -- great literature -- but certainly
not a good moral guide, at least according to my morality.

I think if the creator ever tells you to do something that violates
your own moral code you should seek MOL therapy immediately: you have
a severe internal conflict.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.07.1418EST

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/07/2007 12:31PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.07.0930)]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.07.1151EST

You are only telling half of the story of Abraham.

That’s correct. The only relevant half.

God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham intended to obey and God
spared his son.

But Abraham didn’t know this was going to happen. Neither God nor
Abraham get off the moral hook with me because God said “fooled ya”
just as Abe was plunging in the knife.

God knew that Abraham put the Him, the creator, above people. I don’t think Abraham
was misinterpreting God.

I don’t think so either. This is not the kind of God I admire, one
that wants you to prove how much you respect him by your willingness
to commit a heinous crime at his behest. How could you respect a god
like that?

*That’s a good question. I’m glad I have not had to make that call in my own life. The part you are leaving out is that you do not know the complete nature of Abraham’s relationship with God. That is between Abraham and God. I am not sure what I would do if Abraham came to me and told me what he was going to do. It is easy for me to say that I would not stop him because I know how the story ends. But, if Abraham had told me before I knew the ending, I probably would have tried to stop him. *

My example was based on someone walking into a mall to randomly kill people without a
message from the creator.

Your assuming that he didn’t have a message from the creator. What if
he did (many murderers do what they do based on messages from the
creator)? Does that make the murders OK in that case? Or is it only
good to follow the creator’s orders when he ends up calling things
off?

THat is another question. I see President Bush when you ask these questions. Undoubtedly he was going after Saddam because Saddam was trying to assassinate his father. I am not sure what I would have done in the President’s situation. What would you have done?

I did make an assumption that the mall murderer did not have a message from the creator. What if he had a message? I don’t think it would make it okay, but again, have you walked in his shoes or in the shoes of the people that he feels drove him to do it. I can only say that something is not right if he is randomly going to go in and pick people off. I don’t see how that could ever come from the creator. I just accept that some evil behavior is going to happen no matter what I do. I don’t believe we will ever have true peace in this life, but it will not stop me from trying.

I have a difficult time connecting your example with my example.

Suppose you were camped out with Abraham and one day he said “Jim, I’m
taking Issac here up to that hill to slit his throat. Don’t worry,
though, God told me to do it. I’ll be back in an hour. Please don’t go
to the cops”. Not all mall shooters tell their friends what they are
going to do but suppose that the Mall shooter had said something
similar: “Jim, I’m going over to Macy’s to kill a few people. Don’t
worry. The creator told me to do it”. How would you know in which case
it was actually the creator telling the person what to do? And how do
you know in which case God was going to call it off?

Oh, and by the way, God asked people to do some very awful things that
he didn’t call off. In one case God told the Hebrews to kill all the
Amalakites, every man, woman and child. The Hebrews got cold feet
about killing the women and children and god got pissed and told them
to listen to him next time or suffer some awful consequence.

Is this where I interject–the wages of sin are death? I sure wouldn’t want to be on the creator’s bad side. I have enough conflicts of my own.

I think the story of
Abraham is a good example of how much the creator does love us (he spared
Issac, Abraham’s son) and all he wants is a relationship with us. He just
wants to be first.

And I think it’s an example of a story that is found in many
mythologies (look up Agamemnon’s sacrifice of his daughter
Iphigeneia). It’s a great story – great literature – but certainly
not a good moral guide, at least according to my morality.

I think if the creator ever tells you to do something that violates
your own moral code you should seek MOL therapy immediately: you have
a severe internal conflict.

I agree that the story of Abraham is mystical. Not in the new age sense. A virgin birth–that is way out there, but I believe it. I am someone who believes the Bible literally and I also enjoy it as literature.

My perception of some of you who are scientists/researchers is that you believe your scientific method and statistics are the end all be all. You believe they are 100% accurate and free from any bias. No study is ever free from bias. The research is only one piece of the puzzle. It is a piece I enjoy at times, but I recognize that it has its limitations. I recognize that I have my own limitations. I realize that I need to call on my creator to help me overcome them.

*In fact, I often question where this discussion is headed. Are we just putting on a show for others? Is Bill sitting back and taking notes? That’s my paranoia of being observed and watched and judged. I will say I am enjoying being one of the “principal actors” in this drama. I think it may be more real than the limited studies and a snap shot of what our country is discussing. DO you think we could get a slot on Fox News–Wuwert/Marken kind of like Hannity/Colmes? If anything, I guess we are providing examples for Bill to use on other threads. *

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

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.07.1810)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.12.07.1418EST)--

Jim said:

God knew that Abraham put the Him, the creator, above people. I don't
think Abraham
was misinterpreting God.

I replied:

I don't think so either. This is not the kind of God I admire, one
that wants you to prove how much you respect him by your willingness
to commit a heinous crime at his behest. How could you respect a god
like that?

That's a good question. I'm glad I have not had to make that call in my own
life. The part you are leaving out is that you do not know the complete
nature of Abraham's relationship with God.

Yes, and you are leaving it out of your call about the Mall murderer.
If the Mall murderer had a relationship with god like Abraham's would
that excuse him?

I am not sure what I would do if Abraham came to me and told me what he was
going to do. It is easy for me to say that I would not stop him because I
know how the story ends. But, if Abraham had told me before I knew the
ending, I probably would have tried to stop him.

I'm sure you would, because you are, I'm quite sure, a person with
good values. I am sure that if you saw some guy hauling his son up a
hill to kill him you would do everything you could to stop him. You
wouldn't ask him about his relationship with God. You wouldn't ask him
if this was something God had told him he had to do.

I think sorting out what is right and what is wrong is a lot easier
when you don't have to reconcile it with ancient texts. I would argue
that the fact that you would act to keep a father from killing his son
shows that you developed your moral control systems on your own,
without the help of the ancient book. I would also argue that you also
developed the goal of believing that there is wisdom in a particular
ancient book on your own --- with help and guidance from your parents,
of course (which is why the ancient book you revere is the Bible and
not the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita). Since much of what is in the
Bible conflicts with your own morals (for example, you probably think
that it's OK to place statues of Jesus in churches, though this is a
clear violation of the stricture against graven images) you have to
resolve these conflicts (for example, by imagining that the Bible says
something else) or avoid them (by, for example, simply not reading the
Bible -- my ex-Catholic wife tells me that this is the way the
Catholic church deals with the problem).

All in all, it seems to me that it would be a lot easier to be a good
person by just being a good person and not trying to claim that that
goodness was informed by any particular book. Going the book route
just seems like it would always be a source of within person -- to say
nothing of between person -- conflict.

THat is another question. I see President Bush when you ask these questions.
Undoubtedly he was going after Saddam because Saddam was trying to
assassinate his father. I am not sure what I would have done in the
President's situation. What would you have done?

If Saddam had tried to (or even been able to) assassinate my Dad I
would hope that I would do what I would think Jesus would have done:
forgive him.

I did make an assumption that the mall murderer did not have a message from
the creator. What if he had a message? I don't think it would make it okay,

See, I knew you had good morals!

but again, have you walked in his shoes or in the shoes of the people that
he feels drove him to do it. I can only say that something is not right if
he is randomly going to go in and pick people off.

Of course something is not right. He was a very disturbed human being.
All we can do to prevent that kind of thing is try to minimize the
damage such people might cause (through strict gun control, for
example) and, of course, by trying to identify such people and trying
to get them some help.

I don't see how that could ever come from the creator.

I think that's because you want to imagine that the creator has good
values, like yours. But something like that -- or even worse -- could,
indeed, come from the creator -- the creator described in the Bible
anyway. As I said, the Bible has the creator ordering -- and doing --
all kinds of things -- like genocide -- that I am sure conflict with
your good values.

I just accept that some evil behavior is going to happen no matter what I do.

I agree. But I think we can minimize it, especially if we teach people
to listen to their own hearts (which, like yours, are generally good)
rather than listening to what is said in ancient texts. If you listen
to the Bible you get some real mixed messages. You get some very good
ones, like don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't commit adultery ;
some silly ones, like don't make graven images, don't eat bacon and
lobster, don't shave; and some just plain evil ones, like kill the
first born children of your enemy if they are enslaving you.

Is this where I interject--the wages of sin are death? I sure wouldn't want
to be on the creator's bad side. I have enough conflicts of my own.

I think many of these conflicts may be created by your desire to
believe that the creator described in the Bible should be celebrated.
We create our own conflicts, or so says PCT.

My perception of some of you who are scientists/researchers is that you
believe your scientific method and statistics are the end all be all.

That would not be me. Science is great for the times when I want to
try to understand things. But it's not the be all and end all in my
life. Another huge part of my life is loving those I love and
appreciating the things produced by the geniuses who, for all I know,
are being spoken to by God -- not the God of the Bible but the God of
Shakespeare, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Dylan, and, yes, Powers; the
"Observer" that, in some of us, takes on godly form.

If anything, I guess we are providing examples for Bill to use on other threads.

Sure. It's just fun to think about this stuff. And it keeps me away
from doing real work;-)

You're a good guy, Jim. We'll muddle through somehow.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Bill_Powers1]

Jim Wuwert
(2007.12.07.1418EST)–
[From Bill Powers (2007.12.08.0803 MST)]

Rick Marken (2007.12.07.1810) –

I wasn’t setting traps for anyone, but I was right in letting you two
guys work toward a solution yourselves, wasn’t I? I don’t even much care
what the solution was – it’s better than what went before it.

I’d like to make a suggestion, actually following up on one of Kenny
Kitzke’s comments about system concepts and religion. Just for a moment,
let’s forget about whether there is or isn’t a God, and focus on what it
means to ponder that idea. When you’re thinking about ideas that affect
you, like the dangers from Osama or from Iranian clerics, you tend to put
the situation in terms of personal fears and other reactions like anger
and outrage. So you argue, “If he did something to me, and threatens
to do more, why shouldn’t I just exterminate him and everyone like him?
Isn’t it just human nature to protect yourself and your loved
ones?”

But when you think of God, you don’t think the same way. You ask,
“Didn’t God create Osama and the clerics, too? Why did he do that?
How can God allow these things to happen when I’ve never harmed those
other people? How can I make sense of this situation from the point of
view that God would take?”

Now you see yourself as just one of many human beings spread out over the
world in the sight of God, and you’re trying to grasp something that you
know is beyond you, yet that is still vastly important. You’re trying to
find order and goodness in the chaotic relationships that hold among
human beings, and in the feelings that war for precedence inside every
individual. Revenge or forgiveness? Fear or hope? Peace or war?

When you try to grasp, or accept, God’s view of human affairs, you’re
still doing this from a mere human’s point of view, naturally, but you’re
starting to get a glimmer of something at a new level, the level I call
system concepts. Instead of thinking how to save your own neck, you’re
puzzling over how we could arrange our affairs, our principles, so as to
save everyone’s neck – even Osama’s. The God-like point of view is not
identified with any one person’s affairs but encompasses all of them.
When one person runs amok and kills one other or eight others or 3000
others, it is the same problem: something has gone wrong with a human
mind that has led to tragedy for a large number of others, just as if the
person had been infected by a mutated virus which brought down many
others, too. Blame and retribution become irrelevant; what matters is how
to fix the problem, cure those affected by it as far as possible, and
keep it from happening again. Those tiny human beings are shouting for
vengeance, but from the point of view of God, you can say “Leave the
vengeance – if any – to Me. Seek out your own salvation with diligence.
Tat Tvam Asi.” You say and hear that in whatever language you
speak.

If there were a God who could by a simple act of Will cure all the
world’s problems, there would be no need for us human beings, nor would
there be any understandable excuse for God’s behavior. But if the
God-viewpoint is seen as a sketch of an attainable human viewpoint, and
if the solutions to the world’s problems remain the responsibility of the
human beings who created them, then the God-viewpoint is highly relevant.
It shows us a place to stand from which we can move the world. From that
point of view we can make perfect sense of loving our enemies, turning
the other cheek, doing as we would be done by, going an extra mile with
those would would force us to travel the first one, seeking the Kingdom
of Heaven within us. Is that what Christ was trying to tell us about?
System concepts? I have thought so for a long time.

Why quibble about whether a God really, truly, exists? If he didn’t
exist, as someone said in French, it would be necessary to invent him.
What matters is the point of view to which we are led when we try to
guess what God would want us to do. That’s where we will find, or create,
the answers.

Best,

Bill P.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.08.1300)]

Bill Powers (2007.12.08.0803 MST) --

Just for a moment, let's forget about whether there is or isn't a God, and focus on what it
means to ponder that idea.

It would be nice to see a believer do this. I have never seen it
before. I look forward to seeing where this discussion goes. I won't
participate because there is always the possibility that I will go
ballistic-)

Best

Rick

···

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

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.08.1707EST

Jim Wuwert (2007.12.07.1418EST)–
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Bill Powers powers_w@FRONTIER.NET
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/08/2007 10:57AM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Bill Powers (2007.12.08.0803 MST)]

Rick Marken (2007.12.07.1810) –

I wasn’t setting traps for anyone, but I was right in letting you two guys work toward a solution yourselves, wasn’t I? I don’t even much care what the solution was – it’s better than what went before it.

I’d like to make a suggestion, actually following up on one of Kenny Kitzke’s comments about system concepts and religion. Just for a moment, let’s forget about whether there is or isn’t a God, and focus on what it means to ponder that idea. When you’re thinking about ideas that affect you, like the dangers from Osama or from Iranian clerics, you tend to put the situation in terms of personal fears and other reactions like anger and outrage. So you argue, “If he did something to me, and threatens to do more, why shouldn’t I just exterminate him and everyone like him? Isn’t it just human nature to protect yourself and your loved ones?”

But when you think of God, you don’t think the same way. You ask, “Didn’t God create Osama and the clerics, too? Why did he do that? How can God allow these things to happen when I’ve never harmed those other people? How can I make sense of this situation from the point of view that God would take?”

Now you see yourself as just one of many human beings spread out over the world in the sight of God, and you’re trying to grasp something that you know is beyond you, yet that is still vastly important. You’re trying to find order and goodness in the chaotic relationships that hold among human beings, and in the feelings that war for precedence inside every individual. Revenge or forgiveness? Fear or hope? Peace or war?

When you try to grasp, or accept, God’s view of human affairs, you’re still doing this from a mere human’s point of view, naturally, but you’re starting to get a glimmer of something at a new level, the level I call system concepts. Instead of thinking how to save your own neck, you’re puzzling over how we could arrange our affairs, our principles, so as to save everyone’s neck – even Osama’s. The God-like point of view is not identified with any one person’s affairs but encompasses all of them. When one person runs amok and kills one other or eight others or 3000 others, it is the same problem: something has gone wrong with a human mind that has led to tragedy for a large number of others, just as if the person had been infected by a mutated virus which brought down many others, too. Blame and retribution become irrelevant; what matters is how to fix the problem, cure those affected by it as far as possible, and keep it from happening again. Those tiny human beings are shouting for vengeance, but from the point of view of God, you can say “Leave the vengeance – if any – to Me. Seek out your own salvation with diligence. Tat Tvam Asi.” You say and hear that in whatever language you speak.

I am with you up until this point. I believe in the whole “leave the vengeance to God” I am with you and can agree with that. I think that the U.S. could have done some things to prevent the conflict with OSAMA–much could have been done in the Clinton years with diplomacy. Or what about Ronald Reagan asking Gorbachev to tear down the wall? He just asked. What if we were to ask OSAMA to please stop? I would like to see that tale played out. I am open to it. I think I could agree with that based on what you said above. If you had stopped here, then I would have been good to go with you, but there is more…

If there were a God who could by a simple act of Will cure all the world’s problems, there would be no need for us human beings, nor would there be any understandable excuse for God’s behavior. But if the God-viewpoint is seen as a sketch of an attainable human viewpoint, and if the solutions to the world’s problems remain the responsibility of the human beings who created them, then the God-viewpoint is highly relevant.

I believe that God could cure all of the world’s problems and will someday as mentioned in the book of Revelation. Evil still exists today because God allows it. It is alll part of a bigger story that I do not think I will ever fully understand on this side of life. I may catch glimpses of God’s viewpoint, but I could not ever understand in human form all the reasons why some things occur. It would be impossible for me because I am not the creator. I could only know why if he told me because he is my creator.

It shows us a place to stand from which we can move the world. From that point of view we can make perfect sense of loving our enemies, turning the other cheek, doing as we would be done by, going an extra mile with those would would force us to travel the first one, seeking the Kingdom of Heaven within us. Is that what Christ was trying to tell us about? System concepts? I have thought so for a long time.

I am back with you here. I believe that the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, if we acknowledge that Jesus is the way to receiving it. I would agree that Jesus was trying to teach everyone about systems concept. That is why I like PCT so much. I feel that it is a reflection of what I already believe.

Why quibble about whether a God really, truly, exists? If he didn’t exist, as someone said in French, it would be necessary to invent him. What matters is the point of view to which we are led when we try to guess what God would want us to do. That’s where we will find, or create, the answers.

I am not with you here. I think God does exist, but I will say that all of us could do better to stop and humble ourselves when we have to make a choice–by asking God, what would you have me do to help bring the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth.

Best,

Bill P.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1178 - Release Date: 12/8/2007 11:59 AM

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

[Jim_Wuwert]

From Jim Wuwert 2007.12.08.1731EST

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Sent by: “Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)” CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Date: 12/07/2007 09:08PM
Subject: Re: Robertson’s Science and Faith

[From Rick Marken (2007.12.07.1810)]

Jim Wuwert (2007.12.07.1418EST)–

Jim said:

God knew that Abraham put the Him, the creator, above people. I don’t
think Abraham
was misinterpreting God.

I replied:

I don’t think so either. This is not the kind of God I admire, one
that wants you to prove how much you respect him by your willingness
to commit a heinous crime at his behest. How could you respect a god
like that?

That’s a good question. I’m glad I have not had to make that call in my own
life. The part you are leaving out is that you do not know the complete
nature of Abraham’s relationship with God.

Yes, and you are leaving it out of your call about the Mall murderer.
If the Mall murderer had a relationship with god like Abraham’s would
that excuse him?

I am not sure what I would do if Abraham came to me and told me what he was
going to do. It is easy for me to say that I would not stop him because I
know how the story ends. But, if Abraham had told me before I knew the
ending, I probably would have tried to stop him.

I’m sure you would, because you are, I’m quite sure, a person with
good values. I am sure that if you saw some guy hauling his son up a
hill to kill him you would do everything you could to stop him. You
wouldn’t ask him about his relationship with God. You wouldn’t ask him
if this was something God had told him he had to do.

I think sorting out what is right and what is wrong is a lot easier
when you don’t have to reconcile it with ancient texts. I would argue
that the fact that you would act to keep a father from killing his son
shows that you developed your moral control systems on your own,
without the help of the ancient book. I would also argue that you also
developed the goal of believing that there is wisdom in a particular
ancient book on your own — with help and guidance from your parents,
of course (which is why the ancient book you revere is the Bible and
not the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita). Since much of what is in the
Bible conflicts with your own morals (for example, you probably think
that it’s OK to place statues of Jesus in churches, though this is a
clear violation of the stricture against graven images) you have to
resolve these conflicts (for example, by imagining that the Bible says
something else) or avoid them (by, for example, simply not reading the
Bible – my ex-Catholic wife tells me that this is the way the
Catholic church deals with the problem).

All in all, it seems to me that it would be a lot easier to be a good
person by just being a good person and not trying to claim that that
goodness was informed by any particular book. Going the book route
just seems like it would always be a source of within person – to say
nothing of between person – conflict.

Let’s stop right here. Isn’t this what PCT is all about–within person conflict. Conflict stems from the internal messages bein played out within. The book route (i.e. the Bible) is a great route. Jesus always spoke in parables because he knew that is the only way we would truly understand what was going on aroound us. To me the Bible reveals who I can be if I am in a relationship with God. It is not a long list of if you do this, then you get this. That would be legalism, which according to the book is sin. I like the Bible because I think it challenges us to go up to the systems level, but we never will fuly understand why things work together like they do at least not on this side of life.

THat is another question. I see President Bush when you ask these questions.
Undoubtedly he was going after Saddam because Saddam was trying to
assassinate his father. I am not sure what I would have done in the
President’s situation. What would you have done?

If Saddam had tried to (or even been able to) assassinate my Dad I
would hope that I would do what I would think Jesus would have done:
forgive him.

I think the President coould have done this and gained more respect in the process. His approval ratings would be shooting through the roof right now. But, everyone has their part to play. Even Jesus had Judas.

I did make an assumption that the mall murderer did not have a message from
the creator. What if he had a message? I don’t think it would make it okay,

See, I knew you had good morals!

but again, have you walked in his shoes or in the shoes of the people that
he feels drove him to do it. I can only say that something is not right if
he is randomly going to go in and pick people off.

Of course something is not right. He was a very disturbed human being.
All we can do to prevent that kind of thing is try to minimize the
damage such people might cause (through strict gun control, for
example) and, of course, by trying to identify such people and trying
to get them some help.

I don’t see how that could ever come from the creator.

I think that’s because you want to imagine that the creator has good
values, like yours. But something like that – or even worse – could,
indeed, come from the creator – the creator described in the Bible
anyway. As I said, the Bible has the creator ordering – and doing –
all kinds of things – like genocide – that I am sure conflict with
your good values.

I just accept that some evil behavior is going to happen no matter what I do.

I agree. But I think we can minimize it, especially if we teach people
to listen to their own hearts (which, like yours, are generally good)
rather than listening to what is said in ancient texts. If you listen
to the Bible you get some real mixed messages. You get some very good
ones, like don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t commit adultery ;
some silly ones, like don’t make graven images, don’t eat bacon and
lobster, don’t shave; and some just plain evil ones, like kill the
first born children of your enemy if they are enslaving you.

I think you have to look at the context of each verse to understand what is being communicated. The Bible says something to the effect-Paul take the cloak to Tarsus. I do not get up everyday and figure out how I am going to take the cloak to Tarsus. But, I believe that that verse fits as part of the story that is relevant foor the entire Bible.

Is this where I interject–the wages of sin are death? I sure wouldn’t want
to be on the creator’s bad side. I have enough conflicts of my own.

I think many of these conflicts may be created by your desire to
believe that the creator described in the Bible should be celebrated.
We create our own conflicts, or so says PCT.

Yes, i think the creator will be celebrated. Every knee will bow, someday. I do not believe we are the overall creator of confllict, but we have made a choice via Adam and Eve to have conflict exist in this dimension. We continue to facillitate the conflicts or find peace by making choices to keep them alive via our mouths. I believe that life and death is in the power of the tongue. Just like the words I am speaking on this message are facilitating this discussion. When you experience error, you respond.

My perception of some of you who are scientists/researchers is that you
believe your scientific method and statistics are the end all be all.

That would not be me. Science is great for the times when I want to
try to understand things. But it’s not the be all and end all in my
life. Another huge part of my life is loving those I love and
appreciating the things produced by the geniuses who, for all I know,
are being spoken to by God – not the God of the Bible but the God of
Shakespeare, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Dylan, and, yes, Powers; the
“Observer” that, in some of us, takes on godly form.

If anything, I guess we are providing examples for Bill to use on other threads.

Sure. It’s just fun to think about this stuff. And it keeps me away
from doing real work;-)

I agree that it is fun to think about this stuff. What is real work?

You’re a good guy, Jim. We’ll muddle through somehow.

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hello Jim,

I don't know if I got your point of explaining the mechanisms that's guiding
you through your life, and I didn't read all of conversation. I read just
few parts. By my view of the problem is here...

Jim wrote :

I can share with you what I believe my mechanisms are--prayer, reflection,

and meditation. It has helped me greatly in my life.

Boris wrote :
My starting point of disccusion is PCT and that we are all hierarchical
control systems. And of course that perception is everything there is.

I think it doesn't matter where the perception is coming from. It can be
from God, Big-Bang, Statical Universe, Einstein's Universe...from
Prana-yama...from Zen...

I think the most important thing is that you know that perception is
everything there is, and how you "deal" with these perceptions to reach your
final goal...to reduce INTRINSIC ERRORS TO ZERO...or as I'm informed you say
it in Church to find your soul peace...

I thnk it's DOESN'T MATTER how you CALL intepretation of these
perceptions...I think it only matters how you find your way to reduce
"intrinsic error" or as can call it God.
You said you do it with MEDITATION, PRAY, REFLECTIONS... that's fine with
me. I wish you luck. And I deeply respect your decision. And if other's are
trying to find the same "God" or reducing "intrinsic error" in BUDISM OR
ZEN-BUDDISM it's also fine with me. I respect that also deeply.

So if we let each other trying to find our own way in reorganizing our
nervous system to reduce our own "intrinsic errors", there can be
cooperation between people not the eternal conflict, who is right about the
way how we find the way to reduce "intrinsic error". So if joining to PCT
did give you these fundamental axiom of life, then I think you got the point
of PCT. I appologize Bill if I missinterpret the point of PCT...but that's
my deep belief.

I think the most important is to understand what is happening to all of
us...I think we are simply CONTROLING PERCEPTION to feel good. And that I
find with Bill's PCT. I'm not asking others or quarrel with them, how to
find my happiness. I know that I'm my own creator.

I'm not doing MOL, I'm simply meditating with my phones on my ears,
listening to my prefered music. I go sometimes with my friends... I play
sport, when I feel to...doing what I feel that will reduce my "intrinsic
error" or my God...
That's all parts of the way to find a good feeling...in organism, in mind...
And I think, that GOOD FEELING is always very close to ZERO INTRINSIC
ERROR...I think everything is in listening to our own bodies and mind's and
in trying to control that GOOD FEELING.

Somebody read books, somebody "meditate" with PCT, and some find the
possibility of reorganizing their nervous system in walking through woods,
some in growing plant's... They are doing what's calming them, and that's
where they find their soul peace in that's what I think they do, to
counteract the disturbances, which "removed intrinsic balance".

I think that PCT don't give you the answer how to "balance" your intrinsic
error or to find God. It explains what is happening, so we can try to find
our own way to that critical point.
There are milion possibilities. And all it matters is, that YOU FIND THE
RIGHT ONE FOR YOU. NOBODY CAN DO THAT FOR YOU. ONLY YOU CAN DO IT. And if
you try to control other's to do it, then I think the point is missed.

The human who find ZERO INTRINSIC ERROR OR GOD OR WHATEVER...will probably
not control other people...

So I think it's the optimal choice in not controling other people, because
we can catch in conflict with them and "ruin intrinsic balance" to both of
us. And the conflict can escalate to wars if we are pushing too far and
trying to control people with all kinds of means. We are ussually just
increasing their perception of "intrinsic error".

So what I wanted to say is "live and let live", "reduce and let reduce" :))))

Best,

Boris

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2007.12.09.0722 MST)]

A wonderful post, Boris. I think it captures both the religious and the
nonreligious view of what life is about for human beings. No doubt some
will argue with you, but your respect for the religious motive in life
will keep them from hating you.

Once there is peace between religion and science, perhaps scientists will
begin to see that behind religion there are phenomena of conscious
existence that are worthy of attention, and that one doesn’t
automatically abandon science just by thinking about them. And perhaps
religious people will begin to see that they haven’t understood
everything in this area with total clarity, either. When either side
relaxes a bit, so will the other. That’s just how conflict works in human
beings. Once everyone is controlling comfortably again without fearing a
surprise attack, we can find the common ground and start conversing like
reasonable adults.

Isn’t it a little amazing to find that we can actually do that?

Best.

Bill P.