scientific fact regarding coercion

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Bruce Nevin (991112.1034 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991111.0820)

···

At 07:22 AM 11/11/1999 -0800, Richard Marken wrote:

We have as much scientific "fact" regarding coercion as
we do about any other aspect of control. Coercion is a
well understood, easily modeled control phenomenon. The
only "scientific" problem with coercion is that people
don't want to use the word "coercion" to describe coercion.

Coercion as overwhelming use of force to control while in conflict with
another control system is well understood and easily modelled. No model has
been designed, implemented, and tested of coercion by threat. This is
because no model has been designed, implemented, and tested of communication.

  Bruce Nevin

2

from [ Marc Abrams (991112.1959) ]

[From Bruce Nevin (991112.1034 EDT)]

Coercion as overwhelming use of force to control while in conflict with
another control system is well understood and easily modelled. No model

has

been designed, implemented, and tested of coercion by threat. This is
because no model has been designed, implemented, and tested of

communication.

Very nicely put Bruce. Any ideas on where to begin?

Marc

3

[From Bruce Nevin (991112.1112 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (991112.1959)--

Me (991112.1034 EDT):

Coercion as overwhelming use of force to control while in conflict
with another control system is well understood and easily modelled.
No model has been designed, implemented, and tested of coercion by
threat. This is because no model has been designed, implemented,
and tested of communication.

Marc:

Any ideas on where to begin?

You have to figure out symbolization before you can model communication.
Martin has some ideas about communication in his "layered protocol" writings.

Threat and blandishment are formally identical. One control system is able
to determine the disposition of some variable that the other wishes to
control. Let's call them Ace and Deuce, respectively. To communicate the
threat or the promised reward Ace in some way brings to Deuce's attention
the fact that Ace is controlling this variable in a way that Deuce cannot
counter. Ace may also need to remind Deuce that Deuce wishes to control
that variable, or perhaps awaken a desire to control it that previously had
not occurred to Deuce. This is what they call "motivating" people.

Threats and blandishments are communicated as conditions upon Deuce's
control of some entirely different variable in a way that Ace desires: If
you do x in thus and such a way (or, alternatively, if you do not), then
the threat will be carried out, or the reward will be delivered.

Except for the mystery about communication, all this is pretty
straightforward -- and all of this is from the point of view of the
dominant control system, Ace. Let's look at the subordinate control system,
Deuce.

When the threat or blandishment is communicated, Deuce must believe that it
is a true condition, a property of Deuce's environment to which Ace happens
to have called Deuce's attention. Without credibility, neither a threat nor
a blandishment is effective.

Deuce controls both terms of the conditional in imagination. This is what
it's like if I do what Ace wants (possible internal conflict, the reward
delivered or the threat averted). This is what it's like if I don't (the
threat carried out or the reward foregone). Credibility gets established
when Deuce first does this controlling in imagination. There are three
possibilities: the condition that Ace offers is credible, or it is not, or
Deuce is not sure.

If it matters little to Deuce -- it's easy to help Ace out in this matter
and there's no internal conflict about it -- then uncertainty about Ace's
credibility matters little. If it does matter, Deuce probably does some
checking. Does Ace really control that variable? Would Deuce lose a
conflict with Ace? Various scenarios can develop here.

About the variable that Ace controls--the punishment or the reward--there
is also the question of how much it matters to Deuce. Deuce compares the
imagined consequences of one choice against the imagined consequences of
the other.

Suppose Deuce complies with a threat, or complies for the sake of a
promised reward. Deuce changes the reference and/or gain for the variable x
designated by Ace. This variable x is a different variable from the
inducement (the threat or reward variable). If Deuce already was
controlling that variable x with some value different from the value that
Ace wants (Deuce's new reference value), that puts Deuce in internal
conflict at the level of whatever control system(s) set that original
reference; likewise if Deuce wants the same thing now, but Deuce's
internally generated reference diverges in the future from the value that
is tied (through communication) to the threat or reward, the value that Ace
wants. If Deuce doesn't care about that variable, there is no internal
conflict. I agree with Bill that if Deuce does care, the values will
eventually diverge and there will be either internal or external conflict.

Deuce may also control a higher-level variable something like "I should be
controlling my inputs according to my own lights, thank you very much" that
would result in conflict even where the lower-level variable itself is a
"don't care". This seems to be an important bit of self-concept in some
people, less so in others. Some people are more like dogs, some more like
cats. In addition, its prevalence in populations seems to be a cultural
variable, or perhaps it is only the ability to lower the gain on it that is
a cultural variable, for the sake of learning from an expert, say.

A start might be to model parts of the above interaction without involving
communication. You would need to re-cast it with only one control system
together with certain properties of its environment. The control system
must control a variable in a not-desired state in order to avoid
anticipated undesired values of some other variable, where the effect of
one variable on the other is mediated through insentient cause-effect
chains in the environment rather than by another autonomous control system.
I don't think that has been done. Maybe it requires control in imagination
followed by control closed through the environment as I have speculated
above. The fact that the control system controls the consequence in
imagination -- imagines incurring it by action and avoiding it by inaction
(or the converse, as the case may be) -- and then pursues the most desired
alternative (or the least feared one, as the case may be) is a measure of
credibility: is that imagined consequence a true property of the
environment or not?

To model the effect of one variable on another mediated through a
conflicting autonomous control system (where one variable is the subject of
a threat or promise, and the other is the contended variable) requires
communication of the threat. Once the threat has been communicated and
believed, the above would do, I think. But I could be wrong.

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 07:59 PM 11/12/1999 -0500, Marc Abrams wrote:

4

[From Bill Powers (991113.0400 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (991112.1112 EDT)--

Threat and blandishment are formally identical. One control system is able
to determine the disposition of some variable that the other wishes to
control.

Rather than starting with logical deductions (though I would not object
strenuously to anything you said in this post), it might serve us better to
talk about our experiences with this sort of thing. Data first.

Bullies, in my experience, do not confine themselves to threats and
blandishments. First they beat you or someone near you up to demonstrate
what they can do any time they wish, and to show you who has the power.
_Then_ they communicate the conditions: do what I want or I'll do that to
you again. Have you ever been bullied or watched someone else being bullied?

Tim Carey will no doubt have something to say about this. For my part, in
my childhood I often experienced bullying, largely from seeing it happen to
someone else and trying to stop it, moving gracefully from the role of
rescuer to that of victim. Some of the bullies were other kids, some were
teachers. I have met unreformed bullies later in life, many in suits. There
seems to be something about causing pain in others and dominating them that
some people find pleasurable, or at least useful and not distasteful.

One reason for the way I have argued about coercion is that if someone is
trying to control me, it makes little difference to me whether I happen to
want to do what I'm being made to do. If I know that any deviation on my
part will be corrected by force, I don't feel free even when there is no
force being applied. I can sense the walls of the cage even when I'm not
battering against them. To feel that I'm in control of my life, I have to
know that I could do something else if I changed my mind.

This is why I found it hard to understand that some people don't feel
coerced if they happen to want to do what they would otherwise be forced to
do. I find it distracting and unpleasant to be hovered over by someone
watching my every move to make sure I do everything right, even if I'm
doing everything right and never get corrected. Just knowing that I'm
confined to someone else's concept of the right way takes away all my sense
of being in control: it's not my higher levels, but someone else's, that
determine what I do.

Am I to understand that I'm the only one who feels this way? Perhaps I
should be getting counseled instead of spouting off.

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Kenny Kitzke (991113.1000EST)]

<Bill Powers (991113.0400 MDT)>

<Am I to understand that I'm the only one who feels this way?>

No, you are not alone. I suspect you have much company. But, it might be
wise for you to understand that some people feel different about your
perception.

For example, you might want to try to imagine and understand how it feels to
be able to go up a level from the quite natural human perceptional reference
of wanting to be in control of one's own life. In other words, to be able to
perceive that willingly giving up your wants, literally being willing to
allow someone else to control your behavior and your very wants, satisfies a
higher or more important reference perception than personal freedom.

For Christians, like myself, that more higher or more important reference
perception is love for other people. It is why a son willingly submits his
will to his father's will, why a wife willingly submits her will to her
husband's will and why a man willingly submits his will to the will of his
Lord, and Savior, Jesus the Christ.

<Perhaps I should be getting counseled instead of spouting off.>

That would be a choice for you to make, willingly, without any coercion at
all.

Respectfully,

Kenny

6

[From Rick Marken (991113.0850)]

Bruce Nevin (991112.1034 EDT)

Coercion as overwhelming use of force to control while in
conflict with another control system is well understood
and easily modelled. No model has been designed, implemented,
and tested of coercion by threat.

Perhaps. But I think the _phenomenon_ of coercion by threat
is far more familiar (and better documented) than coercion
by direct force. The only instances of coercion by direct force
that I have witnessed have been the very rare cases where
a grown up actually uses physically force to get a child to do
something (like the parent dragging the child away from a video
game). But I have witnessed many actual (and simulated, in the
movies) instances of control by threat of force; a parent
forcing a child to stop talking under threat of a spanking; a
bully forcing a peer to perform some humiliating activity under
threat of being beaten; a thief leading hostages around at
gunpoint . The historical record is filled with examples
of coercion by threat of force: slavery, exile, religious
conversion, etc.

So we may not be able to model coercion by threat of force.
But, as Bill Powers (991113.0400 MDT) said (immitating me;-))

Data first.

The fact that we can't yet build a model of coercion by threat of
force (it would have to be able to perceive some pretty complex
aspects of the world -- like "credible threat") doesn't mean
that there is no phenomenon of threat of force. The same is true
of sequence control, for example. Just because we have not yet
built a completet model of sequence control doesn't mean that
there is no such thing as sequence control; in fact, my little
sequence control demo clearly demonstrates that seqeunce control
is a phenomenon.

You don't have to be able to model a phenomenon to know that
it is a real control phenomenon; all you have to do is know
how to test to see if control is involved. As Bill says, data
first!!

Bill Powers (991113.0400 MDT)

This is why I found it hard to understand that some people
don't feel coerced if they happen to want to do what they
would otherwise be forced to do. I find it distracting and
unpleasant to be hovered over by someone watching my every
move to make sure I do everything right, even if I'm doing
everything right and never get corrected. Just knowing that
I'm confined to someone else's concept of the right way takes
away all my sense of being in control: it's not my higher
levels, but someone else's, that determine what I do.

Am I to understand that I'm the only one who feels this way?

You are not the only one. I feel exactly the same way. I know
that my wife and kids feel that way too (I'll won't tell you
how I know; let's just say I am better at rooting out the
coercion practiced by others than the coercion practived
by myself ;-)).

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

7

[From Bruce Abbott (991113.1200 EST)]

Bill Powers (991113.0400 MDT) --

Just knowing that I'm
confined to someone else's concept of the right way takes away all my sense
of being in control: it's not my higher levels, but someone else's, that
determine what I do.

Am I to understand that I'm the only one who feels this way? Perhaps I
should be getting counseled instead of spouting off.

Pavlov would have said that the "freedom reflex" is especially strong in
you. He recognized that the ability to tolerate restraints imposed by
outside agencies is subject to wide individual variation: although most of
his dogs submitted easily to the loose restraints of the harness (used to
keep the dog properly oriented on the table), a small minority did not.
They attended more to the restraints than to the experimental stimuli and
failed to condition normally.

Whether you need counceling would depend on how well you have been able to
fend off attempts by others to restrain your options, or failing that, how
well you have been able to adapt to the restraints imposed. Sometimes it is
better to give up further attempts to control (at least until conditions
change) rather than remain in a chronic state of stress. As one who as a
child was subject to constant bullying, and who lacking the ability to bring
make it stop, I can attest to the efficacy of the latter strategy.

Regards,

Bruce

8

[From Bruce Gregory (991113.1625 EST)]

Rick Marken (991113.0850)

You don't have to be able to model a phenomenon to know that
it is a real control phenomenon; all you have to do is know
how to test to see if control is involved. As Bill says, data
first!!

One of the problems with coercion is that it is relatively easy to recognize
when we are talking about a bully, but much harder to get a handle on when
talking about society as a whole. It seems to me that we are much more
willing to accept rules when we can see that they are even-handedly applied.
Everyone (except emergency vehicles) is expected to keep to the right and
stay off the shoulders. Social coercion seems to become an issue when one
group is treated differently than another--when one group has to wear yellow
stars and live in ghettos. The Soviet system seemed to be a system which
outsiders perceived to be more coercive than those who lived in it. This
seems to emerge as we listen to Eastern Europeans looking back with
nostalgia on the security they lost with the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Bruce Gregory

9

[From Bill Powers (991214.0213 MDT)]

Bruce Abbott (991113.1200 EST)]

Pavlov would have said that the "freedom reflex" is especially strong in
you. He recognized that the ability to tolerate restraints imposed by
outside agencies is subject to wide individual variation: although most of
his dogs submitted easily to the loose restraints of the harness (used to
keep the dog properly oriented on the table), a small minority did not.
They attended more to the restraints than to the experimental stimuli and
failed to condition normally.

Dogs are in a special relation to human beings; they have evolved to be
what seems to us as worshipful or lovingly submissive to humans. Few other
animals seem to come so easily to have such an extremely trusting attitude
toward us. Mary and I were remarking just yesterday -- I forget the context
-- on how most dogs are totally dependent on their human masters for food,
while cats -- at least country cats -- quite often can feed themselves by
hunting. The submissiveness and dependence of the two species are
correspondingly (?) different. Pavlov chose his experimental subjects wisely.

Pavlov, of course, was selling his concept of reflexes and saw them
everywhere. I, on the other hand, am selling control theory, and consider
the phenomenon of a "freedom reflex" to be more likely a simple
manifestation of control. Restraints are passive disturbances; an animal
that simply submitted to them without a struggle would find it very hard to
survive in the wild. Dogs, in their special relation to human beings, might
find it easier than other animals would to submit to restraints imposed by
a human being, but a wolf-like breed would be less likely to do so, I
should think.

Whether you need counceling would depend on how well you have been able to
fend off attempts by others to restrain your options, or failing that, how
well you have been able to adapt to the restraints imposed. Sometimes it is
better to give up further attempts to control (at least until conditions
change) rather than remain in a chronic state of stress. As one who as a
child was subject to constant bullying, and who lacking the ability to bring
make it stop, I can attest to the efficacy of the latter strategy.

I think that the effects of traumatic experiences arise primarily, and
except for lasting physical damage probably exclusively, not from what is
done to us but from what we learn to do to counteract effects on us that we
don't like. As you imply, we adapt to what we can't control, meaning that
we find other ways to satisfy our needs and desires when the ways we first
try are thwarted. However, unless there is a concerted and deliberate
attempt by someone else to force us into submission (as with a bully), I
think we generally treat social obstacles as we treat any other aspect of
the world. We learn how to achieve what matters to us more by giving up
control of what matters less. Since I can't fly, I walk -- but I assure you
that I don't walk the 13 miles from where I live to get to downtown
Durango. People don't always settle for adapting themselves to the
environment.

Adapting to restraints is not the same as submitting to them. One always
adapts to them because to do otherwise would be to fight endless losing
battles. But submitting to them in a social setting is a different matter.
I think we all learn to avoid direct conflict, and if this means appearing
to comply with restraints imposed by other people, that is what we do.
Submitting, however, in the sense of giving up one's goals altogether in
favor of those another person wants to impose on us, is another matter. To
get a person to submit in that sense, I think, requires measures extreme
enough to force reorganization, and that gets very unpleasant. You go
beyond incidental pain to deliberate torture. And it is not a good idea to
submit in that sense; if you let someone else set your goals, your own
ability to set them atrophies or never develops (my reply to Kenny). And
anyway, when you grow up enough to think straight about these things, you
eventually realize that you _can't_ adopt anyone else's goals. All you can
do is set up your own goals in a way that you _imagine_ is what the other
person wants.

I was able to avoid submitting to the pressures exerted on me in my
childhood and youth, but I can't say that what I learned as ways of doing
this were all admirable ways of behaving. The problem with being a child
trying to maintain independence is that the ways you think of for doing
that are childish. It has taken me a lifetime to recognize and take down
some of those defenses, and I probably won't finish the job before I die.

One useful thing I learned, while compulsively reliving bad experiences,
was to try to shift the focus from the external situation to the internal
one, and ask what I learned to do to protect myself. That, after all, is
all that is left of the bad experience. Often, making that shift, I have
realized that whatever I learned to do then -- in a flash! -- I am still
doing. And sometimes this realization has led to the futher realization
that I don't have to do it any more. What a relief!

Best,

Bill P.

10

[From Bill Powers (991214.0323 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (991113.1000EST)--

For example, you might want to try to imagine and understand how it feels to
be able to go up a level from the quite natural human perceptional reference
of wanting to be in control of one's own life. In other words, to be able to
perceive that willingly giving up your wants, literally being willing to
allow someone else to control your behavior and your very wants, satisfies a
higher or more important reference perception than personal freedom.

I have been through something like that, although I didn't imagine that the
"someone else" was anyone other than me. What I did do was to realize that
the "self" I thought so important was not the highest level in me, but only
a construct of rationality and accidental characteristics.

Giving up personal freedom is not such a good idea if it also means giving
up personal responsibility. While giving up responsibility for the bad
aspects of yourself can be a great relief, you have to be prepared to take
responsibility for the New You. Pretending that your own thoughts and new
understandings are coming from God is not what I would consider a good way
to take responsibility.
In fact it's a good way to fool yourself into thinking that every thought
that pops into your head must be right because God is putting it there.

On the subject of personal responsibility, consider the Ten Commandments.
It's all very well to have a set of moral principles to guide us,
especially if we can be sure others have adopted them, too. But is that the
end of the story? Is there no _reason why_ it would be a good idea to adopt
them? The only _reason_ the Christian religion ever gave me for living up
to them is that if I do live up to them, God will reward me with eternal
life, and if I don't, I will be tortured horribly forever. Apparently, the
only reason Christians have for being good is to get the reward or avoid
the punishment.

It was a great revelation to me when, in college, I took a philosophy
course on Ethics. In this course were reviewed the major ideas about ethics
that people had worked out over the ages (starting long before Christ).
What was a revelation to me was that there could be a basis for moral
principles, a basis in what I would now recognize as system concepts, but
which then were presented just as more general principles. This meant that
I could work out _for myself_ why it was probably a bad idea to condone
murder. I didn't have to take God's word for it (or the word of someone who
insisted he was speaking for God). And I ended up with a much sounder and
more reliable basis for not condoning or doing murder: accepting murder
would not lead to the kind of world in which I wanted to live. The same, of
course, applied to all other moral principles.

If someone can't work out for himself why it's a bad idea to condone murder
and all the other sins, including things not on the basic list, then I
would heartily encourage that person to believe in a vast all-powerful
all-knowing God who can promise Heaven for obedience to the rules of
morality and unending Hell for ignoring them. What else could restrain
people from violence and all the other sins against humanity, if they had
no reasons of their own to avoid such things? Who would you rather have
around you: people with no reasons of their own for behaving like civilized
persons, or people who acted civilized even if only for fear of punishment
and out of desire for the reward?

For Christians, like myself, that more higher or more important reference
perception is love for other people. It is why a son willingly submits his
will to his father's will, why a wife willingly submits her will to her
husband's will and why a man willingly submits his will to the will of his
Lord, and Savior, Jesus the Christ.

Except for the last, what makes you think that a person who is not a
Christian is incapable of love for other people, or of willingly submitting
to the will of another out of love and well-wishing? Your view is vastly
egotistical; it puts down 90% of the human race. And it asserts that what
you _do_ find yourself willing is not your will at all, but the will of
your "Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ." That makes the things you will
pretty hot stuff, much better than what other people will just out of the
properties of their own brains.

I have no doubt that what you believe now is, in contrast to what you
believed before, a great improvement that has brought you happiness. But
are you sure it has not also plunged you deeper into ignorance?

Silly question.

Best,

Bill P.

11

[From Bruce Gregory (991114.0710 EST)]

Bill Powers (991214.0213 MDT)

I was able to avoid submitting to the pressures exerted on me in my
childhood and youth, but I can't say that what I learned as ways of doing
this were all admirable ways of behaving. The problem with being a child
trying to maintain independence is that the ways you think of for doing
that are childish. It has taken me a lifetime to recognize and take down
some of those defenses, and I probably won't finish the job before I die.

One useful thing I learned, while compulsively reliving bad experiences,
was to try to shift the focus from the external situation to the internal
one, and ask what I learned to do to protect myself. That, after all, is
all that is left of the bad experience. Often, making that shift, I have
realized that whatever I learned to do then -- in a flash! -- I am still
doing. And sometimes this realization has led to the further realization
that I don't have to do it any more. What a relief!

Wow! I've never seen the human predicament formulated so lucidly, not to
mention succinctly. A definite keeper! Thanks.

Bruce Gregory

12

[From Rick Marken (991114.1150)]

Bruce Gregory (991113.1625 EST) --

One of the problems with coercion is that it is relatively
easy to recognize when we are talking about a bully, but much
harder to get a handle on when talking about society as a whole.

Given your definition of coercion ("it's only coercion if the
coercee _feels_ coerced") it is, indeed,very hard to tell
whether coercion is happening in either situation. To test whether
your version of coercion is actually occuring, you would have
to convince the possible coercee that there would be absolutely
no action taken by the bully (or society) if the coercee did
anything other than what the bully (or society) demanded. If you
are able to convince the possible coercee that there will be
no consequences if s/he does something other than what was
demanded and the possible coercee then goes off and does something
other than what the bully (or society) demands, then you know
that there _was_ coercion; the coercee had been doing what the
bully (or society) demanded out of fear of forceful consequence;
the coercee did't really _want_ to do what the coercer wanted him
to do. If the coercee goes ahead and does what the bully
(or society) demands _anyway_ (despite the assurances of no
conseqences) then you can be fairly (but not completely) sure
that there was no coercion (by your definition). You can't be
entirely sure there was no coercion because the possible
coercee may not be convined that the bully (or society) would
really take no steps (when possible) to punish the performance
of actions not demanded.

I dislike your definition of coercion (that there is coercion
only if the coercee feels coerced) because it lets bullies
(coercers) avoid taking responsibility for their own behavior.
All the bully has to do to avoid being considered coercive (by
your definition) is claim that he wasn't forcing the coercee to
do anything; the coercee was doing it because he wanted to do
it. To prove the point, all the bully has to do is point out
that the coercee didn't put up any resistance to his demands.

I define coercion as "control of behavior by force or the threat
thereof". By my definition of coercion, coercion is happening
whether the coercee wants what the coercer wants or not.
By this definition, it's fairly easy to tell when coercion is
happening; you don't have to determine whether the intentions
of coercer and coercee are "aligned"; all you have to do is
determine whether one person (the possible coercer) is
controlling for a particular behavior in another person (the
possible coercee); you do this using the test for the controlled
variable and by seeing whether the coercer is willing to use
force to get the intended behavior to occur.

So, by my definition of coercion, it's easy to see that coercion
is involved in both bullying and social policing. I have no
doubt that the bully's victim _feels_ more coerced when going
along with the bully's demands than I do when going along with
society's demands (that I drive on the right, pay taxes, not
kill or steal, etc); indeed, I want to do most of what society
wants me to do becuase it's what I want to do anyway (yes, I
even want to pay takes; I love driving on nice, well-prepared,
govenment built roads). But I am still being coerced to follow
these rules; I know this when I decide to improvise on a rule,
(for example, I drive 50 in a 35 zone because I need to get
somewhere fast) and do something that is not allowed (speed);
at that point, if I am unlikely, I discover the coercive arm
of society reaching out and ticketing me back into line.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

13

[From Bruce Abbott (991114.1500 EST)]

Bill Powers (991214.0323 MDT) --

Kenny Kitzke (991113.1000EST)

For Christians, like myself, that more higher or more important reference
perception is love for other people. It is why a son willingly submits his
will to his father's will, why a wife willingly submits her will to her
husband's will and why a man willingly submits his will to the will of his
Lord, and Savior, Jesus the Christ.

Except for the last, what makes you think that a person who is not a
Christian is incapable of love for other people, or of willingly submitting
to the will of another out of love and well-wishing? Your view is vastly
egotistical; it puts down 90% of the human race.

Geez, Bill, that's a little harsh. As I read Kenny's paragraph, it doesn't
say anything about what non-Christians are incapable of. "If A, then B"
does not logically imply "If NOT A then NOT B." If, for Christians, love is
a "higher reference perception," this does NOT imply that for
non-Christians, love cannot be a "higher reference perception." Kenny's
statements thus do not constitute a put-down of anyone, let alone 90% of the
human race.

Regards,

Bruce A.

14

[From Bruce Gregory (991114.1615 EST)]

Rick Marken (991114.1150)

So, by my definition of coercion, it's easy to see that coercion
is involved in both bullying and social policing. I have no
doubt that the bully's victim _feels_ more coerced when going
along with the bully's demands than I do when going along with
society's demands (that I drive on the right, pay taxes, not
kill or steal, etc); indeed, I want to do most of what society
wants me to do because it's what I want to do anyway (yes, I
even want to pay takes; I love driving on nice, well-prepared,
government built roads). But I am still being coerced to follow
these rules; I know this when I decide to improvise on a rule,
(for example, I drive 50 in a 35 zone because I need to get
somewhere fast) and do something that is not allowed (speed);
at that point, if I am unlikely, I discover the coercive arm
of society reaching out and ticketing me back into line.

Fine. I understand that by your definition societies are, and have no
alternative to being, coercive. Therefore since RTP functions as part of
society, it is, and has no alternative to being, coercive. Societies differ
in the degree of their coerciveness, but not in the fact that ultimately
they _must_ be coercive.

Bruce Gregory

15

[From Bruce Gregory (991114.1635 EST)]

Bruce Abbott (991114.1500 EST)

Geez, Bill, that's a little harsh. As I read Kenny's paragraph,
it doesn't
say anything about what non-Christians are incapable of. "If A, then B"
does not logically imply "If NOT A then NOT B." If, for
Christians, love is
a "higher reference perception," this does NOT imply that for
non-Christians, love cannot be a "higher reference perception." Kenny's
statements thus do not constitute a put-down of anyone, let alone
90% of the
human race.

The Judeo-Christian myth is built around a special and unique relationship
with god. The Judeo-Christian god is self-centered, jealous, arbitrary, and
blood-thirsty. It is almost impossible to subscribe to this mythology
_without_ putting down most of the human race since their beliefs damn them.
What I find interesting is the elaborate rationalizing that allows otherwise
sensible people to convince themselves that their view of Christ is
consistent with the god of Abraham and Isaac. Where it not for the brilliant
organizing skills of Paul, the entire legend might have faded quietly away.
Too bad Paul is no longer with us. He'd have made a great champion for PCT.

Bruce Gregory

16

[From Bruce Abbott (991114.1740 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (991114.1635 EST)]

Bruce Abbott (991114.1500 EST)

Geez, Bill, that's a little harsh. As I read Kenny's paragraph,
it doesn't
say anything about what non-Christians are incapable of. "If A, then B"
does not logically imply "If NOT A then NOT B." If, for
Christians, love is
a "higher reference perception," this does NOT imply that for
non-Christians, love cannot be a "higher reference perception." Kenny's
statements thus do not constitute a put-down of anyone, let alone
90% of the
human race.

The Judeo-Christian myth is built around a special and unique relationship
with god. The Judeo-Christian god is self-centered, jealous, arbitrary, and
blood-thirsty. It is almost impossible to subscribe to this mythology
_without_ putting down most of the human race since their beliefs damn them.

Therefore Kenny's statement must have been a put-down? (Given that this was
written in response to my observation, that would beem to be the intended
conclusion, but if so, it's just more bad logic.)

By the way, the Judeo-Christian god isn't the only one with the qualities
you mention. One of the functions of the old gods was to provide the
believers with a powerful ally against their enemies, those other tribes,
the Infidels.

Regards,

Bruce A.

17

[From Bruce Gregory (991114.1758 EST)]

Bruce Abbott (991114.1740 EST)

Therefore Kenny's statement must have been a put-down? (Given
that this was
written in response to my observation, that would beem to be the intended
conclusion, but if so, it's just more bad logic.)

Bad logic is my specialty. It's nice to be appreciated...

By the way, the Judeo-Christian god isn't the only one with the qualities
you mention. One of the functions of the old gods was to provide the
believers with a powerful ally against their enemies, those other tribes,
the Infidels.

As a Buddhist, I couldn't agree with you more.

Bruce Gregory

18

[From Rick Marken (991114.1530)]

Bruce Gregory (991114.1615 EST)

Societies differ in the degree of their coerciveness, but
not in the fact that ultimately they _must_ be coercive.

I agree completely! I don't think societies _must_ be
coercive. Indeed, I think social thinking based on PCT
should be aimed at articulating a vision of a non-coercive
society; describing what such a society might look like;
how it might be implemented; and so on. In order to do
this, I think it's important to be able to agree on what
is and what is not coercion. If coercion is what you
say it is (feeling coerced) then there are a lot of cases
of "coercion" that are really not coercion at all and,
therefore, not in need of "fixing". I think it would be
unfortunate, for example, to keep an approach to dealing
with people -- such as "giving them a choice" -- in the
mix, so to speak, just because the people who are given
the choice don't act like they "feel coerced". But,
apparently, I'm in a tiny minority and I'm certainly not
going to change any minds on this.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

19

[From Bruce Gregory (991114.1850 EST)]

Rick Marken (991114.1530)

I don't think societies _must_ be
coercive. Indeed, I think social thinking based on PCT
should be aimed at articulating a vision of a non-coercive
society; describing what such a society might look like;
how it might be implemented; and so on.

This idea seems implausible to me for the following reason. A non-coercive
society is not an evolutionary stable strategy. That is, such a society
would fall victim to any group willing to use coercion to achieve their
ends. The invaders might understand PCT but that is like saying they
understand Newtonian physics.

Bruce Gregory

20

[From Bruce Abbott (991114.2305 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (991114.1758 EST) --

Bruce Abbott (991114.1740 EST)

Therefore Kenny's statement must have been a put-down? (Given
that this was
written in response to my observation, that would beem to be the intended
conclusion, but if so, it's just more bad logic.)

Bad logic is my specialty. It's nice to be appreciated...

It is? I wouldn't have guessed. That does explain a lot, though . . .

Hey, wait a minute. I'll bet someone _coerced_ you into saying that!

Regards,

Bruce A.