[From Dag Forssell (940307 1120)]
I have been slow to respond. My error signal from finding myself in
custody has been a minor irritant, but here is some catching up:
···
----------------------------------
Re: Article [Bill Leach 940331.18:51 EST(EDT)]
The following "felt" awkward to me: ..... etc.
I used several of your suggestions. Thanks.
-------------------------------------
Subject: Pop PCT Rick Marken (940401.1800)
I look forward to YOUR pop PCT book which will incorporate lucid
illustrations of all the basic principles.
--------------------------------------
Subject: PCT Officer Nabs Two Suspects Rick Marken (940401.1159)
When we are unhappy with the results of the performance of another,
it is best to ignore the action/behavior--the by-product or symptom--
and ask instead about the wants and perceptions, which are the causes."Perceptions are causes? I don't think so", said Marken. Forssell was
booked on suspicion of supplying arguments to the "you can't control
me because I can perceive what I want" gang -- a dashing band of
PCTers who believe that perception causes behavior, but that it can't
control you because YOU create your own perceptions. "Got a problem
with a perception?" ask members of this gang, "like a manager who's
trying to take credit for all your work? Not to worry. Just look at
it in another way; just perceive the manager as the kind of person
you admire -- a tough sonovabitch who is trying his best to live the
American Dream."
Subject: Two Suspects [Bill Leach 940402.10:15 EST(EDT)]
Oh Rick... you had me in stitches. Particularly with your completely
unexpected "Al Gore memorial information highway overpass".
I, too enjoyed the lighthearted tone of Rick's arrest report.
Amicus Brief:
....
"Choosing to perceive" anything is the act of setting a reference to
control a perception (in this case resetting the reference for the
control of the perception of the "manager").
...
Therefore, your honor, I submit that the defendant is innocent of the
charges levied against him.
Bill, I think you did a good job as my public defender.
Rick is right, of course, in the technical sense that perceptual
functions just perceive what they perceive, and there is no choosing
involved.
My statements dealt with a person as a whole, not one of the millions or
billions of control systems that make up the hierarchy. Dealing with a
person as a whole, we recognize that there is more than one reference
signal floating about when we talk about a want, and the way we talk
about perception becomes a composite also. I have not mentioned but do
very much have in mind the imagination connection, where reference
signals specify the perceptions they want, and the hierarchy acts on the
environment until those perceptions are experienced AND, OR the
perceptions are supplied from perceptions stored in memory. See BCP
chapter 15.
As best I understand, the imagination connection is the reason you
anticipate the next word from your conversation partner, as evidenced by:
"Things go better with ...." We form a complete picture of everything
in real time, no matter how sketchy the data points of "real" perception
from the outside. By supplying 1 to 99% of any given perception from
existing, stored perceptions, the imagination connection effectively
makes us "choose" our perceptions. If I mention "chair" in a post on
this net, each reader will "choose" a personal interpretation of that,
using personal stored perceptions and the imagination connection.
Just look at Martin's lament today:
Subject: Re: My Magnum is holstered <Martin Taylor 940407 09:50>
I simply do not understand the reason for this "Persistence of Vision."
Officer Marken arrested me because it is clear to him that there is only
ONE way (the right way) to perceive my heretical statement, just like
there is only ONE way to perceive Martins heretical writings. The right
way is obviously Rick's way, since a living control system like Rick is
not necessarily aware of what perceptual signal comes from the "real"
outside and which is mixed in, supplied from stored perceptions in
memory. Since we develop only one composite perception at a time, and
we are highly intelligent, it must be right. You must have noticed that
Rick needs very few words to develop a definitive perception of what is
meant, complete with the mistaken interpretations of PCT behind it.
Addressing a manager, my heretical statement is simply an encouragement
to slow down, consider the "data" that are the apparent "facts" of a
situation, recognize that there are many ways to flesh out the "data"
with supplementary stored perceptions so that it is possible to jump to
several different conclusions. "Choose" your perceptions carefully and
be ready to reconsider.
Another aspect of this imagination connection is that our hierarchical
control system is capable of thinking. We don't have a computer
demonstration of this, as far as I know, but what I visualize is that
based on a want, a person imagines taking action, imagines the
environment and the results of action, and based on the imaginary
results, determines if this action accomplishes control. (You want to
be friendly with your wife, imagine buying a dozen roses, imagine the
result, decide if it is worth the trouble to actually buy roses).
Since your choice of how to perceive your wife was done with few or no
real time data points, it makes sense to me as Ed Ford suggests in
_Freedom From Stress_ to recognize that how you choose to perceive
another person makes a difference when you compare it with what you want
regarding that person.
Based on how you imagine your wife to react, you "choose" to perceive
your wife to be warm and friendly or a cold fish, and act accordingly.
My point is that common usage of the word "perceive" involves both
supplementation from imagination and review of multiple scenarios in
thinking imagination. Either is poorly modeled at present, but seem real
enough in life, and fit the model as far as I can tell.
I am sure there is plenty of room for a wide variety of interpretation
of this post, as each reader brings his or her own stored perceptions of
the human experience, PCT, and Dag Forssell to bear on it, as you must
to interpret each and every word.
I hope my offending statement makes more sense with these expansions.
When we are unhappy with the results of the performance of another,
it is best to ignore the action/behavior--the by-product or symptom--
and ask instead about the wants and perceptions, which are the causes.
Your honor, I rest my case.
Best, Dag
