From[Bill Williams 25 April 2004 12:20 PM CST]
[Martin Taylor 2004.04.25.1017]
[From Michelle Ivers(2004.04.25.2130EST)]
Bill Williams 25 April 2004 2:40 AM CST
Martin says,
Maybe it’s because I have dealt with Bill Williams by e-mail and
on the ECACS forum as much as on CSGnet, but I didn’t read his
posting at all the way you do. I read it as a satire on the
American public. I took the reference to Australia to suggest that
perhaps Australians might be more “sane”–to plagiarize another thread.
What he intended, of course, is something only he knows. But all I
can rely on is my perception of what he wrote, in context of all
the other writings of his that I have seen.
What I think Bill is saying is that bible-readers of the Mel Gibson
stripe think you can’t have anything good without paying for it with
pain. But Bill’s communicative methods are often oblique,
This I learned from Bruce Gregory.
and liable
to be misunderstood (in PCT terms, his communicative control actions
sometimes fail to serve his control purposes).
However, as far as I know Martin’s efforts to obtain a pair of Lady
Princess Diana sunglasses have yet to succeed. So, how could he
Possibly know if my communications are failing to serve my purposes?
I know, its a picky point.
Martin argues that,
PCT says nothing intrinsically about pain in reorganization.
I think that Martin makes a very important point. It seems to me
that a capacity to reorganize ( is this possibly the same thing
as an ability to learn? ) is more likely to be associated with a
perception that the situation is one in which mistakes are not
going to be fatal. In a situation that is focused upon pain,
it seems to me that reorganization might be constrained by a
perception that reorganization is just too expensive. Veblen
made this point about the strategy of ruling classes being one
of withdrawing resources from the underlying classes to the
extent that these underlying classes became conservative because
they lack to energy and resources to carry out even conceptual
changes.
Martin goes on to say that,
But PCT does have consequences that follow from its principles.
If you analyze “classic” HPCT and “classic” reorganization, you
find that reorganization is more likely when control is failing.
Veblen proposed that when the more urgent requirements of life
had been met, that people have a trait-- “idle curiosity” which
I think of as a reference level – that leads them to inquire, to
learn about, to reorganize their understanding of their environment,
just for something interesting to do.
Martin goes on to describe the usual description of reorganization,
This [reorganization ] can happen either because there is a poor
connection between actions and their perceptual consequences or
because the environment has changed to change the sign of feedback
from negative to positive in a high-gain loop.
The latter is more directly dangerous, but the former can also be
dangerous because a loose coupling means that attempts to control
have large side-effects. Those side-effects are very likely to
disturb other controlled perceptions. Either way, many Elementary
Control Units within the organism (and within socially connected
organisms) will have perceptions that are far from their references.
Many of these error values will be perceived as “painful”.
This is all too true.
The consequence, from basic PCT theory, is that reorganization tends
to occur more often during times when “pain” is perceived.
I am not sure that this is necessarily true. And, this is, in part why
I am suggesting that pain and reorganization may not go together the
way that is often assumed.
Martin says,
It doesn’t mean that reorganization is itself painful.
And, I think this is an important point. Or, I would add that
reorganization necessarily is prompted only by pain.
However, reorganization being blind (in “classic” PCT, and
probably in all PCT), some reorganization events will lead
to worse control than before, and that, quite probably, will
lead to more pain.
This certainly is true for some important situations. However,
I think it may be a mistake to think that it is true of all
situations.
Perhaps it might be well to clarify a point. Is reorganization
the same thing as learning?
Bill Williams
We do so to either reduce tension/stress, or in the control vernacular, ‘error’, or we look to maintain a level of ‘calm’ or satiety, or the absence of tension. The third is excitement/anticipation. I believe we also artificially increase our tension/stress (in the form of anticipation/excitement) so we may feel the great ‘pleasure’ of ‘releasing’ that tension. Think of having sex in this regard.