Skeptical, Believable, Omnipotent

{from Joel Judd 950503.1020 CST}

Bill P., Rick, Avery:

The cry seems to be going up (on the net) for "skepticism" in the
schools. Without necessarily making a whole thread out of this, would
you elaborate a little bit? Are you suggesting a simple questioning
attitude about all information we see and hear? A principled approach
to determining accuracy? A way to get each person to say "before I blow
up that building I'm gonna make sure the people inside intentionally
killed my soulmates at that compound last year"?

If you would prefer, outline a "learning objective" reflecting
skepticism for a given grade or age level (the younger the better).

Dennis (950502):

I made the mistake of not archiving my message, and I haven't checked to
see what made it into csg-l. Part of the post asked for commentary from
counselors regarding people who take a belief in something like
governmental takeover to the extreme of arming themselves and even
justifying killing others.

My thoughts were along the same lines as Dag (?) who mentioned
the development of the highest levels of the hierarchy and
their overall effect on what we see and hear. If my Systems
Concept includes a reference for belonging to a
"disenfranchised group," then what I perceive coming from
prestigious groups can likely justify my acting so as to make
sure I am recognized, or else to diminish the threat I
perceive from other groups' members.

What clinical take is there on such people who act out and
justify their violence?

Martin (950502):

...but it sounds like the kind of world in which some people put their
omnipotent, omniscient God, who must be purposeless.

This one I just couldn't let get by, mainly because it raises a
question I'm not sure I can phrase well. Ignoring the implication here
that "people put" God somewhere, why must someone who knows all have no
purpose? What is your definition of omniscient?

ยทยทยท

TO: CSG-L INTERNET Any user on the Internet, not at DESE Proj. Box

FROM: JUDDJ DESEINST Joel Judd - DESE - Division of Instruction

DATE: May 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Skeptical, Believable, Omnipotent

[Martin Taylor 950503 19:00]

Joel Judd 950503.1020 CST

Martin (950502):

...but it sounds like the kind of world in which some people put their
omnipotent, omniscient God, who must be purposeless.

This one I just couldn't let get by, mainly because it raises a
question I'm not sure I can phrase well. Ignoring the implication here
that "people put" God somewhere, why must someone who knows all have no
purpose? What is your definition of omniscient?

Remember the context from which you took this quote? I argued that if all
future events were known to the controller/system/subject-of-discussion,
there would be no need for that c/s/sod to be a control system, hierarchic
or otherwise. Not being a hierarchic control system, there would be no
changing reference signals (aka "purposes") in the c/s/sod. To know all
future events is to be omniscient. To be able to deal with them all is
to be omnipotent.

I take no position as to "God" except that it is a concept that differs
from person to person, or at least from group to group. For some people
the concept includes the idea that the entity in question is omniscient
and omnipotent, and therefore need not be a control system; if not, then
purposeless, within the usual PCT meaning of the term.

Martin