System Concept (was World Views)

[From Bjorn Simonsen (000102;22:15) GMT+1:00)]

I wish you all a Happy New Year.

[Bryan Thalhammer 000101;18:15]

Re the New Year's Show on PBS: While each area of the
world had its own approach, flavor you might say, all had the joy and >hope that maybe in this millenium we will get closer to treating one >another (nationally, racially, species, one-to-one) as members of the >same family. Controlling for constant goals through varied actions. >That's all it is.

It looked like and I have also heard/seen the journalists comment in radio/newspaper as if also they experienced a millenium hope to get closer to treating one another (nationally, racially, species and one-to-one).
I experience this as a picture made of words. A nice picture. And I love it.

I think I understand PCT correct as if it's only the individual organism who can have such goals and references.

I confine myself to my own goals and references but I appreciate to talk with colleges and other about values and System Concept. And talking about System Concept, I think, is a condition for a group if the members wish to "get closer in treating one another (nationally, racially, species, one-to-one) as members of the same family".

_Honestly, I don't think especially on CSG._

When I talk about System Concept it happens I become insecure if the concepts really are System Concepts in the meaning of PCT.

So maybe someone wish to help me wit comments. I know it would be better if I in this group presented a PowerSim model of a simulation etc. But I start the year being linguistic.

Here are some System Concept and a comment if I think they are Reference Level for "treating one another as members of the same family".

1. Equality among Races Yes
2. Identical votes to everybody Yes
3. It is a human Right to have an Employment Yes
4. The "Strong" man is a member for what is Right. No
5. The Human Being is the measure for Everything. Yes
6. The Society is the measure for Everything No
7. The Human Being is a Social Creature Yes
8. The Human Being is a Controlling Creature No

Are there more System Concepts? Are there so many System Concepts that it is uninteresting to mention them?

On own account I have started to list System Concepts, Principles , types of Program. And I have combined different concepts from different levels and tried to describe what Reference they constitute.

I will be grateful if I get back more System Concepts in this turn.

Regards

Bjorn

I have got a new E-mail adress: bsimonsen@c2i.net

[Bryan Thalhammer (20000102 5:20) CST]

   [From Bjorn Simonsen (000102;22:15) GMT+1:00)]

...

Bjorn,

Often people speak of things like hope and joy as existing outside of the
organism. Of course, each person who speaks of such perceptions does so by
controlling internal reference levels for these perceptions by means of the
language, gestures, etc., that person learned to control from being in his
or her culture. Culture and language tends to hold on to those "antique"
ways of referring to things like "the setting sun." Likewise trying to
talk about perceptual control, hard to break habits of speech, eh?

That said, yes, these are higher level perceptions, as I understand the
hierarchy (relative hierarchy). However, I would suggest* that the list
you are making sounds more like something from the principle level (should,
ought), or even program (language, meanings of words) rather than system
concepts ("I am an internationalist...", "I [am/am not] a racist...."). I
guess, if these perceptions were stated as "I am..." they could set
reference levels of principles and programs, but I am inclined to think
that these are components of who a person is (system concept) when they do
these things.

ยทยทยท

-----
* I invite anyone to add/correct/rephrase my rendering of PCT. I am a poor
beginner at this. But no _ad hominems_, OK?

_Honestly, I don't think especially on CSG._

Well, I am disturbing the CSGnet environment with some words about
"treating one another ... as members of the same family". What people on
the net can do to reduce the error these disturbances might bring to
important perceptions is reorganize their programs (the language they use,
and the meanings they ascribe to the words they use). They are free to
reorganize any way they want, BTW. No coercion here.

What I think was being said at the New Year was that we (Rick, myself, and
countless TV commentators) wish that people would organize several new
perceptions, and then begin controlling them in addition to such
traditional cant as "individualism," "righteous arrogance," "immanent
domain," etc. Those replacement perceptions Rick and I wrote about:
Seeing the Earth from space in 1968, seeing civilization as a conversation
among equals, seeing life as more than the antique mandate given to Adam in
Genesis (animals and plants given to us....), that we are a very small part
of the flora and fauna on the earth (but unfortunately with ominous
capabilities to control our environments....).

...But I start the year being linguistic.

Appropriate for our medium. Other tools need to be used as well, such as
modeling, and experiments. I am doing so, _in media res_. Over this medium,
however, a lot has to be rendered via words.

...
Are there more System Concepts? Are there so many System Concepts that it is
uninteresting to mention them?

This could be a matter of cataloguing possible perceptions people could
reorganize to adopt and control. Each person (regardless of culture,
language, and all those important things) has a unique collection of higher
level perceptions and ways to express them. Also, even if two people
maintain a similar collection, they may do so at different reference
levels, and given varied behaviors output to reduce error. Unless two
people are scripted (reading words pre-selected as in the Credo,
Oath/Pledge to a Country, Company Song, Football Chant, etc.), they would
never be observed to naturally maintain such social perceptions exactly the
similar way. And B:CP would say that the reading of a script is never done
the same way ever.

Actually, there are many such catalogs, and you could say that these are
samples of social perceptions a person from a particular background COULD
POSSIBLY maintain, if you wanted to find out. We would do that, I believe,
through the Test of the Controlled Variable.

There are also some attempts to create so-called "universal" lists of
social perceptions, such as:

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness: Some universals
in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. In Series, Longman
linguistics library title no. 30. London: Longman.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan
(Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts, pp. 59-82. New York:
Academic Press.

Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan
(Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts, pp. 59-82. New York:
Academic Press.

Goffman, Erving (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New
York: Anchor Books Edition of Doubleday. <-- this is short, readily
available, and a must-read for anyone who wants to see perceptual control
(PCT) "in action" in social situations.

Yoiks, and lots more....

Best,

Bryan

[From Bjorn Simonsen (20000103,21:50 GMT + 1,00)]

[Bryan Thalhammer (20000102 5:20) CST]

Thank you for your very linguistic (philological) comments. I think I could expressed arguments about System Concepts as you did.
But I am trying to define the concept "System Concepts" and get a still better experience of the concept than what I get reading B:CP (page 171-173).

First some comments to [Bryan Thalhammer (20000102 5:20) CST.

There are also some attempts to create so-called "universal" lists of
social perceptions, such as:

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness: >Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge >University Press.
.....................
........................
.............................

Goffman, Erving (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. >New York: Anchor Books Edition of Doubleday. <-- this is short, >readily available, and a must-read for anyone who wants to see >perceptual control (PCT) "in action" in social situations.

I haven't read these, but I will look for them at the library and look through them.
My objection to them is that they are written without knowing anything about the hierarchy. (I guess they have their hierarchy).
Analogues contents I find in books describing personal tests.
And that isn't what I look for.

Bill thinks a System as "an entity having an existence that depends primarily on its organization and not on its elements". System Concepts should be concepts describing such an entity.
In my lack of skill I would say that a System is "an entity of Principles, Programs and ....having an existence that depends on its organization and not of the elements of Principles, programs and...." The System Concepts should describe this organization_.

That said, yes, these are higher level perceptions, as I understand >the hierarchy (relative hierarchy). However, I would suggest* that the >list you are making sounds more like something from the principle >level (should, ought), or even program (language, meanings of >words) rather than system concepts ("I am an internationalist...", "I
[am/am not] a racist...."). I guess, if these perceptions were stated >as "I am..." they could set reference levels of principles and >programs, but I am inclined to think
that these are components of who a person is (system concept) >when they do these things.

Maybe You are right, I thought that e.q.

1. Equality among Races
is a system composed of principles as
I shall/ought to be just.
I shall be honest
...
I am not more valuable than other people.

and also composed of programs and lover levels.

Further I think Equality among Races is a concept describing an organization of a greater entity than "Equality among Races"

Without being to banal could the System be Equality or Love.
..........

I think I will study more on a theme where I feel uncertainty-

Regards

Bjorn