From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06,1256)]
Spurred on by Bjorn’s last post I’d like to throw something out on the table.
When people start arguing about which religion is the ‘best’ one, I often get everyone either laughing or growling at this logic;
Since every religion is mutually exclusive their can only be two possible logical outcomes; one, there is one ‘best’ one and everyone else is wrong. The second is that all religions as currently practiced are wrong and we have yet to find the ‘right’ one. In either case none of us will know which one is the ‘right’ answer until after we are dead, so why not hold off judgement until then and lets just all get along in the mean time.
I share this story because I feel the same way about the control of perception and the control process.
Yes, there are some major differences between the way I see the control of perception and Bill Powers does, but I am not trying to convince you that my view is the ‘right’ one.
In fact, I know it is incomplete, and it will always be incomplete. But I am looking to find out what is wrong with my ideas so I can correct them, learn and try to answer the other errors that are sure to be found.
I don’t see why we all can’t profitably talk about control at the level of abstraction of the organism and above and leave the details for a time when we actually have the ability to know and understand the finer workings of the physiology involved.
Glasser might be an ‘enemy’ of Bill Powers, but his work is not the enemy of the study of control, and like many other practioner’s and researchers there is valuable and interesting work that might help us better understand the nature of control at these higher levels of abstraction.
Anybody have any thoughts on this?
Regards,
Marc
[From Rick Marken (2005.12.06.1540)]
Marc Abrams (2005.12.06,1256)--
Yes, there are some major differences between the way I see the control of
perception and Bill Powers does, but I am not trying to convince you that my
view is the 'right' one.
In fact, I know it is incomplete, and it will always be incomplete. But I am
looking to find out what is wrong with my ideas so I can correct them, learn
and try to answer the other errors that are sure to be found.
Anybody have any thoughts on this?
I sure do. I think you have articulated what I think is exactly the right
attitude for all of us to have regarding our ideas. This post shows that
you can certainly talk the talk. I hope that you can walk the walk. So far
it hasn't seemed like you are all that interested in finding out what is
wrong with your ideas so that you can correct them, but it would be great if
you are. I'm happy to assume that you are and to resume our dialog if you
like.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1920)]
In a message dated 12/6/2005 6:45:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:
···
[From Rick Marken (2005.12.06.1540)]
I sure do. I think you have articulated what I think is exactly the right
attitude for all of us to have regarding our ideas. This post shows that
you can certainly talk the talk. I hope that you can walk the walk.
Your right and justified in your feelings, but it is going to take more than just me to pull this off. Cooperation is going to take some work, I hope your up to it.
So far it hasn’t seemed like you are all that interested in finding out what is
wrong with your ideas so that you can correct them,
How about you? Do you still believe your economic ideas are sound, and if so, on what basis?
As I hope you will see, each of us is relatively blind to our own shortcomings, but we can see them in others very well.
You have a zero-sum view of the world and that might work well for controlling but it plays havoc with cooperation.
I can’t force you to respect me or my ideas but if you don’t, we have no basis for discussion. I have just as much to offer you as you do me and if you don’t really believe that then we are better off not talking. I’m not interested in ‘winning’ any arguments and as long as you are we will have a very difficult time communicating.
but it would be great if you are. I’m happy to assume that you are and to resume >our dialog if you like.
I will privately send you the structure I have in mind for critical discussion, and if you agree to that standard I will present it to CSGnet and we can be on our way.
I need a couple of days to get it all together, so I hope to get it all to you by Friday.
Regards,
Marc
[From Rick Marken (2005.12.07.1040)]
Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1920)]
Rick Marken (2005.12.06.1540)
So far it hasn't seemed like you are all that interested in finding out what
is wrong with your ideas so that you can correct them,
How about you? Do you still believe your economic ideas are sound, and if so,
on what basis?
Yes, I'm afraid I still believe that some of my basic ideas about economics
are sound. The basis of this is 1) my confidence in the basic idea that
people (economic agents) are input controllers 2) macro economic data that
is consistent with the idea that economic behavior is the behavior of an
aggregate of input controllers.
I'm sure that some of my ideas about economics are wrong and I am revising
them. IN terms of my economic modeling the most obvious flaw was taking GNP
as an aggregate controlled variable. As Steve Martin's wife said in "The
Jerk" when they had lost everything "It's not the money, it's the stuff". I
agree that it's the stuff that people control for.
I will privately send you the structure I have in mind for critical
discussion, and if you agree to that standard I will present it to CSGnet and
we can be on our way.
I'd love to see it.
Best
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.