Jim Dundon 01.26.08.1600est)
Your invitation to state some rules I would like to see appllied to csg discussions has not been ignored or forgotten. Here’s a starter.
But before I launch into anything I want to emphasize that I am convinced that PCT is an accurate description of behavior----for those who study, incorporate and apply the theory. I believe stimulus response is a valid theory for those whose mental constructs are organized around the theory. They are different relational frames each of which contains seeds and fruits of its own validation. To compare the results of the two different studies as studying the same thing “behavior”. They study different parameters. It is not scientific to compare them.
I have been getting into a lot of trouble by trying to prove something without saying what I believe because I wanted to respect the fact that this is CSG net not Cisena net.
I will try a different tact.
I believe we live in worded worlds. I call these worlds Cisena projects. I believe that we can live in contradictory worded worlds alternately, switching as serves our purpose. These worlds are not primary. our sense of existing, to be being, is primary. Words and our loyalty to systems, of which PCT is one, faclitate this.
I do not require anyone to adhere to any specific worded world, even the cisena concept, because that would run counter to it own premise, which says that existance is primary. For me that would be the top level’s reference signal. That would allow for changes at all levels including language. That is why I believe more in what I say than I do in PCT. To me PCT is secondary as are all worded worlds
The PCT world is a worded world. Its concepts are contained in experience namings.
Behavior IS control of perception for anyone who apprehends, comprehends and disciplines himself into it’s incorporation and application using its words and math, (more words)
All of my comments which I thought would open doors to that understanding have failed.
So I have to reorganize, modify a few principals and try from the top down instead of the bottom up.
1 You have said “The theory must be true at all times and in all places”
2 You have also said “We must test and prove our theory”
3 You imply that “just knows are anethema”. And not allowed.
OK. These are three primary rules according to you.
Lets look at them and combine them.
How do you know they are justfied?
Did you prove them to be valid values. Or do you just know?
On what basis do you conclude that the rule of proof is exempt from itself?
Is there an unspoken rule? I call them unspoken understoods. Kinda like hush! don’t bring that up.
"All times and all places’
How will you know that you have tested it in all times and all places???
That you have in fact discovered that last place and time that will ever exist?
I suggest that you apply your hard rules to your own satements.
Do you realize that by making that stipulation you are describing relational frames? times and places are quantum relationships.
Mathematically speaking you are saying that any time and place in which PCT is not understood and applied is not a time and place.
In the Cisena world all worded vworlds are valid times and places. Each is a truth but there are truths and there are better truths. PCT is only one, NOT THE ONLY one. I’m not sure it is the best.
You have indicated in one book that the heirarchy is learned. That is a better truth. But indicates that you recognize the fact that HPCT can only be true in all times and places via incorporation and propogation which belies your rule. I suggest that is true also with respect to PCT.
When Rick mentions he’d rather control a perception than another person, how does “controling another person” magically become not a controled perception. In other words, if PCT must be true at “all times and places” then there is no time or place in which that the choice rick says he makes is possible, scientifically speaking, and we know that everyone on this net is committed to being scientific. controling a percption instead of a person is not a possible choice in PCT. But Rick says he does it.
I propose that PCT bringing about changes in behavior be considered proof that it is not nor ever will be true in all times and places except by virtue of belief, unproven faith, kinda like a self holding relay system.
You have often indicated that you understand how a coceptualized model effects behavior, and I agree. They are worded worlds. You have said that Freuds pressure system is not good because it leads to that kind of behavior. So you have understood that models and behavior are mutually influential, yet you contradict that when you when you say that PCT is omnipresent. Not realizing that contradiction is unbecoming even a novice. It suggests that that statement is political, not scientific.
Is it possible that they can coexistant in a person. who is to say that Freudianism can not be a principal or that PCT is not a Freudian product? The adherents of course, making true what they will in a worded world…, their Cisena project.