The road to utopia -- revisted

Chris_Cherpas · August 10, 1999, 7:18am

[From Chris Cherpas (990810.0000 PT)]

I've just returned from Toronto, after a very pleasant trip
to Vancouver for the MOL and CSG conferences. The highlight
of the CSG conference for me was Bill Powers' demonstration
of the Little Man program(s). It was also nice to hear about
progress on the bug project.

Some discussion at the conference was concerned with the
question of what the world would be like if PCT were the
basis of an accepted paradigm for the life sciences. Many
people at the conference seemed to agree that it would be
easier for people to resist the tendency to coerce, and to
seek other means, given an understanding of human nature as
controlling one's own perceptions.

By the end of the CSG conference, I found myself having a
visions or two of a world that understood, extended, and was busy
applying, PCT. Considering how some form of slavery has
been a part of human culture at least since the invention
of agriculture (and the accumulation of surpluses), it does
seem appropriate that PCT would play an important role in
the development of machines that would do what humans have
traditionally accomplished with slaves (as well as with other
people whose labor is "owned" by a powerful few).

It's not clear how much actual work (doing what you don't
want to do) would be required from each individual to
achieve a universally high quality of life, given not only
a different set of collectively controlled perceptions about
the problems of coercion, but also given a technology that
relegates the undesirable work to machines. This is hardly
a new vision (not only from science fiction, but from at least
as far back as the industrial revolution). Still, it is interesting
to me to consider that PCT may have a pivotal role in improving
the human condition at least as much from the robots it can make
possible as from the science of life whose evolution it can guide.

Best regards,
cc

Bruce_Gregory · August 10, 1999, 2:28pm

[From Bruce Gregory (990810.1026 EDT)]

Chris Cherpas (990810.0000 PT)

Some discussion at the conference was concerned with the
question of what the world would be like if PCT were the
basis of an accepted paradigm for the life sciences. Many
people at the conference seemed to agree that it would be
easier for people to resist the tendency to coerce, and to
seek other means, given an understanding of human nature as
controlling one's own perceptions.

I have never understood this reasoning. PCT seems to me to be morally
neutral as is any scientific model. If your goals are to dominate, PCT
tells you what you must do to accomplish this and what obstacles you
must overcome. If you want to manipulate others, understanding
counter-control can be very helpful. You will only resist the urge to
coerce if you believe that coercion is wrong. A proper understanding of
PCT would lead one to realize that bombing Yugoslavia is unlikely to
make for a happy multi-ethnic Kosovo. If you want to get rid of
Milosivec send it hit squad and make sure they get the job done. Do you
really think that if Sadham Hussein understood PCT he would become an
enlightened and benevolent leader? If so you are smoking something much
stronger than I am. The least you could do is share!

Bruce Gregory

Bill_Powers1 · August 10, 1999, 4:11pm

[From Bill Powers (990810.0913 MDT)]

PCT seems to me to be morally
neutral as is any scientific model. If your goals are to dominate, PCT
tells you what you must do to accomplish this and what obstacles you
must overcome. If you want to manipulate others, understanding
counter-control can be very helpful. You will only resist the urge to
coerce if you believe that coercion is wrong. A proper understanding of
PCT would lead one to realize that bombing Yugoslavia is unlikely to
make for a happy multi-ethnic Kosovo. If you want to get rid of
Milosivec send it hit squad and make sure they get the job done. Do you
really think that if Sadham Hussein understood PCT he would become an
enlightened and benevolent leader? If so you are smoking something much
stronger than I am. The least you could do is share!

I think you answered yourself: "A proper understanding of PCT would lead
one to realize that bombing Yugoslavia is unlikely to make for a happy
multi-ethnic Kosovo." If NATO realized that, what might it do differently?

While PCT says nothing morally about the use of force on others to get your
way, it does point out the consequences quite clearly. For example, one of
the reasons people give for using force on others is to "teach them a
lesson." There are widespread illusions about what happens when you use
force on other people, and what lesson they learn. PCT suggests that people
will learn a way to avoid being controlled by other people, and one way to
avoid it is to find a way to eliminate the person who's trying to control
you. Contrary to popular convictions, winning one war is a sure way to put
yourself at risk of losing a later one.

The utter stupidity currently going on in Kosovo, with the returned
Kosovars using the shield of the NATO forces to get revenge on the Serbs,
is an example. If they understood PCT, the Kosovars would realize that the
reaction against them is going to be commensurate with the actions they are
taking to get revenge. The attacks they have experienced and will
experience are of their own making. The force they use is the force they
are experiencing being used against them. On BOTH sides, they're doing it
to themselves. Anyone who understood PCT would feel embarrassed if caught
pushing on someone else and NOT expecting the other person to push back.

If Saddam Hussein understood PCT, he would understand the futility of
trying to use force against an adversary at least as strong as he is. I
would guess that unless he is insane or incredibly stupid, he does know
this, and that he is doing provocative things simply to show his people the
aggressions of the other side -- after all, he gets to pick what his people
are told. The really stupid actions, therefore, are those of the USA and
its allies, who can be controlled into bombing Iraq simply by turning on a
radar set or sending up an old fighter plane -- which is of no other use,
in the circumstances. If Saddam's strategy is to use disturbances to
provoke us into looking like brutal agressors, I would say he has a pretty
good seat-of-the-pants grasp of PCT. He is doing a fine job of
countercontrolling.

The only way to avoid this is for the USA to learn some PCT, too, and to
stop wanting to control Saddam. We can vigorously oppose his disturbing
variables we really need to control, but there is no humane way we can make
him do things he is not doing, to satisfy us -- such as changing Iraq's
form of government.

In Kosovo, NATO has intervened on behalf of one side of a conflict. This
has brought it into conflict with the other side, while the side that was
losing now sees itself as being in a position to win. Nothing at all has
been done to remove the conflict, so the moment NATO stops acting, the
conflict will simply find a different equilibrium point. Perhaps due to the
bombing the conflict will be closer to a stalemate when NATO leaves, but it
will continue just as it has for over 600 years. The only way it can ever
stop is for each side to recognize its own role in causing its own
problems. PCT will not help either side to win. But it can show both sides
what they are doing to create their own misery.

PCT does not teach people to be control systems, or how to be better
control systems. It just teaches them that they are, and always have been,
control systems. It shows the futility of trying to deal with others as if
they are not control systems, and expecting others to give in to pressure
where one's own reaction to the same pressure would be to resist and push
back with all one's might. Above all, PCT tells us "They are just like you.
Don't expect them to be different."

Best,

Bill P.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · August 10, 1999, 7:36pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990810.1200 EDT)]

I see PCT as morally neutral from the standpoint that it does not have any
ability to determine what behavior is good or evil, moral or immoral, right
or wrong in any *absolute* sense.

PCT cannot instruct anyone, and certainly not anyone else, what is good or
evil behavior. It lacks such a dimension. Coercion can be conceived as good
(so can slavery and murder) depending on the reference belief and systems
perceptions of any particular individual.

At the conference, I made a statement that the value of PCT in understanding
human *nature* is overated, mostly by those who claim to understand PCT. The
reason is PCT's lack of it dealing with the matters of right and wrong which
occupy much of our attention and conflict in living some seven score years as
human beings.

PCT and HPCT does a remarkable job in helping people understand human
*behavior* scientifically. That is important and useful. So is
understanding gravity and other scientific natural laws.

But, when it comes to understanding the toughest challenges of our human
existance, PCT is only a bit more relevant as understanding the laws of
motion or the relativity of matter and time which all have an impact on our
life's experience and purposes.

What PCT does say about morality is that each autonomous human being
determines his/her own morality�what is right and wrong in their own eyes.
This was made clear in my paper on Human Nature as the Bible describes the
fallen nature of man.

PCT does quite convincingly describe the fallen nature of man in physical and
scientific terms beyond which was revealed in the Bible for anyone interested
in studying it. Similarily, Isaiah wrote about a round earth long before
other much heralded scientists discovered and proved that fact
scientifically.

But, this autonomous, controlling nature of humans was not only described
long before Bill Powers used his mind to unravel it, the Bible also describes
exactly how this condition in humans came about. Remarkable, at least to my
highest levels of perception, whatever they may be.

Of course not. It would take something beyond PCT and HPCT. And, for as
long as such fallen human beings (like we all are) exist, life will be full
of conflict and sorrow whether or not anyone knows squat about my favorite
theory of behavior.

What do you think?

Kenny

R_Marken · August 10, 1999, 8:50pm

[From Rick Marken (990810.1350)]

Kenny Kitzke (990810.1200 EDT)--

At the conference, I made a statement that the value of PCT in
understanding human *nature* is overated, mostly by those who claim
to understand PCT. The reason is PCT's lack of it dealing with the
matters of right and wrong

I don't understand what you mean here. It seems to me that PCT does
deal with matters of "right" and "wrong", no matter how those matters
are conceived. As observers of control system operation, for example,
PCT tells us that a control system is operating in the "right" way
when its perceptual signal is being made to track its reference signal;
the control system is operating in the "wrong" way when its perceptual
signal is _not_ being made to track its reference signal. As observers
of human moral behavior, PCT tells us that a person who says that some
behaviors are "right" and others "wrong" is controlling program
(rule) perceptions as the means of controlling principle perceptions
as the means of controlling a system concept perception at a particular
reference level.

PCT can even say which perceptions are "right" and "wrong" for another
person; the "right" perceptions are the one's that keep higher level
perceptions under control; the "wrong" perceptions are the one's that
_don't_ keep those high level perceptions under control.

I suppose that PCT doesn't deal with what's _really_ "right" and "wrong".
But I think the epistemology of PCT would lead one to suspect that the
_reality_ of "right" and "wrong" is likely to be a perceptual construction
based on a reality that has nothing to do with right and wrong, just
as the _reality_ of "tables" and "chairs" is a perceptual construction
based on a reality that has nothing to do with tables and chairs.

What do you mean when you say that PCT doesn't deal with matters of
right and wrong, Kenny?

which occupy much of our attention and conflict in living some seven
score years as human beings.

Sounds nice. For us non-believers it's more like 3 score and 10 years;
and to top it off, that brief stint is followed by nothing at all.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · August 11, 1999, 1:00am

[From Kenny Kitzke (990810.2010EDT)]

I am so sorry. I forgot PCT Theorem #1. Rick is always "right" because his
perceptions are always his own.

A couple of paragraphs earlier in the post I said this:
"I see PCT as morally neutral from the standpoint that it does not have any
ability to determine what behavior is good or evil, moral or immoral, right
or wrong in any *absolute* sense."

Does this help you understand what I don't think PCT can tell us about "right
or wrong" which I perceive to be just as important to our lives as knowing
how behavior works? If not, don't sweat it. It'll just disturb you.

Now, your talkin'. What is really right or wrong, good or evil depends on
what the reference of a person is. Opinions of right and wrong are like
noses and everybody has one and everyone is different. Can you determine the
reference perceptions others hold by observing their behavior, or by testing
their neural activity, or by any way for sure? Its a real mystery about them
high level references and how they get there. Much tougher than how we learn
to catch fly balls.

Well, you do know that Bible, Ricky. It's indeed 70 years in this Biblical
age (give or take a few standard deviations), not seven score years as I
carelessly stated without much thought. You are right again and I was wrong
again, as usual.

W 8-)) Have a great trilobite inspired day and keep the books right. I am a
certified quality auditor and should be able to attend the Conference in the
East for 2000, if the world as we know it doesn't end before then.

Kenny

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · August 11, 1999, 1:15am

[From Kenny Kitzke (990810.2110 EDT)]

In one of my more *serious* Emails which I read after your post, I found the
following straight from science:

The Faithful are Fitter!

�Lack of religious involvement has an effect on mortality that is equivalent
to 40 years of smoking one pack of cigarettes per day.� - Dr. Harold Koenig,
Duke University Medical Center.

Koenig and other researchers affiliated with schools such as Duke, Harvard
and Yale, recently reviewed some 1,100 health-effect studies involving
religious practices and found that most show a statistically significant
relationship between worship-service attendance and improved health.

Research shows that men and women of mainstream faiths have above average
longevity; fewer strokes, less heart disease, less clinical depression,
better immune-system function, lower blood pressure and fewer anxiety
attacks; and are less likely to commit suicide than the population at large.

Better listen up to them scientists, Rick or at least hope to be a
statistical aberration.

Kenny

Marc_Abrams2 · August 11, 1999, 2:44am

from [ Marc Abrams (990810.2238) ]

Ken, I can't tell you how happy I am with your posting of this piece of
research. Bruce G, what was that about MIT's cognitive research? Ah!,
It's wonderful knowing my life is in the hands of people with such wisdom
:-).

Ken, I am printing this out and giving it to everyone who has some medical
advise for me based upon some new research from some top school.

I love it

Marc

[From Kenny Kitzke (990810.2110 EDT)]

In one of my more *serious* Emails which I read after your post, I found the
following straight from science:

The Faithful are Fitter!

"Lack of religious involvement has an effect on mortality that is equivalent
to 40 years of smoking one pack of cigarettes per day." - Dr. Harold Koenig,
Duke University Medical Center.

Koenig and other researchers affiliated with schools such as Duke, Harvard
and Yale, recently reviewed some 1,100 health-effect studies involving
religious practices and found that most show a statistically significant
relationship between worship-service attendance and improved health.

Research shows that men and women of mainstream faiths have above average
longevity; fewer strokes, less heart disease, less clinical depression,
better immune-system function, lower blood pressure and fewer anxiety
attacks; and are less likely to commit suicide than the population at large.

Better listen up to them scientists, Rick or at least hope to be a
statistical aberration.

Kenny

R_Marken · August 11, 1999, 4:30am

[From Rick Marken (990810.2030)]

Kenny Kitzke (990810.2010EDT)

A couple of paragraphs earlier in the post I said this: "I see PCT
as morally neutral from the standpoint that it does not have any
ability to determine what behavior is good or evil, moral or immoral,
right or wrong in any *absolute* sense."

Does this help you understand what I don't think PCT can tell us
about "right or wrong"

Yes. But, as I said, the PCT epistemology does seem to suggest that
there is no absolute right and wrong in reality; absolute "right"
and "wrong" are, from a PCT perspective, perceptual constructions
based on a reality that has nothing to do with right and wrong.

What is really right or wrong, good or evil depends on what the
reference of a person is.

I agree. But this says that right and wrong, good and evil are
relative; whether any particular perception is right or wrong
_depends_ on the reference specification for that perception.

Kenny Kitzke (990810.2110 EDT)--

Research shows that men and women of mainstream faiths have
above average longevity; fewer strokes, less heart disease,
less clinical depression, better immune-system function, lower
blood pressure and fewer anxiety attacks; and are less likely
to commit suicide than the population at large.

Better listen up to them scientists

A scientist would never suggest that an individual base his or
her controlling on the results of group research. Only medical
doctors and psychologists do that; we're trying to stop them.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

Chris_Cherpas · August 11, 1999, 6:15am

[From Chris Cherpas (990810.2300 PT)]

Chris Cherpas (990810.0000 PT)--

Some discussion at the conference was concerned with the
question of what the world would be like if PCT were the
basis of an accepted paradigm for the life sciences. Many
people at the conference seemed to agree that it would be
easier for people to resist the tendency to coerce, and to
seek other means, given an understanding of human nature as
controlling one's own perceptions.

Bruce Gregory (990810.1026 EDT)--

I have never understood this reasoning. PCT seems to me to be morally
neutral as is any scientific model.

I think I'm alone on this, but I disagree. PCT is a scientific
model of behavior and therefore the only scientific model that
could address morality and ethics. These areas are concerned
with consequences. Consequences accrue to individuals, but also
to the distribution of genes the individuals carry around, and
therefore to future generations of living systems. From an
evolutionary perspective, whatever can spread throughout a
population and perpetuate over time is what is "valuable."

Admittedly, this is my individual view, based on my own individual
references, and, yet, where do these references come from? I would
say they come ultimately from intrinsic variables which are the
very stable variables that I refer to as valuable on an evolutionary
scale. This is not merely the stability which emerges from the
dynamics of physical properties; I'm talking about the stability
that is the result of matter forming into what we call control
systems. Non-living systems have stability, but they do not have
references -- they do not have values.

I feel that a philosophy of a life science that is coherent includes
the notion that ethics and morals can be understood within the science
itself. The mores and ethos of collections of people can be understood
in terms of the collective control of perception, to use McClelland's
term. The scientist is a living system who engages in science for
a purpose. The purpose is not independent of the scientist's other
goals.

If your goals are to dominate, PCT tells you what you must do to
accomplish this and what obstacles you must overcome.

Not so with a thorough-going understanding of PCT. It tells you that
you will generate more conflict than you would want to live with
given an alternative that would achieve the ends to which dominating
is only a means. Domination is not stable. It is fraught
with conflict. You will experience less intrinsic error if you
do not dominate because dominating generates counter-control
and cannot be sustained.

If you want to manipulate others, understanding counter-control can be
very helpful.

Not that helpful. The deeper you understand counter-control, the
more you realize it cannot be itself countered indefinitely. The
reason is the same reason that there is counter-control in the first
place.

You will only resist the urge to coerce if you believe that coercion
is wrong.

False. You will resist the urge to coerce when your systems concepts
and principles have reorganized because of the conflict that persists
when not resisting the urge. To think otherwise, is to accept that a
such a local optimum of "successfully coercing" is as error-free as
it gets. Think again. You do not step outside the causal stream;
yours is not a god's eye view. In fact, a gods' eye view is an illusion.
Of course, that's my view -- but it's at least consistent with PCT.

A proper understanding of PCT would lead one to realize that bombing
Yugoslavia is unlikely to make for a happy multi-ethnic Kosovo.
If you want to get rid of Milosivec send it hit squad and make sure
they get the job done.

While important situations, these dramatic scenes tell us nothing
about a proper understanding of PCT. You are appealing to situations
that involve extreme escalations of coercion and counter-control on
the part of the individuals participating. A proper understanding of
PCT leads me to realize that the energy wasted on agonizing over
global policy and matters of war would be better invested in continuing
to develop a thorough life science. So-called answers to these large
policy questions without that science, of which the current state of
PCT is still only a foundation, are the opinions of the many.

Do you really think that if Sadham Hussein understood PCT he would
become an enlightened and benevolent leader?

I think that "understanding PCT" is actually a continuous process
of examining one's own perceptions in light of PCT, and doing what
is feasible to further the science in a larger sense. If Sadham
Hussein were to start doing that, I believe he would increasingly
see that he is not an enlightened and benevolent leader and would
look for a way out of the business of leading for his and others' sakes.

If so you are smoking something much stronger than I am.

I assume that what I am smoking something stronger than what you are
smoking, but I don't think it makes a difference in our interpretations
of PCT.

The least you could do is share!

Haven't got the time, but would enjoy it I'm sure.

Best regards,
cc

Chris_Cherpas · August 11, 1999, 6:17am

[From Chris Cherpas (990810.2317 PT)]

Thank god I'm an atheist.

Best regards,
cc

R_Marken · August 11, 1999, 2:57pm

[From Rick Marken (990811.0800)]

Kenny Kitzke (990810.2110 EDT) --

Koenig and other researchers affiliated with schools such as Duke, Harvard
and Yale, recently reviewed some 1,100 health-effect studies involving
religious practices and found that most show a statistically significant
relationship between worship-service attendance and improved health.

Bruce Gregory (990811.0530 EDT)--

Good evidence that _belief_ has desirable consequences.

I think not. First, at the group level, there is the problem of causality;
a correlation between worship service attendance and improved health
does not mean that worship service attendance is responsible for
improved
health. It may be, for example, that the people who attend worship services
are healthier people to start with; the worship services may have had nothing
at all to do with their health. Second, on an individual level, if the
statistically significant relationship between worship service
attendance
and improved health is not perfect (a correlation of 1.0; everyone who
attends worship services has good health and everyone who doesn't has
bad health) then this group level result is irrelevant to you (or anyone)
as an individual.

In fact, I think it's pretty easy to tell, without looking at the group
data, whether or not attendance at worship services is going to have
health benefits for you at an individual level. If, when you attend
worship services, you experience stress, anxiety and anger (sure signs
of significant control error) then worship services are _not_ going to
provide health benefits for you. If, on the other hand, when you
attend worship services, you experience peace, serenity and calm (sure
signs of having perceptions under control) then worship services are
going to provide health benefits for you.

Bruce Gregory (990811.1010 EDT)--

It's my network and I'll pout if I want to.

I think your posts on religion have been delightful. Don't pout,
be happy (Apologies to Meher Baba).

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

Bill_Powers1 · August 11, 1999, 3:11pm

[From Bill Powers (990811.0852 MDT)]

I think I'm alone on this, but I disagree. PCT is a scientific
model of behavior and therefore the only scientific model that
could address morality and ethics. These areas are concerned
with consequences. Consequences accrue to individuals, but also
to the distribution of genes the individuals carry around, and
therefore to future generations of living systems. From an
evolutionary perspective, whatever can spread throughout a
population and perpetuate over time is what is "valuable."

Right, but why "should" a species survive? And is improved propagation
always a "good" thing for a species? Would we be better off with 20 billion
people than with 5 billion? Are we better off with 5 billion than we were
with 2 billion? Reproductive success is not always a "good" thing.

When you evaluate goals, you always have to add the contingent clause:
controlling others causes conflict, so you should not control others -- if
your goal is to avoid conflict. If conflict is what you want, then of
course controlling others is a good way to experience conflict. Conflict
can shorten your life, so you should avoid conflict -- if your goal is to
live a long time. Any value has an implied reference condition behind it,
whether it's stated or not.

That's where the "relativity" comes in. I can tell you all kinds of reasons
why "thou shalt not kill" is a "good" commandment. But every reason I give
brings up a new value that also has to be defended, so in the end I'm right
back where I started: it's my preference or it isn't. There's no objective
way to decide whether it's good or bad.

This doesn't mean that "anything goes," not if _I_ have anything to say
about it. I have very definite preferences for how people should treat each
other, and I'm willing to put out some effort to persuade others to my
position. I don't need any justification for doing that.

Best,

Bill P.

P.S. thanks for the great "perception" poster. My daughter who also lives in
Durango immediately appropriated it. Thank goodness -- we're out of wall
space. But I can look at it at her house.

···

Admittedly, this is my individual view, based on my own individual
references, and, yet, where do these references come from? I would
say they come ultimately from intrinsic variables which are the
very stable variables that I refer to as valuable on an evolutionary
scale. This is not merely the stability which emerges from the
dynamics of physical properties; I'm talking about the stability
that is the result of matter forming into what we call control
systems. Non-living systems have stability, but they do not have
references -- they do not have values.

I feel that a philosophy of a life science that is coherent includes
the notion that ethics and morals can be understood within the science
itself. The mores and ethos of collections of people can be understood
in terms of the collective control of perception, to use McClelland's
term. The scientist is a living system who engages in science for
a purpose. The purpose is not independent of the scientist's other
goals.

If your goals are to dominate, PCT tells you what you must do to
accomplish this and what obstacles you must overcome.

Not so with a thorough-going understanding of PCT. It tells you that
you will generate more conflict than you would want to live with
given an alternative that would achieve the ends to which dominating
is only a means. Domination is not stable. It is fraught
with conflict. You will experience less intrinsic error if you
do not dominate because dominating generates counter-control
and cannot be sustained.

If you want to manipulate others, understanding counter-control can be
very helpful.

Not that helpful. The deeper you understand counter-control, the
more you realize it cannot be itself countered indefinitely. The
reason is the same reason that there is counter-control in the first
place.

You will only resist the urge to coerce if you believe that coercion
is wrong.

False. You will resist the urge to coerce when your systems concepts
and principles have reorganized because of the conflict that persists
when not resisting the urge. To think otherwise, is to accept that a
such a local optimum of "successfully coercing" is as error-free as
it gets. Think again. You do not step outside the causal stream;
yours is not a god's eye view. In fact, a gods' eye view is an illusion.
Of course, that's my view -- but it's at least consistent with PCT.

A proper understanding of PCT would lead one to realize that bombing
Yugoslavia is unlikely to make for a happy multi-ethnic Kosovo.
If you want to get rid of Milosivec send it hit squad and make sure
they get the job done.

While important situations, these dramatic scenes tell us nothing
about a proper understanding of PCT. You are appealing to situations
that involve extreme escalations of coercion and counter-control on
the part of the individuals participating. A proper understanding of
PCT leads me to realize that the energy wasted on agonizing over
global policy and matters of war would be better invested in continuing
to develop a thorough life science. So-called answers to these large
policy questions without that science, of which the current state of
PCT is still only a foundation, are the opinions of the many.

Do you really think that if Sadham Hussein understood PCT he would
become an enlightened and benevolent leader?

I think that "understanding PCT" is actually a continuous process
of examining one's own perceptions in light of PCT, and doing what
is feasible to further the science in a larger sense. If Sadham
Hussein were to start doing that, I believe he would increasingly
see that he is not an enlightened and benevolent leader and would
look for a way out of the business of leading for his and others' sakes.

If so you are smoking something much stronger than I am.

I assume that what I am smoking something stronger than what you are
smoking, but I don't think it makes a difference in our interpretations
of PCT.

The least you could do is share!

Haven't got the time, but would enjoy it I'm sure.

Best regards,
cc

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · August 11, 1999, 5:45pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990811.1000EDT)]

<But, as I said, the PCT epistemology does seem to suggest that
there is no absolute right and wrong in reality; absolute "right"
and "wrong" are, from a PCT perspective, perceptual constructions
based on a reality that has nothing to do with right and wrong.>

This is my point. And, that is why PCT and HPTC *for me, and countless
others who believe there are absolute standards for acceptable behavior* will
never provide a complete understanding of human nature. Knowledge of PCT
will never eliminate interpersonal human conflicts which have as their roots
incompatible high-level (strictly human) reference perceptions which reside
in the principle, system, and in my view, the highest level of perception in
man, his spirit nature level of existance.

That is not to say that understanding PCT is not helpful to the human
condition. Understanding behavior is helpful to understanding human nature
and conflict, especially internal conflict. It is just not the whole
enchilada.

When two humans have a different reference perception for the temperature in
a classroom, understanding PCT can probably help resolve conflict at such
physical levels of perception. But, such conflicts are also commonly
resolved by people who have no understanding of PCT.

When two humans have a different reference perception for political parties,
understanding PCT can probably help resolve conflict at mental levels of
perception such as relationships, categories, sequences and programs. I
speculate that understanding PCT may provide better resolution of such mental
and emotional conflicts than our S-R, open loop, psychobabble theories can.
And, the opportunites here are staggering for our society. RTP is a great
example.

When an Arab and a Jew have a different perception of who their god is and
how and when that god is to be worshipped (system level references) and how
their god commands them to treat one another (a principle reference), you
have explosive ingredients of conflict that can only be resolved by going up
to a level that HPCT does not recognize exists--a human spirit level where we
are all of one kind. Yet, man's most inhuman and darkest hours tend to stem
from conflicts at the system level.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · August 11, 1999, 6:05pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990811.1400EDT)]

Well, I guess we have PCT scientists, trying to control the behavior of other
psuedo scientists. So, tell me Rick, how "right" is your controlling working?

Kenny

Chris_Cherpas · August 11, 1999, 6:43pm

[From Chris Cherpas (990811.1130 PT)]

Chris Cherpas (990810.2300 PT)--

I think I'm alone on this... From an evolutionary
perspective, whatever can spread throughout a population
and perpetuate over time is what is "valuable."