The Twelfth Level

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · March 22, 2005, 1:38pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.03.22)]

I am not sure what you, or any other CSG member, or any other PCT advocate, thinks the Twelfth Level is? To my knowledge, there is no agreement that such a level even exists in HPCT, much less how it would be defined.

I am not aware that Bill Powers has ever proposed a Twelfth Level of his perceptual hierarchy. I believe he chooses to neither confirm or deny its existence. As I recall, when this, or at least doing more work on the higher perceptual levels was brought up (I believe by Dick Robertson) at a CSG Conference, Bill was rather incredulous and suggested it was not appropriate or necessary at this stage of the HPCT evolution. Am I wrong about any of this? If so, please refresh my recollection or enlighten me. We do have tapes, but I don’t.

Anyway, I do know what I think the Twelfth Level is and wrote a paper about it which was made available at a CSG Meeting to anyone interested. I received a few comments then and since, some encouraging, even from you Rick, but most were resistive in nature as if the idea is a disturbance. Therefore, I have not talked very much about it since then on the CSGNet.

But, I do think your supposition has merit according to my view of a Twelfth Level. In the simplest concept, my view of the Twelfth Level is the accumulation of all the system perceptions one has accumulated in life, that apply to one self, in your own mind. The values of the reference variables at the Twelfth Level are a specification for how you want to perceive yourself.

In the case you mentioned, if your self perception is being a recognized and reknowned psychologist, you may find you must adopt a behaviorist or cognitive theory in what you say and do. If you proclaim a belief in PCT openly to others in the environment, you may quickly lose your recogition and reknown among the psychology scientists. So, you may have an internal conflict among Twelfth Level reference perceptions, say of staying recognized and reknowned in your vocation, or being honest with yourself.

Of course, there are many ways to act (rationalize) so you minimize the error from not obtaining both references. It is this constant struggle in life, to figure out what you want to be, and how to act to reach that perception that is the most interesting and fascinating aspect of understanding behavior for me. And, I like what HPCT suggests about how one does this.

If you remember, in Boston, at the CSGNet conference, I presented a paper titled, “Who am I?” which dealt with this Twelfth Level and how humans can uniquely among all living things deal with it. I got at least one nice comment that I recall. Thanks again Phil.

Kenny

The LawstSheep

Bill_Powers1 · March 22, 2005, 2:32pm

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.22.0720 MST)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.03.22)–

In the simplest concept, my view
of the Twelfth Level is the accumulation of all the system perceptions
one has accumulated in life, that apply to one self, in your own
mind. The values of the reference variables at the Twelfth Level
are a specification for how you want to perceive
yourself.

The problem, Kenny, is not that I reject a twelfth level, but that your
description of that level is exactly how I think of level 11. A system
concept is a perception of a whole organized entity, which includes one’s
self, one’s society, a religion, a theoretical framework like PCT, and
other things. The individual self is only one component of a system
concept, and even then a component of only one kind of system concept:
there are other kinds that don’t even include a self. I think others have
made the same comment about your offering – that it doesn’t seem to
contain anything that’s not already included in the 11 levels.
I do suspect that there is a 12th level in me, the evidence being that I
can sometimes be aware of 11th-level perceptions as perceptions.
But as in all examples we find in the MOL, one is never aware OF the
level one is operating FROM, and this applies particularly at the highest
level of which one can be conscious. As I say, I suspect there is a 12th
level, and that occasionally I experience the world as if from that
level, but I have never been able to look AT that level to characterize
it. Maybe, if you have 13 levels, you can. I can’t.

Best,

Bill P.

···

B_Thalhammer · March 22, 2005, 4:10pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.03.22.0915)]

Kenny, good morning!

You might want to post an abstract of the article that summarizes your proposal.

Sorry, but, like Rick, I do not believe that such a Twelfth level is part of the
PCT proposal. But there are aspects of your description below that are really
part of the top levels in the hierarchy. The Self Image is part of the system
image (11th proposed level), "accumulated system perceptions" are just that.
Principles, which are also part of who a person is, are 10th level, and so on...
However, while it seems that the description below suggests a privileged role
for humans having a twelfth level, other animals display regular and consistent
evidence of Self System control behavior. A particular example is Koko the
gorilla, who is able to indicate identity, wants, feelings, etc.

About that word, "accumulated" though... It seems that the usage below suggests
a static storage of memories (?), reference settings (?) or some kind of
directives controlling behavior. That doesn't seem much like an extension of PCT
or HPCT. Sounds more like long term memory in the cognitive science paradigm or
the filling up of the blank slate rather than a dynamic reduction of error in
the behavioral control of perceptions.

Better let's see the abstract.

Cheers,

--Bryan

···

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.03.22)]

<Rick Marken (2005.03.21.1800)>

<This lovely piece reminds me of is one of my favorite Bob Dylan songs: I was
so much older then, I'm younger then that now. When I was writing all that
bold stuff about regarding revolutionizing behavioral science I wasn't
really working _in_ the field of behavioral science any more. I was a
systems engineer at an Aerospace firm. Now I am back in the field and I
realize how hard it must be for others who are in it to really change. I now
think I understand -- or, at least, can empathize with -- the unwillingness
of people who are working professionally as behavioral scientists -- as
professors, researchers, policy analysts, etc -- to make a nearly 180 degree
change in direction to go with PCT. I have no idea how anyone who is in the
field -- myself included -- ever manages to go all the way with PCT. Maybe
it's a twelfth level thing.>

I am not sure what you, or any other CSG member, or any other PCT advocate,
thinks the Twelfth Level is? To my knowledge, there is no agreement that
such a level even exists in HPCT, much less how it would be defined.

I am not aware that Bill Powers has ever proposed a Twelfth Level of his
perceptual hierarchy. I believe he chooses to neither confirm or deny its
existence. As I recall, when this, or at least doing more work on the higher
perceptual levels was brought up (I believe by Dick Robertson) at a CSG
Conference,
Bill was rather incredulous and suggested it was not appropriate or necessary
at this stage of the HPCT evolution. Am I wrong about any of this? If so,
please refresh my recollection or enlighten me. We do have tapes, but I
don't.

Anyway, I do know what I think the Twelfth Level is and wrote a paper about
it which was made available at a CSG Meeting to anyone interested. I
received
a few comments then and since, some encouraging, even from you Rick, but most
were resistive in nature as if the idea is a disturbance. Therefore, I have
not talked very much about it since then on the CSGNet.

But, I do think your supposition has merit according to my view of a Twelfth
Level. In the simplest concept, my view of the Twelfth Level is the
accumulation of all the system perceptions one has accumulated in life, that
apply to
one self, in your own mind. The values of the reference variables at the
Twelfth Level are a specification for how you want to perceive yourself.

In the case you mentioned, if your self perception is being a recognized and
reknowned psychologist, you may find you must adopt a behaviorist or
cognitive
theory in what you say and do. If you proclaim a belief in PCT openly to
others in the environment, you may quickly lose your recogition and reknown
among
the psychology scientists. So, you may have an internal conflict among
Twelfth Level reference perceptions, say of staying recognized and reknowned
in
your vocation, or being honest with yourself.

Of course, there are many ways to act (rationalize) so you minimize the error
from not obtaining both references. It is this constant struggle in life, to
figure out what you want to be, and how to act to reach that perception that
is the most interesting and fascinating aspect of understanding behavior for
me. And, I like what HPCT suggests about how one does this.

If you remember, in Boston, at the CSGNet conference, I presented a paper
titled, "Who am I?" which dealt with this Twelfth Level and how humans can
uniquely among all living things deal with it. I got at least one nice
comment that I recall. Thanks again Phil.

Kenny...

Jason_Gosnell · March 24, 2005, 7:50pm

[From Jason Gosnell(2005.03.24.05.1350CST)]

[Bill Powers (2005.03.22.0720 MST)]

I do suspect that there is a 12th level in me, the evidence being that I can sometimes be aware of 11th-level perceptions as >perceptions. But as in all examples we find in the MOL, one is never aware OF the level one is operating FROM, and this >applies particularly at the highest level of which one can be conscious. As I say, I suspect there is a 12th level, and that >occasionally I experience the world as if from that level, but I have never been able to look AT that level to characterize it. >Maybe, if you have 13 levels, you can. I can’t.

This is from the Genjo Koan by Zen Master Dogen…it’s very fascinating if you want to read the whole thing I’ll forward it.

"Do not suppose that what you realize becomes your knowledge and is grasped by your consciousness. Although actualized immediately, the inconceivable may not be apparent. "

He has said many times in writings that this 12th level as we are calling it does not actually appear within perception as something grasped by your consciousness. It is all pervading and includes your consciousness so it is not a “thing” that one perceives in the usual way. What you might be aware of is something like a vast sense of spaciousness or stillness in which things appear. But that space is boundless and so it is never possessed as a kind of mind-object the way that the object-conscious part of the mind seems to operate. It’s actualized immediately as you are it and you are in it. But, when consciousness is caught up in other things, like actualizing my self image, it is not apparent that this oneness is operating. When I am in that state, the world looks 3 dimensional, when I am in the self system, identifying with mental contents, it looks flat. The moment, I switch from identification with contents to a pure observation mode, the depth and vividness of my experience occurs again. It’s like an opening and expanding of awareness that includes what I am sensing. There is also a feeling change that seems to occur, going from a heavy feeling to a lighter one. That’s my experience and “understanding.”

Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Powers [mailto:powers_w@FRONTIER.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:32 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: The Twelfth Level

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.22.0720 MST)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.03.22)–
In the simplest concept, my view of the Twelfth Level is the accumulation of all the system perceptions one has accumulated in life, that apply to one self, in your own mind.  The values of the reference variables at the Twelfth Level are a specification for how you want to perceive yourself.
The problem, Kenny, is not that I reject a twelfth level, but that your description of that level is exactly how I think of level 11. A system concept is a perception of a whole organized entity, which includes one’s self, one’s society, a religion, a theoretical framework like PCT, and other things. The individual self is only one component of a system concept, and even then a component of only one kind of system concept: there are other kinds that don’t even include a self. I think others have made the same comment about your offering – that it doesn’t seem to contain anything that’s not already included in the 11 levels.
I do suspect that there is a 12th level in me, the evidence being that I can sometimes be aware of 11th-level perceptions * as perceptions* . But as in all examples we find in the MOL, one is never aware OF the level one is operating FROM, and this applies particularly at the highest level of which one can be conscious. As I say, I suspect there is a 12th level, and that occasionally I experience the world as if from that level, but I have never been able to look AT that level to characterize it. Maybe, if you have 13 levels, you can. I can’t.

Best,

Bill P.

All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and delete or destroy all copies of this message.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · March 27, 2005, 8:25pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.03.27)]

In a message dated 3/22/2005 9:36:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.22.0720 MST)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.03.22)–

In the simplest concept, my view of the Twelfth Level is the accumulation of all the system perceptions one has accumulated in life, that apply to one self, in your own mind. The values of the reference variables at the Twelfth Level are a specification for how you want to perceive yourself.

The problem, Kenny, is not that I reject a twelfth level, but that your description of that level is exactly how I think of level 11. A system concept is a perception of a whole organized entity, which includes one’s self, one’s society, a religion, a theoretical framework like PCT, and other things. The individual self is only one component of a system concept, and even then a component of only one kind of system concept: there are other kinds that don’t even include a self. I think others have made the same comment about your offering – that it doesn’t seem to contain anything that’s not already included in the 11 levels.
Well, if including a concept of “one self” as a systems level perception works for you, who am I to tell you, or others, to see it my way?

However, I am pleased to try to explain why it does not work very well for me. First, I understood (at least when I first wrote this paper in 1999) that system #11 level perceptions are built up/supported/accumulated from my beliefs/principles at Level 10. As a corollary, my system level variable perceptionss are NOT made up from other system level variable perceptions. IOW, I would not use my system level reference of a Democrat to establish my system level reference of a Republican. They are DIFFERENT Level 11 perceptual variables supported by entirely DIFFERENT Level 10 beliefs/principles.

On this basis, I see all Level 11 perceptual variables as independent of one another. You can’t be a Democrat and a Republican at the same time. Do you see this differently?

Here is another example. I grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin during the era of Vince Lombardi. A Packer backer believed Lombardi was a god-send (some probably a god), a great coach, an inspirational leader of men. The kind of man that could lead a team to win a Super Bowl. If Bart Starr, Jerry Kramer and Jim Taylor wanted to come over to have dinner with me or play golf with me, I would have thought I died and was in heaven. I believed they were heros, real men to look up to as a teenager. Obviously, I could go on to name numerous beliefs about what I perceived being a Packer backer/fan (today a cheese-head) was.

Now, when I moved to Pittsburgh, I started to have the input experiences about what beliefs constitued being a Stiller fan. Yeah, there was Chuck Noll, not the kind of visible leader that Lombardi was, but able to win twice as many Super Bowls. If Terry Bradshaw, Joe Greene and Franco Harris (immaculate reception) wanted to play a little tennis with me, I would be incredible elated. I could not show up at a Stiller (Steeler) game without my black and gold cap and my “Terrible Towel.”

I now had two well defined system concepts of what it means to be a Packer or Steeler fan. I could control for either one but not both when they were playing against each other. Now I had a conflict. You might have said I would need to reorganize in some random test of desparation to avoid this misarable, life-long conflict. I said then, and still say, baloney! Which one I want to control for as a reference for being a football fan was a conscious choice that best fit my Twelfth Level of who Kenny Kitzke wants to be.

So, if you are following me at all, I selected from my system level 11 concepts of a pro football fan, the self-concept of a pro-football fan that Kenny wants for Kenny. Big surprise, it was being a Steelers fan. All the hierarchy perceptions necessary for me to achieve that self-concept are already in place. I can control for being what I want to be. And, when I do, I feel good (physically, mentally and spiritually).

The same kind of experiences and beliefs have built up over my life for how I want to earn a living for me and my family. Do I want to be a nuclear engineer, a contract negotiator, a salesman, a sales manager, a litagation settler, a marketing manager, a stragegy manager, a CEO of my own business, or a retired man on a pension, or a preacher of the gospel? I know how to be all these things. Which one do I want to be today? And, how does that come about?

All those types of things remain in my system level perceptual variables, as well as the hierarchy which underlies each one. So, it simply helps me understand myself, and my behavior to conceptualize a higher 12th Level of mental consciousness that is comprised of only my system level 11 variables that I want at the moment for me. And, I can assure you, that Twelfth Level keeps changing continually as the world, my body, my mind and my spirit changes.

The construct of the Twelfth Level not only seems to fit your theory, but it is helpful to see why when my self-concepts are attacked, I resist them with great gain. Tell me, "You don’t know squat about business, or leading people, or quality, or economics, or behavior, etc., and you will probably get some high-gain pushing back, or at least, I may feel that desire. I think this is how all humans react when their self-image is attacked.

Bill, you ain’t no scientist! Bill, you are 30 years out of date technically. Bill, most of your ideas were already fleshed out by others. Bill, you are so wrapped up in you PCT crapola, you can’t even comprehend the better ideas others have. Bill, you have less than a hundred people left that want to hear about your ideas. And the number is less every year. It is not hard to understand how such accusations would cause you error and emotional response of a physiological nature. That is because what I call your human spirit is disturbed. And, only your human spirit can bring you peace. You may call this your hypothesized reorganization system which will alter your references or your perceptions of the inputs, perhaps at random, until you find some peace inside your spirit.

You are well aware I have never found your reasoning about your proposed “Reorganization System” to comport with my own life experiences or capabilities. If it explains what you do, and how you do it for you, I have no big problem. Same for anyone else who is satisfied with your suppositions. They seem to outnumber those who like my suppositions, but you have written far more about yours than I have about mine.

Do you still have my The Twelfth Level paper from 1999? I wonder if anyone on this group has it. I have not looked at it much in five years. When I searched for it, much of what I wrote was no longer in my memory. I suppose I would write it a bit differently now as my knowledge of life and HPCT have grown, but for whom? For what purpose? Who cares?

I do suspect that there is a 12th level in me, the evidence being that I can sometimes be aware of 11th-level perceptions as perceptions. But as in all examples we find in the MOL, one is never aware OF the level one is operating FROM, and this applies particularly at the highest level of which one can be conscious. As I say, I suspect there is a 12th level, and that occasionally I experience the world as if from that level, but I have never been able to look AT that level to characterize it. Maybe, if you have 13 levels, you can. I can’t.

Best,

Bill P.

Well, this is more conducive to considering a possible level higher than 11 than I recall you expressing before. It may not be quite as I describe it. It is just my own speculation that is useful to me. I realize that. I wish when you are experiencing your Twelfth Level, you would try to capture its essense and tell us about what is happening. You know I am a strong advocate of MOL for applying your superior understanding of human behavior to help us explore our human nature more fully.

I guess I always hope that someone else would say, “Hey, Kenny, your idea is not as goofy as I used to think it was. But, to add your idea to HPCT, we would have to make some better models and do some experiments.” If you, or anyone else, ever said that, perhaps I would devote some of my remaining breath to that self-concept. As it is, I have other self-concepts that seem more appropriate to control for at this stage in my life.

Respectfully,

Kenny

The LawstSheep

···

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · March 27, 2005, 8:25pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.03.27.1500EST)]

In a message dated 3/22/2005 10:25:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.03.22.0915)]

Kenny, good morning!
Sorry to ignore you post so long Bry. We have had company that has sucked up my time and put me behind in many things I am moved to do.

You might want to post an abstract of the article that summarizes your proposal.
OK. Unfortunately, all that stuff is on my old Mac desk top. It is not hooked up to the Internet or my newer computers. But, I will see if it still works and send it separately. Then you can pick it to pieces, constructively, of course.

Sorry, but, like Rick, I do not believe that such a Twelfth level is part of the
PCT proposal. But there are aspects of your description below that are really
part of the top levels in the hierarchy. The Self Image is part of the system
image (11th proposed level), “accumulated system perceptions” are just that.
Principles, which are also part of who a person is, are 10th level, and so on…
However, while it seems that the description below suggests a privileged role
for humans having a twelfth level, other animals display regular and consistent
evidence of Self System control behavior. A particular example is Koko the
gorilla, who is able to indicate identity, wants, feelings, etc.
I understand that a Twelfth Level IS NOT part of current HPCT. I am not sure who Koko is, but if he has a self concept, how in the heck would you ascertain that? I suspect he is controlling for lower level perceptions.

I guess I am proposing an improvement in HPCT. See Bill Powers post where even he sometimes feels there may be a Twelfth Level in him. But, he apparently sees no reason to develop that to answer the questions he has about human behavior and human nature. Perhaps you do not neither. And, perhaps you want to tell the master of HPCT that he is hallucinating. But, I won’t. I feel this need strongly and can’t imagine why others like you don’t when Bill and I do? We are quite the same and quite different at the same time as humans, you know.

You are the kind of fellow that I would trust to think about your own experiences with your own Level 11 variables and references and see if you can’t look down on them as in an MOL session. What do you find? How do you explain where the top level references come from and what changes them? Perhaps you have answers that would ease my own skepticism? But, I have not seen near enough discussion of this possibility from you, or perhaps anyone else

About that word, “accumulated” though… It seems that the usage below suggests
a static storage of memories (?), reference settings (?) or some kind of
directives controlling behavior. That doesn’t seem much like an extension of PCT
or HPCT. Sounds more like long term memory in the cognitive science paradigm or
the filling up of the blank slate rather than a dynamic reduction of error in
the behavioral control of perceptions.
I was trying to say that my Level 11 system variables and references are an aggregate of my Level 10 beliefs/principles which have developed in my mind as memories I suppose over my lifetime. So, I am Kaptain Kenny of a USTA Super Seniors Team. My perceptons at lower levels allowed me to define that reference at Level 11 and Level 12. I control for that self-perception now, in the twilight of my life. And, I want to be recognized by our results and by my team as a good Kaptain. I do a lot of things during the summer to try to act to perceive this about myself. I do not think anyone else worries too much about it.

Better let’s see the abstract.

Cheers,

–Bryan
Cheers to you. I will try to get the old Mac hooked up and see if I can send the old Abstract.

Kenny

···

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.03.22)]

<Rick Marken (2005.03.21.1800)>

<This lovely piece reminds me of is one of my favorite Bob Dylan songs: I was
so much older then, I’m younger then that now. When I was writing all that
bold stuff about regarding revolutionizing behavioral science I wasn’t
really working in the field of behavioral science any more. I was a
systems engineer at an Aerospace firm. Now I am back in the field and I
realize how hard it must be for others who are in it to really change. I now
think I understand – or, at least, can empathize with – the unwillingness
of people who are working professionally as behavioral scientists – as
professors, researchers, policy analysts, etc – to make a nearly 180 degree
change in direction to go with PCT. I have no idea how anyone who is in the
field – myself included – ever manages to go all the way with PCT. Maybe
it’s a twelfth level thing.>

I am not sure what you, or any other CSG member, or any other PCT advocate,
thinks the Twelfth Level is? To my knowledge, there is no agreement that
such a level even exists in HPCT, much less how it would be defined.

I am not aware that Bill Powers has ever proposed a Twelfth Level of his
perceptual hierarchy. I believe he chooses to neither confirm or deny its
existence. As I recall, when this, or at least doing more work on the higher
perceptual levels was brought up (I believe by Dick Robertson) at a CSG
Conference,
Bill was rather incredulous and suggested it was not appropriate or necessary
at this stage of the HPCT evolution. Am I wrong about any of this? If so,
please refresh my recollection or enlighten me. We do have tapes, but I
don’t.

Anyway, I do know what I think the Twelfth Level is and wrote a paper about
it which was made available at a CSG Meeting to anyone interested. I
received
a few comments then and since, some encouraging, even from you Rick, but most
were resistive in nature as if the idea is a disturbance. Therefore, I have
not talked very much about it since then on the CSGNet.

But, I do think your supposition has merit according to my view of a Twelfth
Level. In the simplest concept, my view of the Twelfth Level is the
accumulation of all the system perceptions one has accumulated in life, that
apply to
one self, in your own mind. The values of the reference variables at the
Twelfth Level are a specification for how you want to perceive yourself.

In the case you mentioned, if your self perception is being a recognized and
reknowned psychologist, you may find you must adopt a behaviorist or
cognitive
theory in what you say and do. If you proclaim a belief in PCT openly to
others in the environment, you may quickly lose your recogition and reknown
among
the psychology scientists. So, you may have an internal conflict among
Twelfth Level reference perceptions, say of staying recognized and reknowned
in
your vocation, or being honest with yourself.

Of course, there are many ways to act (rationalize) so you minimize the error
from not obtaining both references. It is this constant struggle in life, to
figure out what you want to be, and how to act to reach that perception that
is the most interesting and fascinating aspect of understanding behavior for
me. And, I like what HPCT suggests about how one does this.

If you remember, in Boston, at the CSGNet conference, I presented a paper
titled, “Who am I?” which dealt with this Twelfth Level and how humans can
uniquely among all living things deal with it. I got at least one nice
comment that I recall. Thanks again Phil.

Kenny…

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · March 27, 2005, 8:58pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.03.27.1600EST)]

OK. I am trying to get this to work with my old desktop Mac. Here is the
old Abstract. It is bound to disturb you and others (the last line). Sorry,
that is how I felt at the time. I suspect it will not be very helpful either.
But, if this goes through, perhaps I can send the Conclusion or even the
entire paper. However, I have not been able to find a complete copy of it in my
harddrive. Drat. I wish I had a self concept of being a computer whiz.

Kenny

July 22,1999, Revised October 27, 2001
Handout at the 1999 CSG-Conference in Vancouver, BC
Kenneth J. Kitzke
[KJKitzke@aol.com]

ABSTRACT

According to Hierarchical Perceptual Control Theory (HPCT), as postulated by
its originator, William T. Powers, human beings do not control their behavior.
People behave in order to control for their internal perceptions of how they
want things to be.

Powers developed eleven hierarchal ordered levels of perception which human
beings control. The controlling is done at a level where sensed input
perceptions are compared to desired reference perceptions (which are set by the next
higher level). Control at each level is accomplished through a closed,
negative feedback loop of neural signals.

Powers claims that HPCT describes the human nature of people. The lower
levels explain quite well the behavior (actions) we can observe people doing,
including unconscious actions (blinking your eyes). The higher levels attempt to
describe many of the perceptions we experience in our mind about our body and
the states of our conscious mental processes.

This paper proposes that there is a still higher level of human perception, a
twelfth level that is needed to more completely describe human nature.
Unless we can understand human nature as vastly different and superior to that of
animal nature, we are left metaphorically with making an evolved monkey of
ourselves.

Bozo_the_Clown · March 27, 2005, 9:51pm

Ken,

If you believe that there is some spirit that exists outside your body and has influence inside your body you will never be dealing in an area where science will be able to help answer any of your questions.

This of course does NOT make either your questions, or the concept of the existence of spirit worthwhile, important, or plausible.

It just is not science.

Science is about truth, and only our maker has all the real details.

We mortals, through science attempt to approach an approximation of it, but it is a game that will last for all eternity in my opinion.

What if there is a 12th level? Whose ‘god’; or which set of rules (religion) is the ‘correct’ one?

Do humans of different religions treat others differently? That is, does the ‘spirit’ manifest itself in a way that actually affects how we live today?

If so, how do you account for all the killing in the name of ANY religion, for _ANY purpose by ALL religious persuasions, with few exceptions.

I think you are trying to figure out why and how we become who and what we are. I don’t think you need a “12th” level. What you need is a scientific theory that explains why and how this is accomplished.

I believe this is doable.

Marc

B_Thalhammer · March 27, 2005, 10:21pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.03.27.1535 CST)]

Kenny,

Thanks for digging that out. I had the same problem with the Mac system I
had/have. Data that is not on a cross-platform media (CD, floppy disk, USB mem
stick) gets lost. Gee, I hope we can change that. A colleague that works, like
me, in a MS-PC environment switched to a new Mac with the Microsoft version of
the emulated PC. He claims the PC in Mac works fine, but is still slow.

Now on to the abstract. Let us all look at PCT and this proposal with science,
tests that can be performed, and constructive criticism. Of course, since it is
an abstract, additional clarifications might be needed, so hopefully you will be
able to get to the paper. The last paragraph is where you get to the proposal of
a twelfth level, where you suggest that in it is the distinction between human
and animal natures. What is your hypothesis? That a twelfth level of perceptual
control goes higher than system image/self image? Would that be spirit or
something physical that can be scientifically investigated? What would be the
nature of that investigation? The issues at hand is whether or not one can do
science with this proposal.

Thanks!

--Bryan

···

July 22,1999, Revised October 27, 2001
Handout at the 1999 CSG-Conference in Vancouver, BC
Kenneth J. Kitzke
[KJKitzke@aol.com]

ABSTRACT

According to Hierarchical Perceptual Control Theory (HPCT), as postulated by
its originator, William T. Powers, human beings do not control their
behavior. People behave in order to control for their internal perceptions of
how they want things to be.

Powers developed eleven hierarchal ordered levels of perception which human
beings control. The controlling is done at a level where sensed input
perceptions are compared to desired reference perceptions (which are set by
the next higher level). Control at each level is accomplished through a
closed, negative feedback loop of neural signals.

Powers claims that HPCT describes the human nature of people. The lower
levels explain quite well the behavior (actions) we can observe people doing,
including unconscious actions (blinking your eyes). The higher levels
attempt to describe many of the perceptions we experience in our mind about
our body and the states of our conscious mental processes.

This paper proposes that there is a still higher level of human perception, a
twelfth level that is needed to more completely describe human nature.
Unless we can understand human nature as vastly different and superior to
that of animal nature, we are left metaphorically with making an evolved
monkey of ourselves.

Bill_Powers1 · March 28, 2005, 4:52pm

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.28.0817 MST)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.03.27) –

The problem, Kenny, is not that I reject a twelfth
level, but that your description of that level is exactly how I think of
level 11.

Well, if including a concept of “one self” as a systems
level perception works for you, who am I to tell you, or others, to see
it my way?

If all there is to this idea is an arbitrary preference for how we see
things, what’s the point of discussing anything? You decide on how you
want to see the self, I decide on how I want to see it, and that’s that.
There have to be some common understandings, we need some basis for
recognizing what is the same between out ideas, before we can come to any
kind of agreement. I think that comes from describing experiences as
carefully as we can, looking for something that as near as we can
determine we both experience.

I actually have no strong convictions about the nature of the highest
levels. My own proposals are just the best I’ve been able to come up
with, and they’re only propositions, starting points. We’re a long way
from being able to do any kind of definitive experiments or imitate
higher-order functions in simulations. Nobody has the final word on
anything now.

As I see it there are two different kinds of selves that we mean when we
say the word “I”. One kind is what we call
“personality.” It’s how we think, how we deal with other
people, the particular principles we uphold, the way we perceive
ourselves in the big picture of life, the thing that other people
recognize when they think of us. I think that kind of self is a set of
learned control systems that involve higher levels of
organization.

The other kind of self that I think I see (very indirectly) is what I’ve
referred to in MOL as the “observer.” This is the real me. It’s
the self that I’ve been since the first time I was conscious, and that
has remained the same all my life. I have become larger, older, more
educated, more skilled, calmer, less anxious, more confident, more able
to deal with other people – all these things have to do with the first
kind of self, the kind that I have learned and modified during my life.
The other has not undergone any of these changes. It observes, and it
observes today exactly the way it has always done.

The second kind of self is what I tentatively think of as level 12,
although it’s not really a level in the hierarchy. The reason I say it’s
not is that I seem to be able to observe perceptions occurring anywhere
in the hierarchy (though not all of them or all at once), from the pain
of a stubbed toe to disappointment over a bad idea. It’s not that the
idea of an observer derives from all my different systems concepts (which
include different selves as well as other things); the observer was there
all along, even before I had any higher levels.

However, I am pleased to try to
explain why it does not work very well for me. First, I understood
(at least when I first wrote this paper in 1999) that system #11 level
perceptions are built up/supported/accumulated from my beliefs/principles
at Level 10. As a corollary, my system level variable perceptionss
are NOT made up from other system level variable perceptions. IOW,
I would not use my system level reference of a Democrat to establish my
system level reference of a Republican. They are DIFFERENT Level 11
perceptual variables supported by entirely DIFFERENT Level 10
beliefs/principles.

On this basis, I see all Level 11 perceptual variables as independent of
one another. You can’t be a Democrat and a Republican at the same
time. Do you see this differently?

No, I agree with that. There are many system concepts, each derived from
some subset of all the principles we perceive. We even have different
selves that follow from different principles: the businessman self, the
religious self, the tennis-playing self, the childish self, the scientist
self, and so on. These selves can even rest on conflicting principles:
the liberal self and the Republican self, for example. We have a very
liberal Republican State Senator in my district who sometimes has real
problems deciding what his consituency is.

Here is another example. I
grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin during the era of Vince Lombardi. A
Packer backer believed Lombardi was a god-send (some probably a god), a
great coach, an inspirational leader of men. The kind of man that
could lead a team to win a Super Bowl. If Bart Starr, Jerry Kramer
and Jim Taylor wanted to come over to have dinner with me or play golf
with me, I would have thought I died and was in heaven. I believed
they were heros, real men to look up to as a teenager. Obviously, I
could go on to name numerous beliefs about what I perceived being a
Packer backer/fan (today a cheese-head) was.

I don’t see any problem with that. This is what I call a learned self,
which is scattered over a range of higher levels of organization from
habits of speech to personal identity. Your Packer self got reorganized
away and you acquired, or changed it into, a Steeler self. Neither of
these, of course, is the observer in you. The observer may have watched
the change, but the observer didn’t change, did it?

I now had two well defined
system concepts of what it means to be a Packer or Steeler fan. I
could control for either one but not both when they were playing against
each other. Now I had a conflict. You might have said I would
need to reorganize in some random test of desparation to avoid this
misarable, life-long conflict. I said then, and still say,
baloney! Which one I want to control for as a reference for being a
football fan was a conscious choice that best fit my Twelfth Level of who
Kenny Kitzke wants to be.

If you can find a way to be both at the same time, there’s no conflict,
is there? Who Kenny Kitzke wants to be is a system concept, derived from
the principles you uphold. I think what you’re talking about here is what
I call the observer, who is not only what you want to be, but what you
ARE. You are not a Packer fan or a Steeler fan. You are not even Kenny
Kitzke. You are the observer of these things. Not so?

So, if you are following me at
all, I selected from my system level 11 concepts of a pro football fan,
the self-concept of a pro-football fan that Kenny wants for Kenny.
Big surprise, it was being a Steelers fan. All the hierarchy
perceptions necessary for me to achieve that self-concept are already in
place. I can control for being what I want to be. And, when I
do, I feel good (physically, mentally and spiritually).

The same kind of experiences and
beliefs have built up over my life for how I want to earn a living for me
and my family. Do I want to be a nuclear engineer, a contract
negotiator, a salesman, a sales manager, a litagation settler, a
marketing manager, a stragegy manager, a CEO of my own business, or a
retired man on a pension, or a preacher of the gospel? I know how
to be all these things. Which one do I want to be today? And,
how does that come about?

I’m not sure that these are really system concepts as I see them, but
maybe they are. I find your reasoning persuasive. Clearly these are
different roles you’re describing, and these roles entail very different
chunks of the hierarchy. And equally clearly, we switch from one role to
another all the time, several times a day in fact.

When you say you know how to be all those things, I know what you mean.
But I don’t quite see them as system concepts. Maybe the problem is that
there is a level missing in my definitions. I see the system concept
level as the place from which one would switch among selves, but I’ve
been thinking of the selves as belonging to the logic or rule-driven
level, the level where we know how to do things and think about things.
The program level. When you’re a preacher you run one set of programs;
when you’re negotiating a contract, a different set.

Let me ask you this. When you’re a preacher, are you picking principles
to apply, or are you being guided by a set of principles given, as it
were, from above? Isn’t it the second one? Aren’t your reference signals,
when you’re preaching, the principles of your religion? Don’t they shape
what you try to communicate? You see what I’m getting at: if principles
are coming from above, then the preacher self exists at the program
level, not the system concept level, as least according to the way I’ve
proposed that the levels are arranged.

When you add up all the principles that guide the preacher, I claim that
you come out with a system concept, the one called (a particular)
religion, a higher level of perception than principles, and higher still
than preaching. I think it’s what you are calling the spiritual
level.

And don’t forget your MOL experiences. If you can look at a level and say
that it’s spiritual, this must mean that your awareness resides at a
level above the spiritual level, or above what I call the system concept
level. And you can’t see the level you’re in.

Rereading what I’ve written, I see that it’s pretty disorganized. This
concept of a “role” doesn’t really seem to fit any of the
levels I’ve defined. It’s more than just a program, but it’s not as
general as a principle. And I can’t see it as qualifying as a self, or
personality, at the system concept level. I think I’ll just have to leave
it there and wait for some more reorganization.

All those types of things remain
in my system level perceptual variables, as well as the hierarchy which
underlies each one. So, it simply helps me understand myself, and
my behavior to conceptualize a higher 12th Level of mental consciousness
that is comprised of only my system level 11 variables that I want at the
moment for me. And, I can assure you, that Twelfth Level keeps
changing continually as the world, my body, my mind and my spirit
changes.

Well, this is the main reason I say to MOLers that they should pay no
attention to my 11 levels. What matters is relative level. I don’t
think we have to define the levels in any fixed way to experience what it
means to go up (or down) a level.I’m pretty sure you’d agree. I hope
you’ll also agree that “body, mind, and spirit” are not in any
better shape as guides. What matters is to look at the foreground
perception and try to notice the background perception about the
foreground one, and then bring the background into the foreground – to
use a couple of words that are not very satisfactory, either.

Bill, you ain’t no
scientist! Bill, you are 30 years out of date technically.
Bill, most of your ideas were already fleshed out by others. Bill,
you are so wrapped up in you PCT crapola, you can’t even comprehend the
better ideas others have. Bill, you have less than a hundred people
left that want to hear about your ideas. And the number is less
every year. It is not hard to understand how such accusations would
cause you error and emotional response of a physiological nature.
That is because what I call your human spirit is
disturbed.

And I would say, a system concept is disturbed – but not really very
much, because such accusations don’t have enough to do with how I
perceive my world. I think I had most of those thoughts before anyone
else mentioned them, and tried to do something about those that were
true. False accusations that you know are false don’t have much effect,
do they?

And, only your human spirit can
bring you peace. You may call this your hypothesized reorganization
system which will alter your references or your perceptions of the
inputs, perhaps at random, until you find some peace inside your
spirit.

I’m pretty peaceful, usually. Even when sad – I don’t think I would want
to NOT feel sad at losing Mary. And I’m sure I wouldn’t want to be happy
about it, which some religious types seem to think would be
right.

You are well aware I have never
found your reasoning about your proposed “Reorganization
System” to comport with my own life experiences or
capabilities.

You don’t ever reorganize? You sit down and reason out dispassionately
the right thing to do, and just do it, and are right the first time?
Pardon me for being skeptical. Of course we have all acquired systematic
ways of solving problems, and we use them as long as they work – that
means we don’t have to reorganize. But how did we arrive at those
systematic ways, and what do we do when something about the world changes
so a systematic approach no longer works? Then there’s no way but to
reorganize – nature’s way of flipping a coin. You probably call it
“praying.”

If it explains what you do, and
how you do it for you, I have no big problem. Same for anyone else
who is satisfied with your suppositions. They seem to outnumber
those who like my suppositions, but you have written far more about yours
than I have about mine.

I’d better hurry up and write lots of words, then, if that’s all it
takes. I can probably type faster than you can, so I’m sure to win. Does
it matter what the words are?

Do you still have my The Twelfth
Level paper from 1999? I wonder if anyone on this group has
it. I have not looked at it much in five years. When I
searched for it, much of what I wrote was no longer in my memory. I
suppose I would write it a bit differently now as my knowledge of life
and HPCT have grown, but for whom? For what purpose? Who
cares?

I remember it vaguely, and it’s around somewhere. We’re better off
discussing things in present time, I think. For one thing, you can’t
change what is already written. It’s easier to change an opinion that
hasn’t been published yet.

I guess I always hope that someone else would say, “Hey, Kenny,
your idea is not as goofy as I used to think it was. But, to add
your idea to HPCT, we would have to make some better models and do some
experiments.” If you, or anyone else, ever said that, perhaps
I would devote some of my remaining breath to that self-concept. As
it is, I have other self-concepts that seem more appropriate to control
for at this stage in my life.

I don’t think your ideas are goofy. I don’t think they’re all right,
either, but neither are mine. Remember the 2004 CSG meeting? Your
presentation really impressed me, both with its content and because of
your attitude. And I told you so.

Best,

Bill P.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · April 4, 2005, 3:19pm

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.04.28.04 EDT) or earlier]

Well, if including a concept of “one self” as a systems level perception works for you, who am I to tell you, or others, to see it my way?

I agree. I will start a new thread, tenatively titled, A Need to be a Perfectionist, that I hope will flesh out whether a Twelfth Level of “Self” helps to better explain human behavior AND human nature.

This is more than an issue of the number of levels in a human hierarchy or their names. For me, it really has to do more with the highest level of conscious human perception and how that level is afftected and interconnected with our human nature, including some innate but unlearned human capabilities. That is where I am sure we have some differences in understanding.

You use terms like “reorganization system” and “Observer” to help describe what seems to be something in us humans. I use terms like “human spirit” as a function or ability that is above, or apart from, our human mind and nervous system. There may be conceptual and theoretical similarites we share (and differences) but we will never reach any agreement without some additional dialogue.

I know you have said similar things before and I trust you believe what you say. That is honest and fair. And, I don’t find it to be robbery for me to have my own ideas and speculations which are different from yours. But, I have seen others on this forum speak about the 11 Levels as if they are foundational to HPCT and the mention by me of a Twelfth Level is shear heresy. I have seen others talk as though “reorganization” is a proven aspect of human behavior and learning. And, dare I suggest it is not proven or demonstrated (at least in any specific detail) and there may be a different explanation than what you have written, I am lamblasted for “just not having studied HPCT enough.” IOW, some seem to take your speculations as fact and resist any doubting Thomas who enters this house.

I can see already a divergence. I would not conceive “personality” as something learned. I conceive it as mostly something innate, something intrinsic, like the color of our eyes or our hair lines.

OK, this helps. I conceive these two at any moment of time as “self.” It does not matter so much whether these concepts of self are consciously learned or innately inherited in our humaness. But, where I think they are important is that when these self-concepts are disturbed (externally or internally) they produce large error in our “self” consciousness that accompanies considerable emotion in our “spirit” and typically results in what appears to be irrational action.

So, for example, there is a self-concept disturbance with large internal error that one’s human spirit acts on with the kind of seemingly irrational violence of flying airplanes into buildings or spraying bullets in a school cafeteria filled with fellow students.

It is my opinion that HPCT provides a pretty good view of how and why such human behavior takes place. It is far superior to the guesses we see on CNN or FOX by psychologists for “why did they do that?” Did the national policy of the USA or what the President said cause them to do these things? Was it the Principal or the kids in the environment that caused the bullets to fly?

However, HPCT as currently constituted, seems to minimize the very issues that are associated with the experienced behavior: severe states of anger or depression. So, it is no surprise to me that people who experience both anger and depression, flock to books, authors and psychologists who use these things to explain why people do what they do. That is what sells and gets attention. HPCT is too theoretical for them and leaves out the things like their emotions which their experience tells them plays an important role in their lives and why they do what they do.

It is out of such gaps (perhaps not for you) but for those who first hear about PCT and tracking experiements and catching a baseball and driving a car that they say, “Hey BFD!” and go on to the stuff that tickles their ears. Like a memory of childhood abuse makes them do terrible things to people and lose control of their behavior and lets just try to understand and forgive these poor souls.

Here, there is a similarity with what I call our human spirit. I see no reason why it can’t act on the hierarchy of perception concerning the body and mind if the hierarchy is not able to produce output actions that correct the error. My take though is that the human spirit is the ONLY function that can address error at the highest level of human consciousness (whether it is called Level 11 or Level 12).

However, I am pleased to try to explain why it does not work very well for me. First, I understood (at least when I first wrote this paper in 1999) that system #11 level perceptions are built up/supported/accumulated from my beliefs/principles at Level 10. As a corollary, my system level variable perceptionss are NOT made up from other system level variable perceptions. IOW, I would not use my system level reference of a Democrat to establish my system level reference of a Republican. They are DIFFERENT Level 11 perceptual variables supported by entirely DIFFERENT Level 10 beliefs/principles.

On this basis, I see all Level 11 perceptual variables as independent of one another. You can’t be a Democrat and a Republican at the same time. Do you see this differently?

<No, I agree with that. There are many system concepts, each derived from some subset of all the principles we perceive. We even have different selves that follow from different principles: the businessman self, the religious self, the tennis-playing self, the childish self, the scientist self, and so on. These selves can even rest on conflicting principles: the liberal self and the Republican self, for example. We have a very liberal Republican State Senator in my district who sometimes has real problems deciding what his consituency is.>
I think the Twelfth level of “self” includes my business, religious, sport, etc., concepts all of which are important to me all the time. One self with differnt variables to control. And, I am not sure our spirit can only be addressing one aspect of “self” at a time. Perhaps that is true of your mind and nervous system, but that is not a limitation of our spirit nature. I can be making or losing money in the stock market while winning or losing a tennis match. My spirit will control my emotions real time and produce a net satisfaction inside Kenny at that moment.

Here is another example. I grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin during the era of Vince Lombardi. A Packer backer believed Lombardi was a god-send (some probably a god), a great coach, an inspirational leader of men. The kind of man that could lead a team to win a Super Bowl. If Bart Starr, Jerry Kramer and Jim Taylor wanted to come over to have dinner with me or play golf with me, I would have thought I died and was in heaven. I believed they were heros, real men to look up to as a teenager. Obviously, I could go on to name numerous beliefs about what I perceived being a Packer backer/fan (today a cheese-head) was.

<I don’t see any problem with that. This is what I call a learned self, which is scattered over a range of higher levels of organization from habits of speech to personal identity. Your Packer self got reorganized away and you acquired, or changed it into, a Steeler self. Neither of these, of course, is the observer in you. The observer may have watched the change, but the observer didn’t change, did it?
Yes, I think my human spirit soars more over one than the other. There is nothing random about which one dominates when they play one another. My spirit may move me to choose one or the other to bet on. Or, my spirit may say, no big deal, may the best of these two win. IOW, when they play one another, I do not control for Kenny being either a Packer or a Steeler fan. My spirit simply controls my “self” concepts by concluding hey, enjoy the game between two of your favorite teams. I don’t know if this is making any sense or not. And, I realize that a diagram and flow loop, etc., might help. I am too lazy to want to do that, at least right now.

I now had two well defined system concepts of what it means to be a Packer or Steeler fan. I could control for either one but not both when they were playing against each other. Now I had a conflict. You might have said I would need to reorganize in some random test of desparation to avoid this misarable, life-long conflict. I said then, and still say, baloney! Which one I want to control for as a reference for being a football fan was a conscious choice that best fit my Twelfth Level of who Kenny Kitzke wants to be.

<If you can find a way to be both at the same time, there’s no conflict, is there? Who Kenny Kitzke wants to be is a system concept, derived from the principles you uphold. I think what you’re talking about here is what I call the observer, who is not only what you want to be, but what you ARE. You are not a Packer fan or a Steeler fan. You are not even Kenny Kitzke. You are the observer of these things. Not so?>
Well, this is not too different than my human spirit somewhat automatically (without a lot of conscious thought) resolving conflicts that would produce error and emotion in my self concepts? My human spirit (your Observer) does not want to see my conscious references disturbed and me become “sad” regardless who wins the football game. Not so?

So, if you are following me at all, I selected from my system level 11 concepts of a pro football fan, the self-concept of a pro-football fan that Kenny wants for Kenny. Big surprise, it was being a Steelers fan. All the hierarchy perceptions necessary for me to achieve that self-concept are already in place. I can control for being what I want to be. And, when I do, I feel good (physically, mentally and spiritually).

The same kind of experiences and beliefs have built up over my life for how I want to earn a living for me and my family. Do I want to be a nuclear engineer, a contract negotiator, a salesman, a sales manager, a litagation settler, a marketing manager, a stragegy manager, a CEO of my own business, or a retired man on a pension, or a preacher of the gospel? I know how to be all these things. Which one do I want to be today? And, how does that come about?

<I’m not sure that these are really system concepts as I see them, but maybe they are. I find your reasoning persuasive. Clearly these are different roles you’re describing, and these roles entail very different chunks of the hierarchy. And equally clearly, we switch from one role to another all the time, several times a day in fact.>
Wow, perhaps you are at least getting a glimpse at how I see these self concepts and how they are controlled at the highest levels, even if you would describe what you would see differently. I am not sure it is a case of who is right and who is wrong. Isn’t it more how one thinks they address the conflicts in their hierarchy? Will my way work better for you or vice versa?

When you say you know how to be all those things, I know what you mean. But I don’t quite see them as system concepts. Maybe the problem is that there is a level missing in my definitions. I see the system concept level as the place from which one would switch among selves, but I’ve been thinking of the selves as belonging to the logic or rule-driven level, the level where we know how to do things and think about things. The program level. When you’re a preacher you run one set of programs; when you’re negotiating a contract, a different set.
I do believe that when I am controlling for my self concept of being a preacher, I do run on different beliefs and programs than when I am negotiating the sale of my house. But, I think the beliefs that might support my preaching may come into play when asked about that crack in the foundation. So, I think our self-concepts are not controlled one variable or loop at a time. It is more like a matrix with my spirit capable of changes to all my self concepts at once. Do you remember that your program on simultaneous reorganizations at the Chicago conference excited me (stirred my spirit)? That is probably because it helps explain my countenance and self concept level coming to a new overall control state despite a lot of turmoil in its pieces. I realize I am not saying this techincally well. I need to go take the poor dog out and send this long reply.

Let me ask you this. When you’re a preacher, are you picking principles to apply, or are you being guided by a set of principles given, as it were, from above? Isn’t it the second one? Aren’t your reference signals, when you’re preaching, the principles of your religion? Don’t they shape what you try to communicate? You see what I’m getting at: if principles are coming from above, then the preacher self exists at the program level, not the system concept level, as least according to the way I’ve proposed that the levels are arranged.
Yes. But, if while I am preaching, as a good preacher should, (see the different levels) I have this thought about how I purposely sweetened my invoice to a client yesterday, the pleasure with my preaching will be diminished. It is a matrix of all my self concepts all being observed and acted upon all at once that ways on my spirit or satisfaction with myself.

When you add up all the principles that guide the preacher, I claim that you come out with a system concept, the one called (a particular) religion, a higher level of perception than principles, and higher still than preaching. I think it’s what you are calling the spiritual level.

And don’t forget your MOL experiences. If you can look at a level and say that it’s spiritual, this must mean that your awareness resides at a level above the spiritual level, or above what I call the system concept level. And you can’t see the level you’re in.
No, this is NOT what I am thinking. My self concepts are iat the top of my conscious hierarchy. My human spirit is not a higher level of perception. It is a separate functional part of me, like my body and mind, (more like your reorganization system) that can interface with and rearrange my highest level perceptions and references.

<Rereading what I’ve written, I see that it’s pretty disorganized. This concept of a “role” doesn’t really seem to fit any of the levels I’ve defined. It’s more than just a program, but it’s not as general as a principle. And I can’t see it as qualifying as a self, or personality, at the system concept level. I think I’ll just have to leave it there and wait for some more reorganization.>
I sense that when you are pressed about certain aspects of human behavior that are not perfectly clear from your HPCT concepts, you at more likely to become reflective than angry. I like that about you. It is just the opposite of what humans tend to do, even those who frequent this forum, given our human nature. Somehow, all the critical hype that Marc writes about you is not what I experience with you. You do listen to others ideas, even mine. And, no matter how crazy or illinformed you think Kenny is, you at least treat me with respect and not as an enemy.

All those types of things remain in my system level perceptual variables, as well as the hierarchy which underlies each one. So, it simply helps me understand myself, and my behavior to conceptualize a higher 12th Level of mental consciousness that is comprised of only my system level 11 variables that I want at the moment for me. And, I can assure you, that Twelfth Level keeps changing continually as the world, my body, my mind and my spirit changes.

<Well, this is the main reason I say to MOLers that they should pay no attention to my 11 levels. What matters is relative level. I don’t think we have to define the levels in any fixed way to experience what it means to go up (or down) a level.I’m pretty sure you’d agree. I hope you’ll also agree that “body, mind, and spirit” are not in any better shape as guides. What matters is to look at the foreground perception and try to notice the background perception about the foreground one, and then bring the background into the foreground – to use a couple of words that are not very satisfactory, either.>
I do not agree. I don’t see my body, mind and spirit as different levels of perception. I see them as different and unique natures/functions within me as a unique human being. They have their own control variables and mechanisms which are all different. Yet they are connected in a very complex living system where chemical, neurological and spiritual processes are all occurring simultaneously.

The spiritual ones are not easily identified and detected as our blood sugar or our thoughts. But, I believe they are there from my experience. It is not too different than from science and how its understanding of how physics works has changed as we can see and detect and analyze particles and waves that were once unknown. I suspect that will continue until all knowledge humans can have is eventually revealed. One day, I suspect we will be able to explain where gravity comes from, but not yet. We can only observe it and how it works.

Bill, you ain’t no scientist! Bill, you are 30 years out of date technically. Bill, most of your ideas were already fleshed out by others. Bill, you are so wrapped up in you PCT crapola, you can’t even comprehend the better ideas others have. Bill, you have less than a hundred people left that want to hear about your ideas. And the number is less every year. It is not hard to understand how such accusations would cause you error and emotional response of a physiological nature. That is because what I call your human spirit is disturbed.

<And I would say, a system concept is disturbed – but not really very much, because such accusations don’t have enough to do with how I perceive my world. I think I had most of those thoughts before anyone else mentioned them, and tried to do something about those that were true. False accusations that you know are false don’t have much effect, do they?>
This is very much how I see the Twelfth Level. Your spirit allows people to say such things about you without disturbing your self concept. But, I do believe the errors in the hierarchy are there: what they say is not what you want them to say about you. Those errors just get swamped out by your own spirit of what matters to you and what will anger you.

And, only your human spirit can bring you peace. You may call this your hypothesized reorganization system which will alter your references or your perceptions of the inputs, perhaps at random, until you find some peace inside your spirit.

<I’m pretty peaceful, usually. Even when sad – I don’t think I would want to NOT feel sad at losing Mary. And I’m sure I wouldn’t want to be happy about it, which some religious types seem to think would be right.>
I think I can assure you that even among religious types there are very different references for what happens to a person after life departs. And, those references might very well make a wake an event filled with celebration. But, mourning has its place too in the human spirit. Are you absolutely sure you wouldn’t, or couldn’t, see things their way and want to feel happy when a loved one passes peacefully after a long and satisfying life? Death does seem to be scietifically 100% certain.

You are well aware I have never found your reasoning about your proposed “Reorganization System” to comport with my own life experiences or capabilities.

<You don’t ever reorganize? You sit down and reason out dispassionately the right thing to do, and just do it, and are right the first time? Pardon me for being skeptical. Of course we have all acquired systematic ways of solving problems, and we use them as long as they work – that means we don’t have to reorganize. But how did we arrive at those systematic ways, and what do we do when something about the world changes so a systematic approach no longer works? Then there’s no way but to reorganize – nature’s way of flipping a coin. You probably call it “praying.”>
It is not that I would claim I do not reorganize in your concept of it. It is more that changes in the hierarchy can occur other ways and their relative frequency is not clear because of a lack of credible data.

If it explains what you do, and how you do it for you, I have no big problem. Same for anyone else who is satisfied with your suppositions. They seem to outnumber those who like my suppositions, but you have written far more about yours than I have about mine.

<I’d better hurry up and write lots of words, then, if that’s all it takes. I can probably type faster than you can, so I’m sure to win. Does it matter what the words are?>
I suspect it only matters if it matters to you.

Do you still have my The Twelfth Level paper from 1999? I wonder if anyone on this group has it. I have not looked at it much in five years. When I searched for it, much of what I wrote was no longer in my memory. I suppose I would write it a bit differently now as my knowledge of life and HPCT have grown, but for whom? For what purpose? Who cares?

<I remember it vaguely, and it’s around somewhere. We’re better off discussing things in present time, I think. For one thing, you can’t change what is already written. It’s easier to change an opinion that hasn’t been published yet.>
Agreed. It is finding the present time among competing self-concepts yearning for fulfillment.

I guess I always hope that someone else would say, “Hey, Kenny, your idea is not as goofy as I used to think it was. But, to add your idea to HPCT, we would have to make some better models and do some experiments.” If you, or anyone else, ever said that, perhaps I would devote some of my remaining breath to that self-concept. As it is, I have other self-concepts that seem more appropriate to control for at this stage in my life.

I don’t think your ideas are goofy. I don’t think they’re all right, either, but neither are mine. Remember the 2004 CSG meeting? Your presentation really impressed me, both with its content and because of your attitude. And I told you so.

Best,

Bill P.
Thanks, Bill. That makes my spirit soar.

Bruce_Gregory6 · April 4, 2005, 6:02pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0404.1400)]

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.04.28.04 EDT) or earlier]

It seems to me that your "spirit" has a lot in common with Bill's "observer."

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · April 4, 2005, 9:37pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.0404.1400)]

Well, Bruce, if you understand our two concepts well enough to say this, I wish you would comment on whether you think you have a human “spirit” or an “observer” or neither in you?

I have been aware of some similarities but our concepts have not be explored enough by one another or others to try to define what they have in common and what they don’t. I am trying to take some time to revive my old thoughts on this and see if there is any consensus on a theory or any ways to test that theory.

Bruce_Gregory6 · April 4, 2005, 9:42pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0404.1742)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.0404.1400)

Well, Bruce, if you understand our two concepts well enough to say this, I wish you would comment on whether you think you have a human "spirit" or an "observer" or neither in you?

Neither.

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

Dick_Robertson · April 5, 2005, 3:04am

Kenny,

I like your fostering discussion of 12th level. I think it gets into
what I like to call the philosophy of PCT. Raising speculations about
what seem to be implications of a theory does sometimes lead to
formulating the questions that result in further research. But, this
issue is a tough one in that--while I find the idea of a spepcial life
energy, spiritual essense, etc. appealing ideas--I can't begin to think
of what to look for to find a factual basis for it/them. If there is a
12th level--and you mean by that a control-system, as postulated for the
other levels, then it seems to me that _as a control system_ it needs to
have perceptions, and for that it would seem to need some sort of
sensory apparatus, never mind the output side for the moment.

But, if it's all spirit, what is that exactly? Can something having no
substance have the necessary equipment to perceive anything? This is not
an editorial question. I'm not trying to dismiss the possibility out of
hand, but I've never seen anybody offer anything about how it might
work. I do kind of like the idea of a universal field in which all
phenomena have some interconnection, and maybe that is how such a thing
as spiritual phenomena might have a real existence.

As for Bill's idea of an observer, this seems to me to have a little
more basis in that--don't we all have the experience of noticing
ourselves perceiving something?
Bill seems to relate the observer to his experience of a continuum in
himself that goes beyond, or is more profound than his awareness of his
learned hierarchy--if I've understood his discussion of it. This is
something that a lot of people seem to have noticed. My favorite among
such descriptions is from Francois Jacob, the Nobel biochemist, in the
title of his book La Statue Interieure, that I mentioned in my book,
"How could I overlook that all the "selfs" of my past have played the
biggest role, the earlier the more so, in the development of that
unconscious self-concept which...dictates my values, desires and
decisions? From our earliest times our imagination/ingenuity seizes upon
the people and things it meets to abstract attributes of an ideal model
of reality, a schema that becomes one's frame of reference...for
deciphering the world of one's own experience. (Etc.)"

The key there is to wonder about what kind of animal it is that "seizes
upon the people and things...to abstract attributes...." There has to be
something first to take the material of experience and shape it into the
successive "selfs." This is an idea that appeals to that in me that
finds the idea of reincarnation intruiging.

Best,

Dick

···

From: Dick Robertson,2005.04.04.2130CST

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems <KJKitzke@AOL.COM>
Date: Monday, April 4, 2005 4:37 pm
Subject: Re: The Twelfth Level

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.0404.1400)]

<Bruce Gregory (2005.0404.1400)>

<It seems to me that your "spirit" has a lot in common with Bill's
"observer.">

Well, Bruce, if you understand our two concepts well enough to say
this, I
wish you would comment on whether you think you have a human
"spirit" or an
"observer" or neither in you?

I have been aware of some similarities but our concepts have not be
explored
enough by one another or others to try to define what they have in
common and
what they don't. I am trying to take some time to revive my old
thoughts on
this and see if there is any consensus on a theory or any ways to
test that
theory.

Acree_Michael · April 5, 2005, 6:01pm

[From Mike Acree (2005.04.05.1100 PDT)]

Dick Robertson,2005.04.04.2130CST--

There has to be
something first to take the material of experience and shape it into

the

successive "selfs." This is an idea that appeals to that in me that
finds the idea of reincarnation intruiging.

George Spencer Brown says he once confessed to a friend that he found
the notion of reincarnation incredible; his friend replied, "Don't you
find it incredible that you have even _one_ incarnation?"

Mike

Bruce_Gregory6 · April 5, 2005, 7:34pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0405.1534)]

Mike Acree (2005.04.05.1100 PDT)

George Spencer Brown says he once confessed to a friend that he found
the notion of reincarnation incredible; his friend replied, "Don't you
find it incredible that you have even _one_ incarnation?"

Just the way the winner of a lottery feels. "What an unlikely event, and it happened to me!"

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · August 10, 1999, 7:36pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990810.1500EDT)]

When my human spirit is disturbed, I do change my reference system levels of
what is good or bad for me to do.

Please consider whether it was your human spirit (an inherent sense of right
and wrong) that was disturbed when you found out that psychologists were not
interested in your truth about behavior. Did you not change your reference
system concept about all scientists seek the truth to eliminate the error?
Then life went on and you maintained your own sense of right and wrong in
that you would always seek the truth that science could present, whether all
scientists did or did not. Or, something like that. Perhaps you can explain
how it works in your mind.

Perhaps this does not happen often. But, perhaps at our personal spiritual
level of right and wrong, our own behavior is not frequently a disturbance to
us. A senior Republican Senator just switched to being Independent. It was
big and shocking news. But, I contend it was on the basis of heartfelt right
and wrong disturbance in his human spirit that changed his political party
system reference so he could live with himself.

I'm not sure we have to switch back and forth to justify a higher level is
changing our system perceptions to minimize strictly internal spiritual error?

I do not expect that to happen or it would not be a system reference (sort of
what Bruce Nevin seemed to be saying). But I can *imagine* experiencing
something at a spirit level that could make me drop my Christian faith.
Let's say I'm walking around Qumron and fall into a secret cave. I find a
jar with an old parchment scroll signed by a guy named Simon bar Jonah. It
reveals how he and his young friend Jochanan had gone to the tomb at Golgotha
Saturday night during Passover week, got the Roman guards drunk, and removed
the dead body of Jeshua, the claimed Messiah from a sealed tomb which was
discovered empty on Sunday morning.

Simon goes on in detail of how he convinced Jeshua's followers and an old
Pharisee named Saul that they had actually seen or heard the risen Messiah by
putting hallucinatory fluids in their wine. These fluids are found in the
the pituatary glands of the tilipia fish which he used to regularly catch in
the Sea of Galilee and have been proven by scientfic test to produce
revelations and visions real as life.

In his final letter, before being crucified upside down by the Roman
authorities, Simon (now called Peter) reveals how he and Saul (now called
Paul) had started a great ministry and acquired a large following throughout
the ancient world which he was convinced would continue for untold
generations, or until his confession was found by some romantic.

<How quickly
could a behaviorist drop a faith in cause and effect and replace it with
PCT (or vice versa)?

It took me an evening to read Freedom from Stress. Ask the readers of MSoB
at Unisys? You have done well, my friend, though I shall boast about you;
not you of youself. And you have evidence of some disciples willing to
continue and expand your work and teachings. How does that feel? Can you
move up a level from your systems reference for PCT/HPCT and tell us whether
your spirit makes you feel your life was worthwhile in a sense bigger than in
your own mind?

Kenny
The Romantic Speculator on the Twelfth Level

P.S. I did not respond to your "Survival" example of refuting the Twelfth
Level because I can tell you have made assumptions about what survival means
to a Christian (or to me) and you are not only wrong, you should know that
such speculation is always dangerous and often misleading. Your
perceptions are not mine and vice versa; nor our ways of achieving them. We
are autonomous with our references known only to us as fallen human beings,
or so I perceive.

Norman_T_Hovda1 · August 10, 1999, 7:55pm

At 15:36 Kenneth wrote about The Twelfth Level on 10 Aug 99,

[From Kenny Kitzke (990810.1500EDT)]

[snip]

<How quickly
could a behaviorist drop a faith in cause and effect and replace it with
PCT (or vice versa)?

It took me an evening to read Freedom from Stress. Ask the readers of

[snip]

Would that be...

Freedom from Stress

by Edward E. Ford ?

TIA,
nth

Bruce_Gregory · August 10, 1999, 8:35pm

[From Bruce Gregory (990810.1630 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990810.1500EDT)

I do not expect that to happen or it would not be a system
reference (sort of
what Bruce Nevin seemed to be saying). But I can *imagine*
experiencing
something at a spirit level that could make me drop my
Christian faith.

I now see that your belief is dependent upon the historical accuracy of
the New Testament. The New Testament does not meet my standards of
evidence (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), however.
This sort of disagreement is perfectly reasonable and understandable. In
fact, it happens all the time when we are dealing with the historical
record. It would be nice to have had an account of the life and ministry
of Jesus written by a contemporary who was not committed to the divinity
of Jesus.

Bruce Gregory

"Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt" (Comentarii De Bello Gallico,
III.18)