??????????!!!!!

JIM DUNDON 940201 0026

RICK MARKEN 940130 1000

A control system is organized so that when it is ORGANIZED
PROPERLY ............

Do I detect a moral projection?
You have established the goal. My question was in response
to your description of two people "losing control" (your
description) when they decided to fight over an issue.
I was thinking in terms of what I understood to be one of
the major points of PCT namely that all bahavior is
purposive. So that even though it looks "out of control"
to you that would be compared to your reference signal'.
But PCT says that each of those organisms behavior is
purposefull with respect to each ones autonomous
reference signal.

When there are disturbances too large or too fast for the
system to deal with. If you are at ground zero during
a 6.6, you won't be standing for long.

Right I would have lost control of that reference signal
but the automatic reflexes would take over,
and set a new reference
perception of emergency reflexes. My behaviour has
shifted to the survival level.
WHICH BRINGS ME TO A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION!!!!!
IS THERE AN ULTIMATE REFERENCE SIGNAL
AND IF SO, WHAT IS IT.
IF IT IS SURVIVAL AS I SUSPECT IT IS
IS THAT A LOWER LEVEL
OR HIGHER LEVEL. OR MULTI LEVEL

Lets stay with two organisms fighting.
Are they "losing control"
from their point of view or yours. Remember, you guys are
going to be writing definitions on this stuff. You don't
want the definitions to be leaving out some behaviors
from the all-inclusive theory.
How about abberant behavior. Is it controlled, that is
directed behavior, chosen? How about mental illness
is it controlled? The beauty of PCT as I originaly
understood it. is that it explained these behaviors
as purposefull.
I understood PCT to say that perceptions are generated
to match a reference perception. To me this explained
choices of behavior such as we just described, two people
fighting.Using their reference perceptions to resolve an
issue. It might not make sense to you, but it certainly
does to them at the time. And so does the crazy
behavior of each crazy person. It might not later on.
But that;s one of the variables of life. I'm starting
to get the impression that you are limiting kinds
of behavior that you include in this all-inclusive
theory, which is what is good about it.

Try to perceive your finger pointing in two different
directions at once ....which is impossible.........
neither of the two control systems......

WHOOOOOA!
What two control systems? You just said it was impossible.
Where's that commitment to excellence I love about PCT'rs

Getting back to two people fighting. Are they losing control
or controlling within the limits of their chosen reference
perceptions.

    best

    JIM

<Bill Leach 01 Feb 1994 19:37:32

JIM DUNDON 940201 0026

"The earth quake example"

One of us could be seriously wrong in our understanding of some PCT
basics here. "Reflex actions" are control system actions as I understand
the view.

Indeed, as I just now reached for my coffee cup, it occurred to me that
not only were multiple control system in use for the operation but
control systems of different types. Cognitive, directed (or maybe
supervised) and automatic (or maybe Unsupervised) systems.

Of course I don't actually know if PCT even considers these in this
fashion or not but I suspect that it does.

-bill