Twelfth Level

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · December 2, 2010, 1:57am

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.01)]

As far as your first principle, I think the 12th Level of Self (concepts) that I proposed fits to a tee. The variables and reference quantities at my Self level come from and are a function of Level 11 System concepts as generally perceived in the external world. Take honesty which I conceive as a Level 11 System concept.

Indeed, the external world can perceive themselves as honest when they control for the belief that:

honest people do not lie under oath
honest people never knowingly communicate falsely
honest people never knowingly communicate falsely but may conceal the whole truth
honest people always tell only the truth and the whole truth before men
honest people only tell the truth and the whole truth before an all knowing God
So, when Kenny establishes honesty (100%) as a Self perception, it is also a function of the beliefs that Kenny controls for which are indicative of an honest person in his mind. Does this make sense to you?

As to your second point, I think it also fits pretty well. But, at these highest levels of perception, changing a lower level reference can be as fleeting as an imaginative thought. I suppose you have seen the Abe Lincoln commercial where his wife asks “Honest Abe” if her dress makes her butt look fat. Now, here is a dilemma and perhaps a conflict with another Self reference of being a loving husband. Abe tries to soften his truth but his wife sees through the rouse and storms away. A human, even one who fears God and does not want to disobey Him, has a conflict between to commands: to love and to not lie. Kenny might give a little white lie with a little wiggle room, “That dress does not make you look fat to me.” And, there is Biblical precedence for handling such command conflicts. One can work on the sabbath when your sheep falls into a ditch. Even Abraham supported the lie that Sarah was his sister that she might not be harmed. So a lower level reference is modified (at least for the moment and situation) to prevent an error at the higher level. Or, am I falling into your PCT hierarchy principles ditch?

In a message dated 12/1/2010 5:14:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

[From Bill Powers (2010.12.01.0305 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.30.18:00EST) –

I think that proposing new levels can be useful. However, I hope you will stick to the same principles that were used in constructing all the existing ones. There are only two really important ones.

First, a perception of any level higher than the first must be a function of perceptions of lower levels, and most likely the next lower level. An example: what are configurations made of that are not just smaller configurations? My answer: sensations.

Second, to control a perception of a given level, it is necessary (if there is any error) to alter perceptions of the next lower level. So to alter a configuration, it is necessary to alter sensations.

I think you will find that these principles hold true for all perceptions as currently defined from levels 2 through 11. At least I tried to accomplish that. That’s one reason it took so long.

Best,.

Bill P.

BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA · December 2, 2010, 6:12am

(Gavin Ritz
2010.02.12.18.51NZT)

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.01)]

I’m not so sure that adding levels
is really the answer. As the HPCT higher levels have not by any means been formally
established.

Most of the levels like categories,
sequences and programs are some sort of logical connectives (or/or, and/and,
if-then, if-and-only-if) whilst the top level is also. Transitions seem like and
interesting level because all of science is based on motions (velocity). While “relationships”
looks more like a subset of the systems level. “Events” level just doesn’t
make too much sense to me.

I don’t find the higher levels that
useful at all. There seems to me such huge gaps, simple things like imperative logic
under which all learning is done.

Regards

Gavin

···

[From
Bill Powers (2010.12.01.0305 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.30.18:00EST) –

I think that proposing new levels can be useful. However, I hope you will stick
to the same principles that were used in constructing all the existing ones.
There are only two really important ones.

First, a perception of any level higher than the first must be a function of
perceptions of lower levels, and most likely the next lower level. An example:
what are configurations made of that are not just smaller configurations?
My answer: sensations.

Second, to control a perception of a given level, it is necessary (if there is
any error) to alter perceptions of the next lower level. So to alter a
configuration, it is necessary to alter sensations.

I think you will find that these principles hold true for all perceptions as
currently defined from levels 2 through 11. At least I tried to accomplish
that. That’s one reason it took so long.

Best,.

Bill P.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · December 2, 2010, 1:58pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.02. 0900EST)]

I find Bill’s hierarchy of perceptions helpful to understanding human behavior. The connection between beliefs and systems seems emperically true in my experience and thought. I also find it incomplete so in that sense I could agree with you that it has limited usefulness.

Actually, I agree with your perception that adding a Twelfth Level (of course, as Bill insists, it has to fit his conception of levels) is a solution, and certainly not THE solution. It is just an opinion. If it does not help Bill or you or anyone on CSGNET, so be it. But, if it helps me (the Self) gain understanding of human behavior and nature, then I see no harm in using it until something more sensible enters my consciousness.

Who knows Gavin, you might have the key? So, I try to listen to your ideas to test them against my own life’s experiences. If you find HPCT at lower levels helpful to explain how behavior works in living things, but not the higher perceptive levels of say 9-11 for human behavior, then it is fair to ask you what you have found to be more helpful. And, I think you have done this in several ways but it seems beyond current HPCT. So is my 12th Level but I think it is at least connected and perhaps consistent with HPCT. If your answers are not connected to HPCT, then they will probably be mostly ignored or resisted here because this is a group of PCTer, those who believe in it as foundational to finally understanding the behavior of living things.

Shalom

···

-----Original Message-----

From: Gavin Ritz garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 1:12 am

Subject: Re: Twelfth Level

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.12.18.51NZT)

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.01)]

Iâm not so sure that adding levels is really the answer. As the HPCT higher levels have not by any means been formally established.

Most of the levels like categories, sequences and programs are some sort of logical connectives (or/or, and/and, if-then, if-and-only-if) whilst the top level is also. Transitions seem like and interesting level because all of science is based on motions (velocity). While ârelationshipsâ? looks more like a subset of the systems level. âEventsâ? level just doesnât make too much sense to me.

I donât find the higher levels that useful at all. There seems to me such huge gaps, simple things like imperative logic under which all learning is done.

Regards

Gavin

[From Bill Powers (2010.12.01.0305 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.30.18:00EST) –

I think that proposing new levels can be useful. However, I hope you will stick to the same principles that were used in constructing all the existing ones. There are only two really important ones.

First, a perception of any level higher than the first must be a function of perceptions of lower levels, and most likely the next lower level. An example: what are configurations made of that are not just smaller configurations? My answer: sensations.

Second, to control a perception of a given level, it is necessary (if there is any error) to alter perceptions of the next lower level. So to alter a configuration, it is necessary to alter sensations.

I think you will find that these principles hold true for all perceptions as currently defined from levels 2 through 11. At least I tried to accomplish that. That’s one reason it took so long.

Best,.

Bill P.

chadtgreen · December 2, 2010, 8:02pm

[From Chad Green (2010.12.02. 1500EST)]

David: I hear you loud and clear. At the 13th level there is no
anxiety because duality is nonexistent.

Gavin: Are you getting cold feet? Your colleague built that house of
imperative logic, but are you comfortable living in it? We should
practice what we preach, no?

If you accept the PCT hierarchy as it is, then you are basically
telling me that imperative logic is limited to the human imperative
(i.e., human perception, perspective, nature, habit). In other words,
imperative logic ultimately equates to human self-annihilation in the
negative sense of the word. Is that what our purpose on this planet
amounts to? I pose these questions not to you specifically, Gavin, but
to all of humanity.

To me, Levels 1-11 amount to the limitations of classical logic at the
expense of intuitionistic logic (i.e., the source). You need both to
complete the lattice of egolessness.

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Kenny <kjkitzke@AOL.COM> 12/2/2010 8:58 AM >>>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.02. 0900EST)]

I find Bill's hierarchy of perceptions helpful to understanding human
behavior. The connection between beliefs and systems seems emperically
true in my experience and thought. I also find it incomplete so in
that sense I could agree with you that it has limited usefulness.

Actually, I agree with your perception that adding a Twelfth Level (of
course, as Bill insists, it has to fit his conception of levels) is a
solution, and certainly not THE solution. It is just an opinion. If it
does not help Bill or you or anyone on CSGNET, so be it. But, if it
helps me (the Self) gain understanding of human behavior and nature,
then I see no harm in using it until something more sensible enters my
consciousness.

Who knows Gavin, you might have the key? So, I try to listen to your
ideas to test them against my own life's experiences. If you find HPCT
at lower levels helpful to explain how behavior works in living things,
but not the higher perceptive levels of say 9-11 for human behavior,
then it is fair to ask you what you have found to be more helpful. And,
I think you have done this in several ways but it seems beyond current
HPCT. So is my 12th Level but I think it is at least connected and
perhaps consistent with HPCT. If your answers are not connected to
HPCT, then they will probably be mostly ignored or resisted here because
this is a group of PCTer, those who believe in it as foundational to
finally understanding the behavior of living things.

Shalom

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Ritz <garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ>
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 1:12 am
Subject: Re: Twelfth Level

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.12.18.51NZT)

logical connectives

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.01)]

I’m not so sure that adding levels is really the answer. As the HPCT
higher levels have not by any means been formally established.

Most of the levels like categories, sequences and programs are some
sort of logical connectives (or/or, and/and, if-then, if-and-only-if)
whilst the top level is also. Transitions seem like and interesting
level because all of science is based on motions (velocity). While
“relationships�? looks more like a subset of the systems level.
“Events�? level just doesn’t make too much sense to me.

I don’t find the higher levels that useful at all. There seems to me
such huge gaps, simple things like imperative logic under which all
learning is done.

Regards
Gavin

[From Bill Powers (2010.12.01.0305 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.30.18:00EST) --

I think that proposing new levels can be useful. However, I hope you
will stick to the same principles that were used in constructing all the
existing ones. There are only two really important ones.

First, a perception of any level higher than the first must be a
function of perceptions of lower levels, and most likely the next lower
level. An example: what are configurations made of that are not just
smaller configurations? My answer: sensations.

Second, to control a perception of a given level, it is necessary (if
there is any error) to alter perceptions of the next lower level. So to
alter a configuration, it is necessary to alter sensations.

I think you will find that these principles hold true for all
perceptions as currently defined from levels 2 through 11. At least I
tried to accomplish that. That's one reason it took so long.

Best,.

Bill P.

BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA · December 2, 2010, 10:08pm

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.12.3.10.57NZT)

[From Chad Green (2010.12.02. 1500EST)]

David: I hear you loud
and clear. At the 13th level there is no

anxiety because duality is nonexistent.

Gavin: Are you getting cold feet?

Not at all.

Your colleague built that house of

imperative logic, but are you comfortable living in
it?

Heck I sleep here at
night.

We should

practice what we preach, no?

I don’t preach. These
are opinions only.

The basic structure of a
Control System is a very clever model, but the HPCT is a bit sketchy.

If you accept the PCT hierarchy as it is,

I don’t accept the
HPCT as at stands.

then you are basically

telling me that imperative logic is limited to the
human imperative

(i.e., human perception, perspective, nature, habit).

Imperative logic is probably
the very nature of reality (whatever that may mean, and I don’t know what
it means) itself.

In other words,

imperative logic ultimately equates to human
self-annihilation in the

negative sense of the word.

Is that what our purpose on this planet

amounts to?

After today’s NASA presentation
that we have aliens amongst us anything goes.

I pose these questions not to you specifically, Gavin,
but

to all of humanity.

Keep going Chad. Interrogative
logic at its best.

Regrads

Gavin

To me, Levels 1-11 amount to the limitations of
classical logic at the

expense of intuitionistic logic (i.e., the
source). You need both to

complete the lattice of egolessness.

Best,

Chad

Chad Green, PMP

Program Analyst

Loudoun County Public Schools

21000 Education Court

Ashburn, VA 20148

Voice: 571-252-1486

Fax: 571-252-1633

Kenny kjkitzke@AOL.COM 12/2/2010 8:58 AM >>>

[From Kenny Kitzke
(2010.12.02. 0900EST)]

I find Bill’s hierarchy of perceptions helpful to understanding human

behavior. The connection between beliefs and
systems seems emperically

true in my experience and thought. I also
find it incomplete so in

that sense I could agree with you that it has limited
usefulness.

Actually, I agree with your perception that adding a
Twelfth Level (of

course, as Bill insists, it has to fit his conception of levels) is a

solution, and certainly not THE solution. It is
just an opinion. If it

does not help Bill or you or anyone on CSGNET, so be it. But, if it

helps me (the Self) gain understanding of human
behavior and nature,

then I see no harm in using it until something more
sensible enters my

consciousness.

Who knows Gavin, you might have the key? So, I
try to listen to your

ideas to test them against my own life’s
experiences. If you find HPCT

at lower levels helpful to explain how behavior works
in living things,

but not the higher perceptive levels of say 9-11 for
human behavior,

then it is fair to ask you what you have found to be
more helpful. And,

I think you have done this in several ways but it
seems beyond current

HPCT. So is my 12th Level but I think it is at
least connected and

perhaps consistent with HPCT. If your answers
are not connected to

HPCT, then they will probably be mostly ignored or
resisted here because

this is a group of PCTer, those who believe in it as
foundational to

finally understanding the behavior of living things.

Shalom

···

-----Original Message-----

From: Gavin Ritz garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 1:12 am

Subject: Re: Twelfth Level

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.12.18.51NZT)

logical connectives

[From Kenny Kitzke
(2010.12.01)]

I’m not so sure that adding levels is really the
answer. As the HPCT

higher levels have not by any means been formally
established.

Most of the levels like categories, sequences and
programs are some

sort of logical connectives (or/or, and/and, if-then,
if-and-only-if)

whilst the top level is also. Transitions seem like
and interesting

level because all of science is based on motions
(velocity). While

“relationships” looks more like a subset
of the systems level.

“Events” level just doesn’t make too
much sense to me.

I don’t find the higher levels that useful at
all. There seems to me

such huge gaps, simple things like imperative logic
under which all

learning is done.

Regards

Gavin

[From Bill Powers
(2010.12.01.0305 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.30.18:00EST) –

I think that proposing new levels can be useful.
However, I hope you

will stick to the same principles that were used in
constructing all the

existing ones. There are only two really important
ones.

First, a perception of any level higher than the first
must be a

function of perceptions of lower levels, and most
likely the next lower

level. An example: what are configurations made of
that are not just

smaller configurations? My answer: sensations.

Second, to control a perception of a given level, it
is necessary (if

there is any error) to alter perceptions of the next
lower level. So to

alter a configuration, it is necessary to alter
sensations.

I think you will find that these principles hold true
for all

perceptions as currently defined from levels 2 through
11. At least I

tried to accomplish that. That’s one reason it took so
long.

Best,.

Bill P.

chadtgreen · December 8, 2010, 7:33pm

[Chad Green (2010.12.08. 1433EST)]

No worries, Gavin. I am merely seeking a common thread of reasoning.

Here is another question related to the highest levels of PCT. Does anyone agree with one or more of the following propositions below?

1) Subjective and physical realities are two facets of a total reality.
2) PCT as a control system and HPCT are two facets of the same dynamic.
3) PCT is an isolated system that requires neither information nor energy as inputs.

For that matter, here's a more interesting question: If you combine all three propositions into one, what is the result?

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

Gavin Ritz <garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ> 12/2/2010 5:08 PM >>>

(Gavin Ritz 2010.12.3.10.57NZT)

[From Chad Green (2010.12.02. 1500EST)]

David: I hear you loud and clear. At the 13th level there is no

anxiety because duality is nonexistent.

Gavin: Are you getting cold feet?

Not at all.

Your colleague built that house of

imperative logic, but are you comfortable living in it?

Heck I sleep here at night.

We should

practice what we preach, no?

I don't preach. These are opinions only.

The basic structure of a Control System is a very clever model, but the HPCT
is a bit sketchy.

If you accept the PCT hierarchy as it is,

I don't accept the HPCT as at stands.

then you are basically

telling me that imperative logic is limited to the human imperative

(i.e., human perception, perspective, nature, habit).

Imperative logic is probably the very nature of reality (whatever that may
mean, and I don't know what it means) itself.

In other words,

imperative logic ultimately equates to human self-annihilation in the

negative sense of the word.

Is that what our purpose on this planet

amounts to?

After today's NASA presentation that we have aliens amongst us anything
goes.

I pose these questions not to you specifically, Gavin, but

to all of humanity.

Keep going Chad. Interrogative logic at its best.

Regrads

Gavin

To me, Levels 1-11 amount to the limitations of classical logic at the

expense of intuitionistic logic (i.e., the source). You need both to

complete the lattice of egolessness.

Best,

Chad

Chad Green, PMP

Program Analyst

Loudoun County Public Schools

21000 Education Court

Ashburn, VA 20148

Voice: 571-252-1486

Fax: 571-252-1633

Kenny <kjkitzke@AOL.COM> 12/2/2010 8:58 AM >>>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.02. 0900EST)]

I find Bill's hierarchy of perceptions helpful to understanding human

behavior. The connection between beliefs and systems seems emperically

true in my experience and thought. I also find it incomplete so in

that sense I could agree with you that it has limited usefulness.

Actually, I agree with your perception that adding a Twelfth Level (of

course, as Bill insists, it has to fit his conception of levels) is a

solution, and certainly not THE solution. It is just an opinion. If it

does not help Bill or you or anyone on CSGNET, so be it. But, if it

helps me (the Self) gain understanding of human behavior and nature,

then I see no harm in using it until something more sensible enters my

consciousness.

Who knows Gavin, you might have the key? So, I try to listen to your

ideas to test them against my own life's experiences. If you find HPCT

at lower levels helpful to explain how behavior works in living things,

but not the higher perceptive levels of say 9-11 for human behavior,

then it is fair to ask you what you have found to be more helpful. And,

I think you have done this in several ways but it seems beyond current

HPCT. So is my 12th Level but I think it is at least connected and

perhaps consistent with HPCT. If your answers are not connected to

HPCT, then they will probably be mostly ignored or resisted here because

this is a group of PCTer, those who believe in it as foundational to

finally understanding the behavior of living things.

Shalom

···

-----Original Message-----

From: Gavin Ritz <garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ>

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 1:12 am

Subject: Re: Twelfth Level

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.12.18.51NZT)

logical connectives

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.01)]

I'm not so sure that adding levels is really the answer. As the HPCT

higher levels have not by any means been formally established.

Most of the levels like categories, sequences and programs are some

sort of logical connectives (or/or, and/and, if-then, if-and-only-if)

whilst the top level is also. Transitions seem like and interesting

level because all of science is based on motions (velocity). While

"relationships" looks more like a subset of the systems level.

"Events" level just doesn't make too much sense to me.

I don't find the higher levels that useful at all. There seems to me

such huge gaps, simple things like imperative logic under which all

learning is done.

Regards

Gavin

[From Bill Powers (2010.12.01.0305 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2010.11.30.18:00EST) --

I think that proposing new levels can be useful. However, I hope you

will stick to the same principles that were used in constructing all the

existing ones. There are only two really important ones.

First, a perception of any level higher than the first must be a

function of perceptions of lower levels, and most likely the next lower

level. An example: what are configurations made of that are not just

smaller configurations? My answer: sensations.

Second, to control a perception of a given level, it is necessary (if

there is any error) to alter perceptions of the next lower level. So to

alter a configuration, it is necessary to alter sensations.

I think you will find that these principles hold true for all

perceptions as currently defined from levels 2 through 11. At least I

tried to accomplish that. That's one reason it took so long.

Best,.

Bill P.

BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA · December 8, 2010, 8:16pm

(Gavin Ritz 2010.12.09.9.04NZT)

[Chad Green (2010.12.08. 1433EST)]

No worries, Gavin. I am merely seeking a common
thread of reasoning.

Sure this is a slippery
subject.

Here is another question related to the highest levels
of PCT. Does anyone agree with one or more of the following propositions
below?

Subjective and physical realities are two facets of
a total reality.

Could be I’m not
sure.

PCT as a control system and HPCT are two facets of
the same dynamic.

They are one and the
same, HPCT is Bill’s assumption
of Reality (his notion), PCT is his model of that reality.

PCT is an isolated system that requires neither
information nor energy as inputs.

There is no such thing as
information in PCT but energy yes, all incoming signals (poor word) is all some
form of energy, sound, light etc. that is then transduced to an electrical
signal moved by the neural process structures (by Potassium Ion pumps) to the
brain. Where the K –Ion Pumps get their energy is another matter all
together.

The body also controls
(mirrors) for food, gas all energy forms. Food is even measured in Joules.

Also the word information
is a very problematic one; it has about 10 different meanings.

For that matter, here’s a more interesting question:
If you combine all three propositions into one, what is the result?

The model that I drew in
the other thread.

Regards

Gavin

Best,

Chad

Chad Green, PMP

Program Analyst

Loudoun County Public Schools

21000 Education Court

Ashburn, VA 20148

Voice: 571-252-1486

Fax: 571-252-1633

Gavin Ritz garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ
12/2/2010 5:08 PM

(Gavin Ritz 2010.12.3.10.57NZT)

[From Chad Green (2010.12.02. 1500EST)]

David: I hear you loud
and clear. At the 13th level there is no

anxiety because duality is nonexistent.

Gavin: Are you getting cold feet?

Not at all.

Your colleague built that house of

imperative logic, but are you comfortable living in
it?

Heck I sleep here at night.

We should

practice what we preach, no?

I don’t preach. These are opinions only.

The basic structure of a Control System is a very
clever model, but the HPCT

is a bit sketchy.

If you accept the PCT hierarchy as it is,

I don’t accept the HPCT as at stands.

then you are basically

telling me that imperative logic is limited to the
human imperative

(i.e., human perception, perspective, nature, habit).

Imperative logic is probably the very nature of
reality (whatever that may

mean, and I don’t know what it means) itself.

In other words,

imperative logic ultimately equates to human
self-annihilation in the

negative sense of the word.

Is that what our purpose on this planet

amounts to?

After today’s NASA presentation that we have aliens
amongst us anything

goes.