Various comments

[from Mary Powers 9205.12,13,14,15,etc.]

Gary:

It's on it's way. We have a box of them.
Can we have a copy of your paper? I think Bill and I each thought
the other had asked.

Wayne:

???

Do we experience the energy or the information, or neither?

We experience our perceptions. E and I are high-level, Western,
modern constructs. So are time and space. And phenomena. And the
relationships between them all.

David:

If a person wants to keep talking about a topic (when you're
trying to get him to go up a level) it is probably not "simply
wanting to talk about what we are now talking about" - it is
itself the resistance. The point is that someone sticks at a
level and can't or won't go up because of conflict - unawaredly
having at that same level the opposite desire or point of view.
When in therapy, i.e. talking in a safe place to someone he can
trust, he can allow himself to entertain that conflicting
thought, and THEN go up a level and realize what's been going on.
It's not splitting attention between lower and higher levels,
it's the difficulty of allowing one's attention at the lower
level to go to the not-acceptable other side of the conflict that
has one stuck at the lower level in the first place. It is very
hard to let go of an organization that more or less works, though
painful, and to acknowledge the greater pain that inspired that
organization originally, and will be experienced again when
reorganizing. No matter what kind of mess a person is, he is
still a "me", and reorganization and resolution of conflict is in
the direction of "not me" (or so it seems, though once one gets
there one is still very much "me").

yours of 5/15/92

From many things I've read, the old person probably knows he has

cancer or something fatal and doesn't want to end his life as a
tool in the hands of the medical-industrial complex. What you
need to work on is the children - their reluctance to face the
idea that their father is going to die. The prospect of his death
is probably a bigger error signal for them than it is for him.

Francisco Arocha:

This goes back to a passing comment you made three or four weeks
ago about the "anything goes" philosophy of Kuhn, etc. What he
said was that scientific progress can't be judged as approaching
closer to the Truth, and that various earlier versions of science
continue to be used and are perfectly valid (earth-centered
astronomy for surveying, heliocentric for launching spacecraft,
etc).

The idea that science evolves towards the Truth is the same
notion that pervaded evolution: that life evolved from "lower" to
"higher" forms (the highest being us, naturally), presumably more
and more perfect (though anyone with back trouble from the
upright posture, or anyone who has given birth to a huge-headed
baby, might have some doubts). Evolution has been FROM simple to
more complex, but is not headed towards any external goal - it is
a consequence of internal goals of living things - getting enough
to eat, avoiding predators, being attractive enough to find a
mate and reproduce, etc. in a world of other living control
systems trying to do the same thing and trying to keep even or
one jump ahead.

Science, Kuhn says, has also evolved. But not towards the Truth,
whatever that is. Its evolution is also FROM some prior state.
And the criteria for valuing one scientific scheme over another
are internal to (some) humans, and not external. That is what (I
think) you construe as "anything goes". What's valuable is up to
us, not to some cosmic principle.

Greg Williams (920513)

I think being "'slaves'" of our current control structures
conjoined with current environmental disturbances" is a little
peculiar. How can one be a "slave" of what one is? We don't HAVE
control structures, we ARE them.

"Having" free will is how it feels to be a purposive, living
control system.

We spend most of our time satisfying reference signals and
resisting disturbances we don't even notice - we breathe, we walk
around, we cope with gravity. It's that constant experience from
which we derive the sense of free will. If the environment is so
constraining that one can't satisfy important reference signals,
or if one is in conflict so that satisfying one increases error
in another, then one can lose that sense. It may be an illusion,
as you suggest, but given the complexities of the control
hierarchy and of the environment, it's not likely that it's
possible to determine all the antecedents. Isn't that what chaos
theory is all about?

About altering current reference signals. Lower level ones are
altered all the time in order to achieve higher level
perceptions. Or so the theory goes. And higher level ones can be
changed too. It just doesn't seem like "you" are doing it,
because consciousness doesn't go up that far. For whatever reason
- to protect the stability of the organization?

Avery Andrews

We are at 73 Ridge Place, CR 510 (that's county road) Durango,
CO 81301. Send it along.

This is also the business address of the CSG. Keep those
conference registrations coming!

Rick, Chuck (9205.15)

Why do we like people, indeed. The real issue to me is why we
dislike people. This winter I read Eduardo Galeano's Memory of
Fire - a three volume history of the Americas, mainly South and
Central (a must read in this half-millenium year of 1992). Pretty
brutal. The point here is that it seems "natural" for humans to
dislike, fear, and consider subhuman people who are strangers, or
different. Often people will like an individual they "get to
know" (share reference levels with) and yet continue to dislike
other people of the category (Black, Jewish, whatever). We do
need to like and be liked, but what about this other reference
level?

                                   Mary Powers