[From Dag Forssell (940411 1540)] Rick Marken (940411.0930)
I think it's deeper than that; I think that there is a built in
conflict between understanding PCT and what PCT is about-- the
nature of people as controllers. People want to be in control --
CEOs want to control their wealth, psychologists want to control
their prestige, therapists want to control their image of
themselves as healers, etc.
..and Rick Marken to control of his own visions, whatever they are.
When these controllers get the message of PCT -- that their OWN
controlling is part of the problem -- they back away. After all,
no one likes to have their control threatened; and that is
certainly understandable. But this is also the reason why, I
think, very few people have been willing to go "all the way" with
PCT.
......
This is what I was alluding to in the "For whom the bell tolls"
post. When you "GET" PCT you realize that you yourself are REALLY
in it ALL THE WAY. PCT is actually about ourselves. That's my beef
with many of the popularizers of PCT -- well-intentioned folks
all. I get the sense that they have grasped PCT up to a point but
then rejected the deepest implications -- the implications about
oneself as a controller -- as just too ridiculous; as not really
relevant to the "real world".
Rick, you have pointed out that Ed is capable of controlling
seemingly inconsistent perceptions. I must make the observation
that you, too are highly adept at controlling your own perceptions.
So you claim to have read Freedom From Stress. You must have read
it with your control systems in gear, knowing precisely which
shortcomings and which attitudes about "controlling others" you
wanted to find in this inferior work. Your imagination connection
is very capable indeed. You *know* without looking or asking what
Ed and Dag teach. You are not content to let us teach others about
how they control themselves, and how control works. You certainly
are not among the "very few people have been willing to go "all the
way" with PCT," since you are striving mighty hard to control us.
You have to tell us that we cannot teach how control works without
also naively emphasizing the one-sided interpretation that "PCT is
about controlling others." For my part, I don't begin to know how
to separate teaching control from teaching how control applies
*both* to oneself and others; how it explains conflict as well as
cooperation. The students get to make their own value judgements,
about how they want to live their lives -- in conflict or
cooperation. I can't do it for them. All I can possibly teach is
how a living control system works. To state, as you do, what PCT
is "supposed to" tell us, and what or who the "problem" is, is to
make it into a religion -- the only religion High Priest Rick would
approve of, I suppose. I must join Ed in perceiving your
groundless imagination, spouted forth as accusatory "fact" as
offensive, and I resent it, too. Why don't you teach PCT in a
superior way, instead of trying to control those who do teach as
best they can?
I cant help but wonder what perceptions you are controlling.
So there,
Best, Dag