[From Kenny Kitzke (2007.06.30.1630EDT)]
<Bill Powers (2007.06.30.0835 MDT)>
<Hi, Kenny. I’m juggling a lot of balls right now but maybe a few questions will get you started on your own exploration, or push a little more in the direction you’re going.>
Hi, Bill. I juggle too. But, I’ll try to answer.
My perception is that PCT is “good” because it is the most accurate scientific description of how behavior works. “Good” in this sense merely means helpful and worthwhile in order to understand the behavior of living things.
<So, why is it good to understand the behavior of living things?>
Two things come to mind:
a) The behavior of living things acts on my perceptions of myself.
b) I often wonder about my own behavior and how it acts on the perceptions of me by others.
<That should lead to more “why” questions which you can follow as far as they go.>
Sure it would. It is like a regression. And, I am not sure where it ends, if it does at all. It would take a great deal of time to try to annunciate it completely and I am not sure I could do it very well as the whys can get progressively more abstract.
The perception of the “knowledge of how behavior works” is already quite broad. It could have a dozen whys rather than just the two that first came to mind. And, each of those dozen whys may have a dozen whys. So, I suspect the question is essentially impossible to answer specifically and answering generally is not very satisfying.
For example, I may experience a knawing but unexplainable background yearning to understand as much natural phenomena as I can. That may be all the answer I need, but will that satisfy you? If you ask why do you have a knawing yearning Kenny, I may say because I am a human and such variables are hard-wired and inherent in my human nature. Would you ask another why?
I assume you agree with the premise that such understanding is “good” meaning worthwhile? What is your answer to why understanding the behavior of living things is “good” for you. I suspect that you have spent more time (and with greater gain) controlling such a “behavior knowledge” variable than I have? It must be perceived as very good/worthwhile to you?
I also suspect that your reasons may be unique to you and that everyone controlling for that perception does not necessarily have the same reference under control. If so, could we try to conclude that your references are good and mine are bad? Or, would we just agree they are different and that is okay?
However, being helpful and worthwhile are not descriptors of “good” or “bad” in an ethical sense of being “right” or “wrong.” PCT offers limited insight into ethics. The insight that it does provide is that living things want to, and in fact do, determine for themselves alone what is ethical, right and good. I believe this understanding is in accord with the teachings of the Bible for humans.
Is being in accord with the teachings of the Bible for humans a good thing? If so, why? Again, you can follow that line where it leads.
Sure I can. I have no doubt that it is “good” (meaning worthwhile) for me. For other humans, the choice is theirs; not mine.
The problem with this is not only how this actually takes place, but what happens to establish our highest level of human perception? It appears that there must be a different mechanism for the highest level than for the lower ones. A Reorganization System has been theorized. What this is physiologically in a human is quite a mystery and not well-modeled or tested.
I know you agree from previous discussions. But, I perceive there are “scientists” on this net who treat this theory as if it were proven fact. They rely on it and seek or propose “reorganization” as a solution to protracted conflict. You have suggested that this is a random process. Well, perhaps it is some times. But, I have viewed it as a term for learning different possible references. That learning can be from study, reflection, meditation, etc., and can be intentional and rational…quite the opposite of being random or “trial and error.”
<It is also true of every other proposed explanation of where the highest level (or any level) of perception comes from.>
That is your perspective. I doubt if you have studied and tested every other explanation. Do you even claim to know and understand my explanation and have found it no better than the one you find “good?”
What I conceive is that this property or aspect of human nature is a way to determine purpose and will for a self-concept of existence. It can be mere survival and may well be that for lower level life forms. But, for humans, purpose and will are broader than survival. Without a better model or more convincing explanation of how humans establish their will and purpose for living/controlling their perceptions, I can’t conceive of PCT capturing the attention of scientists.
<Scientists have not been noted for their interest in this subject one way or the other. Mostly they have been interested in showing that purpose and will do not exist. Yes, I know that wasn’t a question.>
Ha! That’s a gem. Does it apply to you? Can you speculate why you or those scientists would not be interested in the existence of “purpose?”
It is wonderful to understand how we “drive a car.” But, what humans long for is an understanding of how to live a life of purpose that they will experience as “good” for themselves.
<First, the questions. Why is it important to experience a life of purpose? What’s good about that? If you can answer that question, there is a higher level still.>
Hey, Bill, who has speculated more about a Twelfth Level of perception than me? In simple terms, the more your life had a purpose (beyond breathing and controlling perceptions) the more likely you perceive your life (and therefore your being) as having been worthwhile and not insignificant or even meaningless like a oak leaf.
<Can you think of anything that you experience as “good” that is not a match of a perception to some particular reference condition?>
No. But, that does not answer how the “particular reference condition” came into being.
<I can: the reference condition. No matter what level my awareness is identified with at the moment, the reference condition is known to me, consciously, only as a feeling that some perception is as it ought to be, or isn’t (and by how much) I don’t necessarily know exactly how it ought to be, though if I can go up a level, I can see what that is. But then there is another perception involved, which I am either happy with or not, without knowing directly what the new reference condition is. I speak partly from experience, partly from theory here.>
This is confusing to me. Perhaps you can find some time to expand on it with an example? You have introduced a “happy” perception here. My view is more along the lines that happiness is related more to the error than the reference. But, how can you experience error without knowing what the reference condition is?
<At the highest level, awareness has no higher place to go – or if it goes to a higher place, there is no level of control there to identify with. Then I am conscious of the perceptions below, but have no reference conditions: I just observe. There is That, and it is what it is. I suspect (says my logic level, busily working it all out) that this is what some people refer to as God Consciousness.>
That is possible but not necessary. I think the “self-concept” level is at the top in all human kind. It is hard wired in our genes. It has nothing directly to do with whether you have acquired a consciousness about a Creator or an Almighty spirit being.
<From the viewpoint of any lower system, it is something higher that is aware of them and tells them directly what is good and bad, right and wrong, to be sought or to be avoided. In other words, God is the higher systems that set the reference conditions (or awareness itself that does).>
I pretty much concur. I would call that a self-god; an internal aspect of human nature that somehow determines what is good or bad for me. The capitalized God is usually a reference to an external being.
<God is that center, always the same, that I experience as myself, the Observing Self. But that seems like God only when I am identifying with systems in the hierarchy. When I’m outside the hierarchy, then it’s just me, the Observer. When I’m just me, I don’t need to be told how wonderful I am. “Wonderful” is an idea somewhere down there in the hierarchy, and liking to be worshipped is also down there somewhere. Down here, that is, where my Writing Posts Self is.>
I can’t totally grasp what this Observer is in your scenario. It is as if there is a controlling-self and an observing-self that are distinct and operate separately. Are there two Kenny’s or one? Or, is there one Kenny that has two natures?
I totally agree that you do not need to be told by anyone how wonderful you are to feel wonderful. You can imagine it internally. But, I do agree that hearing that said (through our senses of the external world) sailing up the hierarchy of perception would make you feel “good” (again only in a worthwhile sense). However, if dropping a quarter in the Salvation Army kettle make me feel generous and feeling generous makes me feel like a good human, it will be disturbing if I hear someone mumble, "Did you see that guy get out of his BMW and drop a stinkin’ quarter in the pot!
<That wasn’t a question either, but the question is how it fits with your experiences.
Best,
Bill P.>
What fits with my experience is that somewhere in my consciousness I have some inbred wants and needs expressed in references like being respected or loved or having a purpose beyond feeling good about myself. The need to be loved or wanted is not something humans must learn from experience. Our experience tell us how well we are doing.
So my lower level references are established such as to try to achieve that reference purpose perception. I use different terms to describe these human attributes. My “heart” or human spirit probably serves the role of your Observer. By whatever name, they seem to fit our human experience. No?
Our Observer or heart somehow compares or tests for the “goodness” of our references for our life. The goodness of our behavior is determined by what we perceive compared to those references; how well/effectively we are able to control our perceptions.
Perhaps we can kick this around more with Dick and others at the Conference without the name-calling and labeling so often used by people who disagree with us? Plus, I was intrigued about your discussions with Phil about “death.” Is it merely physical or is there a metaphysical aspect to it? My impressions may surprise you because they do not fit the nominal Christian views. Perhaps it is too heavy a topic, but your MOL why questions would be quite interesting on a phenomena that we all expect to experience.
···
See what’s free at AOL.com.