Zen and autonomy

CSGnet Archive CSG1996
1

[From Bruce Gregory (9604221445 EDT)]

Somebody once said (how's that for precision?) "You are powerful to
the extent that you can let things be." I think what he or she meant
was that one component of autonomy flows from our ability _not_ to
attempt to control, particularly not to attempt to control other
autonomous control systems. The ability to let someone be with whom
one is psychologically enmeshed -- the ability to "grant being"
seemingly requires that one step "outside" the control loop --
whether upward as in "going up a level" or sideways to a control
loop on the "same level" is not clear to me.

Bruce G.

2

[Martin Taylor 960422 15:30]

Bruce Gregory (9604221445 EDT)

"You are powerful to the extent that you can let things be."

That makes sense in PCT, if you note that not all the perceptions that
_might_ be controlled at any one moment _can_ be controlled simultaneously.
The attempt to do so causes disturbances in other would-be controlled
perceptions. So, if by "letting the world go by" you can better control
perceptions that are more important, you _are_ more powerful in respect of
those perceptions. Your control of them has potentially higher gain and
higher bandwidth.

I don't think it has much to do with autonomy.

The ability to let someone be with whom
one is psychologically enmeshed -- the ability to "grant being"
seemingly requires that one step "outside" the control loop --
whether upward as in "going up a level" or sideways to a control
loop on the "same level" is not clear to me.

Could it be "none of the above", but simply a reduction (perhaps to zero)
of the gain of some of the control systems whose environmental feedback
path incorporates the other person's control loops? By avoiding disturbing
the other person's controllled perceptions, one enhances the probability
that the other person's actions will not disturb yours (no guarantees, here).
One may get better control of the higher-level perceptions by not trying
to control some of the component (contributory) lower-level ones.

If the river is taking your raft downstream the way you want to go, why
paddle?

···

----------------

Mary Powers 960422

"Owners", proud or otherwise, may have a similar problem - of
divorcing part of themselves from themselves.

Yes.

Both are habits of thought informed by a culture that believes
that what one does is caused by external agents (including agents
inside oneself that are somehow not-self, perhaps because not
conscious?).

I would enhance that comment by suggesting that our "logical analysis"
mode of thought, supported by the structures of our language, tend to
the "either-or"--excluded middle--way of dealing with the world. If it
isn't inside, it must be outside, and vice-versa. But that's not necessarily
true of the world. Things interpenetrate. The environment influences our
perceptions and our reference levels. Our actions alter our environment.
What is inside, and what outside? What is "self" at this moment? Is the
same as "self" will be tomorrow, or was yesterday?

If you say "yes" to this last question, how do you answer to a person(?)
with multiple personalities who asks it?

Bill P often inveighs against mathematization, and looking at it from this
point of view, his imprecations make sense. (But I don't promise to stop
doing it).

Martin

3

[From Bruce Gregory (960422.1635 EDT)]

(Martin Taylor 960422.1530)

  Could it be "none of the above", but simply a reduction (perhaps to zero)
  of the gain of some of the control systems whose environmental feedback
  path incorporates the other person's control loops? By avoiding disturbing
  the other person's controlled perceptions, one enhances the probability
  that the other person's actions will not disturb yours (no guarantees, here).
  One may get better control of the higher-level perceptions by not trying
  to control some of the component (contributory) lower-level ones.

Could be. What I don't know, however, is how adjust the gain of a
control loop from inside the loop. It seems to me that this requires
intervention from outside the loop. Yes? No?

Bruce G.

4

[From Rick Marken (960422.1830)]

Bruce Gregory (960422.1445 EDT) --

Somebody once said..."You are powerful to the extent that you can
let things be." I think what he or she meant was that one component
of autonomy flows from our ability _not_ to attempt to control,
particularly not to attempt to control other autonomous control
systems. The ability to let someone be with whom one is
psychologically enmeshed -- the ability to "grant being"
seemingly requires that one step "outside" the control loop --
whether upward as in "going up a level" or sideways to a control
loop on the "same level" is not clear to me.

Yes. I agree completely. I think understanding what it means to "grant
being" or to "control one's own controlling" is one of the important
"mental health" of "human relationship" lessons of PCT.

Controlling is something of a paradox because it is both "good"
(indeed, it is essential for survival) and "bad" (it results in _loss
of control_ when we come into conflict with another controller). The
solution is, apparently, to "go up a level" or "go sideways a system"
or whatever; that is, the solution is to move consciousness away from
the point of view of the "problem" control system. This seems to
involves nothing more that becoming aware of the fact that one _is_
controlling something. This is usually the most difficult step in
solving control problems. Once people can see their own controlling
from another perspective, they can start trying to figure out ways to
solve the problem: by changing goals (which includes setting the goal
to zero; not wanting it any more), changing the gain of the "problem"
control system (make it less a important goal), using another system
(like a program controller) to achieve the goal contingent on
achievement of another goal), etc. The key to all this, I think, is
becoming aware of the controlling done by oneself and others; the key,
as you keep saying so eloquently, is PCT.

Best

Rick