[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
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
Mary Powers 960422
"Owners", proud or otherwise, may have a similar problem - of
divorcing part of themselves from themselves.
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
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