X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 10:49:51 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:49:51 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Misc replies

[From Rick Marken (920928.1030)]

Gary Cziko (920926.0235 GMT)--

Thanks for the quotes about unifying observations in psychology. I promise
that my next submission of the paper to a journal will present the ideas in
the "Blind men" paper in terms of PCT as a unifying model -- and I think
this change merits addition of your name as co-author (if you don't mind).
When I make the revisions I'll send you a copy for your approval.

Dennis Delprato (920925) -- Congrats to you and Brian Midgley on publication
of your paper. I agree with Bill; it's nice to know that some PCT people
know how to get published.

Greg Williams (920928) --

>An aside: What's going on in HYPNOSIS in PCT terms???

Great question. I think it's a consciousness phenomenon, which means I
haven't got a clue, other than that it has to do with systems we (I) don't
understand that have to do with "willing" arbitrary changes in reference
signals (ie. making changes that have nothing to do which achieving
higher order goals). I think hypnosis has to do with  that aspect of our-
selves that let's us "wiggle our index finger" for no other reason
than to do it.

>ACCORDING TO PCT, HOW ONE PERSON (A) MIGHT CONTROL FOR HIS/HER PERCEPTIONS
>THAT DEPEND ON ANOTHER PERSON (B) ACTING IN CERTAIN WAYS

Your list of control methods is excellent; very helpful.

By the way, Greg, Pat, Chuck, Bill and others involved in the "Purposeful
influence" discussion: the idea of an issue of "Closed loop" on this topic
is a very good one. And the idea of eventually turning this into a book
is also a great. I have been trying to write a book on this subject
for four years (and avoiding it by writing nonsense like the "Blind men"
paper); I think my book would have a slightly different emphasis than
the "purposeful influence" book. Actually, I think the "purposeful
influence" book could serve as a nice supplement to my book  (if I
ever get it written) or vice versa. So don't feel bad that you are
beating me to the punch with a better book by smarter people and depriving
me of a possible source of income that would have allowed me to send my
kids to college and buy my wife a new coat (well, I guess you can see
through that BS; who needs a coat in California. I'd get her a skimpy
bathing suit; she still looks great in one).

Suggested new topic: PSYCHODYNAMIC PSYCHOLOGY

As the proud papa of TWO currently active threads on CSGNet -- the
ones on the Turing test and "purposeful influence" -- (yes, folks,
I unintentionally started the "purposeful influence" thread on august 26
when I asked Greg Williams if he knew of any reference to behaviorist
comments that suggested an awareness that their model of people (as controlled
agents) might be a problem for their belief in their own ability to control).

The new topic is: psychodynamics -- models of human nature that emerge from
Freudian "theories" of the mind; theories like those of Jung, Adler,
Maslow?, etc etc. You know, the fun stuff.  We spend a lot of time here
explaining why PCT is better than behaviorism (pick your flavor) and cognitiv-
ism (pick you branch). But most lay people, I think, see the psychological
theory to beat as some form of psychodynamic theory. Most pop psych
stuff has a lot of psychodynamic influences in it (when I was young it
was people like Fromm, Byrne,etc). I get the impression that psychiatry
is still heavily influenced by psychodynamic thinking. I think a lot of
people think that stuff like Jung is really deep whereas more scientific
approaches (like PCT) are shallow and not getting at the real nitty
gritty, slimy stuff that's really going on in our minds (especially
our unconscious). These people are particularly interested in dreams,
literature and art as sources of information about our essential selves.
I have a feeling about where they are coming from; stories like oedipus rex,
greek, roman and even abrahamic mythologies have such rich imagery and seem to
"touch" some of our deepest concerns in ways that are not captured by
saying things like "family is a system concept".

My question is: what do you think PCT could say to the psychodynamic
types that might speak to their interests/concerns? Are there any
Freudians or Jungians on the net? What is the Freudian or Jungian
impression of PCT? Do we care?

Best regards

Rick


     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU