🚀 go-pugleaf

From [ Marc Abrams (990428.1633) ]

I am responding to this because upon some reflection, I think it might be
helpful for others to see PCT in action ( My thought process about Ken's
posts ). In doing so I will also try to address some of Bryan's concerns.

First Bryan,

> [From Bryan Thalhammer (990426.1848 CDT)]
>
> Kenny,
>
> Man, here we go again, eh?  The net gets all bent outa shape when certain
> highly cherished perceptions are disturbed.

The "net" didn't get bent out of shape. I did. exactly what "highly
cherished perceptions were disturbed"?.  I don't recall you performing the
test, or even asking me What the big deal was about

> I am sorry that worthy topics
> such as beliefs are excluded from discussion in CSGnet.

I don't believe they are. But if we are going to talk about beliefs then our
_opinion_ of them ( read, good/bad, right/wrong ) has _no_ place on _this_
list. Your _personal_ beliefs are of no interest to me. _HOW_ you aquired
them ( the mechanism, not the actual belief itself ) by _WHY_ you retain
them, _HOW_ you change them are.


>As Rick stated, and I agree, studying how people maintain such and other
perceptions is a
> valid topic of discussion here.  But perhaps it is the *way* perceptions
> are discussed here that seems to irk some of us.  Perhaps what is irksome
> is the naturally human focus on one's personal committment to these
> perceptions rather than the more objective analysis of how (move down the
> hierarchy) and why (move up the hierarchy) people defend and offend them.

See my comment above. As Bruce Gregory has pointed out. When the discussion
turns to "theological" arguments ( i.e. arguments that are un testable ) it
is nothing but BS. That diesn't necessarily mean it's worthless. It just
means that _no_ reasonable conclusion can be seen for or against, except
what resides _totally_ in our heads. Sort of fruitless.


> What is also important to note, I think, is that the same rhetoric can at
> times be simultaneously heroically defensive and vehemently offensive. So
a
> myopic subjective analysis just won't do in these cases, yes?

Huh?, Can you elaborate on this. I don't have a clue as to what you are
referring to here

 Finally,
> while everyone has the right to their sundry beliefs, acting on those
> beliefs in the company of others can be extremely disruptive, and as
recent
> news points out, often fatal.

Thanks Bryan. a great lead in to my thought process with regard to Ken's
posts. Your view _as stated_ represents the S->R school. Are you aware of
this? Does it matter? ( these are _not_ fascious questions ). The above was
my initial reaction to _why_ I posted what I did to Ken. But that turned out
to be _WRONG_.

My reflection

Kens initial statement:
>typical of Jewish anti-Christian rhetoric...

My initial reaction was I was "responding" ( acting ) to this statement
 the environment, or for Bruce A, the "diasturbance" ) Upon some reflection
I realized that I had a number of _goals_ that were being disturbed. I have
come up with a few but probablly not all of them.  I am not even sure if I
am capable of being aware of most of them. But some of the higher level
goals have to do with Intolerance on my part for what _I_ perceive to be
anti-semetic attitudes. My goal is to _eliminate_ them. I am not a religous
person but that would make no difference to someone who "dislikes' jews. I
am what I am. So a "CV" of mine might be "Do not get involved with
anti-semites it may not be good for your health".  That statement was a
disturbance to that goal. My reference level, real or imagined was
disturbed. I acted to "eliminate" that error. So I could reduce my error.
But the fact of the matter is KKK ( Ken K, Kitzke ) until he proves
otherwise is on my shit list. This _ALL_ comes from _ME_. If Ken _never
posted again. I would continue to feel this way. The _ONLY_ way this would
change is if I perceived Ken _not_ to be anti semetic or I lowered my
reference level and didn't care if he was anti-semetic. One of the important
points here is that I am not sure what Ken could do to convince me he was
_not_ anti semetic. I don't think he could. So Ken is who Ken is and  I will
have to reduce my reference level if I am to deal with him over the net.
This is something _I_ must do. Ken at this point can do nothing. I would not
believe, nor do i think an apology would be forth coming.

The reason for this is the follow-up remark that was made to Bruce G
following Bruce's statement that Ken was anti-semitic.

Ken said
I'm not surprised.  I love Jewish people, even those who see every religion
but their own as evil.

Yes and some of _my_ best friends are black.
This was another disturbance to that or a similiar goal.  But on some more
reflection, it was his original statement that absolutely _floored_ me.
Because _I_ was taken by _surprise_. I knew Ken was deeply religous, and as
such, carried certain baggage ( all religous people, are extremely
dogmatic ) but I did not think he was anti-semitic. So what other "goal"
might have been disturbed? Was there another? I think maybe yes :-). This
one might be a more universal one. I don't like surprises. I thought ( real
or imagined ) My perception of Kenny was _wrong_. How could I have been so
stupid as not to have "seen" the handwriting on the wall. ( My reference to
his consulting firm ) ie:

>"christian" consulting
> >business. No jews allowed. How about people of color? Do you start the
day
> >by saying the pledge of allegance to the flag?

I was _PISSED_. But at who? as it turns out, it was _AT MYSELF_ for being
taken for a fool. ( all in my own head of course ) When I realized I was
_not_ duped. Ken never made any statements that would have led me to believe
he was or was not "anti-semetic".  Except for his refusal to work with jews
in his firm.  ( I do not believe that that alone would be reason to be
considered anti-semitic. I can see the need to present one-self as a
"christian" firm with "christian" values )  I realized I was angry at being
"surrprised". Ken will no longer "surprise" me, the disturbance has been
eliminated and my perception of Ken has changed. My anger with regard to
this has disappaited along with the error signal.


> Unfortunately, we may often discuss the various merits of one system of
> beliefs vs. another (note:  versus), and I think that gets us off the
> track.

This is where it brcomes a "theological" pissing contest. My belief is
better then yours.

>I don't want to say what we should discuss in these matters (I'm
> not an advocate of censored speech), but there are times when perhaps some
> restraint could be used which might make the whole discussion more
> palatable (wisely self-censored speech).

Why not try and stick with _terstable_ ascertians. That would make life real
simple. If ya can't model it then it is a theogogical discussion. As long as
all parties are agreeable no problem. But i think if we started out a post
with _what_ the _testable_ hypothesis might be, things might be a bit more
interesting. Thats not to say that theological discussions should be
eliminated. It would simply mean that people like Bill and Rick might not
want to be a part of that thread, And if it's known up front that the views
expressed are untestable and/or unknowable. the thread is strictly for the
entertainment of those involved :-).

> Well, there has been a great use of test of the controlled variable
> recently, hasn't there?  If the few messages I have run into tell me
> anything, Ouch!

Actually, there has been no the test. You have proposed a hypothisis for a
number of CV's that  _could_ be tested.

Are you up to it?

Marc