[Martin Taylor 2016.06.04.07.00]
I'm still jet-lagged and with a nasty cold, so apologies for
probable incoherence.
Fred, in physics, power is energy per unit time. That's not its
meaning for Chad, nor, I think for you in your response. So what
might it mean beyond the metaphor? I start by agreeing with you
that “power” is distributed throughout the hierarchy.
Consider one simple control loop at a middle level of the
hierarchy. It has the power to control its perceptual value if two
things are true: (1. Ability) it has an environmental feedback
path from its output to its perceptual signal through the various
external properties that determine the value of its perception
(the Complex Environmental Variable, CEV), and (2. Strength) it
has enough physical power to change the values of those component
properties to allow it to counter the physical influences of
disturbances and any barriers inherent in the environment.
Illustration: you are driving a car and you want it to be on top
of a particular hill. Type 1 problem, there is no road to the top
of the hill and the car is not an off-road vehicle. Type 2
problem, there is a road, but it is so steep that the underpowered
car cannot make it to the top. In both cases, one might use the
“power metaphor” and say that this car doesn’t have the power to
bring the perception of the car’s location to its reference value.
It might well have the power to bring that perception to other
reference values.
How does the larger hierarchy deal with the lack of metaphorical
power in a particular control loop? (Rephrase: how does a
higher-level control unit that needs the car to be on top of the
hlll control its perception?) It might, for type 1, construct a
road to the top of the hill, after which the car would provide the
driver with the ability to drive it to the top. For Type 2, the
car might be fitted with a more powerful engine, the driver might
look at a map and see that there is a less steep way to get to the
top, the driver might call a tow-truck, and so forth. Both Types
involve the provision of different environmental feedback paths
for that particular control loop. In our chapters fro LCS IV, Kent
and I call these components of environmental feedback loops
“atenfels” (ATomic ENvironmental FEedback LinkS).
The properties of atenfels are as important as those of every
other component of a control loop in determining whether a
perception can be controlled, and how well it is controlled if the
required atenfels exist. The more potential atenfels available to
a controller (“many means to the same end”) the more Type 1 power
the controller has. The more precisely an atenfel produces a
consistent output for a given input (Type 2a) and the greater its
range of output (Type 2b) the more Type 2 power the controller
has. A powerful controller has both the ability and the strength
to bring its perceptual value close to its reference value.
I'm not going to go into the ramifications of Type 2a, atenfel
precision, beyond noting that if the atenfel output is the CEV of
a controlled perception, we are talking about a lower-level
supporting control unit with a reference value influenced by the
control unit of interest, whereas if it is not controlled but is
simply commanded, we are talking about a simple link that may be
noisy or inconsistent. The important questions for interpersonal
power relations relate to Types 1 and 2b.
The standard "conflict" situation arises when two controllers
share a part of their environmental feedback paths – in
particular they control perceptions of the same physical variable
with different reference values. So long as each antagonist
applies as much Type 2 power as the other is applying, neither has
any Type 1 power to control its perception. The perception just
stays where it is as both of them increase their influence on it.
But there comes a point when one of the antagonists reaches a
limit of it range of output, and then the other is able to
control. The greater Type 2b power (range of output) now provides
the winner with Type 1 power. The winner is able to control its
perception regardless of what the loser does.
As a social example, consider an auction. The person able (and
willing, because of internal conflicts) to apply most money gets
the thing being auctioned, while all the competitors get nothing.
The winner had more Type 2b power, and thereby acquires atenfels
that provide the ability (Type 1 power) to control a variety of
perceptions of the auctioned thing. Those atenfels can be seen as
being what was actually auctioned.
To control many perceptions, one must be able to control
perceptions of one’s location. “Be able” implies both Type 1 and
Type 2 power. A person in jail has both, but the range of Type 2
power is very small compared with someone at liberty. If a person
controls those many perceptions, he must also control for not
being in jail. However, if others are controlling for him to be in
jail, and he does not have enough money to hire skilled lawyers
(Type 2 power), he will be unable to control his location beyond
the confines of his cell. The “authorities” remove from him an
atenfel essential for controlling variables he wants to control,
so that for those perceptual variables he has no Type 1 power –
no ability to influence them.
More generally in power relationships, the conflict issue is in
the availability of atenfels. The one with more global power (more
ability and strength to control a lot of perceptual variables) has
more ability to acquire atenfels, and if necessary, to deny them
to others. It is not necessarily true that as the rich get richer,
the poor get poorer, because the stock of potential atenfels may
be increasing, but it is not unlikely.
I hope that all makes some kind of sense, and is relevant to the
thread. I know it’s not relevant to Fred’s original question, but
I think it is relevant to understanding the hierarchy of control.
If it isn’t too incoherent.
Martin
···
On 2016/06/3 5:33 PM, Fred Nickols
wrote:
Chad:
I'll defer to the experts but I will
say this: Control is Power and Power is Control. In other words,
power is diffused and distributed up and down the hierarchy. Now
if you want to talk about someone trying to exercise power over
me or my behavior, my guess is that falls under the heading of
“disturbances.”
Fred
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
DISTANCE
CONSULTING LLC
“Assistance at a Distance”
View My
Books on Amazon
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Chad T. Green < >
wrote:
[From
Chad Green (06.03.2016.1653 ET)]
Â
Fred,
nice work. What about power? Where does it fit? How
is it regulated?
Â
According
to megaproject researcher Bent Flyvbjerg, power trumps
rationality (Level 10):
Â
"Foucault
says that knowledge-power and rationality-power
relations exist everywhere. This is confirmed by our
study, but modified by the finding that where power
relations take the form of open, antagonistic
confrontations, power-to-power relations dominate over
knowledge-power and rationality-power relations; that
is, knowledge and rationality carry little or no weight
in these instances. As the proverb has it, ‘Truth is the
first casualty of war.’
Â
In
an open confrontation, actions are dictated by what
works most effectively to defeat the adversary in the
specific situation. In such confrontations, use of naked
power tends to be more effective than any appeal to
objectivity, facts, knowledge, or rationality, even
though feigned versions of the latter, that is,
rationalizations, may be used to legitimize naked power.
Â
The
proposition that rationality yields to power in open
confrontations may be seen as an extreme case of
proposition no. 4, ‘the greater the power, the less the
rationality’': Rationality yields completely, or almost
completely, to power in open, antagonistic confrontation
because it is here that naked power can be exercised
most freely."
Â
Source:
http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/Rat&Pow03.pdf
Â
Best,
Chad
Â
Chad
T. Green, PMP
Research Office
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1575
Â
“We
are not what we know but what we are willing to
learn.� - Mary Catherine Bateson
Â
From:
Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT
Â
[From
Fred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]
Â
Good
point, Lloyd. I’ll make that change. Nutrition is a
much better choice.
Â
Fred
Nickols
Â
From:
lloydk@klinedinst.com
[mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of
HPCT
Â
[From
Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]
Â
Just some thinking on quickly
glancing - more later, if anything else emerges…<
Â
I would think Healthy diet more a
sequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC
level along with Science, Literature, …
Â
Lloyd
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32,
Fred Nickols <fred@nickols.us >
wrote:
Â
One
of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT
and I am including a version of the 11
levels diagram shared earlier with the
list.
Â
I’d
like to ask those who are willing to do so
to take a look at the diagram and let me
know if anything is so off that I need to
fix it or if it’s a viable example.
Â
Regards,
Â
Fred
Nickols, CPT
Writer
& Consultant
DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC
at a Distance�*SM
Â
Â
Chad.Green@lcps.org
www.nickols.us/SeaStories.html
