From Bob Clark (931014 9:30 pm EDT)

BILL POWERS (931012.2000 MDT)

Bill, I usually understand and agree with your posts on other
subjects. But I do not understand your statement:

My basic problem, Bob, is that you seem to be classifying the names
of perceived behaviors rather than the basic neural/mental processes
required to produce those behaviors. I don't see "Mechanical
Skills" or "Person Skills" as defining basic mental (or control)
processes, but more as classifications of control behaviors
according to the context in which they occur.

If I'm doing anything resembling your interpretation, it consists of
"classifying" the "perceived behaviors" to which those "names" refer.
And further classifying the "perceived behaviors" (named) resulting
from combining other "perceived behaviors" (also named).

You turn to your level: "relationships." Thus:

In my scheme, both require the ability to perceive (and often
control) perceptions of the same level: relationships. This type of
experience appears in all contexts.

I can understand this view -- I don't know how to use it.

My view, instead, is to assign various relationships to the levels to
which they apply. Thus the rock at the top of the mountain vs at the
bottom, belongs to the level of Visual Positions. The corresponding
energy relationships belong to Mechanical Skills since energy is
defined at that level.

If there is anything unique about my classifications, it is their
familiarity to a good many people. They seem to communicate. Your
"generalized" use of "relationships" is very logical, but seems to
lose much of the audience.

I agree with much of what you say about words vs perceptions. Yes,

categories and names, too, are perceptions.

Of course. But we have no other intermediaries when using the Net.
We both have to "look behind the words" and perceive the referents.

As you note:


This concept, which is at the heart of PCT, doesn't seem to get
across to many people when I try to explain it. So I can't blame
you for, seemingly, not getting it either.

Bill -- I don't think the concept of BLAME belongs in this discussion.

I am trying to find ways to improve our communication of the concepts
of PCT and its applications. I am interested in those whose
personally held theories of behavior do not include the complex and
sophisticated concepts of PCT. (This group may include those whose
theories of behavior are very sophisticated and complex, but differ
significantly from PCT.) Otherwise one must begin by "teaching" PCT.
To teach anything to anyone, it is necessary to express it in their
existing conceptual (and verbal) framework. And this requires a
willing audience. There are various ways to do this -- I'm sure that
my suggestions can be improved.

Dictionaries are, at best, of very limited use. As you note (and we
made the same observation 30 years ago) they tend to become circular
without direct experience. That is the value of the Demonstrator --
all observers have the same external experiences. (The "taste of
chocolate" requires a sample.)

But you tossed out "Generalizations" without modification. In your
scheme, perhaps, qualification is unnecessary. But, as you saw from
my response, I turned to a source common (presumably) to us both,
attempting to clarify (understand) what you had in mind. Otherwise I
am forced to guess your intent. Didn't work very well, did it?

At this time, it seems to me that our differences arise from using
different viewpoints. It seems to me that we also discussed this
question 30 years ago. As I recall the matter, my position was a
"relative" one: the view from the ground differs from that from the
airplane. Your position, I think, was that there could only be ONE
CORRECT viewpoint. In my ENDING POST, I listed four Viewpoints,
which are you using?

Bill, I think, in fact, that our underlying views are remarkably
close -- it is our communication process that doesn't connect. To me
it is important to resolve these differences, so that we can proceed
to develop applications and refinements to the "world outside" where
most people live.

Regards, Bob Clark

PS -- since writing the above, it has occurred to me that we approach
the situation from different "directions."

It seems to me that you are analyzing (and classifying) the network
of input signals. Although I am inclined to question your selection
of categories, I have no difficulty in relating them to my own

My approach is primarily that of the User, who needs to have a set of
systems adaptable to his changing circumstances. That is, I am
examining the Output Hierarchy. I begin with systems that act
directly on the environment. I proceed by adding higher level
systems that can act by selecting and activating ("controlling") the
lower systems. I continue with additional systems operating
similarly, but in terms of more "complex" variables. By "complex" I
mean a larger number of identifiable components, interconnected in a
larger number of ways. This is the way I am interpreting the
"Hierarchical Principle." -- RKC