[From Bill Powers (971014.0649 MDT)]
Fred Nickols (971013.1335 ET)--
I understand the point you're making above (I think) and I agree with most
of it (I think), but I'm not so sure I buy your assertion that there are no
shared goals.
Just think about how you would find out whether you share a goal with
somebody else. Here you sit, in your own head, and over there you see
another person doing things that have results you can perceive. Does that
person share your goals? I'm not asking whether, in some objective sense,
there is a similarity in his goals and yours. I'm asking how you could
identify his goals, and even more important, I'm trying to say that you
would have to do a lot of work to identify them to your own satisfaction.
You'd have to watch the person, and discuss the goals. A lot of words would
flow back and forth, but what would NOT flow back and forth would be the
goals.
I think the nearest we can come to sharing goals or perceptions is to share
words that are supposed to describe them. But that doesn't really get us
very close. When I hear a word, what comes to mind are the meanings _I_
assign to them, the links to the experiences _I_ have had. Those are the
only meanings I can know. You and I have an interest in something we refer
to with the initials PCT. But do I know what those initials mean to you? Do
you know what they mean to me? Millions and millions of words have passed
across this email net, yet we're still talking, trying to "share" this
idea. It's really very hard to share anything, much less actual perceptions
and reference signals. Each of us has to work out an understanding that's
satisfactory to each of us, but most of that understanding can't be put
into words. There are lots of "PCTs" out there. The wonder is that we can
seem to reach agreement about any of them!
You and I are both old enough to recall WWII, Korea, and Viet
Nam. I think lots of people shared the goal of whipping the Nazis in WWII.
I think less consensus occurred during Korea, and much less in Viet Nam. I
agree that what we each might picture in response to "whip the Nazis" is
likely to be very different but I suspect it has to contain enough
similarity that we can in fact cooperate and collaborate in achieving it.
Otherwise, it would seem to me that collective human endeavor is all chance
and serendipity. That is a point to which I'll not agree.
No, not chance and serendipity. We work very hard to understand each other
and to do things together. All I'm saying is that we succeed at this far
less often than we assume we do. The fact that it takes so much effort
should be telling us something: there's nothing simple or obvious about
human interactions. Heck, I remember that when "America" finally went to
war against Hitler's Germany, there were plenty of Americans who thought we
were on the wrong side. We use the word "we" much too casually. I remember
with great embarrassment singing out at the top of my lungs "We're gonna
have to zap the dirty little Jap," as I "shared" a goal that really went
against all my principles. It's really a very good thing, survival-wise,
that we _can't_ actually share each other's thoughts and understandings.
What does it mean, in PCT terms, to say that we agree?
Ah, that is indeed the question. Just work it out. You say, "I think we
should whip the Nazis." I say "So do I." Does that mean we agree? Rick
Marken has said what I want to say: of course not. It may mean that we get
on the same troop ship and head toward the same war, but what we see as
happening and what we want to happen could still be completely different.
Only your closest relatives and friends could have even a glimmer of a
notion of what you perceive and want -- and even they can be surprised by
you, and have no idea of what lies at the core of your existence. Agreement
is better than disagreement, but it's really far harder to find out what
you agree about than what you disagree about. I really liked Jimi Hendrix,
and so did my son, but what we liked were not the same things.
That works well most of the time. Indeed, I've even found that projecting
often works well, too. It's amazing how much people are alike. 
Of course I have to agree, or else I couldn't promote PCT as a model of
human nature. But people are like in _general_ ways, as in having two legs
and two eyes. Where they go on their legs and what they see with their eyes
are not so similar. I think we have to guard against thinking that people
are really very similar in their organization; that could be just a sign
that we're not noticing the differences.
Best,
Bill P.