[From Rick Marken (950907.1045)]
Bruce Abbott (950907.1025 EST) --
Excellent, excellent post, Rick.
God, I love praise! Thank you. Thank you.
I would only add that the inverse is not true: not all conflict is coercion.
That's an interesting point and I agree. I would like to hear why you think
it's true, but here is my take on it:
I think one implication of the term "coercion" (not in the Dictionary
definition but understood, I think, in everyday use) is that it is something
that is done intentionally and, possibly, consciously. That is, we say a
person is using coercion when he or she is intentionally (purposefully)
and (possibly) consciously trying to overwhelm the will of another.
There is purposeful coercion when a control system (other than either of
the ones in conflict) perceives that there is a conflict and has a reference
for winning the conflict. The arm wrestler is a purposeful coercer, for
example, because he or she can perceive the conflict and WANTS to win it;
indeed, the arm wrestler gets into the conflict _on purpose_ with the intent
of winning (usually). The arm wrestler is probably also conscious of trying
to win the conflict. So the arm wrestler is clearly trying to coerce
(purposefully and consciously) a variable (the position of the opponent's
arm) into a position that is different than the one desired by the opponent.
Conflict that is not coercion occurs when a person (actually, a control
system in the person) is not purposefully (or consciously) trying to win the
conflict. The person going through a swinging door who pushes (unknowingly)
against another who is trying to open the door from the other side would
probably not be said to be coercing the other person.
Is this what you had in mind? I think conflict is coercion when it is engaged
in purposefully with the goal of winning. Cconflict is not coercion when two
control systems are working against each other and there is no other control
system that has the purpose of winning this conflict.
I said:
The problem with the physicists' model is that it is a CAUSE-EFFECT model of
CONTROL.
Martin Taylor (950907 12:30) replies:
I thought that the physicists were describing the behaviour of groups of
mutually influencing particles. If there's control anywhere, isn't that
control something within each individual particle?
Right. The physicists were modelling fish as particles that are caused to
move by external influences (other particles). Fish are controllers (I
think). So the physicists were using a cause-effect (particle) model of
agents that control. This is a SERIOUS mistake.
Best
Rick