[From Bill Powers (2007.01.30.1125 MST)]
Martin Taylor 2007.01.30.10.08 –
I’m sorry to seem (or be)
obtuse, but you both seem to accept that you can have a perception of
“the discussion”, and this perception is one that each party to
“the discussion” can control. How, then, is “the
discussion” more of a metaphor than any other controllable
perception?
Each party’s perception of “the discussion” resides in that
individual’s head. There is no interaction in the outside world at that
level of perception. It is perfectly possible for those two perceptions
to be in different states (as each is judged by its owner) at the same
time, which would not be possible if “the discussion” were part
of the environment being affected simultaneously by both parties. So the
conflict is metaphorical – we speak as if there were really a
conflict at the level of the discussion.
An alternate question that might
bypass the need to answer the first is: What do you conceive as being
“the discussion” that each party perceives? Is it the
perception that the parties are attempting to communicate? Is it the
topic? Is it the approach to the topic? Is it the degree of agreement by
the other party as to some issue relating to the topic?
Or do you call it a metaphor because you want to refer to all of the
above at one fell swoop (a nice metaphor itself)?
All of the above could be what either party means by “the
discussion.” Each of these questions addresses a perception in one
party’s head, or both. There is no way to compare one party’s perception
with a supposedly similar perception in the other party’s head. Any of
the perceptions you mention could be in two different states at the same
time, because they are in physically distinct places. To get a true
conflict there must be a single variable being affected by outputs
from both systems so only the algebraic sum of the outputs is having an
effect on the single variable. Furthermore, there must be a significant
loss of control for this situation to be called a conflict.
Those seem to be the rules that follow from my mental model of
conflict.
Whatever it is, I’m finding it
hard to imagine a set-up within the PCT framework in which two people’s
perceptions of an entity can be independently controlled without either
influencing the other’s ability to control.
The catch is the term “an entity.” You’re assuming (or maybe
assuming that I’m assuming) that there is a single entity called
“the discussion” (or whatever), and both people are
experiencing different representations “of it.” If that were in
fact the case, then it would be impossible for both parties to influence
the objective entity so as to put it in two different states at the same
time. A true conflict would exist, if the other conditions were met. But
if the perceptions are defining the entity for each person, the
definitions can be different and no conflict will ensue. One person can
be experiencing one state of a discussion while the other person is
simultaneously experiencing a different state of a discussion. That will
not create conflict unless the actions one person uses to control the
perception of the discussion prevent the other person from perceiving his
version of the discussion in the desired state. The conflict would then
be manifested at a lower level than than perception of the
discussion.
Underlying my worrying at this
tag-end is a question of whether you conceive PCT as admitting controlled
perceptions of entities perceptible by more than one person, but that
nevertheless are controllable independently by all that perceive
them.
Well, this is the basic hard question, isn’t it? What is the relationship
between the worlds of perception that we experience and whatever it is
that exists (according to the models we accept) on the other side of the
sensory endings? Is there, in fact, any entity outside our input
boundaries that two people can knowingly perceive at the same
time?
It seems that you do, and
that these mutually perceptible but independently controllable entities
are called “metaphors”. I can’t, at the moment, see how such a
situation is possible. If that’s not it, then what, in the context of
PCT, do you label a “metaphor”?
The metaphor to which I refer is the outside world. We act as if
our perceptions were identical to reality in the critical regards. We
communicate with others as if we had identical experiences of the
world, including the communication itself at all the protocol layers. Of
course our acceptance of this apparent reality is conditional – when
there is a sufficient degree of actual conflict, we start reorganizing,
changing the details that seem to be causing the problem.
This metaphor exists within a larger one, of course: the PCT
model.
Best,
Bill P.