[From Dag Forssell (930104)] Bill Powers (930104.0900)
I think it's important to keep asking, as you read your own writing,
"Is this the sort of thing anyone could say no matter what theory they
believed in?"
Did you refer to the control diagram when you read the admonitions about
effectiveness? I keep the diagram on an easel and point to it.
Even when you do say things that are commonplace, the point should be
to explain WHY these things are beneficial. Your students come out of
the seminar understanding a lot more of the "why."
This is the point of PCT. The world looks and sounds the same, but your
understanding of control gives all the familiar things a brand new
context which changes your understanding and makes all the difference.
Can't more of that get into the printed matter?
Not until I write my book. The slides should have as little as possible,
not to distract from the presentation while keeping it on track.
My book may be entitled "Purposeful Leadership". Got notification today
of trademark number 1,740,117 from a vendor who wants me to send $120 for
a plaque to "preserve the beauty of my trademark." I guess this means I
graduate from TM to Circle R. (Clearly higher in the hierarchy).
This section of my post dealt with congruency between private and public
posts. Any comment on that? Do disputes arise when participants on the
net have objectives other than understanding PCT and supporting the
effectiveness of others (when they use PCT) for other, clearly stated
objectives.
ยทยทยท
-------------------------------------------------------
How about the other section of my post? Does anyone think it is
worthwhile to develop a context of scientific revolutions as a way to go
up a level for the introduction of PCT? Is my outline a way?
Best to all, Dag