Rick Marken (940822.2100) writes:
So why don't we see if we can reach a reasonable agreement over an
issue where there seems to be conflict? The first step, it seems to
me, would be to identify a conflict.
I think Bill L. and I could find many issues on which we might conflict.
I like government, taxes, sustainable economies, zero population growth,
generous welfare and strict gun control -- not one of which (as Tom
correctly pointed out) is "supported" or "negated" by PCT. . . .
Once the conflict is identified and agreed on (as an actual conflict)
perhaps we could see if a dialog, informed by an understanding of the
adverseries as hierarchically organized control systems, could lead to
reasonable agreement . . . . This
would be a nice way to see if the "method of levels" could be applied
by the mediator in a conflict.
I don't know if this suggestion is partly tongue-in-cheek, but IMHO it
would not do justice to the scope and potential of PCT, not the least
because the suggestions of areas of conflict are at fairly high levels of
abstraction.
If intrinsic variables expressing needs for biological stability and
security underlie the relatively superficial needs of the natives in our
particular culture (as perhaps suggested by Bill Powers), then these must
first be considered and addressed. It is a common source of conflict for
one person to consider another person's Needs as only his Wants. So not
just logical reasons but existential grounds must exist for either party to
want to resolve a conflict. While a conflict involving basic needs may also
be reflected in deeply felt convictions, the latter may still be relatively
superficial in comparison to the demands of hunger and safety. To maintain
social order the ultimate appeal is in fact to physical force. But it is
also true that stable social arrangements cannot be, as historically they
have so often been, at the expense of basic human needs.
At another level of consideration there may be pathological processes e.g.
exquisitely hypersensitive cortical cells connecting with emotionally
positive (destabilizing) feedback which produce catastrophic physiological
overreactions. All the rules go out the window, and society gets what
appears to be criminal or psychotic behavior e.g. Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia,
with complicating and reinforcing social dimensions.
At another level there may be advocates bound together within an
adversarial process, as in our legal system, where the very concepts of
justice reward the winners of the argument. In this situation there may
often be no intellectual or social reinforcements for inventive win-win
agreements. In this regard the legal training of so many politicians is
probably a major disaster for our society.
And, of course, there are the sensible people, like ourselves, on whom the
hopes of civilization depend, who can discuss their differences rationally.
But we cannot do this in ignorance of the biological, psychological,
sociological and political realities at all levels which require their own
kinds of regulation and control for predictable governance. For various
problem dimensions at each of these levels may require very different kinds
of attention.
What is the answer? There is no single answer, but prerequisites include
the awareness of multiple levels, and factors of unpredictable kinds, which
may require control in relation to the intrinsic variables (constants?)
required to control human life. I think that it is in this regard that PCT
may have insights to contribute.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
Cheers!
Bruce B.