eloquent answer from Bruce Abbott ? Vauu, I'm really interested what that could be ?
But all in all I think that you are a jocker he,he... In terms of Jeff (ha,ha) he used Powers theory to explain his own "selfregulation" theory which has nothing to do with PCT.
Show me where he ever wrote something right about PCT !!!
On Vancouvers request I read some of his articles and first thing which I noticed was that he didn't put the sources where PCT diagram was taken from like your student Max did. And of course Vancouvers explanation was pure imagination something like yours. You both don't understand PCT and I doubt that you ever will. And now you strenghten even more my oppinion as you praised Vancouver. He was never PCT writer. HIS WAY WAS NEVER EVEN CLOSE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF PCT. And he didn't and is not advancing PCT but he is helping to push PCT into "STONE AGE" of psychology.
So if I summerize our writings about Jeff vancouver, it seems that you are saying that Bill Powers and his family never requestued that Vancouver would participate anything in PCT and considering that he never wrote anything right about PCT, you thought that he is worth of participating in PCT book on the ground that in some way he is close to principles of PCT. It seems that it's pure your judgement. You invited Jeff Vancouver. It seems your personal decission.
Well if I look one the problem from bright side, what you are following is pure profit from the book. No matter what is writen all it matters that Book will have profit. I must admitt that it's normal thinking of any LCS.
Hi Boris, I think that Bruce Abbott himself will have a very eloquent answer to your question. In terms of Jeff, he has used Powers’ theory in the field of social, personality and organisational psychologists in a way that is closer to the principles of PCT than his competitors, leading to significant advances. He has done so under quite some tough challenges- such as Alfred Bandura...
All the best
On 16 Dec 2019, at 23:33, Boris Hartman (firstname.lastname@example.org via csgnet Mailing List) <email@example.com> wrote:
I'm really sorry to hear about Bruce. Whatever work you did by my oppinion has much less worth as it could have with his contribution. I think it was worth of waiting for him. I hope he will contribute to discussion after book is out. As I see there is a lot to add to the book to be what it claims to be.
I understand that Bill and his family reguest was to continue his legacy. But my question was directed to whether "LCS IV" is continuation of Bills' legacy or some other Title could be more convenient ?
But you didn't answer what Vancouver is doing in the book. I'm sure he wasn't requested neither by Bill nor by his family. Or I'm wrong ?
Weighting whether Vancouver has it's place in book or Bruce Abbott it's not a propriate question. There is no doubt (at least for me) that Bruce Abbott should have his place in the book. He is Legend of PCT. He was closest co-worker in LCS III. Even Rick didn't get that honour to contribute to LCS III as much as Bruce Abbott did. And Rick was probably longer with Bill.
I think you made a serious mistake letting Bruce Abbott out. I think it was worth waiting for him. Why hurry ? Or maybe he changed his mind ? Maybe the book is not on his level ? Maybe it is question who is tending to be "less about PCT" ? Considering his contribution in 2018 I'd say that he was one of the persons on CSGnet that made "upgrade" to PCT, like for example Henry Yin in his articles. It's a very rare thing in history of PCT. So I can't imagine how Bruce Abbott could tend to be "less about PCT". Who judged his contribution as tendency to be "less about PCT" ? If that was Henry Yin than I beleive it was right decission. But if anybody else did judgement I'll change my mind about place of discussion about "LCS IV". It will be in public.
Hi Boris, the book gets its subtitle from Bill’s and his family’s request to continue his legacy. Most of the authors were also requested by Bill & he wanted to cast the net wide. Bruce unfortunately didn’t finish his chapter in time, and it was tending to be less about PCT in the draft he had been working on so we gave it a miss. Maybe if there is a LCS-IV. There are enough controversies in the book in how PCT stands against the majority of other theories and methodologies across various disciplines so very little of the content is critical or reconstructive of PCT. There are some interesting exceptions though. My last chapter tracks some of this history...
I hope that helps,
All the best
On 16 Dec 2019, at 17:23, Boris Hartman (firstname.lastname@example.org via csgnet Mailing List) <email@example.com> wrote:
I hope you will not understand my writings wrong.
The book looks very nice and it's clear how much effort was put into it. But I see the problem in the Title of the book. According to particular Subtitles, I don't see that whole book could represent upgrade to LCS III so that book can be called "LCS IV". Because that's what I think "LCS IV" should be. An upgrade to LCS III.
So my oppinion on first look is that whole book doesn't have that. It seems that it should more fit into Title "Understand LCS I, LCS II, LCS III". Speccially LCS III seems problematic as I don't see who is explaining basic loop how it functions and thus how PCT originally works.
I also miss chapter about connections to Ashby's book "Design for a brain". I thought Bruce Abbott was mentioned as author who will introduce similarity. Where is Bruce Abbott ? I also miss his very good physiological explanation of muscle functioning which he presented on CSG meeting 2018. One of rare good PCT presentations. I also miss Bruce Abbott's name in LCS IV as continuation to LCS III. He was the most eminent co-worker in taking shape of LCS III. I can't imagine how book LCS III is connected to book LCS IV without him.
All in all I didn't get a feeling that whole book will explain how organisms function from PCT original perspective, so that it will present an upgrade to Bills work. Maybe partly with some contributions. It could be that something is hidden in text itself that I can't see now. I also think that all in all book can be more reminder about PCT. But for now I don't see more. Speccially not how content can be related to the essence of LCS III, as it doesn't seem to be upgrade if we understand the continuation in the sense of improving understanding about how organisms (nervous system) function in Bills' Powers language : how control of perception is achieved in multilevel control units which are coordinated "all reoganizing independently at the same time", determining how much the output quantity of each control system affects each other.
And myabe it would be good if "LCS IV" would solve the basic questions Bill Powers talked about :
1. The subject of reorganization will be left behind as we consider coordination, not because it doesn't apply but because it will take someone a little younger and possibly smarter than I to deal with all the problems involved.
2. "What follows is only a very preliminary exploration of the possibilities of this kind of hierarchical control. Many questions will be unanswered. I hope that the simple illustrations of coordination to be seen here will be sufficiently intriguing to entice others into further explorations of this kind".
I'm sorry but I can't see where such questions could be answered in LCS IV so that we could talk about continuation of LCS III ?
And I'm asking myself what Vancouver is doing in the book as we know how popular was he at Powers couple. Specially oppinion of Mary Powers. Well maybe old principle in relationship between people always work. When personal goals have to be achieved also alience with "devil" is good.
The book itself looks good if with existing content it would be presented as book about PCT not upgrade. And that "book about PCT" should be contained in Title. Maybe "Understanding Behavior : Control of Perception".
I suspect also that nobody presented the possible solution of diagram on p.191 (B:CP) so I assume that book is written on unstaeady bases. My oppinion is that book should solve the problem of main diagram in PCT. So I assume the question how in general sense PCT organisms function will stay opened as it is.
And I'm anxious to see how much talkings from CSGnet were included and authors left not mentioned. Especcially I'm interested in seeing contribution of those authors who changed their mind frequently. I don't doubt about the "fact" that in last six or more years I seriously affected the course of understanding original PCT on CSGnet. it's all in archives I hope. Well it seems that story begins. Who understand what ? Problems about where clarifying of understanding of PCT in "LCS IV" will be done can be settled later.
From: Warren Mansell (firstname.lastname@example.org via csgnet Mailing List) <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 11:17 AM
To: csgnet <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear CSG, the pdf version is the one you’ll need - sorry!