From Ken Hacker [930323]
To Mary Powers
Gee, thanks for informing me about my "half-assed" beliefs. It's truly
amazing *&))#(#*&()@)(*#((#*_@*#(_#&(*. But, I will stop the retaliation
right there, despite my temptations from surging error signals...
You confirmed some interesting points for me and also contributed to OUR
learning more about PCT and social behavior, i.e, human behavior:
* Neither of us are CAUSING messages to be sent, but our messages
act as INPUT which must be processed and must be compared to
reference signals or levels.
* Yes, we have actions that are directly related to our
comparisons of input to reference signals.
* You hit the nail on the head by stating that the variation of
of messages effects in explained by PCT. I think this is a
critical point and maybe one of the PCT-comm theory linkages
I am looking for.
* You say that my messages are "simply input" and how you
interpret them is a "result of a lifetime of social interactions
..." Yes, that is one my main arguments.
In other words, we are doing all of the input-reference
comparisons that PCT describes, but there are social
sources and reasons for those things we call reference signals.
I think that the comments here about information and signals are correct in
so far as they state that information is internally produced more than
carried inside the signals themselves. However, I also think
that signals, signs, symbols, messages carry enough socially learned
signification to which the control system identifies in ways that error
signals are present in whatever degree.
Mary, you can continue throwing darts if you want. It's ok. I really
dont mind. I have done enough e-mailing and computer conferencing to
become flame-proof. But I want you to know that I appreciate your intellect
and greatly respect what you and Bill are doing. Please contextualize
my comments and questions in the spirit in which they are created --
inquisitiveness and critical thinking.
Best, Ken Hacker