I was wondering when someone might at least ask your question, Chris.
I am illustrating how I respond to conflict as opportunity for mutual
learning rather than as disturbance to be suppressed. As I have said,
I believe my theory of control is a guide to daily response to
conflict. Ditto on how to deal with cats pissing where we don't want
them to.
My reading of PCT is that it allows us to map control which in
collective form becomes mob violence, but that it doesn't offer a
corresponding model, which I find most useful, of responding to
conflict in peace.
When asked directly, I try to describe it. I respond to postings on
the net illustrating what I think needs to be added to PCT. Every
conflict I describe applies my theory to practice.
I'm used to being ignored when I respond even to direct requests to
explain my position. My model tells me that if I try variously to
meet all the demands of those who say I offer nothing beyond
PCT-modelling demonstrating any value to it, here and there I stand
the best chance of engaging someone, somewhere.
That's also how I went about getting radical messages into print.
Bill Breeden calls this "guerrilla peacefare."
Here's my bottom line. As long as one limits oneself to applying PCT
to control problems, happy, just response to conflict may happen by
accident or by unexamined coincidence, but all the model can map is
control as pursuit and suppression of disturbance. I think there's
good reason to build PCT into a larger model of contrasting
definitions of control, contrasting definitions of conflict
situations. I'll try to show you this way and that. If you don't
like reading real-life illustrations of theory, the subject heading
ought to be enough to indicate what to delete. I won't be offended.
l&p hal