The primary thesis of the essay on Faye Yager is that tetrahedronal
interaction grows out of actions taken on purely personal
responsibility. That illustrates the theory at work. It also
reiterates an important part of the theory.
It is as obvious to me as it is to you that you don't yet understand
the point of adding a tetrahedronal definition of control to that
underlying PCT. So I keep trying, that's all. Tetrahedronal theory
also leads me to predict that I cannot tell in advance which bid of
mine for communication will get through.
Otherwise, I find it easier to respond to particular points of
disagreement than to broadsides.
Let me add that in the account of my "science" I posted a few moments
ago, I believe that I and PCT-ists are much in accord. But my
paradigm lies beyond PCT definitions of control, and as long as you
constrain me to define tetrahedronality in--as opposed to against--PCT
terms, it cannot be done.
I must say too that I think we can all afford to be a little more
ambitious than figuring out simple problems of how to perambulate
around the house. Let's get real. There are flesh-and-blood, tough
problems of conflict and wars over terms of control all around us, and
I'm still looking at how PCT grapples with something that begs to be
done--like giving children enough control to escape ritual abuse.
I've been in and out of town, reading more than posting on this net of
late. Thanks, I.N., for giving me this chance to sum up my feelings
about the rage I'm quite sure is widespread among csg-l readers (and
irritation among some, and just plain yawns from others).
I'm not aiming to offend, but I am still trying to make a point that
in my control system I don't perceive as having been understood. l&p