[Martin Taylor 931001 17:00]
(Hal Pepinsky 1 Oct 1993 10:43:46 CDT)
We are left with the choice: do we
focus on the elements of the conflict that are irreconcilable or look
to discover areas of mutual accommodation to underlying, "signalled"
if you will, concerns. You certainly can't achieve the result without
exploring the possibilities together. You won't have any reason to
try if PCT defines the only kind of control we can even imagine trying
to achieve.
and
(Hal Pepinsky 1 Oct 1993 10:50:04 CDT)
Why bother going
outside PCT and complementing it in a larger frame? Because learning
how to use conflict to cool down and harmonize relations rather than
heating them up rests on recognizing we have an alternative open to us
to defining control as PCT does.
What on earth are you talking about? "Control" simply means that some
variable is maintained in some state in the presence of forces that would
otherwise change it. Is there another definition? If there is, then
perhaps you could say what you mean by the term. If you don't, your
postings will create ever increasing bewilderment here, and I venture
to guess elsewhere among the regular readers of CSG-L.
Why do you suggest "that in order to apply PCT to the task of controlling
for peace rather than controlling as war, PCT needs to be
complemented, supplemented with a parallel model."
If somebody has a reference level for some perception that results in a
state an observer calls "war," and has the means to control his perception
to bring it to its reference, we will see war. If somebody has a reference
level for some perception that results in a state an observer would call
"peace", and has the means to bring that perception under control, we will
see peace. So what? That's standard PCT without even thinking about any
complexities.
In PCT, the word "conflict" means simply that two perceptions (in separate
control systems, of course) cannot be brought simultaneously to their
reference values because of some constraint in the world. If both control
systems remain active, they will pull in opposite directions. If the two
control systems are in different people, that shows up to an outside observer
as "conflict" in the everyday sense of the term. If they are in the
same person, it shows up as "stress." Either way, at least one of the
control systems, probably both, is left with sustained error.
According to most versions of PCT (all that I know of), sustained error
is likely to lead to reorganization. To an external observer, that means
that one or other of the control systems will act differently after a
period of conflict (achieving "peace" if successful). Of course, if one
of the control systems has much more force than the other, the "peace" is
in the form of victory (perception now matches reference) for one control
system, and the abandonment of action (cessation of attempts to control
the perception) on the part of the other. But more normally, peace is
achieved by one or both control systems changing their actions, or by
higher-level control systems using other actions to achieve their ends.
The reorganization that occurs in standard PCT ALWAYS leads eventually to
"peace." War (conflict in general) is a temporary anomaly, but occasionally
unavoidable if environmental conditions put two control systems in a position
of being unable simultaneously to bring their perceptions to their
reference values. So I totally disagree with the idea that
in order to apply PCT to the task of controlling
for peace rather than controlling as war, PCT needs to be
complemented, supplemented with a parallel model.
Quite apart from that, which leads almost inevitably to the idea that
a hierarchic perceptual controller will "drift" into a peaceable state,
you should be aware that most perceptions are, at any moment, not controlled.
The hierarchic control system may abandon control of the perception that
leads to conflict (saying, in effect, "have it your way") and go on
controlling some different percept that is not in conflict. A controller
can "choose" (I use the word loosely) to avoid conflict in that way.
Once again, no extension to PCT is necessary. Peace is the normal
state, if the environment permits.
I think you need to read, really read, some of the basic papers on PCT.
You can get them in a variety of ways (see Gary Cziko's monthly introduction
posting).
Martin