[From Rick Marken (940214.1300)]
Hal Pepinsky (940214.1030) --
There's no snappy comeback to that putdown, is there Bill?
There's no putdomn Hal because there's no competition.
Besides, Bill P. acknowledged that you are probably doing valuable
work and helping people. The problem is that you just don't
commnicate about PCT in a way that Bill P. (or myself) can understand.
You use some of the vocabulary of PCT, but you combine it into
sentences that end up being incomprehensible (to us).
You seem to think that there is some problem with PCT. I would
really like to know what it is. For example, you say:
Somehow, to capture non-violent or democratic interaction, PCT has to
allow for interaction between motives implied by mutually inferred
reference signals across actors, which has a demonstrable, measurable
effect on interaction which becomes accommodating, which as Bill Leach
puts it maximizes learning and wealth, rather than contentious (as
ours seems to be stuck in being).
Apparently, this paragraph makes sense to you. But I cannot make
heads or tails of it. What does "allow for interaction between
motives" mean? In PCT a "motive" could only be a "reference signal".
When control systems interact, these motives do not interact; rather,
the outputs of each system CAN have an effect on the perceptual inputs
to another. If this is what you mean by "motives interact" then PCT
not only "allows" for this interaction, it shows its consequences
(conflict, cooperation or neither, depending on how outputs influence
perceptions). You also say that "interaction between motives ... has a
demonstrable effect on interaction which becomes accomodating ...". How
does an interaction have an effect on an interaction? What becomes
"accomodating", the effect of interaction or the interaction itself? I
cannot derive any meaning from either interpretation that makes any sense
in terms of PCT.
How do your reconcile, Bill P., your conviction that your failure to
communicate is my misperception with the PCT principles you espouse,
or do I not understand PCT on this point either?
I think Bill P. genuinely wants to understand you and what you
imagine the "problem" with PCT to be. So do I. But we apparently
have an approach to controlling our perception of "understanding"
that is not similar enough to yours so that we get the sense that
you are understanding us -- or that we are understanding you.
How about minding your own perceptions instead of invalidating mine?
I think that's all that any of us can do.