[From Bill Powers (981226.0708 MST)]
Fred Nickols (981225.1317)]--
Rupert offers up writing a letter as a case in point
and then inquires after the levels involved. ...
Now, right about here is where things get interesting
because I am convinced that we often are unable to
articulate in advance the result we're after. Instead,
clarity emerges from a cycle of acting and reflecting
on the effects of our actions.
I agree that this often happens, especially when we are learning to control
something for the first time. In many control processes, the reference
signal defines only a few variables in a situation that may involve changes
in dozens of variables. Yet all these variables affect each other, so
changing the ones we intend to change results in changes in all the rest,
too -- like the unavoidable motion of your elbow when you pull something
toward you. Your elbow might threaten to knock something off the table, so
you have to modify your actions to keep from creating other errors. I think
a lot of the "emergence" you're talking about comes from these interactions
amoung control systems. I spent yesterday with three grandchildren, two of
whom are still in the stage of knocking things off the table while pulling
a toy toward them, so I have a recent and vivid picture of this in mind.
But you're talking about something else that doesn't necessarily go away
with practice. When I write a letter (or a post) I may start with only a
general notion of "replying", but what constitutes a reply develops only as
I write. What this says to me is that most dimensions of the letter are
uncontrolled -- they take whatever form is needed to create a reply in the
particular limited sense I had in mind. If I accidentally delete the post
and have to rewrite it, I may generate the same "reply" but it is very
unlikely to come out in the same words, or even the same sequence of
points. The things that vary during the re-write are just the means of
control, so they can vary without my correcting the changes. They're not
under control.
There. I've now satisfied the reference condition I had in mind -- that
last paragraph means (to me) what I wanted to mean. And that last
_sentence_, although you can't see it, was edited to change "say" to
"mean", because as I read it over I realized it sounded as if the _words_ I
was "saying" were the point, whereas it is the _meaning_ I want to get across.
This shows that as we write, what we read, if it doesn't mean exactly what
we want it to, consistutes a disturbance, and we have to edit what is
already written to correct the error. I do a large amount of correcting
such errors before I finally send a post. That process is invisible to the
reader, of course, as is going back to correct typos (originally spelled
"tyoped").
All this is in line with your comment,
The way I say this in other circles is to say that
clarity emerges more often than it pre-exists. What
this leads me to ask of this list (and I apologize if
it's been thoroughly discussed before) is this question:
You then ask
"Is it reasonable to view reference conditions as dynamic,
that is, as emerging and changing, as "snapshots" of what
is really a state of flux instead of as static?"
Well, yes, because all reference signals are dynamic, being the outputs of
higher systems. What seems to me to happen during writing is that the
reference conditions for the words and letters I type and retype are highly
dynamic, while the reference conditions for the sentences and paragraphs
are much less so, although they still change as I reread or reflect on what
I have written so far and see just how its meaning compares with the
meanings I'm trying to communicate. Usually there's some relatively fixed
idea I have pretty clearly in mind, and most of the variations occur as I
see the flaws in my attempt to communicate it. But even that isn't always
true -- I may, for example, finally get what I mean down on paper, and then
realize that I don't want to get into _that_ subject with _this_ person at
all, and delete the whole thing including the desire to communicate that
meaning.
I think we can say that clarity emerges because we start with a clear idea
about something at a high nonverbal level of perception, and then, as we
work out the details, see the meaning of what we are writing gradually
approach the intended meaning.
I ask because it seems to me that much of what I call
"configured" work isn't work carried out according to any
predefined plan or set of standards but is instead work
that is performed in concert with a developing set of
standards or reference conditions.
This is probably true, but the changing reference conditions are being
changed BY SOMETHING, and that, I would say, is a higher-level system
trying to control for its own reference condition -- "clarity", perhaps. As
recent events in Washington have shown, such a system can control for a low
degree of clarity as well as a high degree.
Aaarrgh! Is this communicating anything at all?
I agree. That is the highest level of reference condition in writing
letters, or posts.
Best,
Bill P.