[From Bill Powers (2005.03.19.1106 MST)]
Here’s an exerpt that shows a woman supporting her man, and her own
position as well.
Bill P.
···
============================================================================
What I see going on here, and it’s
been going on for months, is people who think PCT is interesting and has
its points, but who see Bill and Tom and Rick as dancing on a high wire
without a safety net. How can they possibly have such reliance on control
theory that they don’t need the security and comfort - and wisdom and
right-thinking - of (for instance) feedforward or information theory or
dynamic systems theory or whatever.
Most of this endless quibbling is between people who have lots of
training and professional experience with control systems of the
artificial variety, or who have approached the same issues PCT addresses,
but in a different way - between those people and the three dancers on
the wire. Those people have their feet on the wire, but they’ve got to
have that net, and a safety harness, and they aren’t letting go of the
platform, either.
Meanwhile Bill and Tom and Rick are saying “what’s with the harness
and the net?” Because for years they’ve been out there on that
“wire”, and it isn’t a wire at all, but solid ground. A lot of
what PCT “leaves out” or “doesn’t explain” - a lot of
the really valuable, important stuff that PCT dismisses so arrogantly and
unwisely - is harnesses and nets. Stuff that’s really superfluous (and
even a barrier) to understanding.
I think I’m becoming disillusioned with the net. I can look over at the
bookcase and see 6 computer-paper boxes full of printouts, a sickeningly
large proportion of which is quibbling of the sort that came through this
morning, and Bill endlessly and patiently explaining, and explaining
again, and explaining yet again - and nobody seems to be able to stop and
think MY GOD, how is he able to keep these discussions going with
psychologists and information theorists and control engineers and
roboticists and AI types and linguists and sociologists and educators and
therapists and organizational development people and bicycle designers
and human factors mavens - and the answer staring all you klutzes in the
face is not that he’s some kind of frigging genius - pretty smart, sure -
but that his ace in the hole, the ground on which he takes his stand, the
source of his insights and analyses and ability to talk to people in all
these “separate” fields, is PERCEPTUAL CONTROL THEORY. Simply
that, no frills, none of this baggage you keep dragging in. Just a simple
little unified theory of living systems which enables him to handle the
complexities of all these fields. Doesn’t anyone else want to try it too?
The only catch is: you’ll never get anywhere with PCT if you keep looking
at it from where you are. You need to look at where you are from the
point of view of PCT. Then maybe Bill could quit teaching kindergarten
over and over again, and have some time to get some development done, and
have some company doing it.
I guess I’m still grumpy 
Hi, Rick.
Mary P.
[From Rick Marken (2005.03.19.1345)]
Bill Powers (2005.03.19.1106 MST)--
Here's an exerpt that shows a woman supporting her man, and her own
position as well.
Bill P.
What was the date of this post, Bill? I'd like to know by how much it
predates my "problems" with Tom.
Thanks
Rick
···
===========================================================================
What I see going on here, and it's been going on for months, is people who
think PCT is interesting and has its points, but who see Bill and Tom and
Rick as dancing on a high wire without a safety net. How can they possibly
have such reliance on control theory that they don't need the security and
comfort - and wisdom and right-thinking - of (for instance) feedforward or
information theory or dynamic systems theory or whatever.
Most of this endless quibbling is between people who have lots of training
and professional experience with control systems of the artificial variety,
or who have approached the same issues PCT addresses, but in a different
way - between those people and the three dancers on the wire. Those people
have their feet on the wire, but they've got to have that net, and a safety
harness, and they aren't letting go of the platform, either.
Meanwhile Bill and Tom and Rick are saying "what's with the harness and the
net?" Because for years they've been out there on that "wire", and it isn't
a wire at all, but solid ground. A lot of what PCT "leaves out" or "doesn't
explain" - a lot of the really valuable, important stuff that PCT dismisses
so arrogantly and unwisely - is harnesses and nets. Stuff that's really
superfluous (and even a barrier) to understanding.
I think I'm becoming disillusioned with the net. I can look over at the
bookcase and see 6 computer-paper boxes full of printouts, a sickeningly
large proportion of which is quibbling of the sort that came through this
morning, and Bill endlessly and patiently explaining, and explaining again,
and explaining yet again - and nobody seems to be able to stop and think MY
GOD, how is he able to keep these discussions going with psychologists and
information theorists and control engineers and roboticists and AI types
and linguists and sociologists and educators and therapists and
organizational development people and bicycle designers and human factors
mavens - and the answer staring all you klutzes in the face is not that
he's some kind of frigging genius - pretty smart, sure - but that his ace
in the hole, the ground on which he takes his stand, the source of his
insights and analyses and ability to talk to people in all these "separate"
fields, is PERCEPTUAL CONTROL THEORY. Simply that, no frills, none of this
baggage you keep dragging in. Just a simple little unified theory of living
systems which enables him to handle the complexities of all these fields.
Doesn't anyone else want to try it too? The only catch is: you'll never get
anywhere with PCT if you keep looking at it from where you are. You need to
look at where you are from the point of view of PCT. Then maybe Bill could
quit teaching kindergarten over and over again, and have some time to get
some development done, and have some company doing it.
I guess I'm still grumpy 
Hi, Rick.
Mary P.
Hi, Rick --
It was dated Nov. 17, 1993.
Bill
This is Phil Runkel replying to Bill P about Mary's piece about correspondents who want to insert their existing theories into PCT:
My own impatience echoes Mary's. I am glad you put her words on the net.
[From Rick Marken (2005.03.21.1800)]
Bill Powers (2005.03.19.1106 MST)
Here's an exerpt that shows a woman supporting her man, and her own position
as well.
Bill P.
This lovely piece reminds me of is one of my favorite Bob Dylan songs: I was
so much older then, I'm younger then that now. When I was writing all that
bold stuff about regarding revolutionizing behavioral science I wasn't
really working _in_ the field of behavioral science any more. I was a
systems engineer at an Aerospace firm. Now I am back in the field and I
realize how hard it must be for others who are in it to really change. I now
think I understand -- or, at least, can empathize with -- the unwillingness
of people who are working professionally as behavioral scientists -- as
professors, researchers, policy analysts, etc -- to make a nearly 180 degree
change in direction to go with PCT. I have no idea how anyone who is in the
field -- myself included -- ever manages to go all the way with PCT. Maybe
it's a twelfth level thing.
Best regards
Rick
···
============================================================================
What I see going on here, and it's been going on for months, is people who
think PCT is interesting and has its points, but who see Bill and Tom and Rick
as dancing on a high wire without a safety net. How can they possibly have
such reliance on control theory that they don't need the security and comfort
- and wisdom and right-thinking - of (for instance) feedforward or information
theory or dynamic systems theory or whatever.
Most of this endless quibbling is between people who have lots of training and
professional experience with control systems of the artificial variety, or who
have approached the same issues PCT addresses, but in a different way -
between those people and the three dancers on the wire. Those people have
their feet on the wire, but they've got to have that net, and a safety
harness, and they aren't letting go of the platform, either.
Meanwhile Bill and Tom and Rick are saying "what's with the harness and the
net?" Because for years they've been out there on that "wire", and it isn't a
wire at all, but solid ground. A lot of what PCT "leaves out" or "doesn't
explain" - a lot of the really valuable, important stuff that PCT dismisses so
arrogantly and unwisely - is harnesses and nets. Stuff that's really
superfluous (and even a barrier) to understanding.
I think I'm becoming disillusioned with the net. I can look over at the
bookcase and see 6 computer-paper boxes full of printouts, a sickeningly large
proportion of which is quibbling of the sort that came through this morning,
and Bill endlessly and patiently explaining, and explaining again, and
explaining yet again - and nobody seems to be able to stop and think MY GOD,
how is he able to keep these discussions going with psychologists and
information theorists and control engineers and roboticists and AI types and
linguists and sociologists and educators and therapists and organizational
development people and bicycle designers and human factors mavens - and the
answer staring all you klutzes in the face is not that he's some kind of
frigging genius - pretty smart, sure - but that his ace in the hole, the
ground on which he takes his stand, the source of his insights and analyses
and ability to talk to people in all these "separate" fields, is PERCEPTUAL
CONTROL THEORY. Simply that, no frills, none of this baggage you keep dragging
in. Just a simple little unified theory of living systems which enables him to
handle the complexities of all these fields. Doesn't anyone else want to try
it too? The only catch is: you'll never get anywhere with PCT if you keep
looking at it from where you are. You need to look at where you are from the
point of view of PCT. Then maybe Bill could quit teaching kindergarten over
and over again, and have some time to get some development done, and have some
company doing it.
I guess I'm still grumpy
Hi, Rick.
Mary P.
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
