[From Fred Nickols (980718.1657)]
Kenny Kitzke (980817.1200 EDT)]
There are times when say Fred Nichols (who, along with me may admit to
being a theoretical weakling) sometimes comes up with questions and answers
that have been of great value in creating understanding in an unbelieving
world.
Thanks for the backhanded complement, Kenny. Actually, I consider myself
one of those "dilettantes" Bill P seems to despise (although I hasten to
add that not all dilettants are disruptive). As a dilettante, I dabble in
this and that and look for good, solid things that warrant promoting. PCT
is one of those things I think is good, solid, and warrants promoting.
System dynamics is another. So is general systems theory and a whole lot
of other stuff. There are even aspects of that dreaded behaviorist
perspective that I cherish, not the least of which is the notion that
behavior is a function of its consequences (an idea I have no trouble
fitting with PCT)--provided you stipulate that future behavior is a
function of its past consequences--which seems about right to me 'cause I
can't for the life of me see how current behavior is a function of future
consequences (unless, of course, you stipulate that current behavior is
influenced by its imagined consequences).
Anyway, I stayed out of the coercion discussion for the most part because,
for the most part, I found it pointless. "Coerce," "coercive," "coercion,"
and "coercing" are widely used words with what I view as reasonably
accepted definitions. I see (and saw) no point in redefining them in PCT
terms because that would raise the problem I pointed out in another
context; namely, trying to use words that already have generally accepted
meanings and definitions. (This is not to say that nothing productive will
come of the coercion discussion--just that I chose not to participate. Or,
if I understand Bill P, I didn't choose so much as I let an algorithm run
its course and it yielded a course of action that could be labeled as
"staying out of the coercion discussion.")
As for the idea of a new net, I wouldn't mind being part of one that
focuses on applications of PCT--with an occasional foray into the one
focusing on theory. But, as you point out, I'm a "theoretical weakling"
and, at age 60, I have no interest or intention of trying to rectify that
status. I'm a promoter, a facilitator, a consultant, a technician, a
trainer, a writer and a host of other things, but I'm no scientist or
theoretician. I leave those things to Bill P and Rick M.
I will, however, echo and restate a much earlier posting by Bill P:
Can we for crissakes get our noses out of our navels and get back to
discussing PCT?
By the way, I like Rick Marken's six-point intro to the CSG list. It seems
a straightforward explanation of what the list is about. Even as a
dilettante, I can work within those confines.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
"The Internet offers the best graduate-level education to be found
anywhere."
