from Ed Ford (920507.11:15)
Dag Forssell (920504)
...many Systems Concepts packages support the SAME standards.
Therefore it does NOT follow that your Systems Concept package is
validated by the success of your standards...I would be content to say
(I think) that your Systems Concepts packages are validated by the
simple fact that they are yours. Your Systems Concepts are YOURS and
that is ENOUGH.
I think you are looking at this in a linear way. My Systems Concepts
is my highest level, out of which I create a set of standards,
criteria, or principles which form the guidelines for the decisions I
make. So far, this is all theoretical. The real test for anything is
when the rubber hits the road. When I teach, I believe all students
should be treated as fairly as I humanly can. At the same time, I have
established a standard within that "fairly" framework that limits the
time for individual explanation or debate with one student during
classroom time, which, if lengthy, would deprive other students of
needed instruction or role play experience. The decisions I make and
the consequent actions I take with individual students are constantly
monitored by me as I compare what I want to the variable I'm trying to
control, namely the student/teacher interaction variable. So it isn't
the standards as such that are or not successful, but rather the entire
behavioral process within my system as it evolves during my classroom.
So it isn't whether the standards in and of themselves (or as they
relate to the systems concepts) are successful, for they can't be
measured independent of the entire behavioral structure that is the
operational living control system. Rather, it is our whole system
operating as a continuous process. This involves a whole bunch of
things that are all interlaced, interactive, and interrelated, each
being a part of the whole process. I might have to adjust my systems
concepts (as when I learned PCT), or change a few standards, or alter
specific goals or decisions, or change my approach to controlling the
variable, perhaps by dealing in a more effective way with the various
obvious and sometimes unforeseen disturbances. Systems Concepts are
validated not because they are mine, but because, over a period of
time, I have found satisfaction and fulfillment through controlling and
closing perceptual errors using specific systems concepts as a
reference signal. This is the real test of any systems concepts, I
would think. This is where real success is measured. Establishing
systems concepts, setting standards, and making decisions is only a
part of this process. It also involves being able to control for the
right variable, at the right time, dealing with both foreseen and
unforeseen distrubances, learning to "listen to and deal with" our
reorganization system, while at the same time contending with other
conflicting reference signals and principles, both within our own
system and in the various systems around us.
Religions as Systems Concepts packages typically include a whole super
structure of baggage in the form of miracles and explanations which at
one time probably were designed to sell the package to illiterate,
ignorant people and keep them in check. Some of this creates
unfortunate standards which prevent people from functioning well.
Concerning the use of my own faith as an example. I promise you, I'll
not do so again. As a person who, at the tender age of 65, believes in
a personal and loving God, in prayer, in miracles (I actually witnessed
one), and in spiritual growth, I can assure you my standards have not
prevented this illiterate and ignorant person from functioning well.
As to keeping me in check, Hester and my children having been trying to
for years but with very little success.
Ed Ford ATEDF@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
10209 N. 56th St., Scottsdale, Arizona 85253 Ph.602 991-4860