WTP 921017.0900; 19.0900; 20.1100; 21.0915
          GW 921018; 20; 21 EF 921021.0945 DG 921015 [AWOL]

      I am clearly in support of such a dialogue and encourage as many
      people that can enter into it to do so. I am not willing to
      enter into the conversation in the same fashion as others on the
      NET; I choose to gather many posts, read through them, take notes
      on them, think about them, talk to some of my students and
      colleagues about what is being stated and then (if I think I can
      write something useful) write a note. I like the exchanges but
      I have to slow them down rather than jump into the ongoing
      conversation. If I don't write something it is not out of a
      lack of interest (this is the most interesting part of my
      education) but because I don't believe I have anything to
      contribute in a substantive way.

      find more agreement between Bill and Greg than I find
      differences. To do this I discount what I consider to be an
      occasional "slip" by both parties in the use of words. When I
      read these posts over time I find that these "slips" are
      corrected by Bill or Greg or both although there is not always a
      co-indication of that accomplishment. As you might guess the
      "slip" is often made with regard to the word 'CONTROL'. I
      usually notice it and just "plug" in the definition that is
      consistent with PCT: CONTROL can only be used about the action
      of a negative feddback system itself - CONTROL as an action,
      process, event or any phenomena CANNOT happen BETWEEN systems IF
      they are negative feedback control systems (although quite
      disturbing, Rick's solution to the AWOL problem by making the
      systems into SR systems by killing them makes the point
      dramatically clear to me - although I would note that after a
      person has been offically declared dead the body still functions
      as a negative feedback control system). Thus, what happens
      between people (excuse spelling errors) is coercing, forcing,
      physically or cognitively manipulating, influencing, persuading,
      pleading, bribing, requesting, asking. begging, conning,
      convincing, rationalizing, indirect manipulating ("rubber
      banding"), agreeing, committing, taking for granted, assuming,
      "of coursing," "why notting," promising, pledging, contracting,
      willing, buying, selling, envisioning, respecting, loving,
      threating, entraping and the like BUT NOT CONTROLLING.

      The best "evidence" (I put words in quotes when I want to write
      loosely or metaphorically) for the PCT model FOR ME is gleaned
      from presenting problems to be solved and then see how the
      various parties propose to solve the problem. Notice the
      proposals by Bill (921020.1100) and Ed (921021.0945) and you
      will see PCT in action [I see the exchange between Rick and
      Dennis as a discussion of some variations but not PCT directly
      but perhaps I am mistaken on this one - I am awaiting Dennis's
      answer to RM 921021.1000]. Do you notice how the style and tone
      of the writing seems to alter when Bill and Ed are writing about
      some "concrete" problem rather that about "theory or model"? I
      do. If one wants to answer the question: what can you do with
      PCT that you can't do with other approaches? the posts about
      specific problems are the most useful. I also think that they
      tell me much about the model.

      I think there are two "topics" of discussion within the Bill and
      Greg (etal) conversations that keep coming up and don't get
      adequately "resolved". One is usually mention as "ideology"
      while the other is "selling PCT." For me these "topics" usually
      act as disturbances and seem to "spin" the interactants into
      conflicting but not very clarifying (for me) action. Here is
      how I make sense out of these two "topics" (I believe that the
      interactants will agree with me but don't seem to be able to
      with each other - let me try and see what happens).


      When Bill tells others that they could at least reduce the
      problems that they have with each other if they would just
      realize that conflict arises when one person tries to do the
      impossible with another - tries to CONTROL the other - Greg
      views this as a "how you ought to behave" prescription that is
      that conflict is both abhorent and unnecessary in human affairs
      and he has stated this on a number of occasions but most clearly
      (to me again) in his Chapter 17 of BCP. Thus, I can see that
      one might see this as an ideological statement which is part of
      PCT. I can also find where (to me) he has noted how offended he
      is by conflict and one might see that as part of the model. But
      as a "scientific" presentation, I don't think that this
      "ideology" is part of PCT but I see nothing wrong with stating
      that one of the practical implications (and a very important
      one) is the reduction of conflict and a greater appreciation of
      other people. In this regard, one of my most recent arguments
      against the S--> NO O --> R formulations is that they do lead to
      seeing coercion, force and threats of force, bribing, physical
      manipulation, and killing as appropriate ways (sometimes the
      ONLY way) to get a person to follow your orders and do what they
      are told to do for their own good. YES, this is ideological but
      I believe that I have tons of "evidence" to support my case
      including statements by the proponents of these formulations
      (see Dennis's statements about the proponents of "behavioral
      control theories").


      I have noted in a previous post that I don't believe that you
      can convince another to take up and use PCT unless he/she is
      troubled by and finds problematic his/her current "explanation"
      of "human behavior". This is what PCT says to me; a person will
      not reorganize unless seriously disturbed about their current
      actions. I have found that I am not able to disturb most of my
      fellow sociologists or social psychologists enough to have them
      take over PCT; the ones who are interested in it (present
      company excluded) are those that operate at the "fringe" of the
      discipline and/or are very troubled by their current theories
      and are SERIOUS enough to want to overcome their problem. I
      find that one feature of the CSG associates is that we are
      serious about understanding human life AND do not
      compartmentalize this concern. Most of the academics I know see
      sociology (or any discipline) as something one teaches, reads
      about, studies, and tells others about BUT does not LIVE. This
      makes it extremely difficult for them to become disturbed
      because it is not "important" to them (important in the sense
      that their model of living systems is just part of their job not
      their life). So, as Bill has been saying, if it is not
      important to them in the sense that they are controlling for it,
      it make very little difference what you do - they can't be
      disturbed enough to reorganize. My proposal is to forget about
      them and attempt to incorporate PCT into the lives of younger
      people and see if they pick up on it and use it. I do find
      greater interest among my students than my fellow academics.


      What can I do according to PCT to get all of you to vote for the
      Democratic ticket on November 3, 1992? What can Bill Clinton
      and Al Gore do according to PCT to get all of you to vote for
      the Democratic ticket on November 3, 1992? [Send the answer to
      the second question to 75300.3155@COMPUSERVE.COM the email line
      of the Clinton/Gore Campaign]

      Best to all,



From my reading of the recent posts (identified above) I still