[From Bob Clark (930514.1710 EDT)
Bill Powers (930510.08:30 MDT)
My suggestion re "ordinary language" was for PCTers to select from
and use that language. Listening to others can be very useful,
revealing much about the concepts, ideas, theories, observations, etc
that are, in fact, in use by "real people." If carefully examined,
some of the basic concepts of PCT can be recognized and used, even
though they are often mingled with illogical, contradictory and
useless "facts" and "superstitions."
You will also recall my previous suggestions (Bob Clark 921205)
regarding Modes of Sixth Order (my designation for Interpersonal
Relationships). Here I pointed out words/concepts that can be
directly related to the Orders of the Hierarchy.
Indeed, your own report of "blue collar lunch-room" conversations (in
your referenced Post) is not inconsistent with this view. As you
note, you find your PCT higher level elements are represented,
including "system concepts," "principles," etc.
Behind the simple terms in my proposed levels there are phenomena
that I think are quite real and observable, at all the levels.
To me, your "simple terms" are far from simple, and I agree that
there are such "real and observable" "phenomena". I find it much
more useful to work with these phenomena rather than your abstract
(and reasonable) classifications. To do this, I look for
words/concepts with more immediate relations to the levels of the
hierarchy.
In studying, and beginning to work with the Forest Park City
government I find carefully selected "ordinary words" are "instantly
understood" and well received. For example:"
"PUSHED AROUND." As in: "People don't like to feel pushed around."
And they "PUSH BACK." [NOTE: I emphasize the importance of "feeling"
pushed around -- even when it's actually to their benefit.] This is
immediately recognized and accepted. This, of course, is the essence
of a feedback control system controlling its perceptual variables.
But I avoid using this language -- too "theoretical," "academic,"
"abstract," etc.
CONTROL. People in general seem to understand this word (and
concept) very readily. Not in terms of feedback theory, of course,
but in terms of establishing and maintaining their own (selected)
perceptual variables within their established limits. They skip the
details, of course, moving rather directly to using their Output
Systems. The driver "controls" the automobile. The City Council
"controls" many aspects of City activities, etc. Superficially, this
looks like S-R, but inquiry reveals some of the intervening details.
Thus it can be pointed out that "control" requires some form of
"monitoring," review of results, "quality control," and other
activities directed toward observing results (the feedback function,
of course). Comparison with the intended (planned? specified?)
results, of course is easily pointed out. No need for unfamiliar,
formal engineering type language.
RULES AND PROCEDURES. The concept and purposes of Rules are
generally easily understood and accepted. This is true whether they
are carefully and formally assembled, or informally assumed -- as a
part of generally accepted social customs.
DELEGATION. In a structured organization, this concept is pretty
much taken for granted. Individuals pretty much accept the
established framework and work within it -- or leave the group.
···
---------------
I'll postpone discussion of such matters as "DECISION MAKING" and
"CONFLICT RESOLUTION" until I begin to report my observations of
Forest Park City Government. Soon, I hope.
Enough for now. Regards, Bob Clark