From [Marc Abrams (2005.06.26.1945)]
Bill always asked (tongue firmly in cheek I believe) that if you had a different idea about things just bring it up. It is on this note that I write this post.
I want to say up front that I can’t ‘prove’ what I am about to say to be true, but I honestly do insist that you try and find as many holes, gaffes, and mistakes as you possibly can, in both my logic and content.
I believe the hierarchy as presented by Bill Powers is unworkable. I believe it should be replaced by a network of levels and nodes.
What is the difference? Plenty. In a system, and mathematically, a hierarchy represents a domination of one level (a higher one) over a lower one. That is, any one ‘higher’ level cannot exist, and is fully dependent upon all ‘lower’ levels for its existence. In a hierarchy there can be no ‘reversal’ of domination between levels.
Hierarchy’s are useful approximations at times for organizing and structuring ideas but occasionally even a something might be thought of as one in practice is not.
Organizations fit into this category. Even the military which probably has the strictest structure wil allow for ‘level reversals’; that is, a Private taking ‘command’ over higher ranked men in certain emergency battle situations.
Eliminating the hierarchy eliminates any sense of ‘higher’ or ‘lower’. It does not eliminate the concept of ‘levels’, just the domination of one over another.
What I am saying is that any control process might influence any other and vice versa. I think we should leave it up to empirical research to see how this all falls out.
A pure hierarchy is just a special instance and type of network. Why box yourself into something that provides you with no escape?
What influences what and why, are questions yet to be answered, yet PCT has set itself up to where these questions can only be answered in one very specific way. This, I believe, is self defeating.
So, what I’m suggesting in a nutshell is to discard the hierarchy. If you want to keep the labels of the levels as currently defined, fine, than at least we might actually be able to look at what influences what and why. That is, what control processes influence what other control processes without regard to some ordering.
Again, I don’t anticipate any response to this post. I like talking to myself in print. As a very good thinker once said. " How do I know what I think until I see what I say." 
regards,
Marc
“Nothing is so firmly believed as that which least is known”
Montaigne
“Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better.”
Richard Hooker (1554? - 1600)
English theologian.
“It’s not what people don’t know that is the problem. It’s what people know that ain’t so, that creates all the fuss.”
Will Rogers