[From Bruce Buchanan 940905.21:30 EDT]
Bill Powers (940905.0830 MDT) writes:
. . .there's a level above system concepts. How could we even talk about
system concepts if there weren't?
Well, I get no further this time than before. I can live a point of view
that seems to be higher than system concepts, but I can't see it.
I'm sure that I do not know the final answer to the implied question, but
the way I have learned to think about it is somewhat as follows. Systems
concepts and hypothetical higher levels can only be just that i.e.
_concepts_. They are therefore limited to the dimensions of abstract human
thought, as codified in language by our culture and given to us. Language
provides conceptual tools (theories, standard practices, etc.) and permits
communication, but it is only one aspect or dimension of human behavior.
Actions speak louder than words. Wittgenstein said that "whereof one
cannot speak one must be silent" - but he did not say that because we
cannot put something into words it cannot exist.
The Existence philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, but i am most
familiar with Jaspers) point out that we live immersed in our existence in
the world, and very often the best we can do with words is to point in the
direction of experiences (read: perceptions?). Such pointers may be, as far
as we can know, infinite in their ultimate references, both outwardly in
the universe and inwardly within the psyche. So we exist suspended in
infinities.
So I think you are quite accurate in observing that you "can live a point
of view" that you cannot see clearly or adequately articulate. I would go
further and suggest that it is a misuse of language or "category mistake'
(cf. Ryle) to suppose that it is possible to put everything into words. I
think it is almost an occupational neurosis of academia to belief that this
may be possible. Granted, all valid attempts should be made, for these are
the sources of literature and the sciences, but methodologies should also
be realistic about inherent epistemological limitations.
These considerations are consistent, I think, with Popper's views on the
nature of reality. He describes the world of human language and concepts
(which would include PCT) as interacting with 2 categorically different
worlds - (1) that of the direct subjective experiences, given to infants
and to all of us in a continuing awareness of things and change which does
not depend immediately on language, as well as (2) the Real World Out There
that we cannot know otherwise but which affects us. It is the effect of
the Real World on our perceptions which provides the higher context for the
defining those perceptions and the theories of systems by which we seek to
match and perhaps control them.
. . . . people started doing
things not according to the charter, until we arrived at our present
state. The Constitution is, after all, words, and words are ambiguous.
Exactly. Language, theories and systems concerning human beings can reflect
realities only in limited ways. At higher levels reason must be practical
(cf. Kant's Critique of Practical Reason).
There's no point in elaborate descriptions of the way people would act
if they were functioning perfectly in a perfect world...
Agreed. The fallacies here seem to me to be that of assuming solutions in
the premises of untried systems, and quite hopeless ideas ls about imagined
perfections.
In another note: Bill Powers (940905.1515 MDT -
One of the ingredients was described by Hugh Gibbons (a law professor
interested in PCT), in his attempt to find a basic concept behind the
way law is actually administered and decided. He came to the conclusion
that respect for the will of others is the "greatest good for the
greatest number" that underlies most important legal decisions. What
could be a more powerful basis for trust and love than respect for the
will of others? . . .
Somehow I can't get too excited about deciding which level of control
that involves. It's up there somewhere.
And somehow - this really does get beyond the power of words - at the
higher levels there must be links with (our perceptions of?) changing
circumstances and the needs and will of others, in an ongoing, unending
process of evaluation and reassessment that reaches no final resting place.
There is no absolute position from which to observe and describe the world
and ourselves within it, just as there is no end to the patterns being
woven by the loom of our shuttling brain waves!
I do recognize that a lot of this may appear to be somewhat off the
reservation as far as PCT is concerned. Indeed it may well be
unintelligible for readers who have not already thought about the issues
involved. For myself I see the largest conceivable perspectives as not only
relevant but possibly crucial to the future not only of PCT but also for
the human enterprise.
Cheers!
Bruce B.