[From Bill Powers (931001.1300 MDT)]
Hal Pepinski (931001) --
This is getting silly.
A model is a definition of a situation.
That's not how I define a model.
As WI Thomas said, situations which are defined as real are
real in their consequences.
For the person defining them, maybe. Is a statement true just
because it was made by WI Thomas? Or just because you endorse it?
Insofar as one defines one's conflict with another embodiment
of a control system in PCT terms as entropic,
That is not how I define conflict. I don't even know what
"entropic" means. So "insofar as" doesn't lead anywhere insofar
as my arguments are concerned.
Insofar as we study, learn and practice the art of defining
conflict as the occasion for mutual redefinition of which
signals refer to what, of what I'm after while s/he is
redefining what s/he is after, conflict thus defined can if we
know enough and try hard enough become such a happy, resonant,
harmonious occasion for mutual learning.
Sure, when you resolve conflicts through reorganization,
everything becomes better. It's even better if you don't have the
conflicts in the first place. Why would all this mutual
redefinition be going on if the people weren't trying to get rid
of the conflicts? Why would they want to get rid of them if
conflict is a good thing? Why not just let the disagreements
continue? Then you'd continue to have occasions for lots more
nice mutual redefinitions and so on.
We are left with the choice: do we focus on the elements of the
conflict that are irreconcilable or look to discover areas of
mutual accommodation to underlying, "signalled" if you will,
concerns.
Who knows? There's no telling what will result from
reorganization. Maybe focusing on hard conflicts will force us to
levels where we'll reorganize in more important ways than if we
just stick with the easy ones. And please don't try to use
technical terms like "signal" if you don't know what they mean.
You certainly can't achieve the result without exploring the
possibilities together.
True. Has someone suggested otherwise?
You won't have any reason to try if PCT defines the only kind
of control we can even imagine trying to achieve.
So far you haven't mentioned any kind of control that isn't
already handled under PCT. You're saying we shouldn't just
blindly stick to our goals and try to pursue them even when they
create conflict, but should try to work out new perceptions, new
goals, new ways of acting and interacting with each other. That's
exactly what PCT says except for the "should." PCT says that we
DO control in both of these ways. We DO get ourselves locked up
in conflict by insisting on reaching incompatible goals, and we
DO -- quite often -- resolve the conflicts by reorganizing,
either alone or in bunches. You're just setting up straw men and
knocking them down.
I think one problem here is that you have an idea that the
creation of conflict itself can be a good helpful thing, and
you're trying to find some way of denying the arguments under PCT
that it is not a good helpful thing, but something to be
resolved. Healing is a good thing, but you don't go out and break
your leg just to enjoy the uplifting experience of healing. You
seem to be recommending that we go around deliberately creating
disharmony and unhappiness, just so we can have the edifying
experience of removing them. I think there's some gigantic
rationalization going on here.
You talk about "conflict as the occasion for mutual redefinition
of which signals refer to what, of what I'm after while s/he is
redefining what s/he is after, conflict thus defined can if we
know enough and try hard enough become such a happy, resonant,
harmonious occasion for mutual learning." Surely you don't mean
that the outcome of this sort of interaction is just a
continuation of the same old conflicts. It sounds to me as though
you're saying that the outcome is happiness, resonance, and
harmony, not continued unhappiness, chaos, and disharmony. I
completely agree that conflict is the occasion for
reorganization, and that the outcome of successful reorganization
is learning and increased harmony (compared with what went
before). But aren't the conflicts already in place a sufficient
occasion for reorganization? Do we really have to try to make
them worse before we can reorganize and make them better? Maybe
we do -- but you're going to have to explain why.
Rick, you seem to think I still need reassurance that PCT
does not compete with my theory.
Hal, you don't have a theory. What you have is a collection of
flat assertions of fact with nothing to back them up but your own
insistence that they're right. Your self-confidence is admirable.
Your understanding of science is not. You may well be right about
a lot of things. But that won't do the world or posterity much
good unless you can show why you're right. You don't have a
theory: you need one. To refute your theory, all someone has to
do is say "No, you're wrong." And you won't have any comeback
other than to say, "No, I'm right." If you want to be convinced
of that, we can talk about your tetrahedon for a while. Would you
like to explain how it works? If you had a model or a theory --
as we think of models and theories in PCT -- you could.
···
-------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P.