Power some Qualitative/Quantitative thoughts

CSGnet Archive CSG2008
1

(Gavin Ritz 2008.08.01.10.10NZT)

Martin

I have been giving your comments about power some thought and as to how I can best describe power, as there are many definitions actually all correct in their context.

Most definitions fall into what can be called a “becoming” as the partner of “being”. That is it’s like a process or verb, for example, the withholding or providing of funds, execute an action, make a decision, or carry out an order or threat. That is the ability to make people do things or sort of control actions or outcomes.

But power is a quality or a being it is only recognised when the process or action is carried out. It’s twin “becoming” is in an eternal dance with its “being” reflexive and causative in a never ending circle. Society reflects this power as a weaving and un-weaving of its fabric both social and economic.

When power is described as a quality say like authority that reflects the “being” of a “order giver” not quite translating back to its original qualitative aspect of power. So it becomes difficult to pin down and define effectively.

For example the delegated authority (powers) of a manager is two fold get people to do things when and where required, or /and stop people doing things. (let’s forget about the resources and other aspects of management) for purposes of this argument. You can also notice from this that it is the same as two types of injunctions from the courts. The power of the courts is its ability to order the injunctions, the injunctions are not power but reflective of that power. These are all the quantified (due process) aspects of a quality notion of power.

So to make a first stab at a definition of power I would do it like this.

Power is a structural qualitative notion reflected in society as process.

When we think we don’t reflect both “being and becoming”, that is we only see and comprehend the moving parts the qualities are hidden and this comes out in our arguments and conflicts alla Elliot Jaques’ abstractions.

This begs the question can PCT if it’s a scientific theory, can it ever reflect the true nature of human beings who after all are sensual qualities with skin and bones.

Can physics quantify the “sensual quality” of soft light?

Regards

Gavin

2

[From Rick Marken (2008.08.31.1745)]

Gavin Ritz (2008.08.01.10.10NZT)--

When we think we don't reflect both "being and becoming", that is we only
see and comprehend the moving parts the qualities are hidden and this comes
out in our arguments and conflicts alla Elliot Jaques' abstractions.

This begs the question can PCT if it's a scientific theory, can it ever
reflect the true nature of human beings who after all are sensual qualities
with skin and bones.

Just a quick note, Gavin. When a person misuses the phrase "Begs the
question" like this it's pretty much over for me (in terms of
listening to anything more the person has to say). It suggests a focus
on saying what sounds impressive rather than on what makes sense.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

3

(Gavin Ritz 2008.08.31.13.29NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2008.08.31.1745)]

Gavin Ritz (2008.08.01.10.10NZT)

Crickey Rick that’s reading a lot into a simple phrase… You’ve taken a lot out of something written in a particular context.

When we think we don’t reflect both “being and becoming”, that is we only
see and comprehend the moving parts the qualities are hidden and this comes
out in our arguments and conflicts alla Elliot Jaques’ abstractions.

This begs the question can PCT if it’s a scientific theory, can it ever
reflect the true nature of human beings who after all are sensual qualities
with skin and bones.

Just a quick note, Gavin. When a person misuses the phrase “Begs the
question” like this it’s pretty much over for me (in terms of
listening to anything more the person has to say). It suggests a focus
on saying what sounds impressive rather than on what makes sense.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail…com

4

[From Bill Powers (2008.08.31.2105 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2008.08.31.13.29NZT –

Crickey Rick that’s reading a
lot into a simple phrase… You’ve taken a lot out of something written
in a particular context.

This begs the question can
PCT if it’s a scientific theory, can it ever

reflect the true nature of human beings who after all are sensual
qualities

with skin and bones.

Well, Crikey, Gavin, you keep tossing out these challenges and asking if
there’s anything at all to PCT, as if you know some great big secret that
we scientific peons don’t have a clue about. What’s your point? Are we
supposed to break down in tears and apologize for being so square and
stupid and dense, and beg you to enlighten us? If you don’t think a
scientific theory can reflect the true nature of human beings, all I can
say is that you must have a pretty wierd concept of what science is. I
ask again, why do you bother with PCT, if you already have the keys to
the kingdom?
(“Begging the question,” if you wondered what Rick meant, means
trying to prove a statement by assuming its truth as a premise. It
doesn’t mean begging for a question be asked. So context had nothing to
do with Rick’s comment.)
**
http://begthequestion.info/
**Best,

Bill P.

5

[Martin Taylor 2008.08.31.23.19]

(Gavin Ritz 2008.08.01.10.10NZT)
Martin
I have been giving your comments about power some thought and as to how I can best describe power, as there are many definitions actually all correct in their context.
Most definitions fall into what can be called a "becoming" as the partner of "being". ...
For example the delegated authority (powers) of a manager is two fold get people to do things when and where required, or /and stop people doing things. ...
So to make a first stab at a definition of power I would do it like this.
Power is a structural qualitative notion reflected in society as process.
When we think we don't reflect both "being and becoming", that is we only see and comprehend the moving parts the qualities are hidden and this comes out in our arguments and conflicts alla Elliot Jaques' abstractions.

I'm not sure your discussion advances my understanding of your notion of "power" very much. Sometimes it sounds like the availability of means to control and the knowledge to use those means (the original PCT semi-definition that brought you into this discussion) and sometimes it sounds rather mystical. "structural", "qualitative", "being" and "becoming" don't, to me, fall naturally into any one conceptual domain (well, "being" and "becoming" do, but not with the others).

This begs the question can PCT if it's a scientific theory, can it ever reflect the true nature of human beings who after all are sensual qualities with skin and bones.

I understand you to be using "begs the question" to mean "demands that the question be asked". So I ask you whether ANY science can ever (now or in the future) reflect the true nature of anything. It seems to me that the true nature of any human being can be captured only in that human being, and not in a theory. All theories, in whatever domain, can only be an approximate description of what observations should be expected under what circumstances, within what limiting boundary conditions. PCT is no exception.

Can physics quantify the "sensual quality" of soft light?

Does physics claim sensual quality within its domain of explanation? Can you ever quantify a quality? What relevance does the question have to the discussion at hand?

PCT might, at some point, use the "sensual quality of soft light", for example in the case of an artist who enjoys that quality in making a painting, when the (fuzzily defined") existence of it might be a reference condition for the perception of the light being suitable for starting work. But the quantification, if any, would be not of the quality itself, but of the artist's perception of how well the light matched her prototypical image of what she would like it to be.

I don't think this response advances the discussion of how to understand your use of "power" so that I can use it appropriately when discussing either "Requisite Organization" or PCT with you. But it's the best I can do.

Martin

6

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.01)

<Gavin Ritz 2008.08.01.10.10NZT>

<So to make a first stab at a definition of power I would do it like this.

Power is a structural qualitative notion reflected in society as process.>

You can’t be serious! I would be surprised if there is a person alive who would have any idea of what the heck you are conceiving with this stab.

Qualitative notions in society or organizations are not very useful in my experience. Would it not be more helpful to analyze and experiment on quantifiable variables? You know, something say managers and employees in organizations could measure and agree upon like quality, sales or profits? Or, do you reason that talking qualitatively about power or respect or teamwork makes organizations produce better results?

···

It’s only a deal if it’s where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.

7

(Gavin Ritz 2008.08.02.19.19NZT)

[From
Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.01)

<Gavin
Ritz 2008.08.01.10.10NZT>

<So
to make a first stab at a definition of power I would do it like this.

Power
is a structural qualitative notion reflected in society as
process.>

You
can’t be serious! I would be surprised if there is a person alive
who would have any idea of what the heck you are conceiving with this stab.

Qualitative
notions in society or organizations are not very useful in my experience.

I never said any of this, but anyway what is
a narrative, or a culture or a religious experience, or an aesthetic feeling.

Would
it not be more helpful to analyze and experiment on quantifiable
variables? You know, something say managers and employees in
organizations could measure and agree upon like quality, sales or
profits? Or, do you reason that talking qualitatively about power or
respect or teamwork makes organizations produce better results?

You obviously haven’t read or understood what
I have said at all; no wonder you already have all the answers to human nature.

···

It’s only a deal if it’s
where you want to go. Find your
travel deal here.

8

( Gavin
Ritz 2008.08.02.19.25NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2008.08.31.2105 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2008.08.31.13.29NZT –

You get very defensive over some of this stuff. You don’t
seem to like being challenged on any level. Your scripts go from aggression to
anger.

Do you really give a damn that someone
disagrees with your pet theory?

I had to look up peons, why on earth do
you feel so degraded, for heavens sake take it easy this only my opinion. I like to think about
things.

It seems I used begging the question incorrectly
in the classical sense, had no idea that was what it used to mean, I intended
to raise the question, but it has obviously created some very strong emotions
within you, I apologize for that, that was not my intention. But I think Rick knew that and so do you.
Because where I’m from that’s its general meaning, to raise the question.

Have a look here http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm

Are you guys trying to pick a ground to
fight me on?

I like this I’ve had many arguments
with people such as Ilya Prigogine, in fact I was using his arguments above to challenge the concepts
of power and PCT. See from Being to Becoming and is Future Given. These
concepts even cut to the heart of our scientific thinking. Are you not familiar
with the controversies of Heraclites and Parmenides?

Our science is only a mental projection
and if PCT is valid then all science collapses to a perceptual control (even if
it is only trying to see the beauty in a sunset – a sensual quality) and
you Bill will get the Noble Prize.

By the way physics cant measure sensual qualities
either, see “What is Life by Erwin Schrödinger” so don’t
worry science will never be able to do this hence it can never be a true
reflection of reality, whatever that may mean.

Attached is some of RO theory which I
promised to send. (do with it what you want)

Crickey Rick
that’s reading a lot into a simple phrase… You’ve taken a lot out of
something written in a particular context.

This begs the
question can PCT if it’s a scientific theory, can it ever

reflect the true nature of human beings who after all are sensual
qualities

with skin and bones.

Well, Crikey, Gavin, you keep tossing out these challenges and asking if
there’s anything at all to PCT, as if you know some great big secret that we
scientific peons don’t have a clue about. What’s your point? Are we supposed to
break down in tears and apologize for being so square and stupid and dense, and
beg you to enlighten us? If you don’t think a scientific theory can reflect the
true nature of human beings, all I can say is that you must have a pretty wierd
concept of what science is. I ask again, why do you bother with PCT, if you
already have the keys to the kingdom?
(“Begging the question,” if you wondered what Rick meant, means
trying to prove a statement by assuming its truth as a premise. It doesn’t mean
begging for a question be asked. So context had nothing to do with Rick’s
comment.)
**http://begthequestion.info/
**Best,

Bill P.

The Psycholgica lFoundations of Mangerial Systems Charts.doc (319 KB)

Orders of Complexity of Information of the Worlds We Construct.doc (29 KB)

The Psycholgical Foundations of Managerial Systems.doc (187 KB)